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

[editor]

It wasn't intended to address that specific post, as I suspect you know. But to address the overall proposition o fthis entire discussion: people should stop eating meat. Or do you think that isn't what this thread is about

No, stupid. This proposition is that people should eat less meat.

 

[Karl Masks]

No, stupid. This proposition is that people should eat less meat.

But you don't want that. You want people to eat no meat

 

[editor]

But you don't want that. You want people to eat no meat

You really are stupid. Here's what I said, literally yesterday:

People need to eat less meat and stop making excuses.

 

[Karl Masks]

You really are stupid. Here's what I said, literally yesterday:

But you aren't being honest. When yous ay less you clearly mean, at best, significantly less. I could eat 20g less meat a week, big woop. None of this addresses the point that people need to eat and if they remove significant amounts of one thing, it needs to be replaced in some form.

 

[editor]

But you aren't being honest. When yous ay less you clearly mean, at best, significantly less. I could eat 20g less meat a week, big woop. None of this addresses the point that people need to eat and if they remove significant amounts of one thing, it needs to be replaced in some form.

So you're claiming that it's physically impossible for tens of millions of people to eat less meat in their diet? Why is that, exactly?

 

[Pickman's model]

But you aren't being honest. When yous ay less you clearly mean, at best, significantly less. I could eat 20g less meat a week, big woop. None of this addresses the point that people need to eat and if they remove significant amounts of one thing, it needs to be replaced in some form.

You must have fallen down the stupid tree and whacked your head on every branch.

 

[CNT36]

But you aren't being honest. When yous ay less you clearly mean, at best, significantly less. I could eat 20g less meat a week, big woop. None of this addresses the point that people need to eat and if they remove significant amounts of one thing, it needs to be replaced in some form.

Really struggling to find a point to address tbh other than the hint of one discussed to death on the boards.

 

[Karl Masks]

Really struggling to find a point to address tbh other than the hint of one discussed to death on the boards.

No you aren't.

 

[Karl Masks]

So you're claiming that it's physically impossible for tens of millions of people to eat less meat in their diet? Why is that, exactly?

Not even remotely. I have said that for some people cannot go vegan. The idea that you want people to eat less is a straw man. Eating 2g less fulfills that criteria, won't make a jot of difference. You are opposed to animal agriculture entirely so clearly you want to see people eat much more than 'less'. What is your ideal amount less that peolpe should eat? Number?

 

[CNT36]

No you aren't.

I am. Unless you just want the answer people can eat other things.

 

[CNT36]

Oh are you making a pedantic point about the word less?

 

[editor]

Not even remotely. I have said that for some people cannot go vegan. The idea that you want people to eat less is a straw man. Eating 2g less fulfills that criteria, won't make a jot of difference. You are opposed to animal agriculture entirely so clearly you want to see people eat much more than 'less'. What is your ideal amount less that peolpe should eat? Number?

If people only eat 2kg less meat per week, then that is a start. Even better if heavy meat eaters give up more.
But it's not me saying it's a good thing if people eat less meat: it's the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion.

So now that I've answered your question, can you give me a number of the people who you claim are unable to eat less meat or at least adopt a part-vegan diet? And back that up with some research? Thanks.

 

[Karl Masks]

If people only eat 2kg less meat per week, then that is a start. Even better if heavy meat eaters give up more.
But it's not me saying it's a good thing if people eat less meat: it's the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion.

So now that I've answered your question, can you give me a number of the people who you claim are unable to eat less meat or at least adopt a part-vegan diet? And back that up with some research? Thanks.

Why would you think I have a number beyond n=1? I have no idea how many other people are in the same position as me.

Also what do you mean by a start? What are the benefits attached to that figure of 2kg?

 

[bcuster]

Funny response to a report showing that our economies are rigged in favour of the meat industry, if anything, it’s meat eaters, via their institutional power, who are shoving their believes down vegans’ throats! We are forced to fund - through our taxes - pigs being gassed, baby chicks being ground up alive and the sexual reproductive slavery of dairy cows because of you lot.

