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

[Jeff Robinson]

Ireland:

A tweet advocating consumers cut back on red meat consumption has been deleted by the Environmental Protection Agency following objections from the Irish Farmers' Association.

The tweet posted yesterday by the EPA's X account, formerly Twitter, urged consumers to "try veggie recipes" and "reduce your red meat consumption slowly: veggie lunches, Meat Free Mondays etc".

The tweet also pointed out that 10% of meat bought is thrown out.

Following a complaint from the IFA, the EPA responded to the farming organisation saying it was its intention to share helpful advice, not to cause anger but it acknowledged it may have been perceived differently.

EPA deletes 'eat less meat' tweet following IFA protest

A tweet advocating consumers cut back on red meat consumption has been deleted by the Environmental Protection Agency following objections from the Irish Farmers' Association.

www.rte.ie

 

[bcuster]

Ireland:

A tweet advocating consumers cut back on red meat consumption has been deleted by the Environmental Protection Agency following objections from the Irish Farmers' Association.

The tweet posted yesterday by the EPA's X account, formerly Twitter, urged consumers to "try veggie recipes" and "reduce your red meat consumption slowly: veggie lunches, Meat Free Mondays etc".

The tweet also pointed out that 10% of meat bought is thrown out.

Following a complaint from the IFA, the EPA responded to the farming organisation saying it was its intention to share helpful advice, not to cause anger but it acknowledged it may have been perceived differently.

View attachment 389380

EPA deletes 'eat less meat' tweet following IFA protest

A tweet advocating consumers cut back on red meat consumption has been deleted by the Environmental Protection Agency following objections from the Irish Farmers' Association.

www.rte.ie

what cowards

 

[editor]

what cowards

The meat industry are acting just like the tobacco industry. Their profits come first and everyone else - and everything else - comes a long distant second.

 

[bcuster]

The Irish government's retraction of a completely benign,. throw away (as well as 100% true) statement like "eat less meat" based on pressure from a private lobbying group is despicable.

And I thought things were bad here in the US.... sad

 

[Jeff Robinson]

More than 650 850 academics have called on British universities to commit to 100% plant-based catering to fight the climate crisis:

Hundreds of academics call for 100% plant-based meals at UK universities

Open letter backs student-led campaign for vegan catering to fight climate crisis

www.theguardian.com

 

[editor]

A little bit of information for posters who go on and on and on about how vegan diets are somehow all stuffed full of ultra-processed foods. The reality is that there's plenty to be found in meat diets too, and are equally avoidable.

Ultra-processed foods: the 19 things everyone needs to know

They make up 57% of the UK diet – and the risks are becoming ever more evident. Here is how to recognise UPFs and find healthier alternatives

www.theguardian.com

 

[bcuster]

A little bit of information for posters who have go on and on and on about how vegan diets are somehow all stuffed full of ultra-processed foods. The reality is that there's plenty to be found in meat diets too, and are equally avoidable.

Ultra-processed foods: the 19 things everyone needs to know

They make up 57% of the UK diet – and the risks are becoming ever more evident. Here is how to recognise UPFs and find healthier alternatives

www.theguardian.com

What foods are definitely not UPF?​

In the Nova food classification system, devised by Monteiro, category one is “unprocessed or minimally processed food”. This includes fresh, frozen and dried fruit and vegetables; milk and plain yoghurt; fresh meat and fish; grains and legumes; fungi; eggs; flour; nuts and seeds; herbs and spices; pasta and couscous.


Sounds like a healthy, filling & well balanced diet to me!

 

[Hollis]

A little bit of information for posters who go on and on and on about how vegan diets are somehow all stuffed full of ultra-processed foods. The reality is that there's plenty to be found in meat diets too, and are equally avoidable.

Ultra-processed foods: the 19 things everyone needs to know

They make up 57% of the UK diet – and the risks are becoming ever more evident. Here is how to recognise UPFs and find healthier alternatives

www.theguardian.com

There's an interesting thread on Twitter on this article:

 

[Funky_monks]

Pretty sure nobody said that UPFs with meat in didn't exist - quite the opposite.

