Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times

"Leading food scientists and a cross-party group of MPs and peers are urging UK ministers to ban the use of chemicals in bacon that heighten the risk of several forms of cancer."

Your response: it's "not news," plus some bizarre whataboutery about harmless synthetic colourings about meat alternatives.



And here's the Harvard paper that you're totally ignoring.



And once again scientists conclude that people should substantially reduce their meat intake
Out of interest what is the difference in composition of red meat, white meat or plant based protein? As I can't see why one 'type' of protein should be any different from other 'types' of protein. :hmm:
 
Saltpeter in "used to cure pork" shocker, I mean its only been happening since the middle ages....

How is this news?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/saltpeter

Are you now going to tell me that highly processed meat alternatives don't contain any synthetic coulorings, preservatives etc?

If not, whats your point?

Or have you just decided to spam the thread with irrelevant Guardian bollocks again?
If this was anyone else, wouldn't you have banned them from the thread by now?
The whole point of the article is that these additives cause cancer.

That is definitely news. And the point, which you seem to be avoiding.
 
The whole point of the article is that these additives cause cancer.

That is definitely news. And the point, which you seem to be avoiding.

It's not really, is it?
This thread was about meat/meat substitutes not potassium nitrate.
If "meat substitutes" were, say a portobello mushroom I'd have no issue with people saying they were healthy etc but this thread is specifically about the highly processed "fake meats". I'm not denying processed meats exist or that they might be bad for you, but unprocessed meat is widely available.

It's been known for ages that saltpetre is not good for you - the "news" in the Guardian article is that there are other products that you can cure meat with that aren't bad for you, and we should be using those instead.
 
Last edited:
Not news, it's been known about for years. Sure it was on the news in the 80's.
If there's a cancer causing additive in bacon, and it's been know about since the 80s, that makes it even more shocking. It will be newsworthy until it's banned.
 
If there's a cancer causing additive in bacon, and it's been know about since the 80s, that makes it even more shocking. It will be newsworthy until it's banned.
There's a cancer causing chemical in beer and wine too. Is that shocking, given that it also has been known for some time? would you like to see those things banned?
 
If there's a cancer causing additive in bacon, and it's been know about since the 80s, that makes it even more shocking. It will be newsworthy until it's banned.
I would expect if it was 100% guaranteed to cause cancer then it would have been banned years ago but it's more likely that it's like a lot of other food stuffs that are bad for you one month then ok the next. :(
 
Not news, it's been known about for years. Sure it was on the news in the 80's.
Love the way you think you can decide whether a current cross party campaign backed by the director of the Institute for Global Food Safety at Queen’s University in Belfast and a WHO study is news or not.

And here's another actual expert insisting that people should cut back their consumption of meat

Dr. Walter Willett at Harvard’s School of Public Health is a top nutritional guru. He says that 9% of deaths in the Harvard study could have been saved if people ate less red meat daily.

In effect, the consumption of red meat was related to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes and cancer. Willet says that the strongest evidence that red meat causes cancer is colon malignancy. And that the main culprits are processed red meats like bacon, sausage, hot dogs and lunch meats. Moreover, eating meats during adolescence increases the risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women.

But why is red meat so dangerous? Willett’s answer is that processed meats contain preservatives such as nitrites and nitrosamines and we know these are carcinogenic in animals. In addition, red meat contains high levels of saturated fat.


 
I would expect if it was 100% guaranteed to cause cancer then it would have been banned years ago but it's more likely that it's like a lot of other food stuffs that are bad for you one month then ok the next. :(
Nothing is 100% guaranteed to cause cancer, not even asbestos. :D:D
 
And another
It seems evident that human dietary habits regarding meat consumption in general, and red meats and wild meats in particular, should be significantly modified downward, as much and as soon as possible.

 
There's a cancer causing chemical in beer and wine too. Is that shocking, given that it also has been known for some time? would you like to see those things banned?
What is that?

If it can be removed without affecting the quality, then yes.
 

Why there's a credible source. Massively funded by the livestock industry no less.

CARNIVORES AND CATTLE ranchers love Frank Mitloehner. As people who produce or eat meat look for ways to defend their effect on the planet, Mitloehner, an air quality scientist at the University of California, Davis, has been there to voice support.

In recent years, Mitloehner launched a new research center called CLEAR — which stands for Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research — at UC Davis. While staffing is covered by an annual budget of $350,000, funded primarily by University of California programs, the center has also received livestock industry support. Mitloehner says IFeeder, a philanthropic research institute of the American Feed Industry Association, has given the center about $500,000.

