Vince, who is vegan himself, has repeatedly discussed the importance of moving away from animal products for the good of the planet and human health. He recently slammed animal agriculture in a speech at the Restore Nature Now march in London, saying that farming animals was the “cow in the room” of the climate and nature crises.
At the Labour Party Conference, he said that he would be speaking to the government about introducing “climate and sustainability” into the school curriculum.
Vince also stressed that plant-based meals are better for children than animal-based ones. Vegan diets are known to reduce the risk of a number of chronic diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers. Processed red meat, for example, is linked to increased risk of colon cancer, while dairy may cause breast and prostate cancers. “We shouldn’t be forcing these unhealthy products onto our kids,” Vince said.
He said that one of his companies, Devil’s Kitchen, supplies vegan food to a quarter of UK primary schools, but that some schools want to “go further.”
So? The meat industry has a massive lobbying section. Are other industries not allowed a voice? Why is everyone presenting this as a massive “gotcha” when it’s totally normal practice for any other industry?
It could also be seen as less personal gain and more that he put his money where his mouth is and made a company to actually do what he’s been proposing schools need to do. Now they have the avenue to do so.
Yeah maybe. I’m certainly conflicted on this, because I don’t think he’s wrong, but him financially benefitting from this in a big way does leave a slight sour taste in my mouth.
He’s not campaigning to have his company’s food served at schools, just for the rule compelling schools to serve meat to be changed. His argument is that it is better for children’s health and for the environment that less meat is eaten - and he’s right. It doesn’t automatically follow that his company will gain from any change, as there are many other options available to schools and it’s perfectly possible for existing meat providers to start providing meatless meals.
A bit like some of his food - it’s not that great. but he has a point as it should not be compulsory for meat to be served. I the staff and pupils were 100% vegetarian, then you wouldn’t expect meat to be back on the menu boys!
So you are against any lobbying? Green campaigners are lobbying for personal gain because they want a habitable planet. Even if you have a vested interest, surely you are allowed to have an opinion? If you have an opinion surely you are allowed to express it? If you are allowed to express it, surely people are allowed to listen to it? Should politicians be insulated from all industry voices, even if they have a valid point?
Just seems weird that no one really cared about it until this guy popped up on the radar.
Personal gain is when you yourself profit from something way more than other people do. In this case - getting boatloads of money for something that ultimately doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.
Personal gain in the case of green lobbying is a subset of universal gain. Exactly the same as Vince’s case. It doesn’t follow the he will profit more than anyone else, as anyone else can supply meat-free food too.
The idea is that in this case everybody profits. Universal gain ≠ personal gain, even if the campaigners are included.
In the case of Vince, everybody profits because of the sustainability, BUT he has another very clear personal economic gain and that makes his intentions questionable. It would be more easily accepted if there wasn’t this clear conflict of interests.
He’s not campaigning to have his company’s food served at schools, just for the rule compelling schools to serve meat to be changed. His argument is that it is better for children’s health and for the environment that less meat is eaten - and he’s right. It doesn’t automatically follow that his company will gain from any change, as there are many other options available to schools and it’s perfectly possible for existing meat providers to start providing meatless meals.
Rule of meat being served to be changed for his company to then cater more food that doesn’t have meat in it. I don’t know how you don’t see the obvious conflict of interest of a dude with a vegan catering company who supplies schools pushing for more vegan meals in schools.
Sure, but I don’t think that someone owning a vegan food company makes it a bad argument. It’s pretty absurd that the meat industry gets government protection, to the detriment of numerous other factors.
At no point did I say it was a bad argument (I think the guidelines should be adjusted to just specify amounts of protein, calcium, fibre, etc), I’m just pointing out that he is not without bias in this debate.
Yeah so does animal agriculture wanting to have meat and dairy served 3 or more days a week in the schools. Are we really going to ignore the ethics, sustainability and health concerns of animal agriculture just because he has a vested interest in the vegan food market.
Why not critique animal agriculture’s vested interest in maintaining its £14 billion market value or the ability to keep polluting the rivers.
He also has a vested interest in this:
So? The meat industry has a massive lobbying section. Are other industries not allowed a voice? Why is everyone presenting this as a massive “gotcha” when it’s totally normal practice for any other industry?
Just because something is normal practice doesn’t mean we can’t complain. I don’t like people lobbying for personal gain.
I do think we should be normalising eating less meat, but I can also complain about him lobbying to make a personal profit.
