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

[redsquirrel]

IT's a shame then that you vegans do fuck all to help people move away from meat, instead of hectoring and trying to shame people. You constantly ignore the fact that for some a vegan diet isn't possible or practical.

Seriously. This is coming from you.

You have just started posting again after behaving appallingly (and with no sign of apology) by going on a stupid rant trying to shame people into voting for Labour.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Karl Masks is incoherent on these threads. In the space of about 3 posts he's demanded vegans do more to help people move away from meat and then he said he can't move away from meat and then he said he has no problem with meat anyway. It's unclear what point he thinks he's trying to make. Still, hardly surprising his thinking is so fuzzy given he's on the Keto diet: "The brain needs sugar from healthy carbohydrates to function. Low-carb diets may cause confusion and irritability." Should you try the keto diet? - Harvard Health

 

[Funky_monks]

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:

View attachment 388595

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.

So, as you state, nothing whatsoever to do with crops grown and everything to do with area farmed. So, if I was to plough my pasture and drill winter wheat, I'd receive exactly the same. as has been stated numerous times on this thread: the big recipients of SFP were arable (combinable crops) and extensive beef and sheep.

A massive broiler unit would receive no SFP worth claiming, see also: indoor pigs. The fact that most land is unsuitable for combinable crops is what dictates the fact that the proportion of land down to grass is what it is (with some leeway on grade 3 land probably).

The fact that you imagine that it's some giant, nebulous "meat industry" that's responsible is laughable, or would be if you'd ever tried to grow crops.

Be interesting to know where the money came from for the pork campaign, its usually the kind of thing the AHDB (not sure what the European equivalents are) do. The AHDB is a body funded by extracting compulsory levies from farmers, usually at point of sale.

 

[Funky_monks]

This Wins best post in thread, IMO...

What, for the sheer level of fantasy in it?

 

[Funky_monks]

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

Well, given that the subsidies they are phasing in (ELMS) is for environmental schemes only, I'm sure the vegans are all behind it. Isn't the Tory Government wonderful?

 

[bcuster]

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:

View attachment 388595

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.

grotesque

 

[iona]

grotesque

So we're still doing irrelevant aaw cute animals posts then?

Some poor suffering animals, recently.

 

[bcuster]

So we're still doing irrelevant aaw cute animals posts then?

Some poor suffering animals, recently.
View attachment 388683
View attachment 388684

They look happy

 

[editor]

So we're still doing irrelevant aaw cute animals posts then?

Some poor suffering animals, recently.
View attachment 388683
View attachment 388684

How are images of the animals that are being slaughtered for food irrelevant in a thread about meat?

 

[iona]

They look happy

They are.

How are images of the animals that are being slaughtered for food irrelevant in a thread about meat?

It's a thread in the climate change forum about the environmental impacts of current methods of farming and possible alternatives. If people want to discuss the ethics of eating meat and do the how can you eat them it's so cruel look how cute they are thing then maybe it should be a separate thread instead of this one constantly being dragged off topic?

 

[editor]

They are.


It's a thread in the climate change forum about the environmental impacts of current methods of farming and possible alternatives. If people want to discuss the ethics of eating meat and do the how can you eat them it's so cruel look how cute they are thing then maybe it should be a separate thread instead of this one constantly being dragged off topic?

But the ethics of eating meat in a climate crisis is the very essence of this discussion. And that includes people's attitude towards the mass slaughter of creatures, some of which are indeed, rather cute.

And cruelty is at the very heart of the meat industry.

 

[iona]

But the ethics of eating meat in a climate crisis is the very essence of this discussion. And that includes people's attitude towards the mass slaughter of creatures, some of which are indeed, rather cute.

And cruelty is at the very heart of the meat industry.

How can there be room for a discussion about the ethics of eating meat farmed in specific ways, in the context of climate change, if your starting point is that eating meat is never ever ethical full stop? I fully respect the fact that some people hold that view and I'm not going to try to persuade them to change their minds, but if there's no room for debate outside of "meat is murder" then what's even the point of this thread?

And the poster I replied to isn't even contributing to the discussion, they just keep posting random tweets with little or often no comment of their own.

 

[editor]

How can there be room for a discussion about the ethics of eating meat farmed in specific ways, in the context of climate change, if your starting point is that eating meat is never ever ethical full stop? I fully respect the fact that some people hold that view and I'm not going to try to persuade them to change their minds, but if there's no room for debate outside of "meat is murder" then what's even the point of this thread?

