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

[editor]

What the hell is up with that burger?

That's usually how they're advertised. Big, dribbling, oozing, overflowing lumps of grease, fat and death.

Here's some recent examples from Brixton burger bars.

 

[Aquamarine]

That's usually how they're advertised. Big, dribbling, oozing, overflowing lumps of grease, fat and death.

Here's some recent examples from Brixton burger bars.

View attachment 398853

View attachment 398852

View attachment 398854

Same shit, same pile?

 

[stavros]

Excellent idea

View attachment 398834

Scientists say meat should have cigarette-style warning labels

The labels showed charred landscapes and read: ‘Warning: Eating meat contributes to climate change’

www.independent.co.uk

I remember suggesting somewhere, perhaps on the CC policies thread, that food and drink products could have an independently assessed footprint on their packaging, similar to that for their nutritional attributes.

 

[editor]

I remember suggesting somewhere, perhaps on the CC policies thread, that food and drink products could have an independently assessed footprint on their packaging, similar to that for their nutritional attributes.

I'd be all for that too. Oatly are one of the few companies currently doing that.

 

[Funky_monks]

That's a brilliant idea. They could add something to address the misleading marketing of the meat industry. Nearly all farmed animals are kept in cramped animal factories and no matter where they live they are all violently slaughtered. Also, there is no known way to mitigate at scale the Big Ag 'nitrogen crisis'

You do realise the nitrogen is mostly used for cropping, don't you?

Also, as I said, you can drastically mitigate NO loss to the atmosphere by using farmyard manure - I even posted the piece of scientific research up thread.

Once again the term "starvation enthusiast" seems appropriate here.

 

[editor]

This pretty much reflets the attitudes of some people on urban:

Social media users believe reducing and eliminating meat intake is ineffective in addressing climate change and reported low willingness to engage in either action, according to a new study from La Trobe University.

This is despite recent global reports revealing the strong links between the animal agricultural industry and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the idea that what people put on their plate is an important piece in confronting the climate crisis.

The study, published in Sustainability, asked more than 700 Facebook account users, between the ages of 18 to 84, about their beliefs on climate change, the impact of meat consumption on the environment and meat intake.

Ashley Rattenbury, co-author and provisional psychologist from La Trobe University, said there is no doubt climate change is a concern for many Australians today.

"Although past research has shown that animal agriculture contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, our participants believed reducing and eliminating meat intake to be some of the least effective actions against climate change," Ashley said.

No appetite for vegetarian diet to help the planet, finds study

Social media users believe reducing and eliminating meat intake is ineffective in addressing climate change and reported low willingness to engage in either action, according to a new study from La Trobe University.

phys.org

 

[Funky_monks]

Looks like the AHDB have revised the figure using GWP* (which is likely to be adopted by the IPCC after scientists have been whinging about it since about 2012). CO2 equivalents (GWP100) don't accurately portray how methane interacts (it breaks down after 10-12 years unlike CO2, and is therefore a "flow" gas as opposed to a "stock" gas like CO2 - which stays in the atmosphere for a century or more)

 

[Funky_monks]

Again, this graph shows how methane emissions differ from CO2:

Here's an article explaining it (also from Oxford Martin, since we like them so much on here):
Guest post: A new way to assess ‘global warming potential’ of short-lived pollutants

FYI, the global number of farmed ruminants is declining......

 

[Aquamarine]

You do realise the nitrogen is mostly used for cropping, don't you?

Also, as I said, you can drastically mitigate NO loss to the atmosphere by using farmyard manure - I even posted the piece of scientific research up thread.

Once again the term "starvation enthusiast" seems appropriate here.

The agricultural Nitrogen problem is not about to be solved by shovelling more manure.

 

[Funky_monks]

The agricultural Nitrogen problem is not about to be solved by shovelling more manure.

Why not? If much less NO2 is released when manure is incorproated (as per the research) then it has to be part of the answer. We can't just stop cropping. People will get very hungry.

 

[Aquamarine]

Why not? If much less NO2 is released when manure is incorproated (as per the research) then it has to be part of the answer. We can't just stop cropping. People will get very hungry.

Because it is not about to happen? I don't think whoever is hacking down the Amazon and elsewhere to produce the soy concentrates etc. are concerning themselves so much about THE research around synthetic fertilizers. Look at what has been happening in Holland.

 

[Funky_monks]

Because it is not about to happen? I don't think whoever is hacking down the Amazon and elsewhere to produce the soy concentrates etc. are concerning themselves so much about THE research around synthetic fertilizers. Look at what has been happening in Holland.

Eh?
Cleared rainforest to grow soy is hardly likely to be getting any synthetic N, so what's your point?

