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

[Aquamarine]

So was I.

From what I've read the relative resultant environmental change is not being debated.

 

[kabbes]

From what I've read the relative resultant environmental change is not being debated.

What a weird thing to say. Both because there is a tonne of debate and because you literally just admitted that you don’t know about the subject matter. What is it that you have read that claims all types of environmental damage can be collapsed into a single objective measurement? What is it that you have read that claims there is no compromise made by different strategies between different types of environmental damage? What is it that you’ve read?

 

[Aquamarine]

What a weird thing to say. Both because there is a tonne of debate and because you literally just admitted that you don’t know about the subject matter. What is it that you have read that claims all types of environmental damage can be collapsed into a single objective measurement? What is it that you have read that claims there is no compromise made by different strategies between different types of environmental damage? What is it that you’ve read?

I was referring to the effect from meat substitutes. There is a tonne of debate about what? I 'admitted' that I had not read this entire thread. It is you who is talking about collapsing all types of environmental damage into a single objective measurement.

 

[kabbes]

I was referring to the effect from meat substitutes. There is a tonne of debate about what? I 'admitted' that I had not read this entire thread. It is you who is talking about collapsing all types of environmental damage into a single objective measurement.

Try reading it again, but without assuming I’m talking about anything other than (a) the relative environmental impacts of (b) meat substitutes versus meat:

I can summarise the debate as: “environmental impact” is not just one thing. There are multiple dimensions to environmental impact, and sometimes you improve on one dimension by getting worse on another. There is no cosmic scale for combining those dimensions into a single objective measure. Furthermore, even measuring just one of those dimensions is fraught with difficulty, because in complex networked systems, you can’t just look at an input parameter and derive an analytical estimate of the output effect.

So no, it is not settled that meat substitutes have a lower “environmental impact” than meat. It’s not even settled how you properly measure just one of the elements of environmental impact, let alone combine them into a simple ranking.

 

[Aquamarine]

Try reading it again, but without assuming I’m talking about anything other than (a) the relative environmental impacts of (b) meat substitutes versus meat:


So no, it is not settled that meat substitutes have a lower “environmental impact” than meat. It’s not even settled how you properly measure just one of the elements of environmental impact, let alone combine them into a simple ranking.

So where are all those debates then ... about the relative impacts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Many of the assumptions behind attempts to separate out parts of an integrated system are naive. Going back to the Beyond Burger, they boast that there is no soya in it, presumably due to the bad press that soya has received, but they use canola oil as a main ingredient.

There are issues with the production methods of canola oil, which involve heat treatments that create unhealthy trans fats.
Plus, like soya oil production, the production of canola oil also produces canola meal, which is used as an animal feed, so you're still a part of a system that integrates animal and plant farming.
Plus, canola is generally grown as a monoculture, using genetically modified strains that are resistant to herbicides. This is exactly the kind of farming we need to be moving away from.

Compare that to a beef burger that has been made from pasture-fed cows and you will find many aspects of beef production that are superior to canola production - regarding such things as sustainability, soils and biodiversity, and also regarding how good for you the end product is.

If you're interested in the wider question 'how should we farm?', which is my favoured question, the answer isn't the farming practices involved in the production of heavily processed meat substitutes like Beyond Burger.

 

[kabbes]

So where are all those debates then ... about the relative impacts.

See that^^ as an excellent example

 

[Aquamarine]

See that^^ as an excellent example

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[kabbes]

What is that supposed to mean?

What do you think it means? I’m hardly being arch. It means that the post before mine provided an example of the exact thing you asked for.

 

[Funky_monks]

The environmental/nutritional impact of highly processed meat substitutes is what this entire, 127 page thread has been about (with the usual diversionary rabbit holes).

Read it, or don't - but I see little point in essentially going back to the beginning and having the same discussion all over again.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What is that supposed to mean?

That's an example of what you were asking for, dealing with just one of the main ingredients of one of the meat-free substitutes out there. There are other ingredients in the list to evaluate, and there are plenty of other meat-free products to look at. It's a big and complicated picture, but generally, highly processed food products rely on bad farming practices of one kind or another.

There are also issues to do with how artificially supplemented products such as these measure up next to products whose vitamins and minerals occur naturally. Lots of these issues are disputed, but the general consensus is that obtaining your macro and micro nutrients from unprocessed food where possible is probably better for your digestive system.

If you're interested, you could do the research yourself. It's not secret knowledge.

 

[Aquamarine]

What do you think it means? I’m hardly being arch. It means that the post before mine provided an example of the exact thing you asked for.