It could also be seen as less personal gain and more that he put his money where his mouth is and made a company to actually do what he’s been proposing schools need to do. Now they have the avenue to do so.
Yeah maybe. I’m certainly conflicted on this, because I don’t think he’s wrong, but him financially benefitting from this in a big way does leave a slight sour taste in my mouth.
He’s not campaigning to have his company’s food served at schools, just for the rule compelling schools to serve meat to be changed. His argument is that it is better for children’s health and for the environment that less meat is eaten - and he’s right. It doesn’t automatically follow that his company will gain from any change, as there are many other options available to schools and it’s perfectly possible for existing meat providers to start providing meatless meals.
A bit like some of his food - it’s not that great. but he has a point as it should not be compulsory for meat to be served. I the staff and pupils were 100% vegetarian, then you wouldn’t expect meat to be back on the menu boys!
So you are against any lobbying? Green campaigners are lobbying for personal gain because they want a habitable planet. Even if you have a vested interest, surely you are allowed to have an opinion? If you have an opinion surely you are allowed to express it? If you are allowed to express it, surely people are allowed to listen to it? Should politicians be insulated from all industry voices, even if they have a valid point?
Just seems weird that no one really cared about it until this guy popped up on the radar.
That’s… like the opposite of personal gain
How do green campaigners not gain from it?
Personal gain is when you yourself profit from something way more than other people do. In this case - getting boatloads of money for something that ultimately doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.
Personal gain in the case of green lobbying is a subset of universal gain. Exactly the same as Vince’s case. It doesn’t follow the he will profit more than anyone else, as anyone else can supply meat-free food too.
The idea is that in this case everybody profits. Universal gain ≠ personal gain, even if the campaigners are included.
In the case of Vince, everybody profits because of the sustainability, BUT he has another very clear personal economic gain and that makes his intentions questionable. It would be more easily accepted if there wasn’t this clear conflict of interests.
Any company can provide meat-free food. There is no reason for schools to change their existing suppliers.
Any claim to discredit someone pushing for healthier and more sustainable meals for the children.
The meat and diary industries must be protected at all costs. They’re never self serving it must be the vegans /s
Lobbying for the world to remain habitable is very different to lobbying so your catering company can make some money.
And of course he can express his view. As am I allowed to express my distaste in people lobbying for their own private companies’ benefit.
And I absolutely cared about lobbying before I saw this news.
He’s not campaigning to have his company’s food served at schools, just for the rule compelling schools to serve meat to be changed. His argument is that it is better for children’s health and for the environment that less meat is eaten - and he’s right. It doesn’t automatically follow that his company will gain from any change, as there are many other options available to schools and it’s perfectly possible for existing meat providers to start providing meatless meals.
Rule of meat being served to be changed for his company to then cater more food that doesn’t have meat in it. I don’t know how you don’t see the obvious conflict of interest of a dude with a vegan catering company who supplies schools pushing for more vegan meals in schools.
Any company can provide meat-free food. There is no reason this change in law should disadvantage his competitors.
You’re ignoring the fact that veganism is much better for the environment than the standard diet.
I’m not. I know it is, as I’m sure everybody else is too.
But there are many ways to campaign for a better environment, and he has specifically chosen to go for the one that will help his catering company.
I don’t think that was a coincidence.
I’m not even saying that we shouldn’t be doing it. I’m just pointing out his lobbying for something that will benefit his business.
Going vegan is the most impactful way to reduce your effect on the climate.
it would be if it caused the industry to pollute less or even just stop growing. it doesn’t.
He isn’t asking for them all to use his company’s food - just more plant based and no to compulsory meat. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Sure, but I don’t think that someone owning a vegan food company makes it a bad argument. It’s pretty absurd that the meat industry gets government protection, to the detriment of numerous other factors.
At no point did I say it was a bad argument (I think the guidelines should be adjusted to just specify amounts of protein, calcium, fibre, etc), I’m just pointing out that he is not without bias in this debate.
Yeah so does animal agriculture wanting to have meat and dairy served 3 or more days a week in the schools. Are we really going to ignore the ethics, sustainability and health concerns of animal agriculture just because he has a vested interest in the vegan food market.
Why not critique animal agriculture’s vested interest in maintaining its £14 billion market value or the ability to keep polluting the rivers.
ignoring corruption is gross. trying to distract from it with a whataboutism Is some degree worse
But cheese and bacon make everything taste good.