• MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It could also be seen as less personal gain and more that he put his money where is mouth is and made a company to actually do what he’s been proposing schools need to do. Now they have the avenue to do so.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah maybe. I’m certainly conflicted on this, because I don’t think he’s wrong, but him financially benefitting from this in a big way does leave a slight sour taste in my mouth.

      • Baggins@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        A bit like some of his food - it’s not that great. but he has a point as it should not be compulsory for meat to be served. I the staff and pupils were 100% vegetarian, then you wouldn’t expect meat to be back on the menu boys!

      • Naich@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        He’s not campaigning to have his company’s food served at schools, just for the rule compelling schools to serve meat to be changed. His argument is that it is better for children’s health and for the environment that less meat is eaten - and he’s right. It doesn’t automatically follow that his company will gain from any change, as there are many other options available to schools and it’s perfectly possible for existing meat providers to start providing meatless meals.