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

[Pickman's model]

Disagree (in terms of animals farmed) - being up to date with the latest animal behaviour research helps us make the best welfare decisions, from handling facilities on farm to transport and abattoir practice.

I know there's been a lot of "but the meat industry" on this thread, but like lots of people involved in agriculture, I want systems to be high welfare - it informed a lot of choices within my system, from farming sheep who shed their own fleece (less flystrike, no shearing stress), to not castrating or docking tails.

far be it for me to say 'bollocks' but very few animals ever emerge alive from a trip to the abattoir. and i think it'd be a brave person who said that by sending an animal to an abattoir they had the animal's welfare interests in mind. you can be as kind as you like to animals but sending them to be slaughtered undermines imo claims to having their interests at heart.

 

[Funky_monks]

far be it for me to say 'bollocks' but very few animals ever emerge alive from a trip to the abattoir.

Yeah - there's literally a whole set of regs (and a department to oversee them): WATOK - Welfare at the time of killing.

I've known a couple of animal welfare & behaviour postdocs do research in this area.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah - there's literally a whole set of regs (and a department to oversee them): WATOK - Welfare at the time of killing.

I've known a couple of animal welfare & behaviour postdocs do research in this area.

it's my view that anything which ends up with an animal dead doesn't really have its welfare at heart. that the issue of death is the most basic welfare question there is. and you may salve your conscience by saying 'we were as kind to the poor mite as we could be in its final hours' but the thing's still dead. it's sort of at the heart of meat eating that there's the massive cruelty of putting an animal to death that can't really be evaded. now, i suppose the way you're talking about of killing the animal is better, less painful etc, than some other ways of killing the animal but you're still taking away the life of a sentient being who can i understand apprehend the danger it is in. i don't see how you can really square this particular circle to remove the death of the animal from this equation.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Parts of the UK are literally on fire on the hottest day every recorded and the usual sad wankers on here still defending the industry that has massively contributed to this state of affairs.

Can just imagine these cunts posting bacon memes as the earth goes up in flames.

 

[Pickman's model]

Parts of the UK are literally on fire on the hottest day every recorded and the usual sad wankers on here still defending the industry that has massively contributed to this state of affairs.

Can just imagine these cunts posting bacon memes as the earth goes up in flames.

 

[Funky_monks]

it's my view that anything which ends up with an animal dead doesn't really have its welfare at heart. that the issue of death is the most basic welfare question there is. and you may salve your conscience by saying 'we were as kind to the poor mite as we could be in its final hours' but the thing's still dead. it's sort of at the heart of meat eating that there's the massive cruelty of putting an animal to death that can't really be evaded. now, i suppose the way you're talking about of killing the animal is better, less painful etc, than some other ways of killing the animal but you're still taking away the life of a sentient being who can i understand apprehend the danger it is in. i don't see how you can really square this particular circle to remove the death of the animal from this equation.

That's the point of handling systems like the Temple Grandin type ones, they don't seem to know, no. If a cow didn't want to walk up a handling system, it'd be bloody difficult to make it do that.

And, as said there's death in all food production, its the manner of it that's important.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's the point of handling systems like the Temple Grandin type ones, they don't seem to know, no. If a cow didn't want to walk up a handling system, it'd be bloody difficult to make it do that.

that's a peripheral issue - the central issue is the animal ends up dead.

 

[Funky_monks]

Parts of the UK are literally on fire on the hottest day every recorded and the usual sad wankers on here still defending the industry that has massively contributed to this state of affairs.

Can just imagine these cunts posting bacon memes as the earth goes up in flames.

I find it interesting that you and certain other posters have interpreted my posts as wholesale support for all current systems of meat production.

I've spent quite a bit of time critiquing them - indeed I'm pretty sure one of my first posts on this thread said something along the lines of "agriculture needs to change" and I also critiqued intensive pig and poultry production (tbf it may have been on the other meat thread, but you were involved in that too).

I can only suppose that you've either not bothered to read my posts or are so intellectually constrained by your own beliefs that you've managed to construct your own straw man.
It would certainly explain some of the "but.... intensive broiler" posts on this thread. Unless you truly believe that animal agriculture is a massive corporate monolith all in cahoots or some equally ridiculous conspiracy (or perhaps "cowspiracy" if you are a fan of shitty Netflix documentaries) theory.

