Sinead Mowlds

And only 15 cents of that goes towards

anything that delivers for nature, climate or public health.

So we're not spending in a way that nourishes people and planet.

So if, for example, one study suggests from Nature Journal, suggests that if we repurposed some of the agricultural subsidies, redirected it towards fruit and veg, by 2030, OECD countries would have approximately 450,000 fewer deaths.

We can spend our money differently, our public money differently.

That's right, because it's associated with gastrointestinal cancer, other issues.

We're not eating enough fruit and veg.

Certainly in Ireland, we could do better in terms of public health there as well.

And the action needs to happen at local level, but also at national level.

Yes.

So it's where we spend, it's how we spend it.

So how and what we value.

And this speaks a little bit to what Seamus was saying as well.

So if we spend money and we consider value for money in terms of

not just the economics, but the environmental and the social, which is really important, again, especially when we're talking about horticulture, but also what we spend on.

And so we have the cap budgets, we have the budgets for agriculture and for production, but we also have budget lines coming from the Department of Agriculture, for example, going to Greyhound Racing, which is at the moment...

receiving twice the amount that we're spending on horticulture in this country.

And given the benefits that come from horticulture production versus the questionable benefits of environmental, social and even economic.

Exactly right, yeah.

Yes, but it's only partially true again.