Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?

  • I’m already veggie or vegan as any right thinking person should be!

    Votes: 49 25.0%

  • I can take it or leave it, I won’t miss meat

    Votes: 31 15.8%

  • I’d give up meat if I could think what else to cook, but I can’t

    Votes: 7 3.6%

  • I’m reluctant to change, but I accept the need

    Votes: 34 17.3%

  • It’s unimaginable that I won’t have meat in most / all meals - I’ll probably starve

    Votes: 8 4.1%

  • Fuck the planet, I’ll be eating meat till I die or the planet explodes

    Votes: 6 3.1%

  • Poll fail, answer below

    Votes: 15 7.7%

  • Don’t believe the hype - meat will be available forever, nothing much will change

    Votes: 46 23.5%
  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
littlebabyjesus said:
It's processed meat that has been linked to cancer, specifically. The link of unprocessed red meat to cancer is weak, or as FM says, unproven, so you should stop repeating that idea until more evidence comes to light, particularly as there are health benefits to unprocessed red meats that need to be balanced in the evidence. As posted before, even the authors of various reports on red meat and cancer admit this.

And the evidence that there is comes from long-term studies, the likes of which have not been done for 'non-slaughter meats'. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that various non-animal proteins have a cancer link. Truth is that we don't know either way as the studies have not been done. But given the link between processed meat and cancer that has been found, we should be cautious about advocating processed non-meat. What kinds of processes are done to this non-meat, and what harms could they be introducing?
Click to expand...

There have been over 800 studies on the link between red meat and cancer. The evidence for unprocessed red meat being carcinogenic isn’t as strong as processed red meat but that doesn’t mean the evidence is ‘weak’.

The WHO and the International Agency for Research on Cancer classify processed red meat as a Group 1 carcinogen meaning that it is carcinogenic to humans. Unprocessed red meat is classified as a Group 2A carcinogen meaning it’s ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.

On the basis of the totality of the evidence and (I presume) a precautionary principle, bodies like the WHO, the IARC, the NHS, Cancer Research UK and others recommend moderating red meat intake to reduce the risk of cancer.

Now we could play a game of ‘frantically-googling-all-the-studies-that-support-my-position-on-this’ but personally, I’d take Cancer Research UK’s views on this over a meat partisan like ‘Funky Monks’.

One more thing, there’s a blatant double standard in urging a weighing of the nutritional pros and cons of red meat but never doing the same animal abuse free meats? There’s never any differentiating between the thousands of animal abuse free meat products or considering their nutritional benefits. For example, seitan is packed with protein, iron and calcium. If you add some oil, salt and stabilising agents to that it doesn’t become nutritionally barren
 
Last edited:
Jeff Robinson said:
Now we could play a game of ‘frantically-googling-all-the-studies-that-support-my-position-on-this’ but personally, I’d take Cancer Research UK’s views on this over a meat partisan like ‘Funky Monks’.
Click to expand...
By "meat partisan" presumably you mean one of the 95% or so of the population that eats meat? 😂
 
Good piece in Private Eye about the filthy dirty poultry farms polluting the beautiful River Wye.

POLLUTION from the rapidly expanding intensive poultry farming industry in mid-Wales is indeed harming protected species in the River Wye and its tributaries, according to documents released by Welsh environment watchdogs who have been denying for years that the problem exists.
Regulator Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has repeatedly insisted there is no proven link between manure from poultry farming and environmental damage identified by campaign groups, after big blooms of algae offered a clue that all was not well.

Afonydd Cymru, the umbrella body for Welsh river trusts, and Fish Legal, a campaigning law firm funded by anglers, have highlighted phosphate pollution along the Wye and Ithon rivers (Eyes passim) and, after paying for expert research themselves, reported their concerns to NRW in 2020 and 2021. As recently as May 2022, NRW told the campaigners that their own monitoring "does not support the hypothesis that poultry units are the cause" of pollution issues on the Wye.
Click to expand...

