Search Forum Home   General  Discussions  Sobeys bashes m...  Sobeys bashes meat    3/29/2010 7:55:51 AM lbodell 165 posts Sobeys bashes meat   An article titled "Try Going Meatless Once a Week" was published in Sobeys' most recent "Inspired" magazine issue. Not only is the article based on a report the UN has now admitted is flawed, but it also encourages people to eat less of Sobeys' most profitable product - fresh meat. Below is a link to the article and my response. Please take a moment to send your own comments to Sobeys at compliments@sobeys.com. Article here: http://www.compliments.ca/en/Inspired-Magazine/Spring-2010/Live-Well/Easy-Being-Green.aspx Dear Sobeys: I have been a loyal Sobeys shopper since it was IGA, and have greatly enjoyed the "Inspired" magazine you produce - up until the Spring 2010 issue. Your "Try Going Meatless Once a Week" article on page 35 is poorly researched, and in fact, incorrect on many points. Starting at the beginning, "studies suggest that eating less meat is better for the environment." Some do, some don't. Case in point, there is a study from the University of California that found "Cutting Meat, Milk Intake Will Not Lower GHGs." Link to study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7CSX-4X4G6CP-6&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_alid=1262105726&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=18034&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4c39d8dace8b3c840dd2a0a1a636d66c "Most animals raised for consumption need large amounts of land and water, which is a drain on our natural resources." Livestock survives on non-arable land that is not capable of growing crops for human consumption. Yes, livestock consumes water to live, but drastically less than is used for watering grass in cities, taking long showers and washing vehicles. "Cows also produce methane, which contributes to greenhouse gases." Rebuttal: "According to the Environmental Protection Agency, domesticated livestock are the third-largest producers of methane, behind landfills and the oil and gas industries," says Dave Sjeklocha, DVM, Sublette, Kansas. "If we’re to believe that methane production is on the increase, then are cattle truly the culprit? In the mid 1970s our beef cattle population peaked at 130 million head. In 1980, it was 111 million head, from which we produced 21 billion lbs. of beef. In 2007, our population was 97 million head, which produced 26 billion lbs. of beef. Thus, in the last 27 years, we’ve reduced these methane producers by 14 million head and increased total beef production by nearly 5 billion lbs.!" (courtesy of BEEF Magazine) Another point I think is important people know: the grain consumed by livestock is largely not fit for human consumption. Ruminant animals are able to effectively utilize grain that has weather damage, etc. and is not marketable to or easily digested by monogastric species (humans). Though mistakes do happen, it seems that an attack on a product your company sells a great amount of, and a supplier you make good profit off, is a fairly major faux pas. I think a retraction of the article in your next issue, combined with a new article featuring unbiased information and a public apology to North America's livestock producers would be sufficient to encourage me to shop at Sobey's again. Sincerely, Laura Bodell  3/29/2010 7:56:46 AM lbodell 165 posts Sobeys' response   March 25, 2010 Good day Ms Bodell, Thank you very much for your email and Facebook posting. We have responded to your Facebook posting with the following response: Thank you for sharing your thoughts and viewpoint. We agree that there are many complex factors involved in accessing environmental impact and various sources of research on the subject. The purpose of this article was to provide readers with simple ways to begin to help reduce their individual impact on the environment by making modest adjustments to their diet. As you've correctly stated, there are many different viewpoints and studies on the subject, and we thank you for opening up the discussion to our readers. We have also forwarded your comments to the Inspired team. If you have any further comments or feedback, please do not hesitate to forward it to us at compliments@sobeys.com Regards, Compliments Customer Care  3/29/2010 7:57:50 AM lbodell 165 posts My response March 25, 2010 Thank you for your response. I appreciate your openness to discussion. This article from yesterday (UN admits flaw in report on meat and climate change, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html) might be of interest to you, since I am guessing that your article was based on the UN report "Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options" (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm). I maintain my request for a retraction of the article in your next issue, combined with a new article featuring unbiased information and a public apology to North America's livestock producers.... See More Again, thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Laura Bodell  3/29/2010 7:58:53 AM lbodell 165 posts Sobey's 2nd response March 29, 2010 Hello Laura, Thank you for your response. The editors of the magazine have been made aware of your emails, the links you have provided, and your request regarding the next magazine. As we had previously shared, we agree that there are many studies with differing points of view. So while our story spoke of what some studies suggest, we ended the story by speaking about that "juicy steak" allowing our readers to base their choices on their individual lifestyle. Laura, thank you once again for weighing in on a subject that we are sure will be discussed in many forums in the days and months to come. Regards, Compliments Customer Care  3/29/2010 8:17:10 AM lbodell 165 posts My 2nd response March 29, 2010 Thank you for forwarding my concerns and links to the magazine editors. Yes, the article does state that "you’ll be all the more appreciative of that juicy steak on Tuesday." This is still encouraging readers to eat less meat weekly, based on a report that has been called "flawed" by it's own authors. Though this change in the report's status is recent, it was very controversial at the time of your magazine publishing. A couple of questions then: 1. Does Sobeys corporate have an official stance on other political issues? Is the company's stance on these issues publicly available? 2. Where does fresh meat rank in Sobeys' product profitability rankings (on an annual average)? Thank you for your time. Regards, Laura Bodell  Page 1 of 2 12Next    General  Discussions  Sobeys bashes m... Flat View Tree View Oldest To Newest Newest To Oldest