Its just that nobody for a second thinks Turkey Twizzlers and their ilk are in any way good for you, and yet vegan UPFs are being promoted as good for you (see: beyond burger etc) simply because they are "plant based" and plenty seem to be falling for it - it aint the meat in UPFs with meat in that makes them bad for you. This seems especially prevalent in non-dairy "milks" which are both UPFs and contain tons of sugar.

There's growing evidence that non-processed meats and dairy (especially fermented dairy) are pretty good for you.

I think pretty much the only UPF I consume with any regularity is bread, because it is difficult to avoid and as a single parent, I just haven't got time to be baking my own bloody bread (except when I do, sometimes on a weekend).

 

[editor]

The 'furious' right wing gammons at the Mail and the anti woke loons at GB News are losing their shit over the results of a RSPCA survey which found the majority of people are backing subsidies for plant-based alternatives.

(From today's Mail)

A study sponsored by the RSPCA found 58 per cent have taken steps to eliminate or reduce their own meat consumption. And 57 per cent think the country should consume fewer animal products, mainly due to health, environmental and animal welfare reasons.

Significantly, some 58 per cent said they would be supportive of government subsidies to help cut the cost of plant-based alternatives.
The RSPCA said the nation's laws and treatment of meat and livestock farming lag behind consumer attitudes towards animal welfare, the environment and health.

The research, which comes from a report compiled by the Social Market Foundation (SMF), found three in four – 74 per cent – want animal welfare labels on meat products covering rearing and slaughter methods.

These formed part of a Kept Animals Bill, which was recently dropped by the Government.

At the same time, 91 per cent want stricter regulations to protect farm animals and 61 per cent want a ban on factory farming, such as the use of cages for egg-laying hens and pigs.

A National Food Strategy review commissioned by the Government recommended pursuing a 30 per cent reduction in meat consumption over a decade.

The idea was subsequently rejected by ministers, however the SMF and RSPCA said the research demonstrate they are out of step with public opinion.

The SMF findings show that alternative proteins, such as plant-based sausages or burgers, can play a role in helping people to eat less animal products, though there are qualms over taste and cost.

Some 44 per cent complained they were not affordable, while 58 per cent would support a 20 per cent price subsidy.

The RSPCA's Assistant Director Policy, Advocacy and Evidence, Gemma Hope, said: 'The public is clear that we all need to be eating less meat for the sake of animals, our health and our planet.

'Even during the depths of a cost of living crisis, a majority want their taxes spent on subsiding plant-based alternatives to meat. This is a priority issue for them and they want action.

'The quickest and cheapest first step is to have clear labelling of meat products telling shoppers how animals were reared.'

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Pretty sure nobody said that UPFs with meat in didn't exist - quite the opposite.

Its just that nobody for a second thinks Turkey Twizzlers and their ilk are in any way good for you, and yet vegan UPFs are being promoted as good for you (see: beyond burger etc) simply because they are "plant based" and plenty seem to be falling for it - it aint the meat in UPFs with meat in that makes them bad for you. This seems especially prevalent in non-dairy "milks" which are both UPFs and contain tons of sugar.

There's growing evidence that non-processed meats and dairy (especially fermented dairy) are pretty good for you.

I think pretty much the only UPF I consume with any regularity is bread, because it is difficult to avoid and as a single parent, I just haven't got time to be baking my own bloody bread (except when I do, sometimes on a weekend).

I don’t know of anyone who thinks beyond burgers are 'good for you' per se. But how much worse are they for you than beef burgers? On the one side they are higher in protein and fibre and lower in fat and saturated fat. They are also not classified as 2A carcinogen by the WHO. In those respects they are better for you. They are also definitely better for you than bacon, ham, sausages etc., all of which are class 1 carinogens. On the other side, they are higher in sodium. In that respect they are worse for you.

