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

[butcher]

If it's posting up nonsense studies time, why not go with this one:

Is there any truth to vegans being happier than meat-eaters?

A new study claims that chomping on plant-based foods can make us happier than eating meat. Here's why.

www.stylist.co.uk

Perhaps read the one I posted and their selection criteria, is the stylist a peer reviewed journal? Probably by your standards.....

 

[editor]

Perhaps read the one I posted and their selection criteria, is the stylist a peer reviewed journal? Probably by your standards.....

Do you really think it's a credible study, particularly given the conclusions they leap to and the fact that it's funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association?

A recent study of research on diet and mental health found a possible association between meat-free diets and risk of depression and anxiety.

The data does not prove any causal link between meat eating and mental health, according to the researchers, despite some media headlines that the study found meat can improve mental health.

The research itself was also funded by the beef industry, leading some experts to question its credibility.

The study didn't actually show that a meat-free diet causes depression or other mental health issues

There are serious problems with a widely-shared study that claimed meat-eaters have better mental health than vegetarians

A recent research analysis of mental health and diet reportedly claimed that eating meat can improve mental health — but that's not what the data says

www.insider.com

 

[butcher]

If I was honest, I think most meta analysis is so inconclusive as to be bollocks and should not be used as evidence to promote personal views, I also think these communal meat/vegan bashing threads usually end up in pointless squabbling.

BTW your ref above mainly says that the problem was most people did not read the caveats which I explicitly pointed out in my OP


"Dr. Edward Archer, a co-author of the study and chief science officer for the data analytics firm Evoving FX, told Insider that the research does not show that meat can improve mental health, or that avoiding it can cause mental health issues.

"We were very careful to say no causal inference should be made. We offered lots of information for both sides of the debate," he said in an interview. "We cannot say that meat-free diets cause mental illness. What we did find is that the research doesn't support the idea that eliminating meat can improve mental health." "

 

[editor]

If I was honest, I think most meta analysis is so inconclusive as to be bollocks and should not be used as evidence to promote personal views, I also think these communal meat/vegan bashing threads usually end up in pointless squabbling.

BTW your ref above mainly says that the problem was most people did not read the caveats which I explicitly pointed out in my OP


"Dr. Edward Archer, a co-author of the study and chief science officer for the data analytics firm Evoving FX, told Insider that the research does not show that meat can improve mental health, or that avoiding it can cause mental health issues.

"We were very careful to say no causal inference should be made. We offered lots of information for both sides of the debate," he said in an interview. "We cannot say that meat-free diets cause mental illness. What we did find is that the research doesn't support the idea that eliminating meat can improve mental health." "

You made zero reference to the content or nature of the caveats, blithely posting "Maybe a meat free future will look depressed, interesting meta analysis with good caveats."
Which suggests you were going along with this deeply flawed study.

If you posted the above quote in your original post, the reaction would have been quite different,

 

[butcher]

caveat: a warning to consider something before taking any more action, or a statement that limits a more general statement

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Here’s a good one:

Slaughterhouse Workers (SHWs) have a higher prevalence rate of mental health issues, in particular depression and anxiety, in addition to violence-supportive attitudes… there is some evidence that slaughterhouse work is associated with increased crime levels. The research reviewed has shown a link between slaughterhouse work and antisocial behavior generally and sexual offending specifically.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380211030243

 

[butcher]

Here’s a good one:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380211030243

Quite believable having met a fewv of the under appreciated workers in the meat industry.

Mind you wasn't Hitler a vegetarian? (nb I do know)

 

[kabbes]

I don’t think that using the psychological difficulties encountered by slaughterhouse workers as an “gotcha!” in an internet debate is a great look, to be honest.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I don’t think that using the psychological difficulties encountered by slaughterhouse workers as an “gotcha!” in an internet debate is a great look, to be honest.

It wasn't a gotcha and that's a rather selective criticism, given the posts that it was directly in response to.

 

[kabbes]

It wasn't a gotcha and that's a rather selective criticism, given the posts that it was directly in response to.

It was a gotcha. You aren't interested in the psychological welfare of slaughterhouse employees. You just found a study that helped you in your claim that eating meat is bad.