What's going in in Holland is mad, but again - what's your point?

 

[Hollis]

That's usually how they're advertised. Big, dribbling, oozing, overflowing lumps of grease, fat and death.

Here's some recent examples from Brixton burger bars.

View attachment 398853

View attachment 398852

View attachment 398854

Clean Kitchen in Battersea Power Station does an awesome Double Bacon Smash Burger (100% Plant Based)

 

[bcuster]

 

[Funky_monks]

New report shifts focus from food system emissions to fossil-fuel reliance:

• Oil companies are manoeuvring to lock in food’s dependence on fossil fuel-based pesticides, fertilizers, and plastic packaging
• COP28 host, oil-producing UAE, says it will make food a key priority, but this must not be used to distract from the need to phase out fossil fuels
• Global Alliance for the Future of Food urges policymakers and funders to acknowledge the interdependence and act on food and energy in tandem

NEW analysis by the Global Alliance for the Future of Food and Dalberg Advisors finds that food production, transport and storage account for at least 15% of fossil fuels used annually (4.6 Gigatonnes CO2-equivalent), driving at least as many emissions as all EU countries and Russia combined.

As the use of fossil fuels for transport and power declines with the uptake of renewable energy, the report also reveals how the fossil fuel industry is investing heavily in petrochemicals to make plastics, pesticides, and fertilizers in order to lock-in the dependence of food systems on high-carbon energy.

And, the bit that's particularly relevant to this thread because its about how industrially produced foods can "save the planet", in spite of odd deviations:

Industrial food systems are highly energy intensive and dependent on fossil fuels across the four stages of the value chain: the majority of fossil fuel consumption is in the processing and packaging stage(42 percent), and in retail consumption and waste (38 percent). The stages of input and agriculture production together account for 20 percent of energy use in food systems,** with fossil fuel use to produce fertilizers expected to increase substantially through 2050.

Link to report

 

[kabbes]

Iceland declares state of emergency over volcanic eruption threat

Powerful earthquakes rock country’s southwestern Reykjanes peninsula, increasing likelihood of event

www.theguardian.com

 

[bcuster]

 

[iona]

There's a thread for posting random no-context cute/funny/interesting stuff here

 

[kabbes]

Russian arrested under anti-terror law after talking about yoga

The Yarovaya law includes restrictions on religious groups and followers of 'non-traditional' religions

www.independent.co.uk

 

[editor]

Here's one for those who keep on insisting that all 'ultra-processed' bread is bad for you:

Some ultra-processed foods increase the risk of developing cancer, heart disease and diabetes – but others are good for you, new research into the demonised foodstuffs suggests.

A major new international study has found that regular consumption of meat products – such as sausages – and sugary drinks make it more likely that someone will get those diseases.

But bread and cereals actually reduce someone’s risk of them – because they contain fibre – despite also being ultra-processed foods (UPF), the same researchers also concluded, in findings published in The Lancet.

And it's the same for UPF plant based foods which were found to not increase health risks, unlike meat products like sausages.

However, several other major types of UPF previously seen as harmful: sweets and desserts, ready meals, savoury snacks and plant-based alternatives to meat products also got the all-clear. They are “not associated with risk of multimorbidity”, said the authors.

Experts said the findings showed that regarding all UPF products as bad for health is unwise and unwarranted.

Like several other recent research projects, the new study did conclude that UPF harms human health and makes it more likely that someone who consumes a lot of it would suffer a potentially fatal event, such as a heart attack or stroke. However, it also gives a more detailed picture of exactly which UPF products do and do not heighten that risk.

The latest study is based on an analysis of the dietary history of, and illnesses experienced by, 266,666 people in seven European countries, including the UK.

Some ultra-processed foods are good for your health, WHO-backed study finds

Bread and cereals – which are heavily processed – reduce risk of multimorbidity due to fibre content

www.theguardian.com

 

[bcuster]

There's a thread for posting random no-context cute/funny/interesting stuff here

That (cuteness) i's not the point I'm driving at

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That (cuteness) i's not the point I'm driving at

You're driving at a point?

Headless Mike, Helen the Heifer and a load of dead fish.

Nope, I'm not getting the point.

 

[Spymaster]

That (cuteness) i's not the point I'm driving at

Sorry, but your posts on this thread have absolutely nothing to do with it's topic and are utterly mawkish nonsense.

 

[Funky_monks]

Fuck me, the Guardian knows how to misrepresent a study, doesn't it?

This is the study in question: Freisling, H., Viallon, V., Lennon, H., Bagnardi, V., Ricci, C., Butterworth, A.S., Sweeting, M., Muller, D., Romieu, I., Bazelle, P. and Kvaskoff, M., 2020. Lifestyle factors and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study. BMC medicine, 18, pp.1-11.

