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

[editor]

He's about as credible as Joseph Poore.

You really won't answer the question, will you? Mind you, as own goals go, yours was pretty spectacular.

But for the fourth time of asking: you agree that Mitloehner is absolutely not a credible source, yes?

 

[Funky_monks]

You really won't answer the question, will you? Mind you, as own goals go, yours was pretty spectacular.

But for the fourth time of asking: you agree that Mitloehner is absolutely not a credible source, yes?

He's got some apparent biases - but, so has Poore. The point of me mentioning him was (as I've explained) twofold. Firstly to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of touting about three papers by Joseph Poore, someone with equally obvious funding sources that might promote bias as a "scientific consensus", whilst you are clearly able to see that other scientists who have courted popularity might be biased.

Secondly, that you would ignore the work of all the other scientists he mentions in that article including their review of research that was published in "The Lancet" suggesting that the link between red meat and poor health outcomes is vastly overstated.

I don't think you understand what a strawman is - this entire thread was based on touting synthetic, highly processed meat substitutes as an environmental savour and healthy option. My point has consistently been that these products are neither, and moreover can only be produced by massive corporations who have absolutlely no interest in anything other than making profits, they are either just like the meat processors or are the same people.

 

[editor]

He's got some apparent biases - but, so has Poore. The point of me mentioning him was (as I've explained) twofold. Firstly to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of touting about three papers by Joseph Poore, someone with equally obvious funding sources that might promote bias as a "scientific consensus", whilst you are clearly able to see that other scientists who have courted popularity might be biased.

Secondly, that you would ignore the work of all the other scientists he mentions in that article including their review of research that was published in "The Lancet" suggesting that the link between red meat and poor health outcomes is vastly overstated.

I don't think you understand what a strawman is - this entire thread was based on an article that you posted, touting synthetic, highly processed meat substitutes as an environmental savour and healthy option. My point has consistently been that these products are neither, and moreover can only be produced by massive corporations who have absolutlely no interest in anything other than making profits, they are either just like the meat processors or are the same people.

But we're not talking about Poore - you are LITERALLY be the only person going on and on about him.

We're talking about a highly discredited industry shill that you posted up for 'balance' and one whose twisted findings were so appallingly bad that a hugely respected university made the near unprecedented step of issuing a rebuttal to his bullshit.

And are you going to explain why you suddenly brought up Cargill and invented my supposed reaction to them? It's seriously weird conduct.

 

[Funky_monks]

But we're not talking about Poore - you are LITERALLY be the only person going on and on about him.

We're talking about a highly discredited industry shill that you posted up for 'balance' and one whose twisted findings were so appallingly bad that a hugely respected university made the near unprecedented step of issuing a rebuttal to his bullshit.

And are you going to explain why you suddenly brought up Cargill and invented my supposed reaction to them? It's seriously weird conduct.

I'm going on about him because his work is the underlying science (two or three papers) behind nearly every single lay press article you've posted.

What you are attempting to do here is mansplain a field of science, to a scientist whose field this is and insist that there is a scientific consensus therein, when there very much isn't. You are doing this apparently without any knowledge of any kind of agriculture, or indeed growing anything whatsoever.

I've never seen a more beautifully illustrated example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in my life.

 

[editor]

I'm going on about him because his work is the underlying science (two or three papers) behind nearly every single lay press article you've posted.

Except that's not even slightly true. You're lying just like you were lying when you started projecting my supposed reaction to a company I don't give a fuck about.

I've posted up articles that have been supported by a vast slew of links to multiple sources of research but you're not interested in looking for anything other than bias confirmation,

Just look at the way you've tied yourself in knots over your unwise decision to reference Mitloehner as a balanced source. It's embarrassing, just like the way you keep elevating yourself to the status of peer reviewed researchers.

 

[Funky_monks]

Except that's not even slightly true. You're lying just like you were lying when you started projecting my supposed reaction to a company I don't give a fuck about.

I've posted up articles that have been supported by a vast slew of links to multiple sources of research but you're not interested in looking for anything other than bias confirmation,

Just look at the way you've tied yourself in knots over your unwise decision to reference Mitloehner as a balanced source. It's embarrassing, just like the way you keep elevating yourself to the status of peer reviewed researchers.