Also, research suggests that one of the barriers to people going vegan and maintaining vegan diets is social stigma and social pressure from family, friends and colleagues;

Veganism, Stigma, And You - Faunalytics

Going vegan carries social stigma that can make it an uncomfortable process. In this blog, we explore social pressures related to being vegan, and how they overlap with other forms of stigmatization.

faunalytics.org

Perhaps you have data showing vegans exercising their social and economic power to strong-arm unwilling meat consumers into being vegan? I wait with baited breath.

As for your ‘practical and possible’ point, well that’s literally baked into the official vegan society definition of veganism:

“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose”

So yes, veganism is for everyone. There are some people for whom a fully plant-based diet isn’t possible - Inuit communities for example. There are others for whom it isn’t practicable, people struggling to feed themselves and their families at all can’t afford to restrict where they get their calories from. The reason most people in the UK aren’t vegan though is either because they don’t want to be or because they lack a basic grasp of nutrition.

This Wins best post in thread, IMO...

 

[bcuster]

././ This proposition is that people should eat less meat.

YES!

 

[CNT36]

Why would you think I have a number beyond n=1? I have no idea how many other people are in the same position as me.

Also what do you mean by a start? What are the benefits attached to that figure of 2kg?

A few I imagine. I don't think anyone would want to see you or them starve.

 

[WouldBe]

If people only eat 2kg less meat per week, then that is a start.

Who the hell eats over 2Kg of meat to cut down by that much? That's just under 12 ounces a day.

 

[Karl Masks]

A few I imagine. I don't think anyone would want to see you or them starve.

so animal agriculture in some form would persist. Vegans don't want that. The especially strident ones actively shut places down and have nothing to offer the workers left unemployed. Just look at the social media of a guy called Joey Carbstrong

 

[editor]

so animal agriculture in some form would persist. Vegans don't want that. The especially strident ones actively shut places down and have nothing to offer the workers left unemployed. Just look at the social media of a guy called Joey Carbstrong

Strange how you seem to think 'the vegans' are some sort of monothought clique who all want exactly the same thing, isn't it?

 

[CNT36]

so animal agriculture in some form would persist. Vegans don't want that. The especially strident ones actively shut places down and have nothing to offer the workers left unemployed. Just look at the social media of a guy called Joey Carbstrong

Rather not thanks.
Editor is not a vegan mind.
I'm not sure conflating shutting one place down by I guess some sort of direct action with a society wide reduction in animal agriculture and meat consumption is particularly helpful.

 

[Karl Masks]

Strange how you seem to think 'the vegans' are some sort of monothought clique who all want exactly the same thing, isn't it?

I don't

 

[Funky_monks]

Ironically, if that is the same study I'm thinking of, most of the emissions it discusses are in the supply chain and not in meat production at farm level.

I think, at a guess, 100% of the meat eaters on here would be for shortening meat supply chains, more local abattoirs, less control by the massive meat processors and more ruminant meat vs monogastric meat (slashing the cereal supply chain) etc.

From the actual study quoted in the Guardian:
"Most of the financial support afforded to EU farmers was delivered as decoupled payments (i.e., independent from the type of product and level of output). Conversely, most of the payments granted to US producers were conditional on the type (i.e., livestock or specific crops) or quantity (i.e., number of head of livestock) of farm output. The EU’s annual financial support to the INC system was 2.7 times greater than the US expenditures as share of GDP (Table 2), representing 52% and 11% of the projected annual budget for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the EU and Farm Bill in the US, respectively"

So, even the paper states this is not the case re: agriculture in the EU. All you have to do is read beyond the title. Most of it focuses in on research and innovation grants product development etc etc, things that are not paid to farmers (producers) but manufacturers.

