Greenpeace response to Cowspiracy
I still can't find any official response on the web from Greenpeace regarding the movie Cowspiracy. They did however send me an email so I am posting it here.
For ardent vegans this response may be a little lame, however for me it makes sense and is in agreement with my earlier posts about Pragma Veganism.
For ardent vegans this response may be a little lame, however for me it makes sense and is in agreement with my earlier posts about Pragma Veganism.
Thank you for taking the time to get in touch. Greenpeace encourages initiatives like Cowspiracy that expose the destructive side of the intensive livestock industry and its negative impacts on our planet. Our US office declined to take part in this project as they felt sure our position would be misrepresented, but sadly it looks as if our reasons for not taking part have been misrepresented instead. I hope you don’t mind if I explain how we are working on this issue for you, as this was not mentioned in the documentary at all which has led to a lot of misconceptions.
First, please rest assured that Greenpeace does not accept any donations from business or government, we rely 100% on individuals like yourself in order to maintain an independent campaigning voice.
Intensive animal production needs large amounts of feed. Feed that competes with land needed to produce food for humans, and which is often grown in fields that were once forests rich with wildlife. Greenpeace’s work on soy and cattle farming in the Amazon rainforest has been addressing this critical issue for over a decade.
Industrial livestock also produces vast amounts of manure that pollutes soil and water systems while further contributing to the emissions of climate change gases. As part of a number of lifestyle choices everyone can take to reduce their impact on the planet, Greenpeace encourages people to reduce their meat consumption. A plant-based diet is better for our health, for our climate, for our forests, for our rivers and oceans, and for global food security.
At the Greenpeace UK office we only serve vegan and vegetarian food at our on site cafe -this is a conscious choice so that we do not add to the environmental impact that meat eating causes. However, as an organisation what we advocate and campaign for is not to avoid meat and dairy products altogether, but about eating much, much lower levels that are good for human and our planet’s health.
Eating meat is a little like using fossil fuels. Many people would prefer us to be calling for a ban on cars or planes, but we feel that that message might be counter-productive – very few people are currently open to being persuaded to never get in a car again, but a large and growing number are willing to consider driving less. In the same way, we would rather persuade 10% of people to halve their meat consumption, or stop eating endangered species, than to persuade 1% to go vegan.
We hope you understand our reasons for working the way that we do. If you would like to discuss this in more detail - please do call us - 0800 269065 we would love to have a chat about it. (The team is around from Mon to Fri 9 - 5.30) Thank you for supporting our work with a regular gift - it really does make a huge difference - you can both see some of the successes of last year, that were supported by your generosity:
Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch and with best wishes,
Issy Griffin
Follow us on Twitter: @GreenpeaceUK
Hi, I just saw the documentary and wasn't particularly surprised. It only confirmed my feeling of a 'cowspiracy'. What did and does Greenpeace objectively do apart from these short declarations? I never saw them saying a word about it and didn't find anything on their website (and the link above is broken). Did you find some? Regards, Marco
ReplyDeleteI too would like to hear their reply.
DeleteHere's for example a huge report on the connection of cattle industry and amazon deforestation:
Deletehttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/slaughtering-the-amazon/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/More-Meat-Threatens-The-Planet/
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAll could have been avoided if Greenpeace wasn't afraid to talk about the issues. No matter the response or whether or not they are funded by the agriculture industry, they simply were afraid to address the issue which shows their apathetic attitudes. Failure to admit the mistake shows they are likely to do it again in the future. Instead of being active participants, they are just reactive.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what I think. Everything could have been avoided if they didn't refuse to talk. They could say at least what was written above (in their response). But now GP says they would be misintepreted and I cant see why. How not talking at all could be better? It was very weird seeing an organization that a lot of ppl admire refusing to talk about such a big problem. All this secret was created. We never expected that. Of course viewers would be suspicious.
Delete"Eating meat is a little like using fossil fuels. Many people would prefer us to be calling for a ban on cars or planes, but we feel that that message might be counter-productive – very few people are currently open to being persuaded to never get in a car again, but a large and growing number are willing to consider driving less. In the same way, we would rather persuade 10% of people to halve their meat consumption, or stop eating endangered species, than to persuade 1% to go vegan."
ReplyDeleteBut CH4 is much more harmful than CO2. How they can forget about that?
It's too bad they had to be exposed, before they addressed this all important topic. Cowspiracy made an epic statement with Greenpeace and on its cowardly stance … a truly honest organization or person is bold, nothing to hide because nothing is being concealed. I suppose all of us have learned lessons the hard way.
ReplyDelete