Budućnost ishrane mesom

[Bujodrag]

jedino resenje

 

http://rayhiltz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ipad-2001-space-odyssey.png

 

 

Pre ili kasnije bi se povela rasprava o zdravosti™ ove ili one boje

[Krošek]

odredjene zapadne drzave tipa amerika bi mogle da prestanu da subvencionisu proizvodnju mesa. te subvencije ionako idu najvecima i najneeticnijima

 

u kranjoj liniji, moze se subvencionisati i potrosnja eticnijeg mesa. sasvim racionalna mera, koja se moze i opozvati ako se nadje za shodno.

 

socijalni inzenjering se ne moze opozvati.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Krošek

[Muwan]

ne znam u kojoj zemlji imaju akcize, kada u svim razvijenim i polurazvijenim zemljama imaju subvencije na proizvodnju mesa. Ako se ide u tom pravcu bi prvo trebalo ukinuti subvencije, ali ne vidim da ce to politicki biti moguce skoro bilo gde.

 

Indy je pomenuo veće cene mesa i da mu generalno treba smanjiti potrošnju kao što je bilo urađeno sa duvanom. Zbog toga su mi pale na pamet akcize pa sam ih pomenuo čisto hipotetički, naravno da u ovom trenutku toga nema nigde i pitanje je da li će ikada biti. Kao što i sama kažeš, veliko je pitanje da li su vlade u stanju da prestanu subvencionisanje masovne proizvodnje mesa a kamoli da još uvode akcize na njega.

[morgana]

ali akcizama bismo vjerovatno ugrozili siromasne vise nego sto bismo doprineli odrzivosti, zdravlju ili sta god da je argument

 

vegetarijanizam je za mnoge luksuz, mi na njega gledamo imajuci u vidu srednju klasu a treba da gledamo uzimajuci u obzir ljude oko linije siromastva

 

(na stranu sto sam u pro-meso taboru, spekulisem polazeci od pomenute akciza platforme)

Edited May 22, 2015 by morgana

[belch]

vegetarijanizam je jeftiniji od nevegetarijanizma

[morgana]

pa uz raznovrsnost, ne, ni u novcu ni u vremenu

[belch]

pa treba ti raznovrsnost i kad jedeš meso, neraznovrsno je podjednako loše i sa mesom i bez, samo što je sa mesom skuplje.

[boshoku]

ako jedeš artičoke, čeri paradajz... barem u bg, kurac je jeftinije

[Krošek]

ajmo jedan word salad, bear with me

http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol9iss2/1207-031.dagevos.html

 

 

Conclusion: Toward an Incremental Strategy

There has been a dearth of powerful public-policy actions thus far at both the national level of European countries, such as the Netherlands, and in the EU as a whole with respect to reducing meat consumption. Under current circumstances, an alternative consumer-oriented policy approach that addresses meat consumption in a varied manner seems more realistic than seeking to implement consumption taxes on meat or public-policy interventions in the consumer arena. Whatever the importance of such policy initiatives in principle, they likely would be regarded as overreaching in practice given that a meat-centered paradigm still prevails. As a consequence, scholarly justification for more vigorous policy involvement (znaci postoji ideja o akcizama) may not be very helpful at the present time. In addition to relevant academic discussions about the importance of public-policy engagement and the role governments could play in addressing meat eating as an ecological challenge (Nordgren, 2012; Vinnari & Tapio, 2012), we suggest that the practical reality of current European policy making should be explicitly taken into account. As public-policy interest in meat reduction, as well as support for policy measures to reduce meat consumption, are currently scarce in European countries—not to mention other parts of the world—an incremental strategy appears appropriate.

A possible inspiration to develop such a gradualist strategy is provided by the four E’s policy framework developed by Defra in the UK (see e.g., Dolan et al. 2010). This model consists of a series of governance interventions to move toward more sustainable consumption patterns: enabling, encouraging, exemplifying, and engaging.

Enabling and encouraging both concentrate on changing the institutional or structural conditions that influence consumers’ food choices.
~~~1~~~ Enabling is about reorganizing provisioning infrastructures to make them more suited to facilitate the accessibility, affordability, and availability of more sustainable products. (čitaj: subvencije)
~~~2~~~ Encouraging refers primarily to price interventions as a policy instrument. (čitaj: akcize)

Enabling-like and encouraging-like arguments are frequently heard in regard to the need to change the context, or “choice architecture,” in which consumption occurs to shape conditions to facilitate low-meat or non-meat choices. However, from the standpoint of political strategy it seems premature to push these two dimensions forward at the start. Enabling and encouraging need market-based and regulatory policy instruments, but the dominant tendency in the current supply structure and food culture is to enable and encourage the consumption of meat rather than to hinder and discourage it. Both conditions suggest that in the longer run it is more purposeful and effective to follow a strategy that starts with soft policies of engaging and exemplifying rather than with hard policies of enabling (e.g., laws, rules, nudges) and encouraging (e.g., taxes, subsidies). This recommendation is not, however, meant to suggest that hard policies cannot be effective when appropriately applied.