If you are seeking to become genuinely interested then I can tell you that there's a lot of literature out there about the psychological effects of working in a slaughterhouse. The subject is nuanced and highly variable dependent on cultural context. To understand it requires more than a surface level reading of a quantitative study based on a medicalised paradigm of mental health -- that's just one tiny piece of a much bigger puzzle. There are ethnographic studies, discourse analyses, phenomenological analyses, all sorts. Working in a slaughterhouse can take a tremendous toll on all aspects of a person's life and the fact that in certain contexts it can be relatively vulnerable people that end up working there complicates this picture. It's one of many ways in which the power relations of capital act to create distress on those at the bottom of the chain. It's a problem that certainly could be solved by just nobody eating meat. It's not the only solution, however. And I have little doubt that the same power relations act to create distress for those working in the non-meat agricultural sector, and similarly need more nuanced answers than "stop eating fruit", for example.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It was a gotcha. You aren't interested in the psychological welfare of slaughterhouse employees. You just found a study that helped you in your claim that eating meat is bad.

If you are seeking to become genuinely interested then I can tell you that there's a lot of literature out there about the psychological effects of working in a slaughterhouse. The subject is nuanced and highly variable dependent on cultural context. To understand it requires more than a surface level reading of a quantitative study based on a medicalised paradigm of mental health -- that's just one tiny piece of a much bigger puzzle. There are ethnographic studies, discourse analyses, phenomenological analyses, all sorts. Working in a slaughterhouse can take a tremendous toll on all aspects of a person's life and the fact that in certain contexts it can be relatively vulnerable people that end up working there complicates this picture. It's one of many ways in which the power relations of capital act to create distress on those at the bottom of the chain. It's a problem that certainly could be solved by just nobody eating meat. It's not the only solution, however. And I have little doubt that the same power relations act to create distress for those working in the non-meat agricultural sector, and similarly need more nuanced answers than "stop eating fruit", for example.

So you're going to continue ignoring the fact that it was posted in response to a study - funded by a beef industry check off program lol - about eating meat and mental health?

 

[kabbes]

So you're going to continue ignoring the fact that it was posted in response to a study - funded by a beef industry check off program lol - that eating meat is good because of psychological welfare?

That study was a bullshit piece of research. I ignored it because it had already been pointed out that it was a bullshit piece of research. And then you posted something using the suffering of vulnerable people just to have your own gotcha moment. So I pointed out that this is not a good look. You can carry on insisting it is a good look if you like, but it's not doing you an favours.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

That study was a bullshit piece of research. I ignored it because it had already been pointed out that it was a bullshit piece of research. And then you posted something using the suffering of vulnerable people just to have your own gotcha moment. So I pointed out that this is not a good look. You can carry on insisting it is a good look if you like, but it's not doing you an favours.

I've long since stopped caring about what's considered a 'good look' on these boards, I really couldn't give a shit. Your defensive and condescending reaction has been interesting though.

 

[editor]

I don’t think that using the psychological difficulties encountered by slaughterhouse workers as an “gotcha!” in an internet debate is a great look, to be honest.

It is a worrying and well documented by-product of the meat industry though.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380211030243#:~:text=Staff%20with%20the%20job%20role,other%20roles%20in%20the%20slaughterhouse.

Prevalence of serious psychological distress among slaughterhouse workers at a United States beef packing plant - PubMed

Workers at a US industrial slaughterhouse experienced higher prevalence of SPD compared to United States population-wide estimates, but occupational risk factors for this outcome were not identified.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker

A former abattoir worker describes her job and the effect it had on her mental health.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[platinumsage]

More dodgy corporate veggie-washing kiboshed by the ASA:

Tesco plant-based food advert banned as misleading

The supermarket's claims of environmental benefit had not been substantiated, says watchdog

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[ddraig]

a butcher, shill and fraud, who'd have guessed!

 

[editor]

More dodgy corporate veggie-washing kiboshed by the ASA:

Tesco plant-based food advert banned as misleading

The supermarket's claims of environmental benefit had not been substantiated, says watchdog

www.bbc.co.uk

But...

The ASA said that it was generally accepted that by switching to a more plant-based diet, consumers could cut their overall environmental impact.

 

[kabbes]

It is a worrying and well documented by-product of the meat industry though.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380211030243#:~:text=Staff%20with%20the%20job%20role,other%20roles%20in%20the%20slaughterhouse.

