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

[CNT36]

Only a painfully thick bellend could disagree with this!

Maybe someone can win you over.

 

[butcher]

it's like buses, another one will be along shortly

Usually you wait for one and three show up

 

[Pickman's model]

very "helpful to debate"!

it's good to talk

 

[Spymaster]

it's like buses, another one will be along shortly

very "helpful to debate"!

QED

 

[editor]

Might be good if the levels of general personal abuse could notch down a bit now. Thanks.
*Please take all discussion of this point to the feedback forum.

 

[Pickman's model]

yeh sure there'll be no more calling people bigots

 

[WouldBe]

very "helpful to debate"!

And how do your laughing emojis help the debate?

 

[ddraig]

And how do your laughing emojis help the debate?

Same as anything you've ever posted

 

[bcuster]

Cruelty to animals is no laughing matter. This issue has been glossed over for 80 pages

 

[DaphneM]

yeh sure there'll be no more calling people bigots

I am happy to not call anyone “a fucking idiot”

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Cruelty to animals is no laughing matter. This issue has been glossed over for 80 pages

Do you consider all animal farming to be unjustifiable cruelty to animals?

A few posters on here take that line. Others don't. And sadly we end up talking past one another a lot of the time. I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take fwiw. Problem is that those who take that position often, and logically tbh, don't think any other position is reasonable.

 

[Funky_monks]

Do you consider all animal farming to be unjustifiable cruelty to animals?

A few posters on here take that line. Others don't. And sadly we end up talking past one another a lot of the time. I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take fwiw. Problem is that those who take that position often, and logically tbh, don't think any other position is reasonable.

I mean, it's been discussed earlier on in some depth, I think.

I don't think the opinion that farming is intrinsically cruel is either logical or reasonable, tbh

 

[friedaweed]

I am happy to not call anyone “a fucking idiot”

I wont be calling anyone who disagrees with me "a bit pissed" to try and undermine their point of view either.

I read this today from the mighty oven chip producer that is McCains. Makes interesting reading. Of course it's all part of their PR machine but it's interesting what they're doing.

https://www.mccain.com/media/4060/mccain-foods-sustainability-report-2022.pdf

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I mean, it's been discussed earlier on in some depth, I think.

I don't think the opinion that farming is intrinsically cruel is either logical or reasonable, tbh

It's logical enough to think that yours is the only reasonable position if you think all animal farming is unnecessary cruelty. That's kind of the problem with fundamentalism. It involves certainty and it doesn't allow for any other position. But that certainty is consistent with the belief.

But I don't think we ever really straightened this stuff out. Hence the barely concealed contempt displayed at various times for any position that sees livestock farming as an acceptable thing for people to do. We are on the wrong side of history on this one.

 

[Funky_monks]

It's logical enough to think that yours is the only reasonable position if you think all animal farming is unnecessary cruelty. That's kind of the problem with fundamentalism. It involves certainty and it doesn't allow for any other position. But that certainty is consistent with the belief.

But I don't think we ever really straightened this stuff out. Hence the barely concealed contempt displayed at various times for any position that sees livestock farming as an acceptable thing for people to do. We are on the wrong side of history on this one.

I don't particularly care about being on the wrong side of a zealots history tbh.

I spent a lot of years as a shepherd (doing other things alongside). Millions of us came before me, plenty will come after me.

 

[Hollis]

Going back to the premise of a world without meat, unless there’s a large scale event that practically limits the availability of livestock, the most effective way would be to widen the availability and range of good vegan and vegetarian food. This would increase non meat eating in those who share common concerns with veggies/vegans but find other issues take priority. It could also start normalising plant based foods as an option for people who wouldn’t dream of taking the whole plunge. I’d argue that greater acceptance of those trying to limit rather than cut out meat entirely would help.

But that increase of range would need to factor in things like food allergies and intolerances, the food palates and nutritional requirements of children (including those with disabilities), people with sensory issues including ARFID, people’s available resources for food preparation (be that financial, time, cognitive, practical, confidence or otherwise), cultural cuisine, conditioned food preferences and basic ability to maintain change.

There’s a sizeable proportion of people who eat meat and know the meat industry is shit, but won’t/can’t cut it out completely because of other issues that are more pressing for them. Some might argue that if you’re passionate (and I’d add if you’ve got various other things in your favour) then you’ll find a way. That’s probably true but not everyone is able to put it quite so high up their priorities, and to make change the potential areas of difficulty need to be identified and addressed.

Not sure if this is a “everyone let’s find a way to work together” or a “check your privilege” post.

I was going to make some flippant comment about try them on Huel. Then I did a quick Google and it seems Huel is quite popular for some with autism..

