主播大秀

Accuracy

The claim that thousands of tonnes of Brazilian beef were exported to the UK gave a misleading impression of the extent to which the UK is implicated in the Brazilian farming practices shown in the programme.

According to Government estimates, the UK imported approximately 23,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef products in 2019, so the programme鈥檚 claim was not inaccurate.听 Though the programme did not specify that this represented only a small proportion of UK beef consumption, it did state that Brazil maintained a herd of 200 million cattle, so it would have been apparent to viewers that the UK was not a major consumer of Brazilian beef, and the ECU did not consider the claim to be misleading.

The statement that 鈥淢ethane is an extremely potent听greenhouse gas,听almost 30 times more powerful听than carbon dioxide鈥� should have been carefully explained to viewers, as it obscures the fact that methane in the atmosphere is believed to dissipate over about 12 years, whereas carbon dioxide continues to affect the climate for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Irrespective of its relative longevity, methane is classified as a greenhouse gas by the Independent Panel on Climate Change, is produced by cattle in large quantities, and is a significant cause of global warming, accounting for 20% of global emissions, much of that from livestock farming. 听The programme did not seek to evaluate methane鈥檚 relative contribution to global warming but it did show ways in which scientists were attempting to reduce the production of methane by cattle. 听In this context the ECU did not consider the information misleading to viewers.

The statement that UK meat farming was 鈥渢he cause of serious听pollution incidents听on a weekly basis鈥�, prefaced by the information that farmed animals around the world produce three billion tonnes of manure every year, gave an exaggerated impression of the environmental impact of effluent from UK meat farming.

According to the Environment Agency, in 2018 there were 77 serious incidents attributed to farming activities. 听65 incidents involved livestock farms, and 34 of those involved slurry, silage or manure. 听Figures for incidents involving slurry, silage or manure in the two preceding years were 44 for 2017, and 43 in 2016. 听Although that does not equate precisely to a figure of one per week, the ECU regarded the frequency of the incidents to be such that the reference to a 鈥渨eekly basis鈥� was a fair approximation.

The programme was misleading in failing to discuss the negative health effects of reducing meat consumption.

The programme considered the effects of reducing meat consumption on the global environment.听 A discussion of the health issues related to eating or abstaining from meat would not have been material to viewers鈥� understanding of the environmental issues, and its absence from the programme raised no issue of inaccuracy.

Editorial decisions and juxtaposition of narrative and images conveyed the impression that methods employed abroad which the programme criticised were either significant in the production of meat consumed in the UK or comparable to UK production.

The programme鈥檚 concentration on methods employed by much larger meat producers such as the USA and Brazil was in keeping with its global focus, and it made no statement to the effect that the UK was a major consumer of meat from either country or that its production practices were comparable to theirs.听 The ECU found no issue of inaccuracy in this area, although it had some bearing on the issues of impartiality considered below.

The suggestion that livestock globally produces more greenhouse gases than the running of transport was inaccurate in relation to the UK and had been shown to be exaggerated in relation to the global picture.

The suggestion relied on a 2013 paper by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, which attributed 14.5% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, and the 2014 estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that direct emissions from transport accounted for 14%.听 The ECU therefore did not agree that the programme conveyed an exaggerated impression.听 And, as the impression was clearly presented as relating to the global picture, the ECU considered any disparity with the UK picture to be immaterial.

Impartiality

Given that the vast majority of beef on sale in Britain is from British farms, and not produced in ways shown on the programme there should have been a very clear distinction made in the farming systems. But there was not and the presenter spoke to a British audience when she spoke of her own intentions in relation to meat. The audience would have been left with the very clear view that British meat is produced in the same ways as the rest of the world.

And:

A single view was expressed with no range of views being acknowledged.

The 主播大秀鈥檚 Guidelines on Impartiality say 鈥�When dealing with 鈥榗ontroversial subjects鈥�, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active鈥�.听 The ECU agreed that the subject-matter of the programme was controversial in significant respects. 听While aspects of the environmental impact of global meat production may be matters of established fact or scientific consensus, there has been a continuing public debate about the sustainability of meat production, with the implied suggestion that reducing one鈥檚 personal meat consumption is ethically preferable. 听The presenter of the programme set out the issues in these terms:

"As demand increases, so do听greenhouse gas emissions,听so does pollution,听so does the destruction听of biodiversity,听which leads to one very听obvious question. 听Should we just stop eating meat?"

Early in the programme she said:

"I don't think the general public听has any idea about what's听going on to produce the bacon听they fry up for breakfast."

And she ended the programme by asking viewers to consider their own behaviour, in what was effectively a call to action:

"Amidst all the bad news about the听damage that our modern world听is causing to our planet,听this is one problem听we can all do something about.听We can each decide what kind听of relationship听we want to have听with the natural world.听 Every day, with every meal,听we can choose where our meat听comes from,听how much of it to eat and even听whether to eat it at all."

In this context the range of farming methods used to supply consumers and their relative environmental impact was of relevance to viewers.听 Traditional grass-based methods of livestock production, prevalent in some sectors of meat production in Britain and many other countries, account for a significant element of global output[1], but these were not discussed in the programme, beyond a reference to 鈥淪ome farmers around the world鈥earing livestock听in a way that takes better care听of the planet,听using farming methods听that support soil health听without the need for chemical听fertilisers and pesticides鈥�, illustrated by the untypical example of a smallholder in Wales who raised chickens for his family鈥檚 consumption.听 As a result, viewers received a partial analysis of the impact of livestock farming on the global environment and biodiversity, based almost exclusively on intensive farming methods and of limited application to the choices open to UK consumers.听 In the judgement of the ECU, this fell below the 主播大秀鈥檚 standards of impartiality in relation to controversial subjects.

Accuracy: Not upheld
Impartiality: Upheld

听

[1] According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, intensive systems provide less than 15% of beef or milk production while accounting for about 60% of global pork or chicken meat.