No, I haven't - I did it for a purpose, which you apparently still haven't noticed. My point was that you are perfectly capable of noticing bias, except when it's something you agree with.

 

[Funky_monks]

The thing that I find quite interesting about these threads (in hindsight) is how in describing veganism etc, there appears to be a lot of use of terms like "overwhelming evidence, indisputably, "the" science clearly states" etc ( I should do some thematic analysis ), when a lot of what is being posted is numerous lay press articles written based on the same four journal articles, and of those mostly informed by one (Poore and Nemeck, 2018) I genuinely think that to non-scientists (who presumably instantly look at the reference list) giving the very real impression of a vast body of work.

Four articles is nobody's "overwhelming evidence" or indeed "substantial body of work".

For interest, I have referenced the four journal articles I think inform most of the press articles that have been posted on this thread:

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A.J.N.F., 2021. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), pp.198-209.

Poore, J. and Nemecek, T., 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), pp.987-992.

Springmann, M., Spajic, L., Clark, M.A., Poore, J., Herforth, A., Webb, P., Rayner, M. and Scarborough, P., 2020. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. bmj, 370.

Xu, X., Sharma, P., Shu, S., Lin, T.S., Ciais, P., Tubiello, F.N., Smith, P., Campbell, N. and Jain, A.K., 2021. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2(9), pp.724-732.

Here's post #585 again whereby I had a glance back through the articles you'd posted and found the four (yes, a whole four) that the vast majority were based on.

 

[editor]

Here's post #585 again whereby I had a glance back through the articles you'd posted and found the four (yes, a whole four) that the vast majority were based on.

That was 200 fucking posts ago so I guess you'll just ignore all the more recent posts, links and references .

And you're in position to lecture about 'noticing bias' after your foot-shooting link to the industry funded, thoroughly discredited Mitloehner.

WHO report says eating processed meat is carcinogenic: Understanding the findings

Last week the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that consumption of processed meat is “carcinogenic to humans (Group I ),” and that cons…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010-2020) evidences - PubMed

Meat consumption has been increasing since the 1960s, but especially from the 1980s decade to today. Although meat means an important source of nutrients, it is also evident that a great consumption of this source of proteins has also a negative environmental impact. Livestock production does...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dairy and meat industry profits ‘under threat’ from climate crisis

Profits are at risk if the meat and dairy industry does not ‘cut methane emissions and other climate pollutants’

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Funky_monks]

That was 200 fucking posts ago so I guess you'll just ignore all the more recent posts, links and references .

And you're in position to lecture about 'noticing bias' after your foot-shooting link to the industry funded, thoroughly discredited Mitloehner.

You still haven't twigged to why I did that, have you?



As per my post - a lot of your articles were supported by Joseph Poore, a person heavily funded by vegan groups.
So, I posted up an article by Mitloehner, who is quite open about receiving some funding from meat processors.

Apparently, you are perfectly able to see the bias in one of these and not the other.

You are making yourself look quite silly at this point.

 

[editor]

You still haven't twigged to why I did that, have you?

You haven't twigged why you're making an utter fool of yourself here. I'm putting you on ignore for a week because I've got better things to do with my time than argue with a reality-distorting shill for the meat industry.

 

[Funky_monks]

You haven't twigged why you're making an utter fool of yourself here. I'm putting you on ignore for a week because I've got better things to do with my time than argue with a reality-distorting shill for the meat industry.

Once again, you make yourself look ridiculous and then throw your toys out of the pram.

The level of arrogance you display on this thread is breathtaking.

Once more - we also do lots of work with the cropping/horticulture sectors. Does that make me a shill for "big plant" too?

Oh, re the health issues regarding unprocessed red meat - here's one review of research that calls this link into question. But, of course it's in that well known "industry publication" "The Lancet"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00311-7/fulltext?rss=yes

 

[WouldBe]

I didn't realise a quarter of a million was such a trifling sum to a big earner like yourself.

Do you seriously think the donors of the other $23.75 million would be happy with the report being skewed in the favour of the 5% donors?