Prevalence of serious psychological distress among slaughterhouse workers at a United States beef packing plant - PubMed

Workers at a US industrial slaughterhouse experienced higher prevalence of SPD compared to United States population-wide estimates, but occupational risk factors for this outcome were not identified.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker

A former abattoir worker describes her job and the effect it had on her mental health.

www.bbc.co.uk

It is both worrying, and well-documented, which I also pointed out. The very fact that there is worrying psychological distress is precisely why this is worth proper attention rather than it just being used to win internet arguements.

So, you’ve read those papers, right? What do you think about the issues they raise, and what do you think they imply might be the best way of resolving them? Are there any aspects of the papers you view as potentially problematic or limiting in terms of their methodology? What do you think about the models of mental health they employ (particularly the potentially ontologically inconsistent approach evident within the literature review)? Don’t you think that their bias towards a realist positivist epistemology presupposes that the issues created by the individualist social setup favoured by capitalist economies are inevitable, rather than the capitalist model itself being the underlying driver of the issues creating the distress?

 

[editor]

It is both worrying, and well-document, which I also pointed out. The very fact that there is worrying psychological distress is precisely why this is worth proper attention rather than it just being used to win internet arguements.

So, you’ve read those papers, right? What do you think about the issues they raise, and what do you think they imply might be the best way of resolving them? Are there any aspects of the papers you view as potentially problematic or limiting in terms of their methodology? What do you think about the models of mental health they employ (particularly the potentially ontologically inconsistent approach evident within the literature review)? Don’t you think that their bias towards a realist positivist epistemology presupposes that the issues created by the individualist social setup favoured by capitalist economies are inevitable, rather than the capitalist model itself being the underlying driver of the issues creating the distress?

The only real way to resolve the mental health damage caused to workers at slaughterhouses is for industrial meat production to end. And that process starts with individuals. Where are you along that journey?

 

[kabbes]

The only real way to resolve the mental health damage caused to workers at slaughterhouses is for industrial meat production to end.

I disagree. Did you read the papers you posted up?

 

[editor]

I disagree. Did you read the papers you posted up?

I skim read the content and read the conclusions but I doubt if you sat down and studied each word in depth either so I'm not sure what your Big Point is.

I want to see barbaric industrial meat production ended and I'm not really interested if you agree with me or not.

But seeing as you avoided answering my question, I can only assume that you're happy to consume the products of industrial meat production and care little for the mental welfare of those tasked with killing your food for you.

 

[kabbes]

I skim read the content and read the conclusions but I doubt if you sat down and studied each word in depth either so I'm not sure what your Big Point is.

I don’t know, man — you’re the one who posted them up. I presumed you did so because of their content, but apparently you just thought that the conclusion looked like it helped you win an internet argument. Good luck with that. I’m more interested in the actual psychology. Those papers are way more than what is put into their conclusion. And yes, I did read each word “in depth”, i.e. I read the papers properly. I read psychology papers all the time, I’m used to it.

Anyway, you are clearly not interested so I will not persist.

I want to see barbaric industrial meat production ended and I'm not really interested if you agree with me or not.

But seeing as you avoided answering my question, I can only assume that you're happy to consume the products of industrial meat production and care little for the mental welfare of those tasked with killing your food for you.

You can assume what you want about me. I’ll say this about mental welfare, though — at least I actually take an interest in it as a proper subject and don’t just use it as a wedge issue to batter through my personal ideology.

 

[butcher]

a butcher, shill and fraud, who'd have guessed!

Who is this referring to?

 

[srb7677]

I skim read the content and read the conclusions but I doubt if you sat down and studied each word in depth either so I'm not sure what your Big Point is.

I want to see barbaric industrial meat production ended and I'm not really interested if you agree with me or not.

But seeing as you avoided answering my question, I can only assume that you're happy to consume the products of industrial meat production and care little for the mental welfare of those tasked with killing your food for you.

There is a moral and ethical case for moving beyond meat. Humans are fully capable of surviving without it.

However it remains true that biologically speaking in terms of both our teeth and digestive systems we have evolved as omnivores, both meat and vegetable eaters.

Throughout our existence on this planet we have killed animals to eat them. What the advance of civilisation has done is to divorce most of us from that process, so we experience meat as a pre-packaged commodity on supermarket shelves. Throughout most of prehistory meat and other animal products, eg furs, were essential for our survival but this is no longer true today.
But many of us are of an age where we were raised to eat meat and have always done so. It is not easy to change at my age, and any temptation by anyone to indulge in any self-righteous morally superior lecture in response to this will do nothing but make me did my heels in.