The current concerns raised about UPFs are broadly correct. Many UPFs tend to be higher in salt, sugar and fat and lower in fibre than wholefoods. Healthy diets should primarily be based around wholefoods be this reason. At the same time, UPFs are not inherently bad for you, and some are quite good for you. There's a spectrum. Take a cereal like weetabix for example. Its not as healthy as oatmeal with fruit or shredded wheat, but its still high in fibre, low in sugar and fortified with loads of good minerals. Same with non-sweetened soy milk, it has an excellent nutritional profile. But it contains acidity regulators and gellan gum - neither of which have any demonstrated negative health effects on humans - so is classified as 'ultra processed'. A lot of anti-UPF messaging risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[CNT36]

I don’t know of anyone who thinks beyond burgers are 'good for you' per se. But how much worse are they for you than beef burgers? On the one side they are higher in protein and fibre and lower in fat and saturated fat. They are also not classified as 2A carcinogen by the WHO. In those respects they are better for you. They are also definitely better for you than bacon, ham, sausages etc., all of which are class 1 carinogens. On the other side, they are higher in sodium. In that respect they are worse for you.

The current concerns raised about UPFs are broadly correct. Many UPFs tend to be higher in salt, sugar and fat and lower in fibre than wholefoods. Healthy diets should primarily be based around wholefoods be this reason. At the same time, UPFs are not inherently bad for you, and some are quite good for you. There's a spectrum. Take a cereal like weetabix for example. Its not as healthy as oatmeal with fruit or shredded wheat, but its still high in fibre, low in sugar and fortified with loads of good minerals. Same with non-sweetened soy milk, it has an excellent nutritional profile. But it contains acidity regulators and gellan gum - neither of which have any demonstrated negative health effects on humans - so is classified as 'ultra processed'. A lot of anti-UPF messaging risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

One of the papers Funky posted a while back comments on how ultra processed products products have had worse health outcomes over time partly due to a push for greater shareholder profits since the 1980s. Gave the impression that there is a sliding scale of how harmful they are. I am currently trying to cut some UPF from my diet but I doubt the weetabix are going anywhere!

 

[kabbes]

The problems with UPFs goes way beyond their salt or sugar content. The problem is that when you break down food into constituent molecules and then rebuild it into something else, the body does not necessarily recognise those molecules as food, with all kinds of negative results. People don’t feel full, for example, so keep on eating. You get insulin spikes because the sugar molecules are not readily managed. There’s increasing evidence of cancer risk that goes beyond it just being sugar or fat. To just talk about sodium content plays into Mondelez’s hands. They’d love to carry on pretending that’s all there is to it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don’t know of anyone who thinks beyond burgers are 'good for you' per se.

I suspect that quite a few people do assume that meat-free burgers are better for you.

Certainly companies like Beyond Burger and UPSIDE Foods like to give that impression while not actually saying so anywhere - because they legally can't. So on the front pages of their websites, BB talk vaguely of 'the upsides of plant-based foods' and stress the absence of GMOs from their food, while UPSIDE Foods avoid talking about nutrition entirely but end their page with 'Cultivate Goodness' in big yellow letters, part of their 1950s-style wholesome branding.

Burger | Plant-Based Burger Patties | Beyond Meat
UPSIDE Foods | UPSIDE Foods

And of course, we know who owns these companies. UPSIDE Foods in particular is owned by companies that represent the very worst in world agribusiness. By buying their products, you are actually supporting a whole bunch of downsides.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The problems with UPFs goes way beyond their salt or sugar content. The problem is that when you break down food into constituent molecules and then rebuild it into something else, the body does not necessarily recognise those molecules as food, with all kinds of negative results. People don’t feel full, for example, so keep on eating.

Granting that this is true it shows a potential downside of UPFs, but still not that they're always a bad option as such. Take the satiation point. Assuming that if you consume a UPF and a non-UPF food source that have exactly the same macro and micro nutrient profiles and the non-UPF food source is less filling, then there is reason to prefer the non-UPF source. But if a UPF food source adds hunger-supressing nutrients to a food source that would otherwise be lacking, then opting for UPF might be a healthier option. To give an example, protein powders are an ultra-processed food product. There's quite a lot of evidence showing that they help with appetite suppression and weight loss. Adding them to smoothie in the morning makes your breakfast more processed but better in terms of making you feel fuller for longer and therefore eating less.