 

[WouldBe]

"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."

Note that says "heighten" not "def causes" cancer.

Also from one of the bits you quote it says

Last week the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that consumption of processed meat is “carcinogenic to humans (Group I ),” and that consumption of red meat is “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).”

So it's mainly processed meat that's the problem so just don't eat processed crap weather meat or plant based.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It also has close ties with the rest of agriculture, ie cropping and Horticulture. What's your point?
All agriculture is inextricably linkedView attachment 331521
Here's a picture of a field of tenderstem broccoli (it's gone over, hence the yellow flowers) - during cultivation it took several tons of broiler muck. It would have been grazed off at some point after that.
View attachment 331525

Woah cool the circle of life! Interesting that you went for images of bucolic fields and not say male chicks being tossed into grinding machines for the egg industry. I guess you could have also included an image of one of the many rivers in this country polluted with slurry dumped by industrial animal ag?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Note that says "heighten" not "def causes" cancer.

Also from one of the bits you quote it says

So it's mainly processed meat that's the problem so just don't eat processed crap weather meat or plant based.

Asbestos and tobacco also 'heighten' the risk of cancer. That's just what 'cause' means for the purpose of a group 1 carcinogen. Processed meat is classified that way because there's strong evidence it causes cancer. Red non-processed meat is classified by the WHO as a group 2(a) carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. I am not aware of any plant-foods - processed or not - that are classified as carcinogens of any sort.

 

[Funky_monks]

Woah cool the circle of life! Interesting that you went for images of bucolic fields and not say male chicks being tossed into grinding machines for the egg industry. I guess you could have also included an image of one of the many rivers in this country polluted with slurry dumped by industrial animal ag?

You've missed the point - the point is that a) I also work with crops, so am I also a "shill" for the plant industry? and b) animal ag and crops are inextricably linked, even more so if we want to stop relying on fossil fuel based fertiliser. There is also an efficiency question in those photos ( which are very pleasant to look at, but that really wasn't the point) - the pickers had been through that field once, I think before it went over (ie flowered), it was then unsalable. So, at that point, you could either graze it off, whilst both growing animals and returning some fertility in the form of their dung or just leave it and spray it off with roundup or similar before incorporating.

You'll find that slurry/synthetic fert run off, where it occurs is often to do with spreading (and often ignoring legislation about distances from water courses/frosts etc) - manure is contained for this purpose. Spreading manure will be to grow plants, not animals. Slurry/manure is not "dumped" because it is valuable as fertiliser.

Again, the point being that food production and environmental protection are absolutely not as simple as "don't eat meat" - some meat production has environmental benefits, some cropping is incredibly destructive (I tried to get an image of potato growing from down the road to illustrate how terrible it is from the soil, but people would have to know what they were looking at was destructive, ie ploughing and ridging, and I don't think people associate those things together, outside of ag)

Also, the nitrates, phosphates etc are indistinguishable from those in human waste so we have very little idea how much is down to ag not following guidelines as sewage seems to be being pumped willy-nilly into waterways at the moment.

Sewage discharged into rivers 400,000 times in 2020

 

[editor]

Yet more evidence of the global devastation caused by the fucking meat industry

Supermarkets and retailers have been asked to end relationships with soya traders who allegedly continue to buy soya from suppliers contributing to deforestation in Brazil.

It comes as an investigation by campaign group Mighty Earth alleges that suppliers selling to leading soya traders have deforested at least 27,000 hectares (67,000 acres) across 10 farms in the Cerrado region of Brazil since August 2020.


Some of the traders supply the UK, so soya harvested from this land could end up in meat supply chains for major supermarkets and retailers via animal feed given to farm animals

This is despite a previous agreement in principle from retailers to end buying meat connected to the destruction of natural ecosystems – such as the Brazilian Cerrado – that occurred after August 2020..

Campaigners say the majority (77%) of the world’s soya beans are used for feeding animals, including pigs and poultry.