I am not persuaded that eating meat as all our ancestors have done makes me a morally bad person, and anyone who tries to make me feel bad will not win me round but turn me against them. But at the moment I am open to persuasion if it takes an understanding tone.

The change to a wholly vegetarian society is not going to happen overnight but gradually, and the people need to be carried along with it and be on board at every stage.

 

[MrCurry]

There is a moral and ethical case for moving beyond meat. Humans are fully capable of surviving without it.

However it remains true that biologically speaking in terms of both our teeth and digestive systems we have evolved as omnivores, both meat and vegetable eaters.

Throughout our existence on this planet we have killed animals to eat them. What the advance of civilisation has done is to divorce most of us from that process, so we experience meat as a pre-packaged commodity on supermarket shelves. Throughout most of prehistory meat and other animal products, eg furs, were essential for our survival but this is no longer true today.
But many of us are of an age where we were raised to eat meat and have always done so. It is not easy to change at my age, and any temptation by anyone to indulge in any self-righteous morally superior lecture in response to this will do nothing but make me did my heels in.

I am not persuaded that eating meat as all our ancestors have done makes me a morally bad person, and anyone who tries to make me feel bad will not win me round but turn me against them. But at the moment I am open to persuasion if it takes an understanding tone.

The change to a wholly vegetarian society is not going to happen overnight but gradually, and the people need to be carried along with it and be on board at every stage.

I think that’s an example of why, while it remains an issue of individual proactive choice to turn veggie / vegan, numbers will be limited, however pressing or persuasive the macro arguments might be for why we as a society might need to do it. At an individual level of course there’s plenty of reasons why it’s easier, more comfortable, cheaper even in some cases to be a meat eater today, and while that’s the case, most people won’t make big changes.

That’s why (it seems to me) that what will push us towards “the end of meat” will be changes in the whole socioeconomic system which first make it expensive, then difficult, and maybe finally we will all be compelled, if we’re not rich, to not carry on eating meat 5+ nights a week. And of course I might be wrong about that, but I started this thread because I could see the clear data from unarguable sources which said that if we are to fix climate change we very likely do have to change our diets, not a just little, but a huge amount. And I wondered how that might happen.

I agree with you srb7677 it‘ll happen slowly, but i’m quite sure we will get there, because it seems we have to.

 

[editor]

I don’t know, man — you’re the one who posted them up. I presumed you did so because of their content, but apparently you just thought that the conclusion looked like it helped you win an internet argument. Good luck with that. I’m more interested in the actual psychology. Those papers are way more than what is put into their conclusion. And yes, I did read each word “in depth”, i.e. I read the papers properly. I read psychology papers all the time, I’m used to it.

Anyway, you are clearly not interested so I will not persist.

You can assume what you want about me. I’ll say this about mental welfare, though — at least I actually take an interest in it as a proper subject and don’t just use it as a wedge issue to batter through my personal ideology.

You literally can't answer a straightforward question, can you? It's all showboating and fluster.

But if you 'take an interest' in the mental welfare of slaughterhouse workers, what are you actually doing to improve their lot?

 

[editor]

Throughout our existence on this planet we have killed animals to eat them.

For clarity, not every civilisation has done that. I've been consistently arguing that people should drastically reduce their meat intake, but judging by the considerable resistance shown by some posters here, even that modest step is going to take a very long time indeed.

 

[kabbes]

You literally can't answer a straightforward question, can you? It's all showboating and fluster.

No probs. Maybe you could find me some more things you haven't read to help convince me you're right?

But if you 'take an interest' in the mental welfare of slaughterhouse workers, what are you actually doing to improve their lot?

I'm doing a Masters in the subject, to try to really understand it. Understanding things is the first step to resolving them. I'm pretty sure that it stands more chance of actually helping than would reducing the small amount of meat I eat still further.

 

[editor]

No probs. Maybe you could find me some more things you haven't read to help convince me you're right?

I'm doing a Masters in the subject, to try to really understand it. Understanding things is the first step to resolving them. I'm pretty sure that it stands more chance of actually helping than would reducing the small amount of meat I eat still further.

And once again, the flannel, fluster and obfuscation comes out. Sigh.

 

[DaphneM]

The only real way to resolve the mental health damage caused to workers at slaughterhouses is for industrial meat production to end. And that process starts with individuals. Where are you along that journey?

Or use robots