The tireless environmental campaigner and designer-hat wearer Chris Packam (a.k.a. the new St Francis of Assisi) is in the news again. This time, he’s taken steps to make sure that adverts promoting the sale of British beef and milk are banned because they’re “misleading”, according to the Mail:
The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board’s “Let’s Eat Balanced” campaign claimed the produce had a lower carbon footprint than other countries.
One national advert showed a young, smiling, blonde-haired girl holding a glass full of the dairy drink with a milk moustache.
There is an image of a field baked in sunshine with white text in capital letters which reads: “Good from grass to glass.”
A claim in smaller text underneath added: “British milk not only tastes good, but is also produced to world-class standards, and has a carbon footprint a third lower than the global average.”
In a second advert, a wide-eyed black woman is holding a plate with cuts of beef on top of a pile of salad, with one piece of meat dangling from a fork held close to her open mouth.
A headline reads “Great Britain, great beef” with text underneath claiming: “British beef not only tastes great, but has a carbon footprint that’s half the global average.”
But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned them both after a 14-month investigation following a complaint made by vegan and TV broadcaster Packham that they were “misleading”.
In its ruling, the ASA said the adverts, which were seen between September 2024 and February 2025, could not substantiate their lower carbon footprint claims as they weren’t based on the full lifecycle of the products.
There is some hope:
A complaint made by the eco campaigner that an Instagram post and a page on the campaign’s website “implied that cows used to produce beef and milk in the UK were typically outdoor grazed” was thrown out.
The ASA also did not uphold a complaint that “the ads were misleading as they did not reflect the full environmental impact of British meat and dairy”.
Chris Packham is determined, like Amsterdam, to save the planet:
Packham, 65, said: “The science is unambiguous. We are in a climate and nature crisis and equally unambiguous when it comes to solutions.
”The meat and dairy industry is a very significant contributor to climate breakdown and the leading driver of biodiversity loss both nationally and globally. Our Government’s advice is clear too, if we want to survive, we must reduce not increase our meat and dairy consumption.”
He more recently called for tobacco-style stickers to be placed on meat products to see how people react.
“I often fantasise, I will get round to it, I’m gonna have a whole series of stickers printed of animals kept in appalling conditions, and then I’m going to go and stick them on the meat packets in the supermarket and see how people react,” he said.
Two years ago Packham made a false and defamatory statement about the Daily Sceptic team on the BBC.
The Mail’s story is worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Is this the same Chris Packham who endorses air travel through that travel company he gets paid to promote, including his own air miles when acting as host/lecturer on these so-called nature trips?
What does Packham have to say about halal meat?
I complained to the ASA about the advert for smart meters, in which “Einstein” is telling us to save the polar bears by installing a smart meter.
I need hardly tell you my complaint was dismissed.
Einstein would be turning in his grave if he knew the number of charlatans who use his name to promote bad science.
This is part of the continuing war on agriculture and the countryside. The attack is both economic and cultural.
Packham claimed “The science is unambiguous. We are in a climate and nature crisis”, so let him provide the actual evidence, under oath in court. He can’t. It’s all assumption and unvalidated models.
Packham just lies through his teeth, and refuses to examine the conclusive evidence which proves it.
Not sure why they would want to advertise for a “lower carbon footprint”? I assume when people say “lower carbon footprint” they mean less CO2? As far as I’m concerned the more CO2 the better 6CO2+6H2O+Energy(Light)= C6H12O6+6O2!!!
So the more CO2 the better life will be for us and the plants.
Someone on LinkedIn was banging on about the need to “remove carbon from the atmosphere”. I bit my tongue and did not reply.
Oh, that reminds me ….. I need a couple of pints of full fat English milk.
Thanks Chris.
Anecdote you might like: During the German mobilization 1914, the railway network was entirely taken over by the military and all civil use of trains was prohibited during the initial phase. The one exception was milk supply for large towns. This was considered so crucially important that special milk trains had been worked into the mobilization transport plan by the general staff.
They hadn’t yet invented “lactose intolerance” or “skimmed milk” by that time.
Messiah complex writ large. Forgive him father as he knows not what he does!
Maybe. Trust but verify.
Its embarrasing to think that a 65 year old supposedly intelligent man believes in all this climate tosh, and that cows are somehow to blame, I turn off when people start talking about “global” warming, when its obvious to anyone barely alive its been happening in cycles, warm, cool since time began, and is another money making scam, that like all scams, once people cotton on, loses its power, wonder if he’s pals with the other lunatic milliband??
He recently stopped his dogs eating meat. To my mind this makes him an animal abuser. He’s a fully paid-up nutcase.
Can we ban the governments environment and net zero policies for the same reason?
Wish we could just ban Packham, total twat…
By producing his saintly imagery, Mr Packham is at least, perhaps unwittingly upfront about his outlook ie theological, rather than scientific.
Most Progressive wokeists are less willing to acknowledge this, but presumably Packham’s autistic (or whichever) tendency makes him less guarded in displaying this in plain sight.
Ideology over reality, Science over scientific observation and scepticism..
A cult of which he is a victim.
Isn’t it public knowledge that Packham suffers (or perhaps benefits) from ADHD? Impulsiveness and hyperactivity are known symptoms of that condition, after all. Of course, some organisations may be accused of exploiting it. At any rate, he is not well balanced, albeit useful for some campaigners.
