Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[littlebabyjesus]

Everyone should be eating less red meat anyway, regardless of your Grand Tour of Whataboutery.

So someone who treats themselves to one high-quality steak per week should be eating less red meat?

This isn't like smoking. All smoking is bad for you, even one fag a day. In the case of food items such as red meat, that's not the case. It can be incorporated into a healthy diet as a positive net contributor to that diet due to all the nutrients it contains.

 

[kabbes]

Everyone should be eating less red meat anyway, regardless of your Grand Tour of Whataboutery.

Everyone “should” be doing a lot of things, if by “should” you mean “according to the minimisation of risk”. And no, I’m not saying “what about this or that?” Because I’m not actually advising that anything should or shouldn’t be done. I’m just saying that human beings do not (and will never) make decisions purely on the grounds of risk minimisation. Do you disagree with that? Do you think that risk minimisation is the be all and end all of the argument?

You ignored my other three points, by the way, regarding why my statements to date have not contradicted the NHS guidance. JFYI.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Again to put that 20% increase in risk of bowel cancer into context, moderate to heavy drinking is associated with a 20-50% increase in the risk of bowel cancer.

Life is a cancer risk!

 

[Yossarian]

And non-red meat such as chicken plus fish, which for some strange reason gets excluded from the category 'meat', has no associated elevated risk of bowel cancer.

Eating fish significantly lowers the risk, according to some studies

Eating vegetarian, adding fish may lower risk of colon cancers

A new study of dietary habits of more than 70,000 people by California researchers found that those who followed a vegetarian diet had a 22% lower risk of colon cancer than non-vegetarians. When fi…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

 

[kabbes]

Eating fish significantly lowers the risk, according to some studies

Eating vegetarian, adding fish may lower risk of colon cancers

A new study of dietary habits of more than 70,000 people by California researchers found that those who followed a vegetarian diet had a 22% lower risk of colon cancer than non-vegetarians. When fi…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Gosh, I guess this means everyone should start eating fish

 

[JimW]

We really are wriggling about here now; there'll be no sustainable farming unless meat consumption is cut drastically, and the latter is a good thing in and of itself even without the former. Current levels in the developed world and those places catching up are excessive, to the detriment of the environment and public health.
The above is not of course the whole solution in and of itself, but there'll be no solution without it.
have we had the big Lancet study from a few years back? That said something similar: Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems Free to read if you register or available here: https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 Pretty good and not one size fits all either.

 

[butcher]

lentils and barley are a great combination. i have them with a vegetable, with some bread, for lunch quite a bit.

 

[friedaweed]

I did read it you plank. Where are the other B vitamins? Where are vitamins A, C and E? Where is the calcium needed for bone strength and proper nerve conduction? Where is the phosphorus also needed for bone strength?
Where is the potassium?

If you think that beige gloop is healthy you try eating it for a month and report back on how your health is.

And you have the nerve to say I'm talking bollocks. With your pathetic knowledge of what's required in a diet you should not, in any circumstances, be giving dietary advice to anyone.

Borderline Dr Jazz.

 

[friedaweed]

View attachment 367615

That image has come to mind quite a lot recently.

 

[editor]

Gosh, I guess this means everyone should start eating fish

Perhaps you should read the full title: "Eating vegetarian, adding fish may lower risk of colon cancers"

The bottom line? “The lower the red meat intake the better, especially for processed meats. It may be difficult for some people to cut it out completely, but I would encourage them to at least reduce the amount they eat,” Giovannucci said. He recommends limiting red meat to no more than two 3-ounce servings per week.

 

[kabbes]

Perhaps you should read the full title: "Eating vegetarian, adding fish may lower risk of colon cancers"

Are you going to start eating fish then?

 

[editor]

Are you going to start eating fish then?

No, why should I?