And the poster I replied to isn't even contributing to the discussion, they just keep posting random tweets with little or often no comment of their own.

Perhaps you've missed it, but the main thrust is about how do you persuade people to eat less meat.
Judging by some of the responses on this thread and elsewhere, that's a very tough nut to crack.

 

[iona]

Perhaps you've missed it, but the main thrust is about how do you persuade people to eat less meat.
Judging by some of the responses on this thread and elsewhere, that's a very tough nut to crack.

Personally I think discussing the environmental impacts of different types of farming in different contexts and possible alternatives is likely to be more effective than just repeatedly telling people who don't think eating meat is always unethical, no matter what, that they're wrong

 

[bcuster]

The editor & JR are doing an excellent job in posting scientific documentation regarding the impact of animal consumption on the environment. We are approaching the subject of "eating less meat" in a different way.

My take is that animal consumption involves undue cruelty and is, in fact, a violation of the covenant entered into with these sentient creatures eons ago when we invited them into the human family.

 

[editor]

Personally I think discussing the environmental impacts of different types of farming in different contexts and possible alternatives is likely to be more effective than just repeatedly telling people who don't think eating meat is always unethical, no matter what, that they're wrong

But that's not what has been happening here, is it?

I've certainly not being going on and on about 'cute' animals although I think it's absolutely part of a discussion about the ethics of meat eating, and if publicising the connection between that tasty chunk of meat and the animal it came from helps reduce overall meat consumption, I'd take that as a win. Wouldn't you?

 

[butcher]

Perhaps you've missed it, but the main thrust is about how do you persuade people to eat less meat.
Judging by some of the responses on this thread and elsewhere, that's a very tough nut to crack.

Could be your idiosyncratic powers of persuasion.....

 

[Funky_monks]

The editor & JR are doing an excellent job in posting scientific documentation regarding the impact of animal consumption on the environment. We are approaching the subject of "eating less meat" in a different way.

My take is that animal consumption involves undue cruelty and is, in fact, a violation of the covenant entered into with these sentient creatures eons ago when we invited them into the human family.

If you think that, you don't know what scientific documentation is.
The Guardian newspaper is not a scientific journal, as much as you might like it to be.

We entered in to that "covenant" with the sole purpose of eating the animals. Its literally the premise on which it was founded.

Meanwhile, in the beautiful natural world where the creatures live in harmony...
Dolphin spotters shaken by Ceredigion porpoise killing

 

[iona]

But that's not what has been happening here, is it?

I've certainly not being going on and on about 'cute' animals although I think it's absolutely part of a discussion about the ethics of meat eating, and if publicising the connection between that tasty chunk of meat and the animal it came from helps reduce overall meat consumption, I'd take that as a win. Wouldn't you?

That's literally what bcuster has been doing. Content free posts that are just a tweet along the lines of "don't eat animals coz they're cute".

I think people should be more aware of and connected to how their food is produced in general, meat included. Reducing overall meat consumption is something I'd see as more or less of a positive thing depending on where that reduction was coming from and what was replacing it. Swapping feedlot beef and turkey twizzlers for, say, homemade falafel would be an improvement but I don't believe getting rid of the hens and replacing that protein and fat in my diet with ultra-processed vegan foods with fifty unpronounceable ingredients or Californian almonds that are causing droughts and killing bees would be a win for either me or the planet, no matter how many times you post articles referencing that Poore and Nemecek study. Obviously those are two quite extreme examples but there's a lot of grey area and nuance in between that it would be nice to be able to actually discuss without it being shut down with black & white Meat Bad, Plants Good.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How should we farm? It's a huge, multilayered question. The answer varies by location but there are a few general principles. Monocultures are bad. Localism is good. Big producers are a problem.

Monbiot has an answer to that question: we should farm as little land as possible as intensively as possible, using as much tech as possible, and get out of ('rewild') everywhere else.

Among other things I think his answer is politically naive. It is also at root antihuman. It says that we can't live 'with nature' and need to stop even trying. Such a misguided, imo philosophically wrongheaded, attitude is full of dangers.

There are lots of other ideas to bring to the table. Extensive farming that promotes biodiversity and doesn't seek to totally dominate the land, for example, plus forms of intensive farming such as intercropping, that are labour-intensive but produce high yields without degrading soils or involving fossil fuels. A mix of new and old knowledge. We discard accumulated knowledge from 10,000 plus years of farming at our peril.

