It has been interesting lately looking at the results of various international studies. The WHO study linking various meat products to cancer is just one example. Some of the initial reactions were very much true to form. I listened to an animal rights activist on 96FM radio in Cork claim it was “poetic justice”. Roughly translated, that means that she believes meat eaters deserve to get cancer as we kill “other animals” for food.

If she had bothered to study the report like everybody else, then it was obvious that the risks related more to cooking and preserving methods, and to the quantity eaten. A clear example of information being misused for a completely separate agenda.

In fact, the WHO report was a missed opportunity to highlight the benefits of eating a varied and balanced diet. I understand that a further study is already under way to examine the risks in the context of overall health and diet.

Another study has direct effect on me as the owner of a Skoda with an emissions test cheating Volkswagen engine. The study was originally set up to try to prove that diesel engines were more efficient than petrol, only to discover the additional technology.

This revelation is only adding to the confusion in the EU where the NEC (National Emissions Ceiling) discussions are trying to limit various pollutants in the air we breathe.

Twenty years ago, the only focus on fuel use was volume. While diesel would always be the fuel choice for heavy engines, the cost of such an engine for a car ruled it out for the majority, despite being cheaper to run. The Government decided to use a “nudge effect” cheaper car tax, thereby encouraging us to buy the more fuel-efficient cars. The newer thinking is that the NOx gasses from diesel over petrol outweigh the efficiency benefits. Environmental groups are lobbying for an increase in diesel taxes, some of whom I seem to remember welcomed the initial tax change.

Heading towards the climate discussions in COP21 Paris at the end of this month, we should all take note of the dangers of singular focus. A farmer does not have the luxury of a singular focus on short-term gain, or the farm won’t continue to produce. As farmers, we cannot ignore the implications of not curbing GHG emissions, but as a planet we do not have the option of sacrificing agriculture on current emission calculations without considering the wider implications. We need to look at the full picture instead of making just one conclusion.

Consider it a wake-up call.