As for the 8 million cars one - I believe thats a) Poore and Nemecek 2018 based (again) and b) perfectly highlights the ridiculousness of the argument: Why not take 8 million cars off the road instead?
That headline could have come straight from a fossil fuel company marketing department. "You can keep up massively overconsuming, just eat less meat and it'll all be fine yeah? - Avocado?"

 

[Funky_monks]

Meanwhile: G20 countries gave record $1.4tn to support fossil fuels in 2022: report - Carbon Brief

 

[Aquamarine]

Why would you think I have a number beyond n=1? I have no idea how many other people are in the same position as me.

Well, who could such people be, facing the same barriers?

A few I imagine. I don't think anyone would want to see you or them starve.

I may be more sympathetic for the animals unable to escape the heat.

 

[butcher]

Ironically, if that is the same study I'm thinking of, most of the emissions it discusses are in the supply chain and not in meat production at farm level.

I think, at a guess, 100% of the meat eaters on here would be for shortening meat supply chains, more local abattoirs, less control by the massive meat processors and more ruminant meat vs monogastric meat (slashing the cereal supply chain) etc.

From the actual study quoted in the Guardian:
"Most of the financial support afforded to EU farmers was delivered as decoupled payments (i.e., independent from the type of product and level of output). Conversely, most of the payments granted to US producers were conditional on the type (i.e., livestock or specific crops) or quantity (i.e., number of head of livestock) of farm output. The EU’s annual financial support to the INC system was 2.7 times greater than the US expenditures as share of GDP (Table 2), representing 52% and 11% of the projected annual budget for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the EU and Farm Bill in the US, respectively"

So, even the paper states this is not the case re: agriculture in the EU. All you have to do is read beyond the title. Most of it focuses in on research and innovation grants product development etc etc, things that are not paid to farmers (producers) but manufacturers.

As for the 8 million cars one - I believe thats a) Poore and Nemecek 2018 based (again) and b) perfectly highlights the ridiculousness of the argument: Why not take 8 million cars off the road instead?
That headline could have come straight from a fossil fuel company marketing department. "You can keep up massively overconsuming, just eat less meat and it'll all be fine yeah? - Avocado?"

As usual FM brings a note of balance to the multiple Gruaniad quotes spammed into the discussion.

 

[Karl Masks]

Well, who could such people be, facing the same barriers?

I'm sure there are others like me that just struggle with higher carb food, and higher carb food is going to be vegetable and fruit. Not meat. I'm not persinally wedded to meat. Though I have no moral issue with eating meat per se (capitalist agriculture is another matter), I have no time for the idea that we should define masculinity or self worth through eating meat

 

[editor]

Just putting this here

Eating a vegan diet massively reduces the damage to the environment caused by food production, the most comprehensive analysis to date has concluded.

The research showed that vegan diets resulted in 75% less climate-heating emissions, water pollution and land use than diets in which more than 100g of meat a day was eaten. Vegan diets also cut the destruction of wildlife by 66% and water use by 54%, the study found.

The heavy impact of meat and dairy on the planet is well known, and people in rich nations will have to slash their meat consumption in order to end the climate crisis. But previous studies have used model diets and average values for the impact of each food type.

In contrast, the new study analysed the real diets of 55,000 people in the UK. It also used data from 38,000 farms in 119 countries to account for differences in the impact of particular foods that are produced in different ways and places. This significantly strengthens confidence in the conclusions.

However, it turned out that what was eaten was far more important in terms of environmental impacts than where and how it was produced. Previous research has shown that even the lowest-impact meat – organic pork – is responsible for eight times more climate damage than the highest-impact plant, oilseed.

And here's what the scientists think (rather than self interested denialists and shills for the meat industry):

Prof Peter Scarborough at Oxford University, who led the research, published in the journal Nature Food, said: “Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet. Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.”