"There has been increasing evidence that the poultry industry expansion has had an effect on the Wye, yet for two and a half years since the Wye and Usk Foundation first highlighted their concerns, there has been nothing but denial from NRW of such links," said Gail Davies- Walsh, CEO of Afonydd Cymru. Fish Legal solicitor Justin Neal called for the Welsh government to step in and make NRW investigate the poultry units properly, and at long last carry out appropriate enforcement under environmental damage regulations.
Click to expand...

www.private-eye.co.uk

Private Eye | Green Eye: Why oh-Wye

POLLUTION from the rapidly expanding intensive poultry farming industry in mid-Wales is indeed harming protected species in the River Wye and its tributaries, according to documents released by Welsh environment watchdogs who have been denying for years that the problem exists.
www.private-eye.co.uk
 
Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.



Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.
 
Yet more damning evidence of the cancer risks of processed meat:

A leading scientist has urged ministers to ban the use of nitrites in food after research highlighted the “clear” risk of developing cancer from eating processed meat such as bacon and ham too often.

The study by scientists from Queen’s University Belfast found that mice fed a diet of processed meat containing the chemicals, which are used to cure bacon and give it its distinctive pink colour, developed 75% more cancerous tumours than mice fed nitrite-free pork.

It also found that mice fed nitrite-cured pork developed 82% more tumours in the bowel than the control group.
Click to expand...
About 90% of bacon sold in Britain is thought to contain nitrites, which previous research studies have linked to the development of bowel, breast and prostate cancers. The chemical is also used in some continental meat products such as frankfurter sausages.
Click to expand...

www.theguardian.com

‘Too much’ nitrite-cured meat brings clear risk of cancer, say scientists

Call for UK government ban of chemical in processed meat such as bacon and ham after mice tumours study
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

And let's hope this idea works out:

www.theguardian.com

Climate impact labels could help people eat less red meat

Information on environmental impact can persuade consumers against carbon-heavy food choices, says study
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
NoXion said:
Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.



Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.
Click to expand...


Cunts of the highest order. Some of them recently released a load of mink from a farm in Ohio. The ones that didn't get run over on the nearby roads, killed most of the local wildlife.
 
NoXion said:
Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.



Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.
Click to expand...

I knew they lied and fabricated evidence. I didn't know they had embarked upon a mission to kill pets. They are really very disturbed individuals.
 
NoXion said:
Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.



Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.
Click to expand...

ah yeah, we haven't had the Peta card for a fair few pages, best way to ignore them is to post about them eh! :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
NoXion said:
Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.



Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.
Click to expand...


They shouldn't be ignored. They should be ridiculed as frequently as possible. Whenever they're mentioned I think of our very own fruitcake, Jeff Robinson!
 
ddraig said:
ah yeah, we haven't had the Peta card for a fair few pages, best way to ignore them is to post about them eh! :facepalm:
Click to expand...

I posted that video because I believe it provides a good summary for precisely why I think PETA isn't a good representative of their chosen side of the debate. Anyone dismissing the concept of animal rights because of PETA's actions is not doing so in good faith, because PETA themselves do not actually uphold animal rights.
 
Most people on here are clued up enough not to quote PETA or PETA-related material. Sadly not everyone, though.

We do need to have the equivalent of the S*n ban on here, I think. PETA make stuff up. They fabricate stories, falsify videos and routinely lie. They're also serial pet killers. Nobody should ever make any argument based on anything they say or quote anything that does so.
 
NoXion said:
I posted that video because I believe it provides a good summary for precisely why I think PETA isn't a good representative of their chosen side of the debate. Anyone dismissing the concept of animal rights because of PETA's actions is not doing so in good faith, because PETA themselves do not actually uphold animal rights.
Click to expand...
Well done you! Hope it made you feel good for a while
PETA has been done several times
 
All I know about PETA is that they once ran an ad campaign trying to convince people that shearing sheep involved skinning them alive.

Told me all I needed to know, really.
 
I'd've'nt thought it'd be very difficult to be fanatical in wanting to prevent cruelty to animals. Greenpeace has the same goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
  • Poll
Is there the political will to do anything on climate change?
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
4K
RubyToogood
RubyToogood
Aladdin
  • Poll
How can you stay warm when...
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
4K
Aladdin
Aladdin
ska invita
Air pollution level by UK postcode
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
geminisnake
geminisnake
Back
Top Bottom