 

[Funky_monks]

that's a peripheral issue - the central issue is the animal ends up dead.

Yes, I know.
I've made my peace with it.
It was much easier to do than making my peace with poisoning rodents. I still hate that and still avoid it wherever I can, but regs (especially where crops are stored) dictate it.

 

[bcuster]

https://uk.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/mcdonalds-raises-uk-cheeseburger-price-for-first-time-in-14-years-2698637

 

[editor]

It wont be quick or easy. But it will be quicker and easier than trying to convince the entire world not to eat meat and dairy.

Judging by the reluctance of some people to make the slightest, minor changes to their diet, I'd say you're living in cloud cuckoo land. But good luck telling people they can't use their car/turn on the lights/use their phone or any of the other activities that are entwined in modern living.

Difference is that there are plentiful and readily available alternatives to filling your faces with meat every day and it takes the minimum of effort.

 

[editor]

animals have zero comprehension of what 'peace & harmony with humanity' means, This kind of disneyesque anthropomorphism is no argument at all.

I think they understand cruelty and inhumane conditions though.

 

[belboid]

Judging by the reluctance of some people to make the slightest, minor changes to their diet, I'd say you're living in cloud cuckoo land. But good luck telling people they can't use their car/turn on the lights/use their phone or any of the other activities that are entwined in modern living.

Difference is that there are plentiful and readily available alternatives to filling your faces with meat every day and it takes the minimum of effort.

This is an acceptance that your strategy wont work. So we have to do something different.

I don't think its actually about individual actions, in the main. It's about what can be done at national and international levels. It's about finding a replacement for dirty energy, not just cutting down use a bit (though things like ensuring every home was fully and properly insulated would make a relatively big difference in the short term). The need is too urgent to be left down to personal choices.

 

[editor]

This is an acceptance that your strategy wont work. So we have to do something different.

I don't think its actually about individual actions, in the main. It's about what can be done at national and international levels. It's about finding a replacement for dirty energy, not just cutting down use a bit (though things like ensuring every home was fully and properly insulated would make a relatively big difference in the short term). The need is too urgent to be left down to personal choices.

So you'll just carry on eating meat regardless because you've personally decided that you don't agree with the scientific consensus about reducing meat, and your solution is to spout some useless vague guff about reducing "changing fossil fuel use."

 

[belboid]

So you'll just carry on eating meat regardless because you've personally decided that you don't agree with the scientific consensus about reducing meat, and your solution is to spout some useless vague guff about reducing "changing fossil fuel use."

Ohh dear god, I apologise for attempting to engage with you on a rational basis.

Firstly - don't assume you have a clue what my diet is like, because you dont.

Secondly - I have said at various points during this thread that I wholeheartedly agree with the general case that the western diet needs to be lass meat based.

Thirdly - the claim that "reducing "changing fossil fuel use." is guff, well, firstly that doesnt actually make sense,secondly, if you are going to use quote marks they should go around words you are actually quoting, not ones you've written yourself. But more importantly, the idea that reducing fossil fuel use is 'vague guff' is complete and utter bullshit. And reactionary bullshit at that Fossil fuels are responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gasses. The IPCC warns that fossil fuel emissions must be halved within 11 years if global warming is to be limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. So now its you disagreeing with the scientific consensus.

And finally, you're stuck on individual choice. But greenhouse gasses from households amount to less than 10% of the total. Simple individual choices wont make enough of a difference.

 

[editor]

This is an acceptance that your strategy wont work. So we have to do something different.

Lets see what the scientists think about your personal opinion on that matter

For consumers, a shift towards plant-rich diets can make a big difference. Where appropriate, shifting to diets with more plant protein (such as beans, chickpeas, lentils, nuts, and grains), a reduced amount of animal-based foods (meat and dairy) and less saturated fats (butter, milk, cheese, meat, coconut oil and palm oil) can lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to current dietary patterns in most industrialized countries. It also provides significant health benefits, including reduced cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet | United Nations

www.un.org

It’s widely acknowledged that meat and dairy production uses more land, energy, and water than growing plants. The consumption of animals also contributes towards deforestation, species extinction, and releasing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year.


