hf1

No wonder the 2008 report was never publicised

My avatar
little1
Cloth Nappy Nutter
Cloth Nappy Nutter

Re: No wonder the 2008 report was never publicised

Postby little1 » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:38 am

Yep i often think what the thousands of nappies we have saved from landfill would actually look like!!

Probably should keep my mouth shut as i don't want to start an argument but as a vet I don't think that organic animal products (meat/ milk) etc actually improve the welfare of the animals involved, they are still reared intensively but have limited access to the medicines they need to overcome the diseases intensive rearing causes, and so the cost of this can be poorer animal welfare (this is particularly true in chickens).

Also the quality of the products eg milk are not necessarily higher. organic milk is allowed to have a white cell count (so infection) of 400,000, non organic only 200,000/ml. I do however see the benefits to us of reduced pesticides etc and think orgainic fruit/ veg is good. Please don't come back at me with arguments i just wanted to give another view as i think the public sometimes miscontrue organic as meaning better welfare when it does not.

My avatar
Vigornia
Clothie
Clothie

Re: No wonder the 2008 report was never publicised

Postby Vigornia » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:07 pm

Don't worry, you're not re-opening the can of worms :) My main reasons for being pro-organic is for wildlife conservation (i.e. no pesticides/insecticides), and with organic milk I don't like the routine use of antibiotics and hormones which can in turn get in to my body. Obviously though if the animals aren't getting medicine when they need it that's not good. The only way to ensure animal welfare is to be vegan really :(

anyway, the idiot in question hasn't replied yet. Hopefully he keeps his mouth shut :giggle:

My avatar
alemum
Cloth Nappy Lover
Cloth Nappy Lover

Re: No wonder the 2008 report was never publicised

Postby alemum » Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:00 pm

Its really anoying, as there was lots of publicty on the first one, but when the EA get it worng its hush hush... :x
I think it was like, ask 100 people who use throw-aways and only 1 or 2 who use cloth, and the advisor they used on cloth, I heard has links to a big disposable nappy company, not sure if this is true or what.
They assumed something like fluff users only do hot washes, and tumble, they got the facts COMPLETELY WRONG! Even when they say in the new report that you save 40% emissions, i still don't trust that as there's still questions about how they came to this conclusion.

My avatar
Asta
Cloth Nappy Addict
Cloth Nappy Addict

Re: No wonder the 2008 report was never publicised

Postby Asta » Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:09 pm

northernruth wrote:Hopefully they will open a landfill site at the bottom of his back garden.


:giggle:

He sounds like just the type who believes we all iron our nappies!

My avatar
Miranda
Cloth Nappy Lover
Cloth Nappy Lover

Re: No wonder the 2008 report was never publicised

Postby Miranda » Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:32 pm

The most bizzare bit of the original EA report was they listed the fact that cloth nappies and wraps end use was 'saved for re-use', yet the fact it was more likely than not to be reused for another child was completely ignored!

My avatar
usinukveg
Cloth Nappy Groupie
Cloth Nappy Groupie

Re: No wonder the 2008 report was never publicised

Postby usinukveg » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:48 am

thanks for letting me know about the report, I got it off the defra site and am going to read it today in order to have a few facts under my belt for people who are disciples of our throw away culture.

Previous

Return to Cloth Nappy Chat