The contents of this thread do not constitute a tonne of debate. There isn't a tonne of debate about meat alternatives and their relative environmental impacts because the data is not available, not because of the limits of scientific enquiry.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The contents of this thread do not constitute a tonne of debate. There isn't a tonne of debate about meat alternatives and their relative environmental impacts because the data is not available, not because of the limits of scientific enquiry.

You've not read the thread yet you see fit to pronounce on the contents of the thread?

ok.

 

[kabbes]

Amazing. Almost like they aren’t actually posting in good faith.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes, it's not like I've posted up hundreds of peer reviewed scientific journal articles or anything like that.....

 

[bcuster]

 

[redsquirrel]

So where are all those debates then ... about the relative impacts.

I know this is a 127 page thread with a lot of crap in it, but it is a bit rich to arrive, declare you can't be bothered to read it and then insist what has been debated over those 127 pages is not a thing

 

[DaphneM]

I know this is a 127 page thread with a lot of crap in it, but it is a bit rich to arrive, declare you can't be bothered to read it and then insist what has been debated over those 127 pages is not a thing

he's kinda got a point tho

 

[Aquamarine]

I know this is a 127 page thread with a lot of crap in it, but it is a bit rich to arrive, declare you can't be bothered to read it and then insist what has been debated over those 127 pages is not a thing

I didn't exactly declare I can't be bothered to read the thread or suggest it is full of crap .... presumably debate on the thread is going to reflect what 's going on in the wider, slower moving circles - industry, academia - that was my point.

 

[kabbes]

I genuinely have no idea what your “point” is. You declare yourself unread on the debate and that you are ‘just asking questions’, in the parlance of our times. But then, when you start to get some answers, you declare that actually there is no debate and the issue is settled. But then you display complete ignorance of what the issue even is. The idea that in all that guff there is some kind of point is farcical.

 

[Aquamarine]

I genuinely have no idea what your “point” is. You declare yourself unread on the debate and that you are ‘just asking questions’, in the parlance of our times. But then, when you start to get some answers, you declare that actually there is no debate and the issue is settled. But then you display complete ignorance of what the issue even is. The idea that in all that guff there is some kind of point is farcical.

The point is there are data gaps to do with the environmental impacts of the alternatives-to-meat products. No, the issue is not settled at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Many of the main points to take away aren't related to meat/not-meat. They apply to all food choices.

Buy local if possible, buy seasonally if possible, buy from smaller producers if possible. Include plenty of fresh produce in your diet. Don't trust the claims made by big corporations regarding the quality and provenance of their processed products. In fact, starting from the assumption that the big corporations are bullshitting and the farming practices they promote are poor is probably the most effective strategy.

And set against that is a bit of realism. There are many constraints on people's food choices involving factors such as cost, time and motivation. And there are limits to what you can expect from individual consumer action. None of us is perfect, and we all live embedded within a wider society in which many things aren't done exactly to the standards we would like. I'd like all milk to be produced using the 'calf at foot' method, for instance. But realistically such products are not easily available to me and I'm going to buy milk, butter, cheese, etc, that isn't produced this way.

 

[bcuster]

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Call the police!

 

[bcuster]

 

[MrCurry]

Well I don’t know how much my opinion on that matters*, but i thought he started off pretty reasonably and the neighbours should have been more understanding. But he lost his way a bit, in the face of the sarcastic reception he was getting.

Would be a lot better if neighbours respected each other’s views.

*not much

 

[kabbes]

A cremation is when you completely burn a carcass. If you’ve cremated your meat, you’ve failed at barbecuing.

 

[bcuster]

Well I don’t know how much my opinion on that matters*, but i thought he started off pretty reasonably and the neighbours should have been more understanding. But he lost his way a bit, in the face of the sarcastic reception he was getting.

Would be a lot better if neighbours respected each other’s views.

*not much

I definitely agree with this

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well I don’t know how much my opinion on that matters*, but i thought he started off pretty reasonably and the neighbours should have been more understanding. But he lost his way a bit, in the face of the sarcastic reception he was getting.

Would be a lot better if neighbours respected each other’s views.

*not much

Like fuck he started reasonably.

His first words on the clip are 'we're vomiting'.

He continues: We don't like the smoke, the smell, the burning of the fossil fuel. We're trying to save the planet.

Self-righteous, self-important wanker.

 

[MrCurry]

Like fuck he started reasonably.

His first words on the clip are 'we're vomiting'.

He continues: We don't like the smoke, the smell, the burning of the fossil fuel. We're trying to save the planet.

Self-righteous, self-important wanker.

Have you heard of editing?