 

[Funky_monks]

I don’t know of anyone who thinks beyond burgers are 'good for you' per se. But how much worse are they for you than beef burgers? On the one side they are higher in protein and fibre and lower in fat and saturated fat. They are also not classified as 2A carcinogen by the WHO. In those respects they are better for you. They are also definitely better for you than bacon, ham, sausages etc., all of which are class 1 carinogens. On the other side, they are higher in sodium. In that respect they are worse for you.

As per previous research - lots of the studies on dietary meat had not isolated processed meats from unprocessed. I've literally posted up papers about how red meat is much less of a cancer risk than previously thought.
WHO decided red meat was carcinogenic in 2015, the world has moved on since then.

Bacon, ham and sausage all contain sodium/potassium nitrate, again as previously discussed, it is that which is thought to be carcinogenic, so again, avoiding processed foods is best. By the way, potassium nitrate (they don't specify, preferring "potassium salt" is in yer beyond burger too.

Burger | Plant-Based Burger Patties | Beyond Meat

 

[editor]

Here's another study for the meat fans to ignore/dismiss/go into full denial about

Plant-based animal product alternatives are increasingly promoted to achieve more sustainable diets.

Here, we use a global economic land use model to assess the food system-wide impacts of a global dietary shift towards these alternatives.

We find a substantial reduction in the global environmental impacts by 2050 if globally 50% of the main animal products (pork, chicken, beef and milk) are substituted—net reduction of forest and natural land is almost fully halted and agriculture and land use GHG emissions decline by 31% in 2050 compared to 2020. If spared agricultural land within forest ecosystems is restored to forest, climate benefits could double, reaching 92% of the previously estimated land sector mitigation potential.

Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives - Nature Communications

Meat and dairy alternatives are promoted for diet sustainability. Here, the authors use a modelling approach to show that replacing 50% of pork, chicken, beef and milk globally with plant-based alternatives can reduce GHG emissions by 6.3 Gt CO2eq year-1 and more than half biodiversity loss by 2050.

www.nature.com

 

[mentalchik]

Have been following this thread for what sometimes seems like years and has anyone actually come up with ideas on how to persuade the public to eat less meat ? I work in a small supermarket (one of the top three) and can tell you that we sell shit loads of meat, meat is one of the top targets for shoplifters....we do have plant based alternatives (also milk alternatives) but it's small beans and has decreased slightly recently. We are in a low wage, low income area with some large ethnic/immigrant communities and by my own observation some of them buy huge amounts of meat. Now i am back to living alone (all kids now independant) my meat consumption is quite small and i do try to buy the free range when i can.

 

[newme]

Have been following this thread for what sometimes seems like years and has anyone actually come up with ideas on how to persuade the public to eat less meat ? I work in a small supermarket (one of the top three) and can tell you that we sell shit loads of meat, meat is one of the top targets for shoplifters....we do have plant based alternatives (also milk alternatives) but it's small beans and has decreased slightly recently. We are in a low wage, low income area with some large ethnic/immigrant communities and by my own observation some of them buy huge amounts of meat. Now i am back to living alone (all kids now independant) my meat consumption is quite small and i do try to buy the free range when i can.

Not really, I don't eat a lot of red meat anyway simply because of cost. Which presumably does add some pressure but it's also stopping me eating local sustainable fish, free range stuff other than eggs and most alternate meat replacement things. Getting people to switch to things like chicken from beef is a huge gain co2 wise and a much easier sell then giving up meat. Just switch to anything that isnt beef is a win. And other than alt-meat burgers there's not a great deal of alternatives anyway that appear available to me anyway except quorn which seems to be a thing for some people for reasons I'm not sure on.

