An article in the Australian on March 2nd, 2011 reported that:
"FORTY leading veterinary and agricultural scientists have condemned Coles supermarket's "no added hormone beef" campaign, claiming it threatens sustainable and ethical production of food by Australian farmers.
"Simply put, these decisions of Coles are bad for the environment, bad for people and bad for animals," the scientists claim."
In response to the article, Brain Sherman is quick to continue his smear campaign of the group implying Ian Lean is morally compromised by providing services to the cattle industry and the group is flawed as the group includes HGP manufacturers.
Brian Sherman sites Clive Phillips, professor of animal welfare at the University of Queensland and Voiceless scientific councillor as an authority that does not have a vested interest in animal agribusiness. So are we too assume that all projects completed at the University of Queensland under Clive Phillips supervision that are funded by the meat and livestock industry or the RSPCA are immediately flawed for having vested interests fund them? How does one pick the right well to poison?
The subtitle of the article "Coles is reflecting consumers' desire to see an end to factory farming" is projecting his own ideology onto Coles consumers assuming the customers want to end all intensive farming practices and become vegetarian as Mr Sherman is. To destroy all intensive farming would end hundreds of thousands of jobs, ban all imports of meat that are intensively produced and rely solely on free range produce that represents a very small percentage of total meat produced would create catastrophic supply and demand issues, leaving meat products unaffordable for most.
Maybe Brian Sherman can take a new look on his moralistic sounds bites of "widening the circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures" which may include not denying omnivores their right to a healthy balanced diet.