{"id":278115,"date":"2023-12-16T06:20:44","date_gmt":"2023-12-16T06:20:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=278115"},"modified":"2023-12-18T08:56:42","modified_gmt":"2023-12-18T08:56:42","slug":"why-is-the-government-paying-farmers-to-stop-farming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=278115","title":{"rendered":"Why is the Government Paying Farmers to Stop Farming?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kit Knightley \u2013 Off-Guardian Dec 14, 2023<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In November 29th, the British Parliament\u2019s cross-party Environmental Audit Committee published a new report on \u201cEnvironmental change and food security\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

The timing of the report is more than interesting, considering the UN\u2019s COP28 summit published its own \u201cDeclaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action\u201d (which the UK signed) just two days later. But I\u2019m sure that\u2019s just a coincidence.<\/p>\n

The report claims \u2013 amongst many other things \u2013 that we\u2026<\/p>\n

need to adapt our food and farming system to become more resilient to the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss.<\/p>\n

This is actually an inversion of the usual argument. The standard line is that we should<\/strong> change our eating habits to prevent climate change (the report still claims this too), but now we are being told that we must<\/strong> change our eating habits or climate change will cause us to starve to death.<\/p>\n

Just like the push to change climate into a public health crisis<\/a>, inverting this argument is about creating a sense of threat, about scaring people. It\u2019s always about scaring people.<\/p>\n

But, you\u2019ll be pleased to know, while the reason<\/em> we need to change may have altered, what we actually have to do<\/em> remains the same: Eat less meat. A lot less meat.<\/p>\n

The report repeats, countless times, the Climate Change Committee\u2019s<\/a> recommendation that the UK \u201creduces its meat and dairy consumption by 20% by 2030, and by 35% by 2050\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In a blatant rhetorical trick, it tries to make this figure into some kind of compromise by pointing out that some of their witnesses (eg. noted lunatic George Monbiot) advocated eating zero meat or animal products of any kind.<\/p>\n

The report is full of this kind of manipulative language.<\/p>\n

For example, on page 48, the authors claim that \u201cthe Government does not believe it has a role to tell people what to eat\u201d<\/em>, but then proceed to quote testimony from \u201cexperts\u201d who tell them they have a responsibility to tell people what to eat (even though they really<\/em> don\u2019t want to).<\/p>\n

Sue Pritchard argues people aren\u2019t informed or sensible enough to make these decisions, while Professor Tim Lang essentially argues what we eat is chosen for us anyway:<\/p>\n

Everyone thinks they choose their diet. We don\u2019t, actually; we choose it by race, by class, by family, by gender, by culture, by when we were brought up, by the power of advertisers and their expenditure. Nearly \u00a31 billion is spent on advertising food in Britain and it is overwhelmingly the ultraprocessed foods that get that advertising. There is very little advertising, let alone national guidance, for eating more appropriately.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s OK to tell people what to do because choice is an illusion\u201d.<\/em> Beautiful.<\/p>\n

The whole report is basically 90 pages of this kind of sophistic nonsense. If you\u2019ve got a strong stomach and a lot of free time, you can read it all here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re just going to focus on the \u201crecommendations\u201d at the end.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s this one\u2026<\/p>\n

The Government must show its leadership by upholding standards for the environmental impacts of food production in its trading relationships with other countries.<\/p>\n

\u2026which, loosely translated, means charging more import taxes on foods that aren\u2019t \u201cenvironmentally responsible\u201d (or some other buzzphrase). This would mirror legislation in the EU, where the \u201cCarbon Border Adjustment Mechanism\u201d has been in place since earlier this year.<\/p>\n

Of course, the unwritten consequence of this would be higher prices for ordinary consumers. Oops.<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s this one\u2026<\/p>\n

The Government\u2019s plans for a strong food curriculum in schools should include science-based education about the environmental impacts of food production, including food waste.<\/p>\n

Which doesn\u2019t need to be translated. It\u2019s about indoctrinating \u2013 sorry, educating<\/em> \u2013 children.<\/p>\n

Or this one, promoting diet-related propaganda:<\/p>\n

We recommend\u2026that the Government should publish national guidance on sustainable diets<\/p>\n

And there\u2019s this one, which is my favourite [emphasis very much added]:<\/p>\n

The Government does not want to tell people what to eat BUT<\/u><\/strong> from its plans to encourage people to eat more healthily it clearly understands its role in helping people make better choices.<\/p>\n

Other recommendations call for more \u201cHighly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs)\u201d to limit fishing in some areas of the sea as well as lowering maximum yield limits.<\/p>\n

Still more suggest \u201csustainability ratings\u201d being made a mandatory part of food labeling, and it\u2019s not hard to see how rating all food purchases on a \u201csustainability\u201d scale can be parlayed into social credit systems or the like.<\/p>\n

Another includes a demand to \u201cdesignate food security a public good\u201d<\/em>, like education, infrastructure, and national defense (which I imagine would grant some more powers under some act or other).<\/p>\n

It goes on and on.<\/p>\n

So, for anyone keeping score at home, the report recommends\u2026<\/p>\n