Compared with regular meat-eaters, the risk of developing any type of cancer was lower in low meat-eaters (2% less), fish-eaters (10% less), and vegetarians (14% less). This means that the absolute reduction in cancer diagnoses for vegetarians was 13 fewer per 1,000 people over ten years, in comparison to regular meat-eaters

• The risk of postmenopausal breast cancer was significantly reduced in vegetarians (18% less), compared with regular meat-eaters. However, additional analyses indicated that most of this reduction in risk was due to vegetarians having a lower average body mass, compared with regular meat-eaters.
• The risk of prostate cancer was significantly reduced in both vegetarians (31% less) and fish-eaters (20%), compared with regular meat-eaters. This equates to 11 and 7 fewer diagnoses per 1,000 people over ten years respectively, in comparison to regular meat-eaters.
• In men, compared with regular meat-eaters, the risk of colorectal cancer was lower in low meat-eaters (11% less), fish-eaters (31% less), and vegetarians (43%). However, there was no apparent difference in risk for women for any of these dietary groups.

New study finds lower risks of cancer for vegetarians, pescatarians and low meat-eaters — Nuffield Department of Population Health

[2 minute read]

www.ndph.ox.ac.uk

 

[kabbes]

No, why should ?

Because

When fish was added to a vegetarian diet, the risk reduction was even greater, 43%.

 

[editor]

Because

 

[WouldBe]

Lentils are packed with potassium and seeing as no one is suggesting that people should eat NOTHING BUT lentils, the rest of your argument is completely nonsensical.

11 foods that have more potassium than a banana

While bananas are certainly a potassium-packed snack, many foods contain more potassium than the popular yellow fruit.

www.insider.com

Amazing how these articles of yours are selective and don't give the whole picture.

As for nonsensical you haven't addressed the lack of other vitamins and minerals. So as I said you're in no position whatsoever to be giving dietary advice to anyone.

 

[WouldBe]

Lentils are packed with potassium and seeing as no one is suggesting that people should eat NOTHING BUT lentils, the rest of your argument is completely nonsensical.

Re-read #3007 where bcbuster says he eats it a lot. but nevermind eh.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This bit

• In men, compared with regular meat-eaters, the risk of colorectal cancer was lower in low meat-eaters (11% less), fish-eaters (31% less), and vegetarians (43%). However, there was no apparent difference in risk for women for any of these dietary groups.

raises certain alarm bells. It's a surprising result that could do with an explanation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not so simple, is it? You can instruct people to eat less red meat cos cancer, but when you're instructed to start eating fish cos cancer, you smack your face.

Mussels almost certainly don't have a nervous system that is capable of creating conscious experience. Maybe start with them? It's also possible to farm mussels in a sustainable way - in fact, mussel farms can have a net positive effect on the environment by reducing eutrophication of polluted seas, so it's win-win. A meal a week, say, for starters. Fridays, perhaps?

Thing is, you're sarcastic and aggressive on these threads. But you don't like it when people give it back.

 

[friedaweed]

So as I said you're in no position whatsoever to be giving dietary advice to anyone.

I was reading on this thread recently that the Mediterranean diet was terribly bad for the planet that it was likely to pack up next week so I cut out all those terrible Mediterranean staples like anchovies, cured meats, tomatoes, legumes, basil and olives because this person posts up a lot of factual and unbiased information on this thread. Then a couple of days ago I read in a national broadsheet that the Mediterranean diet is extremely affective at reducing the likelihood of dementia in men. Now obviously I can't remember which Dr Jazz-like dietitian impresario poster it was that made me give up my olive oil.

 

[friedaweed]

Not so simple, is it? You can instruct people to eat less red meat cos cancer, but when you're instructed to start eating fish cos cancer, you smack your face.

Mussels almost certainly don't have a nervous system that is capable of creating conscious experience. Maybe start with them? It's also possible to farm mussels in a sustainable way - in fact, mussel farms can have a net positive effect on the environment by reducing eutrophication of polluted seas, so it's win-win. A meal a week, say, for starters. Fridays, perhaps?

Thing is, you're sarcastic and aggressive on these threads. But you don't like it when people give it back.

Hardly engaging is it? Posting up a single negative emoji.

 

[Cat Fan]

No, why should I?

New study finds lower risks of cancer for vegetarians, pescatarians and low meat-eaters — Nuffield Department of Population Health

[2 minute read]

www.ndph.ox.ac.uk

That's fantastic. Imagine the billions the NHS could save if more people stopped (or severely reduced) meat consumption

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

a nervous system that is capable of creating conscious experience.

There's little more unscientific than this little phrase. So tell me how this works then? And where's the evidence - and I don't mean simple speculation.