It’s a similar debate with beef. Mitloehner argues that global emissions tallies shouldn’t apply to American consumers, since beef raised in the U.S. is more climate-efficient than beef from Brazil. But Hayek characterizes such arguments as creative accounting. “They’re trying to have it both ways,” he recently tweeted — “not get punished for the problem they’re contributing to, but being rewarded for solving it anyway


Clearing the Air is a synthesis of research by the UC Davis authors and many other institutions, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture, California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Writing the synthesis was supported by a $26,000 research grant from the Beef Checkoff Program, which funds research and other activities, including promotion and consumer education, through fees on beef producers in the US. Since 2002, Mitloehner has received $5m in research funding, with 5% of the total from agricultural commodities groups, such as beef producers.


And his claims have been thoroughly discredited by some:


1657465757856.png

1657465745577.png
1657465766877.png
1657465775836.png
 
Why there's a credible source. Massively funded by the livestock industry no less.











And his claims have been thoroughly discredited by some:


View attachment 331553

View attachment 331552
View attachment 331554
View attachment 331555
Ah, so all the academics listed in that article are massively biased whereas the ones that agree with you aren't, got it. :thumbs:

Also, imagine thinking a twitter account called "vegan rebel" was in any way credible. What a joke. :D

I see you managed to leave out Professor Stanton, Frédéric Leroy, Christopher Elliott, Neil Mann, Patrick Wall and Stefaan De Smet, their take on, Christopher Elliott, Neil Mann, Patrick Wall and Stefaan De Smet
 
Ah, so all the academics listed in that article are massively biased whereas the ones that agree with you aren't, got it. :thumbs:

The more I read about this bloke, the more laughable a source he becomes. Which is rather strange seeing as you're in the habit of constantly giving pompous lectures about the provenance of sources.

This guy - who has pocketed millions from the beef industry - has been caught out massaging the figures in an attempt to downplay the impact of the meat industry. I can see why you like him though.

Beef Industry Tries to Erase Its Emissions With Fuzzy Methane Math
A new campaign asserts, incorrectly, that cows in the U.S. “may not be contributing much at all to global warming.”


A more recent study from the University of Michigan found a heftier impact: If Americans cut their consumption of animal products by half, it would lead to a 3.4% reduction from today’s emissions levels. “There’s just no way to meet our climate goals without dramatically reducing our beef consumption,” says Jillian Fry, an assistant professor of health sciences at Towson University, who has criticized Mitloehner’s work in the past for downplaying the climate impacts of livestock farming.

 
Why there's a credible source. Massively funded by the livestock industry no less.











And his claims have been thoroughly discredited by some:


View attachment 331553

View attachment 331552
View attachment 331554
View attachment 331555
"Knee deep in agricultural funding"? :D
5% would barely reach his ankle. :D
 
And this is what people are up against: a billion dollar industry who don't give a fuck about climate change

How the meat industry works against climate action

The meat industry has “spent millions of dollars lobbying against climate policies and funding dubious research that tries to blur the links between animal agriculture and our climate emergency,” according to research published in the journal Climatic Change last month. These tactics have deeply mimicked those of the fossil fuel industry, said Jennifer Jacquet, an associate professor of environmental studies at New York University and one of the study’s authors.

“I’ve often compared beef to the coal of the meat world,” she told me. “We’re seeing the beef industry deploy the same strategies deployed by the coal industry, because the writing on the wall is clear: it’s going to be very hard to maintain both of those industries in their current state if we’re going to tackle the climate crisis effectively.”

U.S. beef and dairy companies have mimicked fossil fuel companies on climate change in a few key ways, Jacquet says—and one is by funding research that casts doubt on the science connecting the livestock sector to climate change.

The science they’re primarily trying to cast doubt on shows that 14.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are associated with livestock supply chains, she said. According to Climate Nexus, “This is broadly equivalent to the emissions from all the fuel burned by all the world’s transport vehicles, including cars, trucks, trains, boats and airplanes.”

And here's the industry shill again:

To do this, beef and dairy interests have been funding scientists like Frank Mitloehner, who studies air quality at the University of California Davis and asserts that livestock and dairy aren’t big climate problems. “The quintessential Mitloehner take: Worry less about the burgers and more about Big Oil,” journalist Jenny Splitter wrote recently in an in-depth profile of Mitloehner for Undark, which is very much worth reading.