Real world solutions will be heterogeneous and require bottom-up empowerment of people. Most of the noise about global warming in this context is irrelevant. It misses the point about what needs to change and why. To stop global warming, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. That is an adjacent but distinct question.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

So, as you state, nothing whatsoever to do with crops grown and everything to do with area farmed. So, if I was to plough my pasture and drill winter wheat, I'd receive exactly the same. as has been stated numerous times on this thread: the big recipients of SFP were arable (combinable crops) and extensive beef and sheep.

A massive broiler unit would receive no SFP worth claiming, see also: indoor pigs. The fact that most land is unsuitable for combinable crops is what dictates the fact that the proportion of land down to grass is what it is (with some leeway on grade 3 land probably).

The fact that you imagine that it's some giant, nebulous "meat industry" that's responsible is laughable, or would be if you'd ever tried to grow crops.

Be interesting to know where the money came from for the pork campaign, its usually the kind of thing the AHDB (not sure what the European equivalents are) do. The AHDB is a body funded by extracting compulsory levies from farmers, usually at point of sale.

Greenpeace have crunched the numbers. They estimate that 'between 69% (€ 28.5 billion) and 79% (€ 32.6 billion) of the CAP direct payments is directed to producers of fodder for animals, or goes directly to livestock producers as coupled support.'

There are two forms of subsidies under the CAP: around 13% of the budget is called 'voluntary coupled support' - these are direct payments to support specific production sectors. 73% of this budget goes to the farmed animal exploitation sector.

The remaining budget is calculated on hectarage. Given that approximately 71% of EU agricultural land is used for growing feed for animals exploited for farming, then the lion share of this budget goes to subsidising fodder for the farmed animal exploitation sector. The massive "broiler" unit and intensive pig farm owners do benefit massively from the EU regime - both through direct payments AND by getting their capital inputs highly subsidised. And the aforementioned funded advertising campaigns AND being exempted from effective regulation.

Unless you're completely blinkered you'd have to recognise that this is a totally wasteful, inefficient, environmentally harmful and deeply inhumane and cruel system of subsidies.

To be fair there is potential for a much better system of subsidies under the UK Agriculture Act 2020, which permits the Government to award subsidies on the basis of various social objectives rather than something as blunt as mere farm size. Of course, this doesn't mean in practice it will be any different to the EU regime, because the government has wide discretion in how it allocates those subsidies.

 

[Funky_monks]

Greenpeace have crunched the numbers. They estimate that 'between 69% (€ 28.5 billion) and 79% (€ 32.6 billion) of the CAP direct payments is directed to producers of fodder for animals, or goes directly to livestock producers as coupled support.'

There are two forms of subsidies under the CAP: around 13% of the budget is called 'voluntary coupled support' - these are direct payments to support specific production sectors. 73% of this budget goes to the farmed animal exploitation sector.

The remaining budget is calculated on hectarage. Given that approximately 71% of EU agricultural land is used for growing feed for animals exploited for farming, then the lion share of this budget goes to subsidising fodder for the farmed animal exploitation sector. The massive "broiler" unit and intensive pig farm owners do benefit massively from the EU regime - both through direct payments AND by getting their capital inputs highly subsidised. And the aforementioned funded advertising campaigns AND being exempted from effective regulation.

Unless you're completely blinkered you'd have to recognise that this is a totally wasteful, inefficient, environmentally harmful and deeply inhumane and cruel system of subsidies.

To be fair there is potential for a much better system of subsidies under the UK Agriculture Act 2020, which permits the Government to award subsidies on the basis of various social objectives rather than something as blunt as mere farm size. Of course, this doesn't mean in practice it will be any different to the EU regime, because the government has wide discretion in how it allocates those subsidies.

Pretty much all arable farms produce fodder for animals:
Straw
OSR Cake (oilseed post pressing)
Spent malt
Pea silage
Apple pulp

etc etc

It's nigh on impossible to grow a plant crop that doesn't have a part we can't eat that is fed to livestock. They are, therefore, all "producers of fodder for livestock"
It's therefore efficient to feed it to them.
Amazing after reading this entire thread people still don't know how farming works.
Decoupled subs are just that - decoupled, not somehow "targeted at livestock farms" no matter how hard you reach for that outcome.
The capital grants (which ate the much smaller amount of which you speak) are available for lots of things, in the livestock world, usually higher welfare kit, like better sheep/cattle handling systems etc.

