Advertising columns in which meat on a hamburger is depicted as a true criminal with a black bar. According to the advertiser Nederland Vleesland, it is a nice response to the heated discussion that has arisen after an adopted motion by the Haarlem city council to ban advertising on bio-industrial meat. “Where does the patronizing end,” wonders spokesman Dé van de Riet of the interest group.
A statement on the website of the ‘Nederland Vleesland’ campaign, which six umbrella organizations of butchers, livestock farmers and related meat industry have set up, states:
“Advertising for meat products will soon no longer be allowed on the streets of Haarlem, at the initiative of Groen Links. With its bus shelter campaign in Haarlem, the Netherlands Vleesland wants to make a counter-sound, with a wink. But still serious. With this ban was wrongly placed in the wrong box, while 94% of the Dutch and 93% of the North Hollanders regularly eat meat.”
“We don’t want to make it too difficult with this advertisement,” explains spokesman Dé van de Riet. “But we are careful not to be pushed into the corner of alcohol and tobacco. It is crazy for words that a product that is a high-quality food source should not be advertised.” He emphasizes that the meat industry also finds it a curtailment of freedom to express yourself. “It is hip and Bonton today to agitate against meat. But to just pour it out on the rest of the Dutch is going too far for us.”
“It is nowadays hip and Bonton to act against meat, but to just pour it out over the rest of the Netherlands is going too far for us”
You react very agitated when it comes to a ‘nice promotion’ on your part, as you call it. Why is that?
“We are indeed very agitated. Farmers are working day in and day out to ensure that they can produce a good nutritious source and then you will be shunted by a city council somewhere in the Netherlands.”
The discussion is clouded. The Haarlem council’s motion in 2021 was not about a total ban on meat advertising, but about entering into a discussion with the operator of bus shelters in public spaces about advertising products that affect the climate. And therefore also for meat from the bio-industry. Is this action justified on your part?
“We now want to make our point. It has now become a discussion. And we wonder where does the patronizing, the cheating of the local authorities end? Then it will soon be the case that butchers are no longer allowed to put their billboards outside. “We have reached the limit and it is a story of principle. Will it only stop when all meat is banned from the Netherlands? It is the minorities in this country, a small group, who prescribe what we can eat.”
In Haarlem there is an elected majority in the council that thinks otherwise.
“We have every respect for democratic decision-making, but the council makes statements based on fiction. Netherlands Vleesland wants to enter into a social dialogue. And we understand that there are concerns, but the image is frustrated. The livestock farmer initially feels an animal caretaker. Moreover, the environmental impact of the cow in the Netherlands is much lower than in other countries. The footprint is lower than in other industries. A skewed picture has been sketched, which has started to lead its own life in the image formation and therefore in administrative decision-making.”
So you say you want to enter into a social dialogue. So is this ad campaign the way to start that conversation?
“We want to make a point now. There is an overkill of meat bashing.”
But you haven’t thought of approaching the Haarlem Groenlinks faction for a conversation?
“No, we are now opting for this approach. They have also chosen to do this outside of us. That has had a lot of impact, even abroad. We want to do something in return. ‘ way.”
Text continues below the photo.
Is communicating in this way, despite the fact that the advertising is indeed funny with that black bar over the flesh as if it were ‘criminal’, not just provocative? Why not pick up the phone?
“This is step one for us, this communication campaign. And not to speak in the city council or anything. But to do something in return now. If this results in an invitation to a conversation or a debate, we would like to come to Harlem.”
“We want to make a point now. There is an overkill of meat bashing.”
National or local?
The resentment against the feeling of being patronized by the local government has already been endorsed by VVD-Haarlem during the handling of the relevant motion. During the Political Café, which will be held every month in the Pletterij debate center from this administrative year, councilor Nienke Klazinga also called it a ‘slippery slope’: “The VVD thinks freedoms are important. Where does this end?”
She thinks it would be better that only the national government should deal with containment. But the submitter of the motion, Ziggy Klazes of GroenLinks, disputes this. “Especially now that there is worldwide commotion, we must broaden the ban on advertising harmful products. And the municipality must be able to steer its own course.” She hopes that the change will come from below and therefore will not require years of discussion in national politics, as was the case with the ban on advertising for smoking articles.
Look back below to the broadcast of the Political Café in the Pletterij debate center from last Friday.