No one has posted any evidence that the cull has had any impact on TB. I assume there is none. The original BBC report looks like pure rhetoric (which I think we call "spin" nowadays?) from all sides
The Co-Op has sold its land to the Wellcome Trust (an unfortunate by-product of the Co-Op bank scandal)
Producing a unit of energy or protein as meat takes a lot more land than producing the same quantity of energy or protein from plants. Jenkins, I'm sure you know that; blaming vegetarians for the explosion of soya production is shameless
There is some land (e.g. Wales ;-) ) that could not reasonably grow edible crops but can grow cattle and sheep - but only with a level of public subsidy that means many marginal land farmers are effectively living on benefits. Because it is what we have done for a long time, people assume it's the right thing to do, but it is increasingly being questioned
I don't really understand the justification for compensation for slaughtering TB infected cattle out of the public purse. Most industries are expected to cover their own risks and pass on the costs in the price of the product. If meat was more expensive, we would eat less of it and be more healthy
Any discussion of teeth and diet would lead me to worry more about refined sugar (and honey!) than meat. Grinding wheat with your teeth probably would wear your teeth out, but I think most vegetarians still cook
We spend 0.7% of our annual gross domestic product on overseas aid - that 7p of every £10 we produce. Much of that is spent on products or services supplied by British companies. My personal opinion is that that is not over-generous
It's good to see the forum maintaining its usual levels of mid-winter tolerance and harmony. I saw seven living colonies in 7 hives on Friday so I'm feeling better. Happy new year