Scientists say a global change of diet is necessary to meet the target of limiting global warming well below 2 degrees
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/environment/is-going-vegan-better-for-the-environment-the-climate-change-impact-of-eating-meat-3441021

Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet | United Nations

www.un.org

Which foods cause the most greenhouse gas emissions?​

​

The climate impact of food is measured in terms of greenhouse gas emissions intensity. The emissions intensity is expressed in kilograms of “carbon dioxide equivalents” – which includes not only CO2 but all greenhouse gases – per kilogram of food, per gram of protein or per calorie.

Animal-based foods, especially red meat, dairy, and farmed shrimp, are generally associated with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. This is because:

• Meat production often require extensive grasslands, which is often created by cutting down trees, releasing carbon dioxide stored in forests.
• Cows and sheep emit methane as they digest grass and plants.
• The cattle’s waste on pastures and chemical fertilizers used on crops for cattle feed emit nitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas.
• Shrimp farmsoften occupy coastal lands formerly covered in mangrove forests which absorb huge amounts of carbon. The large carbon footprint of shrimp or prawns is mainly due to the stored carbon that is released into the atmosphere when mangroves are cut down to create shrimp farms.

Plant-based foods – such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils – generally use less energy, land, and water, and have lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal-based foods.

Here are three charts showing the carbon footprint of different food products. Emissions can be compared based on weight (per kilogram of food), or in terms of nutritional units (per 100 grams of protein or per 1000 kilocalories) which shows us how efficiently different foods supply protein or energy.

In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s special report on climate change at 1.5C - Carbon Brief

Earlier today in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its long-awaited special report on 1.5C.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[Funky_monks]

So you'll just carry on eating meat regardless because you've personally decided that you don't agree with the scientific consensus about reducing meat, and your solution is to spout some useless vague guff about reducing "changing fossil fuel use."

There isn't a scientific consensus, as I've pointed out many, many times - I've even posted the same four papers that inform your "consensus".

Do you honestly think there is? If so, Id like you to reference me 50 separate peer reviewed papers, from a variety of authors that confirm this.

 

[Funky_monks]

Lets see what the scientists think about your personal opinion on that matter

Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet | United Nations

www.un.org

Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet | United Nations

www.un.org

In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s special report on climate change at 1.5C - Carbon Brief

Earlier today in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its long-awaited special report on 1.5C.

www.carbonbrief.org

Fuck me.
Some of those don't even mention eating meat (the scotsman). The others seem to reference most of the same papers you've already discussed.

It's okay to admit that you don't understand the scientific process, you know.

 

[belboid]

Lets see what the scientists think about your personal opinion on that matter

this kind of pointless personal insult would get a warning if it weren't you making it. It doesn't show you in a good light.

Not to mention the fact that it isn't my personal opinion, it's the opinion of the IPCC, including in one of the links you just posted (the one at the end).

"there are many different ways to meet the 1.5C limit under a wide spread of assumptions about future human and economic development. These pathways reflect different futures in terms of global politics and societal preferences, implying different trade-offs and co-benefits for sustainable development and other priorities.

However, all 1.5C pathways share certain features, including CO2 emissions falling to net-zero and unabated coal use being largely phased out by mid-century. They also include renewables meeting the majority of future electricity supplies, with energy use being electrified and made more efficient."

Food production is listed, but it's far from the most important.

Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet | United Nations

www.un.org

Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet | United Nations

www.un.org

so, in response to the fact that lifestyle choices can't make enough of a difference to be sufficient, you post a piece about the best lifestyle choices. Which puts diet in third. Okay.

In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s special report on climate change at 1.5C - Carbon Brief

Earlier today in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its long-awaited special report on 1.5C.

www.carbonbrief.org

Sorry, but you never actually reply to any comment that anyone makes. You just repost the same couple of articles and stats, in a variety of forms, without bothering to engage with any substance. So, for that reason, I'm afraid I'm out.

 

[Funky_monks]

Religions, especially new and emerging ones need their followers to be able to ignore contradictory thoughts in order to take up the banner of evangelism, I suppose.

 

[editor]

this kind of pointless personal insult would get a warning if it weren't you making it. It doesn't show you in a good light.