 

[butcher]

Pretty much all arable farms produce fodder for animals:
Straw
OSR Cake (oilseed post pressing)
Spent malt
Pea silage
Apple pulp

etc etc

It's nigh on impossible to grow a plant crop that doesn't have a part we can't eat that is fed to livestock. They are, therefore, all "producers of fodder for livestock"
It's therefore efficient to feed it to them.
Amazing after reading this entire thread people still don't know how farming works.
Decoupled subs are just that - decoupled, not somehow "targeted at livestock farms" no matter how hard you reach for that outcome.
The capital grants (which ate the much smaller amount of which you speak) are available for lots of things, in the livestock world, usually higher welfare kit, like better sheep/cattle handling systems etc

The answers in the name Urban75, half of they be townies mush

 

[Karl Masks]

But that's not what has been happening here, is it?

I've certainly not being going on and on about 'cute' animals although I think it's absolutely part of a discussion about the ethics of meat eating, and if publicising the connection between that tasty chunk of meat and the animal it came from helps reduce overall meat consumption, I'd take that as a win. Wouldn't you?

You want to discuss ethics as well as the environmental impact?

 

[CNT36]

You want to discuss ethics as well as the environmental impact?

It's been part of the thread from the first post tbf.

 

[bcuster]

You want to discuss ethics as well as the environmental impact?

Yes

 

[Funky_monks]

The answers in the name Urban75, half of they be townies mush

Yeah, but its not like I haven't explained that particular concept umpteen times.

 

[kabbes]

Colour me shocked. There is increasing that these meat-free meats are bad for you. In short, they are what are now being called “ultra-processed foods”, as per this BBC article:

Interestingly, when we think about ultra-processed foods, we tend to think about burgers and hotdogs. “But ultra-processed vegetarian or vegan foods, faux-meat burgers, they almost have an aura, a halo of health around them,” says the obesity expert. “They’re ultra-processed foods with very good PR.”

And lo and behold, it turns out that ultra-processing is excessively bad for human health:

Stark new research adds to a growing body of evidence that experts say exposes a “tidal wave of harm” being caused directly by UPF. Two large studies presented at the world’s largest heart conference showed the devastating impact UPF is having on cardiovascular health.

Basically, artificially constituting foods creates molecules that the body doesn’t readily recognise as food, and its various reactions to that are really very harmful.

So meat-free meats are not the solution to anything but the question “can we manage to design yet another thing that’s going to kill us quicker?” Stick with whole foods and foods that contain normal levels of processing, whether that be vegetables, fungi, grains or, yes, meat.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Colour me shocked. There is increasing that these meat-free meats are bad for you. In short, they are what are now being called “ultra-processed foods”, as per this BBC article:


And lo and behold, it turns out that ultra-processing is excessively bad for human health:

Basically, artificially constituting foods creates molecules that the body doesn’t readily recognise as food, and its various reactions to that are really very harmful.

So meat-free meats are not the solution to anything but the question “can we manage to design yet another thing that’s going to kill us quicker?” Stick with whole foods and foods that contain normal levels of processing, whether that be vegetables, fungi, grains or, yes, meat.

Not all vegan meats are 'ultra-processed'. At any rate, there's a lot of hysteria around ultra-processed foods. If you eat Impossible Burgers every day, that's an unhealthy diet. If you eat beef or lamb for every day, you'll also be unhealthy. If you eat either beef once a week or an impossible burger once a week you'll be absolutely fine provided you have an otherwise healthy diet. The tie-breaker is just which choice is more ethical and given that I believe the meat industry is just mass murder (usually preceded by mass torture), the answer is clear cut for me.

 

[stavros]

Colour me shocked. There is increasing that these meat-free meats are bad for you. In short, they are what are now being called “ultra-processed foods”, as per this BBC article:


And lo and behold, it turns out that ultra-processing is excessively bad for human health:

Basically, artificially constituting foods creates molecules that the body doesn’t readily recognise as food, and its various reactions to that are really very harmful.

So meat-free meats are not the solution to anything but the question “can we manage to design yet another thing that’s going to kill us quicker?” Stick with whole foods and foods that contain normal levels of processing, whether that be vegetables, fungi, grains or, yes, meat.

There are two issues here, aren't there? Firstly is fake meat better for the environment than the real stuff? And secondly may it have some negative effects on personal health. Both are worth discussing, but I don't see them as competing.