 

[bcuster]

There's little more unscientific than this little phrase. So tell me how this works then? And where's the evidence - and I don't mean simple speculation.

Do Mussels Have Brains? Can Vegans Eat Mussels?

Do mussels have brains? I will answer this question in this article and see if they are considered a vegan.

vegancalm.com

They do have an uncentralized nervous system that allows them to react to their environment, but most scientists conclude that their brain/nervous system isn’t advanced enough to perceive pain in the traditional sense that other animals can.

I think LBJ's idea is a good one. I support the farming of shellfish like mussels, clams & oysters!

 

[editor]

Re-read #3007 where bcbuster says he eats it a lot. but nevermind eh.

No you fucking liar. He actually says, "lentils and barley are a great combination. i have them with a vegetable, with some bread, for lunch quite a bit."

So that's for one meal a day, 'quite a bit.'

Why can't you be truthful? What do you hope to gain by posting up such obvious - and easily checkable - distortions of the truth?

 

[WouldBe]

No you fucking liar. He actually says, "lentils and barley are a great combination. i have them with a vegetable, with some bread, for lunch quite a bit."

So that's for one meal a day, 'quite a bit.'

Why can't you be truthful? What do you hope to gain by posting up such obvious - and easily checkable - distortions of the truth?

FFS I wouldn't count once a day as 'quite a bit' I'd say that was regularly. But never fucking mind eh.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's little more unscientific than this little phrase. So tell me how this works then? And where's the evidence - and I don't mean simple speculation.

That's not a great way to respond to my post but I will give you a brief reply. It's a big subject.

Jeremy Bentham made a very good point when he posited that the important question when considering other animals is 'can it suffer'. In order to suffer, there needs to be something it is like to be you. There needs to be conscious experience. It is within conscious experience that suffering occurs. So what is conscious experience? It is a self-generated image, or set of images if you like, of yourself-in-the-world. It is reasonable to suppose that plants do not have conscious experience. They cannot experience suffering as there is no 'stage' on which that suffering can be played out. Of course they can respond to their environments in various complex ways, but they don't have conscious experience of that self-generated kind. It is also reasonable to suppose, by the same reasoning, that animals such as mussels cannot experience suffering because they do not generate conscious experience. The evidence for this is the organisation of their nervous systems. They do not experience suffering any more than your heart experiences suffering. A human heart has many times mores neurons than a mussel, organised into a semi-autonomous nervous system, but we don't suppose that our hearts have a sense of self and are able to suffer. It has no reason to. To do so would serve no purpose in terms of directing behaviour. Same thing with a mussel. It isn't conscious because it doesn't need to be conscious, any more than a heart or a plant needs to be conscious. The range of behaviours it needs to display does not demand it. Generating conscious experience takes a lot of energy. It doesn't evolve without good reason to evolve.

So the evidence is really very strong. And it's a scientific conclusion to say exactly what I said.

 

[Funky_monks]

As a point of information, the bowel cancer risk increases by 20% with high levels of red meat/processed meat consumption according to this study.

Taking the lifelong risk of bowel cancer to be about 0.05, that means an increase from 0.05 to 0.06.

A daily low dose of aspirin is associated with a decrease in bowel cancer by roughly the same amount, fwiw. The apparent protection against all cancers provided by aspirin is quite well established now.

For comparison, smoking is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by something in the order of 7,000%.

And this is the problem with using percentages.
Given that we are very comfortable mentally with base 10 by transforming data into %, humans tend to then suppose a level of significance without any statistical test of it having taken place.

 

[friedaweed]

No you fucking liar.

Is insulting people your coping mechanism?

Quite laughable really. The man needs to get a grip.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

That's not a great way to respond to my post but I will give you a brief reply. It's a big subject.