One thing that I found interesting was the blue zones documentary on netflix. Beans come up a lot, then the three sisters in the Costa rica section was very interesting as its complementary veg that can be grown at home and provide a compete amino acid profile. That's basically a home grown meat replacement nutritionally, sweetcorn, squash and beans. I'm already prepping a new bed for it and Japanese sweet potato space.

These 7 Foods Will Help You Live Longer, Healthier And Happier

The new Netflix docuseries on Blue Zones has us reconsidering what we’re eating.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Not a great fan of squash but I will now be trying various recipes to try and add it in to things.

Always thought trying to replace meat with a basically worse tasting alternative was the wrong way to go. Veggie meals can be absolutely delicious, huge parts of India are veggie and they have amazing food.

Actually found quorn quite good personally, well the 'chicken' chunks anyway. Its our goto for boxing day at my mums, make a mexican dish without meat then people can add quorn or chicken as they like as basically a topping like cheese or lettuce in wraps or bowls as we have people with various diets.

Flavour coming from something that isn't the meat itself has been the best way I've found to have meat free meals. It's not even that hard and I've left it out before and not noticed.

Price being lower, taste being not reliant on meat specifically or a replacement. Texture from other sources. It does in my experience take a lot more prep than throwing some things in the oven (well except tray bakes but that can't be every meal). Which is an issue for a lot and then prepacked stuff is crap, expensive or both and often has a load of added crap that again puts people off.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Here's another study for the meat fans to ignore/dismiss/go into full denial about

Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives - Nature Communications

Meat and dairy alternatives are promoted for diet sustainability. Here, the authors use a modelling approach to show that replacing 50% of pork, chicken, beef and milk globally with plant-based alternatives can reduce GHG emissions by 6.3 Gt CO2eq year-1 and more than half biodiversity loss by 2050.

www.nature.com

A study in Nature, a highly-regarded and proper independent academic journal, is far more valuable than a paid-for piece in a dodgy biased journal such as the one you cited in the vegan cats thread.

 

[editor]

A study in Nature, a highly-regarded and proper independent academic journal, is far more valuable than a paid-for piece in a dodgy biased journal such as the one you cited in the vegan cats thread.

Thanks for your insight, but what are your thoughts on the actual study cited?

Oh and I've just added a new study on the pets thread for you to dismiss out of hand, despite it being written by people far more qualified than you,

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Thanks for your insight, but what are your thoughts on the actual study cited?

Oh and I've just added a new study on the pets thread for you to dismiss out of hand, despite it being written by people far more qualified than you,

How do you know what my qualifications are?

 

[editor]

How do you know what my qualifications are?

By the contributions you've made to this thread, I'd wager you have zero qualifications in researching pet nutrition but feel free to wow and amaze me with you rollcall of relevant PhDs.

 

[Pickman's model]

Thanks for your insight, but what are your thoughts on the actual study cited?

Oh and I've just added a new study on the pets thread for you to dismiss out of hand, despite it being written by people far more qualified than you,

if we're going to bring qualifications into the equation i am pretty sure i have higher scientific qualifications than you do. ElizabethofYork did you take any scientific a levels?

as for the qualifications of the people who wrote the article, almost all the scientific papers which have been retracted for plagiarism and falsification of results have been written by people with advanced degrees. science, the word, descends from a word meaning knowledge, not a word meaning honesty

 

[editor]

More bullshit greenwashing from the filthy meat lobby.

Meat eaters are about to have a new option in the beef aisle. Along with cuts of meat labeled as organic, GMO-free, grass-fed, or what have you, consumers will now be able to buy beef that’s certified “climate-friendly.” In late 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched a verification program that allows meat producers to label their product “low-carbon” if it meets certain environmentally-conscious criteria.

The Brazen Climate Friendly Ground Beef Burger was developed under Tyson’s own Climate Smart Beef Program, supported by taxpayer funds. On its face, this might give the impression that the beef industry is finally doing its part to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing emissions. But frustratingly, the whole scheme is more about marketing magic than science-backed solutions. It’s a classic case of greenwashing—using language that intentionally misleads the public into believing that something is environmentally friendly.

