James Ingram. “The nub of the long-term problem is that demand for food will double within the next 50 years.”

And the only solution apparently is to keep producing more food and better quality food…and to not make any attempt to stop the continuously increasing demand for food that is being wrought first and foremost by untempered population growth.

Ohmygoodness!

Yeah ok, so I’m just repeating the message I presented in my last post. Well…I feel that it needs to be repeated. Constant pandering to ever-increasing population is one of the gravest mistakes being made on the planet.

Alright, so the great opportunity for Australian leadership is this:

Go directly into sustainability mode, by striving to balance the demand placed on our resource base and environment with the ability for said resource base to cater to that demand and for said environment to hold its own and not suffer continued degradation.

This necessitates quick progress towards a stable population.

Once we have got this happening (once the methodology has been set in place, not once we have achieved sustainability), we need to spread the practise to the rest of the world as best we can. We need to uphold sustainability as being the most important parameter of all.

We need to increase our international aid effort to at least the UN recommended 0.7% of GPD annually, directed predominantly at sustainability / population stabilisation efforts. We could increase our refugee intake a little, while at the same time lowering immigration to net zero.

continued

We desperately need to separate the continuous expansion part of economic growth from the innovation, technology and improved efficiency part of it, and put an end to the former.

What we absolute should NOT be doing is boosting our food output. We should indeed be reducing it in line with the need to regain environmental health in this country, while working towards greater production efficiency from considerably reduced water and land usage.

It’s very straightforward really. And very different to your philosophy so it seems, James.

If Kevvie can achieve this, he will be remembered throughout history as one of the greatest PMs. If he fails to even try, and continues to go down the road of untempered economic expansionism and rapid population growth at a point in time when the conversion to sustainable practices is critically important, thus taking us into an economic and ecological crash event, he will be remembered as the kruddiest PM of all time.

geoff, you really shoudn't get all your info from Animal Liberation and peta, they have little regard for the truth at the best of times. While their intent is generally honourable, ie animal welfare, I don't see why they have to lie so much.

http://www.prostatehealth.org.au/newsitem.html?notice_id=563

"In an overall analysis of food groups, the consumption of dairy products and milk were not associated with prostate cancer risk, the authors found. Further analysis, however, suggested that low-fat or nonfat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors or non-aggressive tumors, while whole milk decreased this risk."

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1861
"Some research has suggested that diets high in red meat are associated with a slight risk of bowel cancer; processed meat seems to be of most concern."

"High intake" and "slight increase in risk" - makes moderate consumption look ok to me. Easy on the spam.

As with all things moderation is best for animal and non-animal products. We need to keep an eye on things like our sugar intake, and vegetable oil use. And don't smoke!

rojo: With rare exceptions, animal rights groups don't do research, so
I don't get any information from them. I've been associated with Animal
Liberation for over 20 years and while I've seen fairly normal
amounts of exageration and "chinese whispers", I've not
known anybody to lie. I don't appreciate unsupported allegations
to the contrary.

I'll just deal with bowel cancer as an example of how I
get information. The World Cancer Research Fund works a bit
like the IPCC, they review research and publish reports
every decade on the state of research. The latest is:

http://www.wcrf.org/research/fnatpoc.lasso

Their finding is quite clear that the evidence for
red meat and processed meat causing bowel cancer is
convincing. If you know epidemiologists, you will understand
that they would rather swallow molten lead than use the word
"cause", so when they use it in this report, you'd better
believe it. They also find that there are no foods which
convincingly prevent bowel cancer.

The Cancer Council of Australia statement you cited is simply
not consistent
with the state of research. In fact it isn't even consistent with
its own findings from the biggest research cohort in Australia.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/9/1509

Subsequent to this published paper, Professor Giles and team has
calculated that reducing red meat intake to 1 serve per week would
eliminate 6,000 new cases of colorectal cancer annually in
Australia. This calculation is based on the presumption of
causality -- very clearly supported by the WCRF report. Giles
put this in an email to me after Rosemary Stanton told
me that he was using the
figure during seminars. As far as I know it isn't published.

I don't think 6,000 new cases of colorectal cancer annually in
a population of just 21 million constitutes a "slight risk".

geoff, you know full well that red meat does not "cause" colorectal cancer, but it is a risk factor. The risk profile is of someone that can afford large amounts of meat is also likely to have a diet of processed- low fibre - food, a sedentary lifestyle. and most likely can add alcohol and the like to the mix. They drive to work, sit at a computer all day, head to the pub, have a pizza on the way home etc etc.

That lifestyle is not what I would call natural, and will indeed cause health problems. Humans once had to chase their meat. A weekly trip pushing a shopping trolley just isn't the same.

Age is by far the biggest factor, and wouldn't you know it, were getting older as a nation. Tends to skew results.

Poultry(lean) and fish actually reduce the risk, so vary your diet and it may just cancel out.

http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/cancer_inst/publications/pdfs/em-2007-02_bowel-cancer-in-nsw.pdf

rojo: The 150+ scientific
authors of last years World Cancer Research Fund
report stated clearly that red and processed meat CAUSE colorectal cancer.
There are multiple causal pathways, but the one with the
best evidence is that the n-nitroso compounds formed when you
eat the stuff damages your DNA -- this has been confirmed in human
studies and the type of damage is the same as that
found in cancer patients. The n-nitroso compounds are the same
class of things that give cigarette smokers lung cancer.

Some people have good DNA repair mechanisms and their
DNA is repaired. Other causal mechanisms have only been confirmed in
animal studies and are, therefore, less certain.

The NSW report you link to is pretty sparse on epidemiology, I
suggest you go to the WCRF report to get a more detailed account. I
gave the link earlier. The WCRF define pretty precisely what
they mean by "cause" and it involves evidence at both the mechanism
level and the body count