And they've cherry picked this singular phrase (italics did not make it to the Guardian: "Among UPF subgroups, higher intakes of artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages, and animal-based products were associated with higher risk of multimorbidity, as was higher consumption of sauces, spreads and condiments, but with less certainty. In contrast, ultra-processed breads and cereals showed an inverse association with the risk of multimorbidity, but with a borderline certainty. Sweets and desserts, savory snacks, plant-based alternatives, ready-to eat/heat and mixed dishes were not associated with risk of multimorbidity."

If you think that that final sentence means they are fine, it just means in this case they didn't find an association, but its really very hard to isolate these things in a human based observational study.

They go on to say (my additions in bold): "Mechanisms by which UPFs may influence the risk of chronic diseases and multimorbidity are not completely understood.

One explanation would be their effect on increased weight gain. Obesity represents an important risk factor for morbidity and may initiate and promote progression to multimorbidity.
Many UPFs have higher energy density (calories per weight or volume) in combination with an altered food matrix which leads to a softer texture for less chewing and delays satiety signalling. However, adjusting for BMI in our main model did attenuate but not annul the association between UPFs and multimorbidity implying additional mechanistic pathways. Diets with a high proportion of UPFs have been associated with a lower nutritional quality such as lower intake of dietary fiber and vitamins, and a higher intake of free sugars and saturated fat.

However, nutritional characteristics of UPFs may again only partially explain mechanistic pathways leading to health outcomes. For example, in a prospective cohort study from Italy, adjustment for nutritional composition of the diet using the Food Standards Agency Nutrient Profiling System (FSAm-NPS) did not attenuate associations between UPF consumption and all cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Similarly, the adjustment for diet quality in our study, using the Mediterranean diet score, suggests that UPF consumption plays a role in the development of cancer and cardiometabolic disease multimorbidity beyond the nutritional characteristics of UPFs. Furthermore, the Mediterranean diet score indirectly also accounted for red meat (and dairy) consumption because higher consumption of these leads to a lower Mediterranean diet score and vice versa.
The positive association of ultra-processed animal-based products with multimorbidity in our study are therefore likely explained by non-nutritional aspects of this subgroup of UPFs.
Non-nutritional mechanisms through which UPFs could be hazardous for health include, but are not limited to, alteration of the food matrix, inclusion of certain food additives during processing (e.g., aspartame), and contaminants from packaging material (e.g., bisphenol A). Any of these may affect endocrine pathways or the gut microbiome, and contribute to subsequent disease risk." (and are prevalent in meat substitutes)
Finally, they note these as a limitation of their study: "First, the Nova classification was implemented on dietary data captured more than 20 years ago at recruitment of participants into EPIC" (how prevalent were meat substitutes 20 years ago? Has their composition not chanced since then?)
and: "we cannot exclude the possibility that unmeasured confounding, such as family history of (premature) cancer and cardiometabolic disease, could have affected the results. Lastly, our findings should be generalized with caution because study participants may not always be representative of the general population (ie they've chosen people by design who have had diseases and not looked at what healthy people eat) and only seven of the 10 countries in the EPIC study were included."

 

[Funky_monks]

Looks like the idea that Europe was all dense woodland before human interference is being severely disputed. The open terrain and light woodlands would have supported loads of giant herbivores (presumably before we ate them all). Therefore cows and silovopasture are pretty close to rewilding.......

Pearce, E.A., Mazier, F., Normand, S., Fyfe, R., Andrieu, V., Bakels, C., Balwierz, Z., Bińka, K., Boreham, S., Borisova, O.K. and Brostrom, A., 2023. Substantial light woodland and open vegetation characterized the temperate forest biome before Homo sapiens. Science Advances, 9(45), p.eadi9135.

 

[Pickman's model]

But what do you think?

 

[bcuster]

But what do you think?

I think more attention should be paid to the ethical problems of killing animals in order to eat them. ie "eat less meat" as the thread title suggests

 

[iona]

I think more attention should be paid to the ethical problems of killing animals in order to eat them. ie "eat less meat" as the thread title suggests

Why not start a thread about that then?

 

[kabbes]

I think more attention should be paid to the ethical problems of killing animals in order to eat them. ie "eat less meat" as the thread title suggests

And you think that the way you’re going to persuade people of that via stupid, mawkish videos with bad music in the background?

 

[bcuster]

And you think that the way you’re going to persuade people of that via stupid, mawkish videos with bad music in the background?

I am attempting to show that these creatures possess a strong will to live and be our friends