THE TROUBLE with huge reports – such as that produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – is that commentators can pick and choose the bits they like and discard/discount the things they don't.

While that might be an understandable position for single issue lobbyists and gung-ho desktop activists to take, it is not the position we expect from what should be the unbiased bastion of truth, that is the BBC. It has mobilised its troops in an almost evangelical fashion to sing off the same hymn sheet on how agriculture interacts with 'climate change' and that eating meat and drinking milk is bad not just for you, but the planet too.

It is, actually, a triumph of collectively motivating footsoldiers and pointing them at an enemy with one sole objective in mind. That is, to denigrate agriculture as to seemingly being the single biggest cause of 'climate change' and producer of harmful 'greenhouse gasses' whilst at the same time patently ignoring the real causes, like air transport (which, we are sure, is still the mode of transport for those many thousands of BBC employees who jet around the world).

Like many wars – and this feels like one – rationale is left trodden well behind in the muddy battlefields. The fact is, meat eating is being portrayed as being part of a whole big pile of manure which is eating away at the planet; while eating a squashed bit of soya from what used to be an Amazonian rainforest is deemed to be OK.

The arguments being made by the BBC – at whose behest? – are so devoid of fact, that it would be an easy one to breenge into court with, were it not for the fact that facts are, actually, hard to come by.

There are excerpts from the IPCC report which support the notion that farming is different in many parts of the world and that this should be taken into account. Indeed, it accepts that: "The transition towards low GHG emission diets may be influenced by local production practices, technical and financial barriers, and associated livelihoods and cultural habits."

That means, Mr Director General, that it is not as simple as saying 'don't eat meat'. It is already well proven, here and in New Zealand, that a modern grass-based beef system actually locks up more carbon than it produces. That means it is possible for beef production to be a nett zero producer of carbon.

Food miles are just as important, as they are an intrinsic part of the environmental footprint of food production and consumption. If you are trying to reduce your carbon footprint, you must consider the sustainability of the food you are consuming. The impact of transport is important. Eat locally produced sustainable food – it is that simple. Eat local

Meanwhile, the dilettante reporters of the BBC choose to ignore this while sipping on their organic almond milk-shake and trying to make the most of their 'healthy' meat substitutes which have more air miles on them than their many hundreds of world political correspondents.