Surely They Should First Ensure That It Is..?

The government must urgently reassure consumers that feed additives given to cattle to reduce methane emissions are harmless, and a vital tool in tackling the climate crisis, the chair of an influential parliamentary committee has warned.

But is it? Is anyone who isn't already a die-hard 'anthropogenic global warming' fanatic claiming that it is?

Lady Sheehan, chair of the environment and climate change committee of the House of Lords, called on ministers to step up as a row has blown up over the prospective use of the additive Bovaer in British dairy herds supplying Arla, the dairy company.

“The government has the evidence it can use” of the product’s safety, she said. “I can see why the government wouldn’t want to throw its weight behind recommending one of the feed additive options out there because there are others, but the government can point to the evidence to date that the FSA has licensed it and has reassured [consumers] that it is safe.”

Unfortunately, love, the government insisting something is safe doesn't hold as much weight as it once did... 

She said seaweed, willow and maize added to cattle diets were also showing promise in reducing methane, and should be further explored.

So we no longer know whether our tea tastes funny because the milk's off, or it's got a tang of seaweed? 

Arla announced last month it would start trials of Bovaer in the UK, but an online backlash ensued with some people claiming they would boycott the dairy. Arla and the manufacturer of Bovaer, DSM-Firmenich, have been forced to make public statements that the additive – which has been developed over 15 years and was certified by the UK’s food safety watchdog over a year ago – is safe.

Consumers don't want to buy your product with this stuff in it. What's hard to understand about that?  

Sheehan put the row down to “misinformation and disinformation” spread on social media. She added: “The government needs to continue with the trials that it’s doing to stay on top of this, to make sure what the long term effects are.”

So if it's a 'trial' and they don't know what the long term effects are already, how can you claim it's safe?