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.
Except you say that there is universal gain from allowing dishes to not contain meat. When there is not, if it isn’t even worse. So now the lowest bidder will simply give you a less nutritious meal because they care about money not the students. And this is exactly why a law like this existed. So that a catering company won’t just feed people potatoes mixed with potatoes 100% of the time.
Cool. Do you trust a random catering company to get it right for millions of students? To maintain the exact diet that’s needed to get every nutrient, at a kitchen that hires random cooks and asks them to make food for 200 people at a time?
In reality, cooking a meat based meal is easy, fast and scalable. Cooking a plant-based one and only doing that isn’t. There is a reason why laws exist - and this one exists because they were cheapening out and serving substandard meals. So they made it mandatory to at least contain some protein in the form of meat.
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.
Oh FFS you’re really going out of your way to misunderstand the issue here. Nobody is claiming that the meat industry is good. People are just voicing concerns because a rich guy is doing what a rich guy usually does: defending his own interests above the common good. It might go in the same direction for a while, sure.
What do you mean for he’s not doing it for the common good because it doesn’t show anywhere where he is “telling anyone to use his business only.”
The vegans have always “have an agenda but never the multi-billion animal agriculture” that is made of factory farms where billions of animals are exploited and slaughtered for nothing in horrid conditions where they’re crammed together in filthy dark rooms in massive structures increasing the likelihood of pandemics and antibiotic resistance many times over. Now that is truly selfish.
Even the vegans who do not own a business are often excused of being “self-serving” when advocating for more people to be ethical sustainable and healthier.
It’s like marginalized groups being called “selfish” for when they’re advocating for equal treatment in society.
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.
But it will give advantage to his company directly. Like, honestly, I don’t know if you just want to push some narrative but there is an obvious conflict of interest that you are dismissing without addressing it.
You seem to be under the apprehension that making food without meat in it is some mystic art that is beyond the comprehension of anyone other than his company. What is stopping any other company producing exactly the same products as his? Changing the law will have no effect on the marketplace.
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.
Except you say that there is universal gain from allowing dishes to not contain meat. When there is not, if it isn’t even worse. So now the lowest bidder will simply give you a less nutritious meal because they care about money not the students. And this is exactly why a law like this existed. So that a catering company won’t just feed people potatoes mixed with potatoes 100% of the time.
Not you’re resorting to misinformation as the whole foods plant-based diet is healthier.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
Cool. Do you trust a random catering company to get it right for millions of students? To maintain the exact diet that’s needed to get every nutrient, at a kitchen that hires random cooks and asks them to make food for 200 people at a time?
In reality, cooking a meat based meal is easy, fast and scalable. Cooking a plant-based one and only doing that isn’t. There is a reason why laws exist - and this one exists because they were cheapening out and serving substandard meals. So they made it mandatory to at least contain some protein in the form of meat.
Except that the law says the meals have to be nutritious to a set level. So no, they can’t do that.
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
Oh FFS you’re really going out of your way to misunderstand the issue here. Nobody is claiming that the meat industry is good. People are just voicing concerns because a rich guy is doing what a rich guy usually does: defending his own interests above the common good. It might go in the same direction for a while, sure.
What do you mean for he’s not doing it for the common good because it doesn’t show anywhere where he is “telling anyone to use his business only.”
The vegans have always “have an agenda but never the multi-billion animal agriculture” that is made of factory farms where billions of animals are exploited and slaughtered for nothing in horrid conditions where they’re crammed together in filthy dark rooms in massive structures increasing the likelihood of pandemics and antibiotic resistance many times over. Now that is truly selfish.
Even the vegans who do not own a business are often excused of being “self-serving” when advocating for more people to be ethical sustainable and healthier.
It’s like marginalized groups being called “selfish” for when they’re advocating for equal treatment in society.
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.
But it will give advantage to his company directly. Like, honestly, I don’t know if you just want to push some narrative but there is an obvious conflict of interest that you are dismissing without addressing it.
You seem to be under the apprehension that making food without meat in it is some mystic art that is beyond the comprehension of anyone other than his company. What is stopping any other company producing exactly the same products as his? Changing the law will have no effect on the marketplace.
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.
no, it’s not.
No, it isn’t. Not having children is.
And are we still doing the “personal climate footprint” propaganda that BP was pushing?
Both are good actions to do in this situation.
Everyone has their personal responsibility for their part.
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.