(Mitloehner also partially credits himself for getting the reference to emissions from cows removed from Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal fact sheet).

Industry-favored experts like Mitloehner generally point out that in America, farming is only responsible for about 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions—and only about half of that comes from animal agriculture. That’s true, but this is a climate crisis; we don’t really have the option of ignoring one of the main contributors, even if the contributor is not as bad as fossil fuels. Global meat consumption is also projected to grow rapidly, and it’s very likely that without regulation, emissions are going to grow with it. Right now, one-third of all U.S. animal agriculture emissions come from either livestock methane (farts/burps) or livestock manure management.

 
The more I read about this bloke, the more laughable a source he becomes. Which is rather strange seeing as you're in the habit of constantly giving pompous lectures about the provenance of sources.

This guy - who has pocketed millions from the beef industry - has been caught out massaging the figures in an attempt to downplay the impact of the meat industry. I can see why you like him though.

Beef Industry Tries to Erase Its Emissions With Fuzzy Methane Math
A new campaign asserts, incorrectly, that cows in the U.S. “may not be contributing much at all to global warming.”




Funny, when I level similar criticisms at Joseph Poore who has received substantial funding from Viva!, he was somehow beyond reproach...
 
This guy is so dodgy, the "Johns Hopkins University took the highly unusual step of issuing a public rebuttal to Dr. Mitloenher’s mis-statements..."

 
And this is what people are up against: a billion dollar industry who don't give a fuck about climate change





And here's the industry shill again:



You do understand that the fake meat producing companies are exactly the same, sometimes they are even the same companies (Cargill, for example) don't you?
Which, is essentially what this thread was about.

But don't worry, those huge corporate billionaires churning out those fake meat products are good, benevolent billionaires....
 
This guy is so dodgy, the "Johns Hopkins University took the highly unusual step of issuing a public rebuttal to Dr. Mitloenher’s mis-statements..."

You do understand that there were several studies and a lot of other academics listed in that article don't you?
 
And the real story is how these disgusting shithead industries try to lie and greenwash away the impact of their meat production on the planet.

How the Largest Global Meat and Dairy Companies Evade Climate Scrutiny
 
You do understand that the fake meat producing companies are exactly the same, sometimes they are even the same companies (Cargill, for example) don't you?
Which, is essentially what this thread was about.

But don't worry, those huge corporate billionaires churning out those fake meat products are good, benevolent billionaires....

And he's off again, trying to change the subject! Why won't you defend the 'balanced' source you posted up? Is Mitloehner a credible source in your opinion or not?
 
And he's off again, trying to change the subject! Why won't you defend the 'balanced' source you posted up? Is Mitloehner a credible source in your opinion or not?
He's controversial, which is why I linked to it. He's as controversial as Joseph Poore on the other side of the argument. You were, however so blinded by your conformation bias that you leapt to his defence, but were happy to Google away about Mitloehner - and, once again "conveniently" ignore all the other academics mentioned in that article.

You also seem to think that the big meat processors try to hide their environmental impact whilst seeming to think that the same companies (or very similar ones) producing synthetic meat are somehow beyond such things.

You must tie yourself up in knots about Cargill, which is both simultaneously evil for being a meat processor and the saviour of humanity for developing synthetic highly processed meat alternatives...


But, of course you could, if you chose buy meat that has been nowhere near those companies. Not so for synthetic meat substitutes.
 
You must tie yourself up in knots about Cargill, which is both simultaneously evil for being a meat processor and the saviour of humanity for developing synthetic highly processed meat alternatives...
And there you go again with another fucking weird strawman. I don't spend a single second of any day thinking about Cargill, let alone 'tying myself up in knots' over them.

But just to clear something up: you agree that Mitloehner is absolutely not a credible source, yes?

I mean, something must be seriously awry when the Johns Hopkins University feels compelled to issue a public rebuttal to his bullshit.
 
And there you go again with another fucking weird strawman. I don't spend a single second of any day thinking about Cargill, let alone 'tying myself up in knots' over them.

But just to clear something up: you agree that Mitloehner is absolutely not a credible source, yes?

I mean, something must be seriously awry when the Johns Hopkins University feels compelled to issue a public rebuttal to his bullshit.
He's about as credible as Joseph Poore.


Although, he doesn't work at John Hopkins and has no ties to them, so I can't see why it's necessary. The scientific world has very few consensuses.
 
Back
Top Bottom