When the USDA first launched the “climate-friendly” certification program (which initially used the label “low-carbon”), it quickly became subject to criticism. Matt Reynolds, a senior writer at WIRED, pointed out in January 2022 that the criteria for earning the certification isn’t very high: for example, the benchmark used by Low Carbon Beef, one of the third-party companies that performs evaluations for companies seeking this label, is 26.3 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions per kilogram of carcass weight. In other words, beef producers must emit no more than 23.67 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions per kg of weight (the equivalent of the emissions released by driving 60.7 miles in an average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle) to earn the right to call their product climate-friendly.

But that benchmark does not actually indicate below-average CO2 equivalent emissions. A 2019 study found that the U.S. average for this metric is only 21.3 kilograms, already well under the benchmark of 26.3. Matthew Hayek, assistant professor of environmental studies at New York University, points out that this means that even products with higher-than-average emissions outputs will qualify for the “climate-friendly” label. On top of that, the third-party verification process isn’t as rigorous as it sounds—it runs on the honor system, allowing companies to report their own calculations, as if there were no obvious conflict of interest.

The program isn’t just useless; it could even harm the environment further. The low bar to certification could de-incentivize producers from making bigger changes and leading consumers to complacency. And even if the requirements for certification were better than average for beef products, the label “climate-friendly” would still be seriously misleading. Beef is by far the least climate-friendly food a person can eat due to its levels of greenhouse gas emissions; according to one study, producing a kilogram of beef contributed over 22 times more to the climate crisis than producing a kilogram of rice, and 63 times more than a kilogram of wheat. Not to mention the myriad other ways it negatively impacts the environment.

It’s unsurprising that an industry would spin the truth to position itself as being on the right side of the climate crisis, but it’s a little galling that a government agency would not just allow this, but facilitate it. The USDA isn’t serving the American people in any legitimate way, despite the government’s ostensible purpose. This program only serves the beef industry, at the expense of misleading (and likely up-charging) the customer. It’s unethical and calls the agency’s very purpose into question.

The truth is that anyone who is legitimately interested in lowering their environmental impact should cut back on or skip beef altogether, opting instead for plant foods like fruits, grains, vegetables, and legumes. If anything, the “climate-friendly” labeling program is a cynical reminder that customers shouldn’t believe all the claims made in advertising, even when the ads are government-sanctioned. And remember: there is no such thing as climate-friendly beef. At least, not yet.

'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth

Tyson's USDA-endorsed "climate-friendly" beef may be more greenwashing than planet-saving solution.

time.com

 

[Funky_monks]

Up until recently, nobody has been measuring sequestration much at all. Expect to see carbon negative beef and lamb soon. Its already being found on a few farms that they are sequestering thousands of tons of CO2/yr

 

[newme]

Up until recently, nobody has been measuring sequestration much at all. Expect to see carbon negative beef and lamb soon. Its already being found on a few farms that they are sequestering thousands of tons of CO2/yr

Yeh I did some bita of work with these lot while I was at the council.

Cornwall Council: Cornwall Biomethane Pilot

Cornwall Council is piloting ground-breaking, highly innovative technology - developed by a Cornish company - to turn methane, derived from organic waste, into renewable fuel. Working with six of its farms, the project turns methane into 'better than Net Zero' carbon biomethane.

www.local.gov.uk

 

[butcher]

More bullshit greenwashing from the filthy meat lobby.

I see name calling/insults are back in vogue on the thread, I thought someone tried to call an end to that sort of vitriolic hyperbole to encourage reasoned debate

 

[editor]

I see name calling/insults are back in vogue on the thread, I thought someone tried to call an end to that sort of vitriolic hyperbole to encourage reasoned debate

You're actually moaning because I've said an unkind thing about the greenwashing meat lobby? You know, the people who are putting the environment and the planet's future at risk in the name of fat profits?

 

[klang]

fat profits?

overweight, pls.