Jeremy Bentham made a very good point when he posited that the important question when considering other animals is 'can it suffer'. In order to suffer, there needs to be something it is like to be you. There needs to be conscious experience. It is within conscious experience that suffering occurs. So what is conscious experience? It is a self-generated image, or set of images if you like, of yourself-in-the-world. It is reasonable to suppose that plants do not have conscious experience. They cannot experience suffering as there is no 'stage' on which that suffering can be played out. Of course they can respond to their environments in various complex ways, but they don't have conscious experience of that self-generated kind. It is also reasonable to suppose, by the same reasoning, that animals such as mussels cannot experience suffering because they do not generate conscious experience. The evidence for this is the organisation of their nervous systems. They do not experience suffering any more than your heart experiences suffering. A human heart has many times mores neurons than a mussel, organised into a semi-autonomous nervous system, but we don't suppose that our hearts have a sense of self and are able to suffer. It has no reason to. To do so would serve no purpose in terms of directing behaviour. Same thing with a mussel. It isn't conscious because it doesn't need to be conscious, any more than a heart or a plant needs to be conscious. The range of behaviours it needs to display does not demand it. Generating conscious experience takes a lot of energy. It doesn't evolve without good reason to evolve.

So the evidence is really very strong. And it's a scientific conclusion to say exactly what I said.

I think there's a bit more uncertainty than this. See Snails and bivalves: a discussion of indicators of sentience — Animal Ethics

Two further considerations should make us cautious about proclaiming bivalves non-sentient. First there is still great uncertainty about the necessary neurophysiological correlates of consciousness. Not too long ago, for example, scientists were proclaiming that fish and even birds were not conscious because of their lack of a neocortex. That view is now rejected. We should be open to also being wrong now too. Second, when in doubt it is ethically preferable to adopt a precautionary principle rather than an incautious one. Treating sentient beings as if they are non-sentient leads to grave horrors. Descartes famously thought all nonhuman animals were unconscious and used this to justify horrific forms of vivisection. He and his fellow scientists mocked people who objected to their cruel experiments as sentimental and unscientific.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think there's a bit more uncertainty than this. See Snails and bivalves: a discussion of indicators of sentience — Animal Ethics

Two further considerations should make us cautious about proclaiming bivalves non-sentient. First there is still great uncertainty about the necessary neurophysiological correlates of consciousness. Not too long ago, for example, scientists were proclaiming that fish and even birds were not conscious because of their lack of a neocortex. That view is now rejected. We should be open to also being wrong now too. Second, when in doubt it is ethically preferable to adopt a precautionary principle rather than an incautious one. Treating sentient beings as if they are non-sentient leads to grave horrors. Descartes famously thought all nonhuman animals were unconscious and used this to justify horrific forms of vivisection. He and his fellow scientists mocked people who objected to their cruel experiments as sentimental and unscientific.

That article considers mussels alongside snails, but these are two quite separate cases, I would say. For example, this bit:

Mussels are able to alter their responses according to differing danger levels. When they face a perceived danger, such as the smell of a predator or some sudden variation in their environment, they close their shells, even if this makes it impossible for them to eat. Solitary mussels have been observed protecting themselves, and consequently refraining from eating, for longer than those who are in a communal tank. Thus, it seems as though grouped mussels sense a lower risk of harm. This indicates an ability to balance and trade off different needs and risks (such as threat of predators, significance of group size, and demand for food) against one another and adjust their behavior based on context.36 Reflexive responses, such as an automatic kick from a hammer blow at the knee in humans, can happen unconsciously but more nuanced responses to noxious stimuli may require consciousness. It is unclear if this behavior in mussels more closely resembles reflexive behavior or behavior that requires consciousness.

is most easily explained as non-conscious behaviour. A cue taken from the group, such as chemicals given off by individual mussels reaching a threshold level, alters the behaviour of individuals in the group. That doesn't necessarily require the taking of a conscious decision.

I'm not entirely convinced by the argument about the so-called 'hard' problem of consciousness. I think it's quite clear that many animals have minds - ie generate conscious experience - and not only that, it's also clear when they're conscious - ie when they're awake. We respond to various environmental cues in ways that are considerably more complex than this example of mussels in a group when we're under general anaesthetic, but we don't suffer because we're not conscious. There are still lots of unanswered questions as to how we create conscious experience, but it's not unknowable in a mysterious way as those who push the 'hard' problem seem to suppose. It involves the creation of perceptions, and that involves considerable coordination of neuronal firing. So to experience pain doesn't just involve having pain receptors that produce a reaction by the whole organism to move away from fire or whatever. It also requires the generation of conscious awareness within which the quale 'pain' is experienced.