The global food system has a huge impact on the planet, emitting a third of the total greenhouse gas emissions driving global heating. It also uses 70% of the world’s freshwater and causes 80% of river and lake pollution. About 75% of the Earth’s land is used by humans, largely for farming, and the destruction of forests is the major cause of the huge losses in biodiversity.

Prof Neil Ward at the University of East Anglia said: “This is a significant set of findings. It scientifically reinforces the point made by the Climate Change Committee and the National Food Strategy over recent years that dietary shifts away from animal-based foods can make a major contribution to reducing the UK’s environmental footprint.”

Prof Richard Tiffin at the University of Reading said: “This study represents the most comprehensive attempt to link food consumption data to the data on the environmental impacts of food production.

“Encouraging high-meat-eaters to reduce meat consumption and encouraging vegetarians to become vegans should result in lower emissions,” he said. “However, it’s hard to justify changes to the diets of moderate omnivores on the basis of these results, other than to switch to a completely vegan diet.”

Vegan diet massively cuts environmental damage, study shows

Detailed analysis finds plant diets lead to 75% less climate-heating emissions, water pollution and land use than meat-rich ones

www.theguardian.com

And here's the study: Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts - Nature Food

And its conclusion:

There is a strong relationship between the amount of animal-based foods in a diet and its environmental impact, including GHG emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication and biodiversity. Dietary shifts away from animal-based foods can make a substantial contribution to reduction of the UK environmental footprint. Uncertainty due to region of origin and methods of food production do not obscure these differences between diet groups and should not be a barrier to policy action aimed at reducing animal-based food consumption.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

From the actual study quoted in the Guardian:
"Most of the financial support afforded to EU farmers was delivered as decoupled payments (i.e., independent from the type of product and level of output). Conversely, most of the payments granted to US producers were conditional on the type (i.e., livestock or specific crops) or quantity (i.e., number of head of livestock) of farm output. The EU’s annual financial support to the INC system was 2.7 times greater than the US expenditures as share of GDP (Table 2), representing 52% and 11% of the projected annual budget for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the EU and Farm Bill in the US, respectively"

So, even the paper states this is not the case re: agriculture in the EU. All you have to do is read beyond the title. Most of it focuses in on research and innovation grants product development etc etc, things that are not paid to farmers (producers) but manufacturers.

The EU Common Agricultural Policy awards subsidies on the basis of the size of farms in hectares. Given that over 71% of EU agricultural land is used for animal agricultural, the lion-share of EU subsidies go to meat and dairy farmers. The EU has also spent 10s of millions of Euros on promoting meat consumption. One of these was the embarrassing 'become a pork lover' campaign where a faux-cute pink bus rode around the UK encouraging people to fund more pigs getting gassed and tortured. This is the bus in Bristol:



The EU is not quite as blatantly in the pocket of animal agriculture as the US is, but it still is. That study understates its conclusion when it says 'both the EU and US governments are slow to act decisively to mitigate the environmentally damaging role played by the dominant animal production systems'. Both the US and EU prop up those systems.

 

[butcher]

The EU Common Agricultural Policy awards subsidies on the basis of the size of farms in hectares. Given that over 71% of EU agricultural land is used for animal agricultural, the lion-share of EU subsidies go to meat and dairy farmers. The EU has also spent 10s of millions of Euros on promoting meat consumption. One of these was the embarrassing 'become a pork lover' campaign where a faux-cute pink bus rode around the UK encouraging people to fund more pigs getting gassed and tortured. This is the bus in Bristol:



The EU is not quite as blatantly in the pocket of animal agriculture as the US is, but it still is. That study understates its conclusion when it says 'both the EU and US governments are slow to act decisively to mitigate the environmentally damaging role played by the dominant animal production systems'. Both the US and EU prop up those systems.

You must be pleased we brexited out of the EU then!

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You must be pleased we brexited out of the EU then!

Not really, but the EU was and is awful of many ways. Both the Common Agricultural Policy and the Free Movement of Goods are a disaster for animals and the environment.