Here’s an example on that issue: https://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/news/around-ou/tv-radio/new-series-of-inside-our-minds-explores-adhd-and-dyslexia/ Loads more available elsewhere.
Oh how I loathe that creature!
HE IS SUCH A TXXT!
Dear Chris Packham. Please put your breath where your mouth is and stop emitting CO₂ now. This will arguably result in a certain loss of biodiversity but not every bit of biological diversity is actually useful for either the planet or any of the Not-chris-packham lifeforms on it.
May a merciful deity save us from sanctimonious would-be saints who genuinely believe to be holier than everyone else because only they buy and consume The Right Products™. Especially if they also claim to autists.
Surely anyone can see that controlling energy and emissions means controlling the world. What kind of idiot would buy snake oil from a puppet megalomaniac? (Presumably his snake oil is environmentally friendly as they don’t have a footprint, carbon or otherwise). Why oh why do people buy into this scam?
Btw, the portrayal of these people as saints is incredibly flawed.
First of all, the Christian ideal of improving the world is first and foremost through each individual’s self reflection and self improvement, not by telling others how to live their lives. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Secondly, those who have been canonized led lives of self sacrifice, many becoming martyrs in horrific deaths.
The self serving, self aggrandising sociopaths that champion NetZero insanity show neither of those two characteristics. Theri personal daily sacrifice to their cause is literally zero.
Portraying these “do as I say, not as I do” imbeciles as saints is an insult to sainthood.
Agreed. In fact, the early Franciscans were neither vegans nor vegetarians. They ate whatever people gave them.
No we’re not. We are in a crisis of dangerously delusional people with God complexes, who insist on imposing themselves on everyone else.
Why does this z list TV personality command the level of influence that he does? Does he care that we are not able to feed ourselves because he and his pals in Government have demonised our Farmers to the point where many have killed themselves?
This Man is free to choose not to eat meat, fish or whatever, what he should not be allowed to do is inflict his lifestyle choices on the rest of us. Farming in the Uk is on a welfare level higher than that of the EU and the rest of the world, unfortunately animals have to die in order to provide us with the proteins that many of us choose.
Man has always hunted from cave times. Packham has the luxury to have been born in a time which allows his survival on a nil meat diet through a variety of chemicals and industrial processes which in earlier more natural era’s would not have existed, and would therefore have shortend his lifespan considerably.
Luxury beliefs,
Chris Packham this could have been written with him in mind.
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money… Read more »
Why the F did they even mention ‘carbon footprints’? It’s a total scam and the reason they’re being shafted in the first place. They’ve stumbled and fallen straight into Packham’s bubbling cauldron of bullshit.
Much as I despise Packham and his ilk, he has every right to call out an advert containing unsubstantiated claims. Provided he’s prepared to be called out over his unsubstantiated claims and scare tactics.
Starting with ‘climate breakdown’ and then swiftly moving on to what fuels all of Packham’s hysterical pronouncements – the IPCC’s worst-case scenario of RCP 8.5 – which has just been binned. However, no doubt Packham and his fellow eco-loons will continue to use it, otherwise their fanatical crusade is just the emperor’s new clothes, as anyone with half a brain has known for years.
Packham is a prize prick. His love for animals extends to campaigning against farmers controlling the numbers of crows that attack lambs and peck their eyes out. Put the tosser in a lamb suit and throw him in a field. Somebody did nail a dead crow to his door I believe which I found amusing.
In truth, I don’t believe Carrion Crows (clue is in the name) attack healthy lambs. They would go for dead, or dying lambs and many sheep farmers have made an honest mistake in assuming a crow has kiled a lamb. It is not the case.
You believe or you actially know? Asking for a friend.
Wrong! I have first hand knowledge that they will attack a lamb, usually when newly born. If a healthy ewe gets onto its back (can happen especially when heavily pregnant) they will peck their eyes out and then attack their rear end.
“I often fantasise, I will get round to it, I’m gonna have a whole series of stickers printed of animals kept in appalling conditions, and then I’m going to go and stick them on the meat packets in the supermarket and see how people react,” he said.
While he’s at it, why doesn’t he get stickers put on mobile phones with pictures of enslaved children digging minertals out of the ground with their bare hands!
Better idea: Why isn’t he campaigning to outlaw these appalling conditions?
Could this be because they’re useful to him and he doesn’t give a shit about animal welfare?
Abolish the ASA.
I think it serves a purpose but does make some left-leaning decisions. I don’t see how they can get away with the lie that ‘smart’ meters will save you money. They only can if you have a special time of day rate which is still rare I believe.
Yes it does serve a purpose if it can be trusted to be objective. But I am not sure how that could be enforced.
It can neither be accomplished nor enforced. But people can honestly strive to be as objective as they can. That people making decisions based on undefined and undefinable word-soap bubbles like “full lifecycle of the product” obviously don’t doesn’t mean everybody else wouldn’t, either.
There’s an advert I hear occasionally that boasts that customers can enjoy free electricity on a Sunday “to do what you want with”.
The sting comes in the rapid fire blurb at the end, which states that, in order to receive this, customers must reduce their usage by 50%.
I can’t even imagine how profligate one might have to be with electricity, to be able to reduce its use by that amount… Blackpool illuminations, perhaps?