UK supermarkets could still be buying meat linked to deforestation in Brazil, report suggests

At least 27,000 hectares of Cerrado have allegedly been destroyed by suppliers to major soya traders that supply UK meat industry

www.theguardian.com

MEAT’S UNSUSTAINABLE EXPANSION In South America, the surface of land used to grow soy animal feed was more than 200 times greater in 2017 than in 1961,16 as major agricultural traders sought to profit from demand for meat and dairy in the absence of adequate environmental protections.

The World Resources Institute reported that between 2001 and 2015, 8.2 million hectares of land was deforested for soy animal feed, 97 percent of that in South America. More than half of this deforestation (61 percent) occurred in Brazil, followed by Argentina (21 percent), Bolivia (9 percent), and Paraguay (5 percent).

Within Brazil, nearly half (48 percent) occurred in the Amazon, and almost as much (45 percent) occurring within the Cerrado tropical savannah.17 Mighty Earth’s previous investigations The Ultimate Mystery Meat (with Rainforest Foundation Norway)18 and The Avoidable Crisis (with Rainforest Foundation Norway and Fern)19 have found substantial evidence of deforestation in Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia tied to specific traders. They do not seem to have taken meaningful steps to address deforestation in those regions either. Deforestation is not inevitable for the growth of the soy sector. Researchers found that new soybean fields directly converted from forests (with soy planted within three years of forest Clearance into the Cerrado landscape, Brazil. Photo: Mighty Earth 9 clearing) accounted for only 13 percent of soybean’s expansion across South America.20 This means many soy producers are operating on previously cleared land. There is no excuse for other producers not to do the same.

Full report: https://www.mightyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/Mighty-Earth-Soy-tracker-Promises-Promises-V6.pdf

 

[Funky_monks]

Oh good, we are going to go round and round about soy again.

I'll explain what soymeal is, people will fail to understand the concept and on we go.

Of course, the use of soy is not compulsory and plenty of projects are in place to phase it out - insect protien is a being developed which could enable us to tackle food waste (by turning it into protien in the form of maggots).

Milk supplied to M&S now has to be soymeal free (ie the cattle are not fed it). Shouldn't really be any need for it in ruminant production anyway. Good legume rich silage has a similar protein content. Edited to add - the silage would have a similar protein content to the soy containing animal feed, not pure soymeal.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Is anyone surprised that the meat industry is corrupt?

The nation's largest food distributor has joined the other businesses accusing the four largest meat processors of working together to inflate beef prices.

Sysco recently filed a federal lawsuit in Texas accusing Tyson Foods, JBS, Cargill and National Beef of price fixing. The lawsuit said those companies have conspired to suppress the number of cattle being slaughtered at least since 2015 to help drive up the price of beef. The allegations are similar to ones in lawsuits filed by grocery stores, ranchers, restaurants and other wholesalers that have been pending in Minnesota federal court since 2020.

Similar price-fixing lawsuits are also pending in the pork and chicken processing businesses.

The Sysco Corp. lawsuit said the companies' coordinated efforts to limit the number of cattle slaughtered drove down the price meat processors paid ranchers while propping up beef prices, boosting profits for the meat producers, who control more than 80% of the U.S. beef market.

The lawsuit said the companies "exploited their market power in this highly concentrated market by conspiring to limit the supply, and fix the prices, of beef sold." And the lawsuit cited an unnamed witness who used to work in the meat industry who confirmed there was a conspiracy between the meat companies.

Most of the companies didn't immediately respond to questions about the Sysco lawsuit Thursday, but they have defended their actions in the other price-fixing lawsuits even though JBS did agree to a $52.5 million settlement in one of the lawsuits earlier this year. JBS didn't admit any wrongdoing as part of that deal.

Cargill spokesman Daniel Sullivan said his company "is confident in our efforts to maintain market integrity and conduct ethical business. We believe the claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend our position."

In general, the meat processing industry has maintained that supply and demand factors, not anticompetitive behavior, drive beef and cattle prices. The industry has also long struggled with worker shortages that have limited production at times. Those workforce issues became particularly acute during the pandemic when COVID-19 spread widely through processing plants and forced companies to slow or idle production.

Federal Lawsuit Filed in Texas Accuses Four Largest Beef Processors of Price Fixing

The nation’s largest food distributor, Sysco, has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the four largest meat processors of working together to inflate beef prices.

www.nbcdfw.com

This is really something the government should be doing, but doesn't any more.