With respect to current challenges surrounding sustainable food consumption, engaging and exemplifying would deploy information-based instruments to raise consumer awareness, to develop understanding, and to realize commitment by consumers with respect to meat-eating and meat-reduction practices. Such an approach could prepare the ground for more assertive policy initiatives designed to enable and encourage. Engage and exemplify are directed at sociocultural conditions.

~~~3~~~ Exemplify highlights that government policies are instrumental in setting a good example for consumers. More concretely, this could mean that “governments and public bodies can themselves act as role models and market makers by choosing sustainable alternatives by default” (Reisch et al. 2011). (čitaj: javno mnenje - u pogledu (1) i (2))

~~~4~~~ Engaging is an even more people-oriented policy approach. Participation and interaction are its lifeblood. (čitaj: socijalni inzenjering)

Engage and exemplify remind us that political negligence toward meat eating and its environmental impacts is counterproductive to raising consumer awareness about this important issue. Both notions might also stimulate public-policy initiatives that could guide and educate food consumers, such as supporting or subsidizing a vegetarian day every week (e.g., Meatless Monday, Thursday Veggie Day, see Leenaert, 2010; Wahlen et al. 2012). In addition, these schemes could spur policies recognizing that the meat politics of the near future should give much more attention to the cultural underpinnings of the dominant meat-eating pattern—for example, meat symbolizing masculinity, human mastery of nature, luxury, festivity, social and economic progress (see Lang et al. 2010; De Bakker & Dagevos, 2010; 2012).

 

dalje: uloga NVO
A starting point for the suggested incremental approach is to direct attention to the commitment of politicians and policy makers and to heighten their motivation to develop greater interest in meat reduction. This commitment could be inspired by well-informed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), cutting-edge consumers, and innovative businesses in the domain of new protein foods. Improved self-awareness (hahaha) will precede credible public policies of engaging and exemplifying aimed at influencing the mindsets and motivations of meat consumers themselves. As long as politicians and policy makers lack commitment, official advice and recommendations about meat reduction will not attract much attention or will be rejected by consumers as hypocritical. However, the implementation of policies, such as awareness-raising campaigns, targeted at consumer recognition of meat eating as unsustainable, is an important precondition for encouraging consumers to accept more invasive instruments. Such circumstances will create much stronger synergies between policy engagement and meat-reduction tendencies in consumption practices than currently exists. As a result, these public-policy initiatives will facilitate and stimulate the role of food consumers as change agents in the process of sustainability.

This policy posture will better connect with a reality of emerging flexitarianism, of consumer, media, and NGO interest in reducing meat consumption, and of companies’ involvement in making meat substitutes more attractive and accessible. These aspects surely belong to today’s Dutch context. Whether these circumstances compare to other European countries is hard to determine at present due to the absence of much (comparative) research. (An initial example of the type of research that is needed is an exploratory study by Laestadius et al. (2013) that focuses on the role of NGOs, particularly in the United States and Canada, in encouraging reduction of meat consumption.) As mentioned above, more recently a few Nordic studies have explored meat reduction as a consumer phenomenon. Associations of vegetarians elsewhere in northern Europe also observe that flexitarianism exists. Regardless of whether flexitarianism will grow into a major European foodstyle as a third way alongside carnivorism and vegetarianism, lowering our meat consumption is too important to be ignored by politicians and policy makers who aim to realize a sustainable Europe.

 

sto se mene tice mogu prva tri E ali poslednje ne moze.

[belch]

dal se zajebavate

[nezvanova]

ja pretpostavljam da u razvijenim drzavama i velikim gradovima jeste skuplje, dok je kod nas jos uvek jeftiniji /cak i kada koristis visokokvalitetna ulja, semenke, pa i umereno articoke, avokada, spargle  itd.../ ali samo vegetarijanstvo. veganski a kvalitetan nacin ishrane je skuplji /a narocito ro klopa/

[FERNOUX H]

vegetarijanizam je jeftiniji od nevegetarijanizma

Ovo nije tacno, tj. tacno je u Americi, a mi zivimo u Srbiji.

[belch]

pa pazi, ja sam jela meso, pa sam onda prestala

jeste tačno u srbiji.

[FERNOUX H]

 

 

ali akcizama bismo vjerovatno ugrozili siromasne vise nego sto bismo doprineli odrzivosti, zdravlju ili sta god da je argument

+1

 

Belch to i priznaje, ali siromasni ce morati da se zrtvuju jer su bili "sebicni".

[betty]

belch je stari mrzitelj siromasnih.