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I was going to make some flippant comment about try them on Huel. Then I did a quick Google and it seems Huel is quite popular for some with autism..

Makes sense as it’s highly predictable. Unfortunately food supplements/replacements can never be as good as food for reasons we still only partially understand - the dieticians I work with talk about this and it’s interesting but I don’t know enough to do the subject justice.

Though I was really trying to expand the conversation to consider issues for people beyond the relatively narrow demographic of those discussing it here. It blatantly didn’t work.

 

[Funky_monks]

Makes sense as it’s highly predictable. Unfortunately food supplements/replacements can never be as good as food for reasons we still only partially understand - the dieticians I work with talk about this and it’s interesting but I don’t know enough to do the subject justice.

Though I was really trying to expand the conversation to consider issues for people beyond the relatively narrow demographic of those discussing it here. It blatantly didn’t work.

In a similar vein - there was a study I read a while back whereby the researchers made synthetic "cheese" that had the same macronutrient profile as cheese, from dairy constituents, which, when compared to actual cheese seemed to be worse for people with high blood cholesterol (or similar). So, something about the cheesemakers process produces better outcomes.

It's quite a good illustration of how food is more than a collection of macronutrients and leads me to be extremely skeptical about claims that synthetic meat is as nourishing as actual meat simply because it has a similar macronutrient profile. We definitely know that certain micro and micronutrients from plants are less bioavailable.

Edited to add: found it Dairy matrix effects: response to consumption of dairy fat differs when eaten within the cheese matrix—a randomized controlled trial

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In a similar vein - there was a study I read a while back whereby the researchers made synthetic "cheese" that had the same macronutrient profile as cheese, from dairy constituents, which, when compared to actual cheese seemed to be worse for people with high blood cholesterol (or similar). So, something about the cheesemakers process produces better outcomes.

It's quite a good illustration of how food is more than a collection of macronutrients and leads me to be extremely skeptical about claims that synthetic meat is as nourishing as actual meat simply because it has a similar macronutrient profile. We definitely know that certain micro and micronutrients from plants are less bioavailable.

Edited to add: found it Dairy matrix effects: response to consumption of dairy fat differs when eaten within the cheese matrix—a randomized controlled trial

There are similar concerns with taking vitamin supplements. A John Hopkins study a while ago found no health benefits to taking supplements at all, and it found that they might actually do net harm.

Multivitamins are, at best, a waste of money, Johns Hopkins doctors say

There are massive gaps in our knowledge about nutrition.

Why everything you know about nutrition is wrong

 

[editor]

Great to see the Plant Based Treaty gaining traction in the UK!

Edinburgh has become the first Scottish city and the first capital in Europe to endorse the Plant Based Treaty. The City Council joins 20 local governments worldwide – including Los Angeles and Haywards Heath – signing up to the initiative, which aims to tackle food-related emissions from animal agriculture and attributed deforestation, a key driver of the climate emergency.

"By declaring our endorsement, we are acknowledging that food systems are a main driver of the climate emergency and that a shift towards plant-based diets can go a huge way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Plant-rich diets are also a ‘win-win-win’ for society: they have a lower environmental impact, significant health benefits, and reduce animal welfare impacts.”

Following the publication of the impact assessment report on Friday, 13 January, it was presented at the Policy and Sustainability Committee this week. The report acknowledges “diets high in plant protein and low in meat and dairy make for lower greenhouse gas emissions, and that consequently, shifting consumption towards plant-based diets has a major mitigation potential.” It also states: “Overall, the science is clear, meat and dairy consumption must reduce to achieve climate targets.”

The report shows food and diet account for 23 per cent of Edinburgh’s consumption-based footprint, with 12 per cent of these emissions from the consumption of meat. It says: “A shift to plant-based diets would therefore significantly reduce the city’s consumption-based emissions.”

More than 240 councillors from almost 60 towns and cities in the UK have individually signed the Plant Based Treaty from parties including Conservatives, Green Party, Labour, and Liberal Democrats.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/edinburgh-becomes-first-capital-city-in-europe-to-endorse-plant-based-treaty-to-fight-climate-change-4000508

 

[littlebabyjesus]

a shift towards plant-based diets can go a huge way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Would you like to show your workings for that?

 

[editor]

Would you like to show your workings for that?

Your levels of head-in-the-sand denial are bordering on Olympic.

The international team investigated how much land could be saved by 54 high-income nations moving to the EAT-Lancet 'planetary diet," a diet high in plant-based foods that is good for human health.

"We looked at higher income regions because they have plenty of plant-based options for protein and other nutritional needs. In lower-income regions, people consume fewer animal proteins but often rely on them for their health," said Leiden University's Paul Behrens, senior author of the research.

