New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

 

[Constance o6]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

Sounds like a Vegan plot to me. I come from a family of butchers. We have eaten meat all our lives as indeed our ancestors did. Never in excess, but I am80 and my husband 83, who was also a butcher, and we have surprised doctors how healthy we are for our age.

 

[Mactavish]

The energy required to create lab grown "meat" is vastly greater than that of a grazing animal. And that energy is coming from coal fired power stations. One of the elite - I think it was Gorbachev - admitted that the global warming "crusade" is more about governance (read control) than about the environment.
The elite will still tuck into a juicy steak, no matter how much meat is taxed. Just like they are building huge holiday homes on the beach! How concerned are they about rising sea levels? It is reported that when the WEF meets at Davos in Switzerland for the annual talkfest, 200 arrive in their private jets. How concerned are they about their carbon footprint? CO2 is only about 4% of the atmosphere. Trees grow bigger and faster in a CO2 enriched atmosphere.

Be assured that the climate change and Covid fiascos are all about control of people on the way to a One World Government for the benefit of the elite. Follow the money rather than the science. When it can't be challenged it is propaganda, not science.

 

[Babbie]

What a load of complete garbage. I had been following the recommended Western Diet for most of my life and was getting sicker by the day. This time last year I was 130kg, pre diabetic, had high blood pressure, underactive thyroid, psoriasis, sciatica, fatty liver and inflammation.
Ever since I switched to a meat only Carnivore Diet my health has improved out of sight. I am now 95Kg and all of the above conditions are gone.

Well done! Do you like kangaroo! Delicious meat and very low in fat. Enjoy

 

[freedy50]

They can put loads of warnings on if they like? I wouldn't be taking any notice of them. I'll stick to meat and fish, but will have vegetables with it.

 

[MHM]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

I would be bloody (excuse any pun) infuriated. It seems that anyone now with a political "bee in its bonnet" can put up an hypothesis and expect it to be incorporated into government regulations, even if not the popular community. My guess is that the Durham U "experts" consist of a bunch of populist Gen-X (and possibly millennials) who have been spoon fed this sort of nonsense all their lives. SDC should consider stopping giving their wild fantasies such open coverage.

 

[Luckyus]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

You don't to do buggerall it's out of my price range for the foreseeable future. Maybe a better idea would be to put a health warning on poxy bastard governments.

 

[Veggiepatch]

Well done! Do you like kangaroo! Delicious meat and very low in fat. Enjoy

I had kangaroo fillet steak last night!! Delicious but have to very careful not to even slightly overcook it!

 

[Veggiepatch]

Right straight to the point.

FACT 1: The dental structure of the Homo sapien is designed to consume meat by using inscisor and canine teeth. And molars perform the task of masticating plant material. In other words, we are termed as OMNIVORES!

FACT 2: The digestive system of Bovine and other hoofed animals, along with their dental structures, are designed to consume a diet of exclusively plant material. Hence, cattle do not have canine or inscisor teeth, just predominately molars. And human don't have more than one stomach for the digestion of an entirely plant based diet.

End of story. Vegan and vegetarians are welcome to refute the above facts.

 

[gamiry]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

please save me from stupidity. Can anyone tell me what will happen to human beings once the animal population takes over. Stuff like no meat meat, nuts like almonds that give milk, plants that turn into meat and robots take over people's photos and voices. There isn't much room left for us.

 

[gamiry]

Right straight to the point.

FACT 1: The dental structure of the Homo sapien is designed to consume meat by using inscisor and canine teeth. And molars perform the task of masticating plant material. In other words, we are termed as OMNIVORES!

FACT 2: The digestive system of Bovine and other hoofed animals, along with their dental structures, are designed to consume a diet of exclusively plant material. Hence, cattle do not have canine or inscisor teeth, just predominately molars. And human don't have more than one stomach for the digestion of an entirely plant based diet.

End of story. Vegan and vegetarians are welcome to refute the above facts.

Bless you Vegie, I'm glad there is someone else who can see sense.

 

[Brucemj]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

Follow the $$$$$cience

 

[Jilliana]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

This is horrifying. Other studies have proven that eating small amounts of meat, gives you all the protein and nutrients you need. Vegetarian meals have to be large to provide all the protein and nutrients needed. Climate hysteria is so dangerous.

 

[Veggiepatch]

Follow the $$$$$cience

Better than following grrrReligion. Or Pfftolitics, even if this is erroneous from Durham University.

 

[Mika in the van]

Good comment

Exactly.

 

[Veggiepatch]

Does anybody else find it strange that vegans and vegetarians overcook their plant materials so much, that it burns? Instead of pots and pans, they employ cooking utensils such as bongs and pipes....

 

[gamiry]

Oh they are feeding us so much rot. I've been eating meat for years. I got all my health issues from the sugar not the meat. I eat a bit of other stuff but mostly meat and will probably go all out carnivore from the new year. Meat is also not the cause of climate change. The climate is aways changing, it was hotter when the Co2 levels were lower in past millennia. We always say it's the how not the cow. Cattle and other animals doing grazing in areas where you can't grow plants foods and feeding them the stalks and leaves that are not used is the best way. Regenerative farming keeps the moisture in the soil so keeps it cool. None of the rich are stopping flying around the world in their gas guzzling jets, none of them are stopping driving cars and we all know the issues around EVs. Waste of time and money. I've lived long enough to know that it won't work and our generation was the one that did more recycling than they do now.

YEA !!!!!!!!!!! WELL SAID

 

[gamiry]

Well done! Do you like kangaroo! Delicious meat and very low in fat. Enjoy

I've never eaten Skippy.

 

[Littleboy8]

I had kangaroo fillet steak last night!! Delicious but have to very careful not to even slightly overcook it!

Yes the worms can’t stand the heat. Aust Inst meat recommends kangaroo be cooked thoroughly as it’s harvested from the wild not farmed.bit more useless info.

 

[Littleboy8]

I've never eaten Skippy.

You can buy it in pet food shops.dogs love it.

 

[Veggiepatch]

You can buy it in pet food shops.dogs love it.

A few months ago I took a different bus to Dandy Plaza and went past a small shopping centre with a shop advertising "BEEF MINCE - $12 FOR 3 KGS". Yay! I get some at that price!

Return an hour or so later, walked up to the front door and it said "DANDENONG PET SUPPLIES". I knew it was too good to be true!