The Sylvan plant-based diet debate considered the following motion:
This house believes Britain should switch to a predominantly plant-based diet.
The debate took place on Monday, 5th September. Lissi Corfield proposed the motion and Adam Smith opposed it.
The proposition supporting a shift to a predominantly plant-based diet
The proposer began by pointing out that everyone enjoys food and defining the terms of the motion. Diet means getting ‘slim and beautiful’ but also what we eat to survive, entertain and for comfort. All foods comes from plants, though some via animals. This motion does not mean a switch to a completely vegan diet, but a balancing of the country’s diet more appropriately. Switch in this case means change over time, and should mean the sensible thing to do – that which makes sense.
Three main areas justify this switch: health, the local environment and the world climate. Meat causes diseases including cancer, and plants work better for the human digestive system. Over 55s in Britain are shifting away from meat the most. A plant-based diet can provide all required nutrients, with the support of vitamin B12 supplements. One quarter of Britons are obese, while plants have significant fibre content, which fills you up. Within this motion we can eat ice cream or bacon occasionally.
For the local environment, meat production has significantly damaging effects. The River Wye contains a massive brown sludge driven by 20 million caged chickens on its edge. 40% of our chickens live in cages, with high antibiotics use. For the world environment, we have a climate change crisis. Food production represents a major source of CO2 emissions, and plant diets reduce that by 70%. They also use far less water. Britain led the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, we have a duty to reduce our emissions. Can we change our food system? Yes, our diet has changed significantly in the last 50 years already. We already have alternative milks and gluten-free foods. We can adapt and change – today we eat lots of meat and we can reduce it.
The opposition against the plant-based diet debate motion
The opposer turned the argument on its head in a tongue-in-cheek manner by suggesting that we should eat more meat to save the world. Russia has turned off the gas taps leading to price rises, with British steakhouses and pubs at risk. Cows and sheep do emit methane, but if we use that methane we could replace the natural gas usage of 550k people! We have farmers going broke, this represents a new potential source of income for them. The WWF has a mask for cows to capture their burps. We need to reduce household emissions – 19 degrees Celsius provides enough warmth for me at home. Just add a jumper, and we can also heat with methane.
I enjoy salmon, eggs, milk in coffee, roast chicken. They provide a community feel. We wear leather jackets and eat the meat from the same animal. I am Suffolk born, where you can find some of the best fish and chips. Those fishermen and chippy workers would lose their jobs. Plant farming would need to be expanded, and avocado production in Spanish greenhouses drives significant emissions. We can encourage people to switch but not force them, they would react negatively and not buy in. Some people need to eat more protein, and people need jobs.
Floor speeches from the audience of the plant-based diet debate
Floor speakers examined all sides of the issue. New plant-based foods tend to mimic meat, such as veggie burgers. Eating meat was a sign of wealth, and now plant-based diets cover all religious beliefs. Does this represent a moral decision, and should we force people? This debate is only relevant in the southeast of England – the rest of the country would laugh. The strong link between food and identity means we can’t tell people what to eat. Making plant-based less expensive will make it more accessible.
One meat-eating speaker in favour of the motion stated ‘nothing tastes better than a nice juicy steak marinated in the tears of my own hypocrisy’. We can convince people to reduce meat consumption by 25-30%. Yet soft food leads to weaker jaws, and we can’t equate animal life with human life. And at the same time, how can we speak about this in Britain when one third of the world starves??
A number of speakers echoed the view that we cannot tell people what to eat. Some argued that processed plant-based food has higher carbon emissions than meat. Animals don’t enlarge the natural carbon cycle, they use the existing carbon stock. Some countries have successfully changed their diets. Britons used to eat smaller meat portions, and smaller quantities of meat would provide the B12 to avoid artificial supplements. We need to tell cows what to eat rather than people, e.g. plants grown in the sea to reduce methane emissions. Organic plant-based diets would reduce antibiotics, growth hormones and microplastics, yet agribusiness contributes to politicians. Precision fermentation could take us beyond plant based. Eating meat in the future will feel the same as smoking indoors today. Chicken production includes horrific practices including densely-packed factory farms.
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer agreed with a number of speakers who suggested sensible suggestions to reduce methane emissions. It is a southern debate – in Wales or coastal towns it would not go down well. No issue with a balanced diet to an extent, though it leads to weak gums. Plant-based foods are expensive, and if we eat more the cost of foods in developing countries will rise. 2kgs of lamb legs cost me £4 for 8 meals worth. A lack of exercise drives obesity. Harvesting plants requires tractors and distribution and the associated emissions. We need to repair the damage to rainforests, but we will eat meat and thus we need to change the way we get it. ‘If you go woke you go broke.’ We need to be healthy for the next covid variant.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer echoed the views on the cruelty of battery farming chickens. Many cows live in confinement, not an Arcadian life. Yes we need to consider developing countries, and we wealthy countries deplete resources due to our rich and varied diets. The motion does not say that we will tell the British to eat a vegan diet. This is about Britain as a whole – ‘predominantly’. Keep fish and chips but make it more chips, less fish. Even Christmas eating traditions have changed. Children prefer pasta to traditional dishes already. Britain as a country should change its diet, and it will change employment. This will reduce the 20 million caged chickens and help the NHS by reducing cancer cases. In terms of telling people what to do, we can use taxes or subsidies instead. Advertising tells us what to eat already! We can get cheaper, plant-based production.
Result: in a razor-thin final vote, the plant-based diet debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the plant-based diet debate that Britain needs to shift to a predominantly plant-based diet.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.