The researchers found that the switch to plant-based diets would reduce annual agricultural production emissions by 61%. Additionally, converting former cropland and pastures to their natural state would remove another 98.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by the end of the century. This carbon profit would help significantly to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

How plant-based diets not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also increase carbon capture

Almost 100 billion tons of CO2 could be pulled out of the atmosphere by the end of the century. That is, if high-income countries switch to a plant-based diet. The double carbon profit of returning farmland to its natural state would equal about 14 years' worth of agricultural emissions...

phys.org

Now a new study suggests that a global switch to a plant-based diet would curb the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases for three decades, altering the trajectory of global climate change to give humanity more time to end its reliance on fossil fuels.

How a global plant-based diet could curb greenhouse emissions - Science Museum Group

Science Director Roger Highfield reports on an American study that suggests a radical change in diet could buy valuable time to slow damaging climate change.

www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk

In 2018, scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage of farming to the planet found avoiding meat and dairy products was the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet. The research showed that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world.

Going vegan: can switching to a plant-based diet really save the planet?

If politicians are serious about change, they need to incentivise it, say scientists and writers

www.theguardian.com

A global switch to diets that rely less on meat and more on fruit and vegetables could save up to 8 million lives by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds, and lead to healthcare-related savings and avoided climate damages of $1.5 trillion (US) , Oxford Martin School researchers have found.

Plant-based diets could save millions of lives and dramatically cut…

The Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford brings together the best minds from different fields to tackle the most pressing issues of the 21st century.

www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk

Etc etc etczzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Pickman's model]

Your levels of head-in-the-sand denial are bordering on Olympic.

How plant-based diets not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also increase carbon capture

Almost 100 billion tons of CO2 could be pulled out of the atmosphere by the end of the century. That is, if high-income countries switch to a plant-based diet. The double carbon profit of returning farmland to its natural state would equal about 14 years' worth of agricultural emissions...

phys.org

How a global plant-based diet could curb greenhouse emissions - Science Museum Group

Science Director Roger Highfield reports on an American study that suggests a radical change in diet could buy valuable time to slow damaging climate change.

www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk

Going vegan: can switching to a plant-based diet really save the planet?

If politicians are serious about change, they need to incentivise it, say scientists and writers

www.theguardian.com

Plant-based diets could save millions of lives and dramatically cut…

The Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford brings together the best minds from different fields to tackle the most pressing issues of the 21st century.

www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk

Etc etc etczzzzzzzzzzz

not sure how much of that is your working

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think you really understand the stuff you post up. Why not choose one of those links and talk us through it in your own words?

eg here's that study from the last link, which doesn't really say what the headline you quoted says it says. By their own figures, the reduction in GHG emissions with a shift away from meat would be 29-70% of about a quarter, so between less than 10% and a bit under 20%. (Note the levels of uncertainty there - that would need digging into.) It also comes up with these figures based on assumptions of future changes - 'a reference scenario for 2050'. What assumptions do they make to come up with that reference scenario? Again, need to dig into that a bit more to find out.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1523119113

 

[Funky_monks]

Would you like to show your workings for that?

You had to ask, didn't you?

And Lo! A source dump, many all of which we've seen before, most of which are based on Poore and Nemeck 2018.

 

[Pickman's model]

You had to ask, didn't you?

And Lo! A source dump, many of which we've seen before, most of which are based on Poore and Nemeck 2018.

but none of your actual workings

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think you really understand the stuff you post up. Why not choose one of those links and talk us through it in your own words?

the triumph of hope over experience. he doesn't understand the things he posts up, or we wouldn't have had an ma dissertation being brought to our attention earlier in the thread with the claim it was peer reviewed

 

[Funky_monks]

There are similar concerns with taking vitamin supplements. A John Hopkins study a while ago found no health benefits to taking supplements at all, and it found that they might actually do net harm.

Multivitamins are, at best, a waste of money, Johns Hopkins doctors say

There are massive gaps in our knowledge about nutrition.

Why everything you know about nutrition is wrong

Yes, if I recall the only supplements worth taking are marine fish oil, vitamin D (some forms) and possibly zinc, if you have a cold.
Oregano is looking quite promising, mind - it's been used as a health promoter in the poultry industry for a while.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, if I recall the only supplements worth taking are marine fish oil, vitamin D (some forms) and possibly zinc, if you have a cold.
Oregano is looking quite promising, mind - it's been used as a health promoter in the poultry industry for a while.

quite nice on food too, oregano

 

[Funky_monks]

but none of your actual workings

That was never gonna happen though, was it?