EPA and IFA should have chewed the fat before unsavoury Meatgate

How is any state agency or organisation supposed to retain credibility if they shy away from what is ostensibly sound advice to swap out the lamb cutlets, sirloin steak, or pork chop once in a while to try a vegetarian dish of a Monday? 

It's hard to know who comes out of Meatgate looking sillier — the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who posted and subsequently removed a seemingly innocuous tweet around meat-eating habits, or the farming organisations whose pressure compelled the environmental watchdog to retreat.

How is any state agency or organisation supposed to retain credibility if they shy away from what is ostensibly sound advice to swap out the lamb cutlets, sirloin steak, or pork chop once in a while to try a vegetarian dish of a Monday? 

The Irish Farmers Association (IFA) and the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association (ICSA) have a right to fight their corner and can argue the nuances around agricultural practices, while farmers have perfectly valid rights to feel aggrieved that they are under the cosh in recent years.

Government and European policy down through the decades leaves farmers scratching their heads as to what they should and shouldn't be doing as incentives to restore nature and biodiversity on their lands, while continuing to produce food for consumers at home and abroad, remain far below where they should be.

The IFA and ICSA have many battles to fight on behalf of farmers. However, squabbling with an environmental agency over cutting meat out of a meal on a Monday and eating a vegetarian lunch is deeply unedifying, even puerile.

CLIMATE & SUSTAINABILITY HUB

The ICSA, to its credit, robustly answered many questions this reporter put to it regarding the so-called offensive tweet and whether its reaction was over the top. 

In the midst of hyperbolic statements that the EPA is on a "blatantly anti-meat crusade", the ICSA gave much pause for thought regarding the perceived health implications of red meat consumption, the lack of protein in many vegan foods, and the cost of replacement foods and meals. 

The IFA was also rational and thoughtful in its response to further queries.

A spokesman said: "The message posted by EPA did not reference climate action. It did refer to being wealthier and healthier. On the latter point, meat is an important source of iron. We have sought a meeting with EPA to discuss the rationale behind this post, who authorised it, and how it fits in with the remit of the EPA. EPA has agreed to hold a meeting with us."

Good points, teaching me a thing or two. Which is the point of education and listening, and which could have been done if cooler heads had prevailed in the first place. It was a flippant tweet and a meme, for God's sake. 

Instead, we have a situation where it looks like, for all intents and purposes, lobbying groups can tell a major State watchdog what it can and cannot say. Compelling an agency like the EPA to retreat from a playful tweet is not a good look for the ICSA or IFA.

Where is the line drawn?

If advice is offered to give up the chocolate biscuits or crisps for an apple or a pear every now and then, or for kids to swap out the chocolate-flavoured cereal for bran flakes once a week, but is subsequently challenged by Cadbury or Tayto, would public health agencies back down? 

It would be a pretty worrying state of affairs if ground was ceded in those circumstances.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

Should local authorities, Government, and public transport agencies shy away if the car manufacturers crib about advice towards taking the train, bus, or walking and cycling? 

Sadhbh O’Neill, coordinator of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition, says the time for placating lobbyist organisations is over.

"If the EPA wants to be taken seriously as an impartial scientific body, then it must continue to tell the truth, even if the message is inconvenient or unwelcome. It appears as though the EPA has caved in to pressure from the agricultural sector to dumb down its messaging on food waste and meat consumption.

"If the EPA is prevented from giving dietary sustainability recommendations, by the same rule, nor should they give advice to shift away from cars to cycling and walking for the health and environmental benefits, which would clearly be ridiculous."