 

[editor]

Is anyone surprised that the meat industry is corrupt?

Not me. It's a cruel, filthy, disgusting industry prepared to spew disinformation and bribe dodgy experts so they can keep on trashing the planet with impunity while raking in fat profits for themselves.

The meat and dairy industry spend millions of dollars every year lobbying against climate policies and trying to “blur the links between animal agriculture and our climate emergency.” The U.S. government also provides upwards of $30 billion in subsidies to the meat and dairy industry — which quite literally is subsidizing the climate crisis. But not only is the industry lobbying against climate policies, but they’re also working to maintain their social license to operate.

What’s the Beef? Misinformation Strikes Again

This latest row over meat can give us some keen insights into how to navigate tackling the impact of animal agriculture on climate change.

climate-xchange.org

It’s not just Big Oil. Big Meat also spends millions to crush good climate policy.

A new study reveals how the companies you buy meat from block climate action.

www.vox.com

Investigation: How the Meat Industry is Climate-Washing its Polluting Business Model

Growing global meat consumption threatens to derail the Paris Agreement, but that hasn’t stopped the meat industry insisting it is part of the solution to climate change.

www.desmog.com

Global meat industry ‘using tobacco company tactics’ to downplay role in driving climate crisis, investigation claims

Exclusive: Meat companies are routinely underreporting emissions, undermining climate science and casting doubt on plant-based alternatives, an investigation claims

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DaphneM]

I’m fairly sure the industrial production of vegetables isn’t squeaky clean.

Is anyone surprised that the meat industry is corrupt?

Federal Lawsuit Filed in Texas Accuses Four Largest Beef Processors of Price Fixing

The nation’s largest food distributor, Sysco, has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the four largest meat processors of working together to inflate beef prices.

www.nbcdfw.com

This is really something the government should be doing, but doesn't any more.

 

[Mr Retro]

I just picked up “The Great Plant Based Con” by Jane Buxton. It’s quite a weighty tome. I’m looking forward to reading it on holiday in a few weeks time.

 

[ddraig]

I’m fairly sure the industrial production of vegetables isn’t squeaky clean.

Must have some links and sources, seeing as you're "fairly sure"!

 

[Spymaster]

I just picked up “The Great Plant Based Con” by Jane Buxton. It’s quite a weighty tome. I’m looking forward to reading it on holiday in a few weeks time.

Sounds like a great way to fuck-up your holiday.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I just picked up “The Great Plant Based Con” by Jane Buxton. It’s quite a weighty tome. I’m looking forward to reading it on holiday in a few weeks time.

Just judging by the title, I have to doubt if it's the most balanced source of information.

 

[editor]

I’m fairly sure the industrial production of vegetables isn’t squeaky clean.

 

[Mr Retro]

Just judging by the title, I have to doubt if it's the most balanced source of information.

Who knows? It’s been recommended by somebody I trust so I’ll see.

 

[Funky_monks]

Must have some links and sources, seeing as you're "fairly sure"!

The vast areas of Spain covered in plastic polytunnels, the use of slave labour there etc is a good starting point.

Also, lots of the aforementioned meat processors are heavily involved with synthetic, plant based proteins.

Processors generally tend to use global supply chains and their purpose is mostly to add value, which is quite difficult to do with cuts of meat, this is where "convenient" highly processed foods come in.

Farmers tend to really dislike processors, as a rule - this includes meat and plant (milling consortiums etc) because their sole purpose is to screw the producer down on price as much as possible to make margins - Irish farmers and ABP is a good example of serious animosity between the two.

 

[WouldBe]

• fertilizer run off, environmental damage caused by digging it out of the ground or GHG from manmade fertilizer.
• damage caused by weedkiller and insecticides.
• loss of habitat and biodiversity by ripping out hedgerows to make larger fields.

etc, etc etc

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Not me. It's a cruel, filthy, disgusting industry prepared to spew disinformation and bribe dodgy experts so they can keep on trashing the planet with impunity while raking in fat profits for themselves.

What you’re describing there is capitalism.