You were claiming that asking people to eat less meat is a strategy that "won't work" and somehow won't be 'accepted.' I've just clearly shown that many scientists completely disagree with your personal opinion on the matter.

Literally got no idea why you think any mod would issue a warning for making that statement, but feel free to report my post and see what they think.

 

[platinumsage]

Cain and Abel by the Methodist painter John Reilly

After God shows a preference for younger brother Abel's offering of a lamb over Cain's offering of wheat, Cain develops a seething murderous jealousy and kills Abel.

Here we see Abel, noble in God's acceptance of his harvest from the hills, while Cain, enclosing land for his own exclusive use displays the typical anger and hatred of of a vegan:

 

[editor]

Oh dear...

 

[mentalchik]

My household (me and my son) have already started eating less meat but i work in a medium sized supermarket and we sell huge amounts of th stuff....we have quite a large eastern european community and they buy fuck loads of meat....it will be a uphill battle getting people to change this behavior

 

[ddraig]

My household (me and my son) have already started eating less meat but i work in a medium sized supermarket and we sell huge amounts of th stuff....we have quite a large eastern european community and they buy fuck loads of meat....it will be a uphill battle getting people to change this behavior

Yes it is

 

[DaphneM]

bad news from the Guardian!

Vegetarian women more likely to fracture hips in later life, study shows

Research suggests some vegetarians may not get sufficient nutrients for good bone and muscle health

www.theguardian.com

 

[Poot]

bad news from the Guardian!

Vegetarian women more likely to fracture hips in later life, study shows

Research suggests some vegetarians may not get sufficient nutrients for good bone and muscle health

www.theguardian.com

I was expecting it to point out that vegetarians live longer (they do) so are more likely to have falls in later life, but in fact it says that they're not protected by 'cushioning.' I suspect the cushioning isn't an asset in other health conditions. Swings and roundabouts, really.

 

[Cid]

I was expecting it to point out that vegetarians live longer (they do) so are more likely to have falls in later life, but in fact it says that they're not protected by 'cushioning.' I suspect the cushioning isn't an asset in other health conditions. Swings and roundabouts, really.

The study is controlled for age. Also we have an anti-fat bias in general, which I think you're reflecting somewhat here... The paper (or rather the graun's reporting of it) is talking about people who are underweight - that generally isn't going to be any more 'healthy' than being a little overweight. Arguably a fair bit worse assuming a generally healthy lifestyle.

Side note though - I find it infuriating that the media still isn't directly linking to journal articles. You just can't do lazy science journalism anymore you fucks. It's not good enough to read a university press release and contact the lead author for a quote (and tbh that's giving the graun the benefit of the doubt, quotes could just be in the release). It's just stupid. Stop it.

Risk of hip fracture in meat-eaters, pescatarians, and vegetarians: results from the UK Women’s Cohort Study - BMC Medicine

Background The risk of hip fracture in women on plant-based diets is unclear. We aimed to investigate the risk of hip fracture in occasional meat-eaters, pescatarians, and vegetarians compared to regular meat-eaters in the UK Women’s Cohort Study and to determine if potential associations...

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

 

[Poot]

The study is controlled for age. Also we have an anti-fat bias in general, which I think you're reflecting somewhat here... The paper (or rather the graun's reporting of it) is talking about people who are underweight - that generally isn't going to be any more 'healthy' than being a little overweight. Arguably a fair bit worse assuming a generally healthy lifestyle.

Side note though - I find it infuriating that the media still isn't directly linking to journal articles. You just can't do lazy science journalism anymore you fucks. It's not good enough to read a university press release and contact the lead author for a quote (and tbh that's giving the graun the benefit of the doubt, quotes could just be in the release). It's just stupid. Stop it.

Risk of hip fracture in meat-eaters, pescatarians, and vegetarians: results from the UK Women’s Cohort Study - BMC Medicine

Background The risk of hip fracture in women on plant-based diets is unclear. We aimed to investigate the risk of hip fracture in occasional meat-eaters, pescatarians, and vegetarians compared to regular meat-eaters in the UK Women’s Cohort Study and to determine if potential associations...

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

Can't be bothered to argue about what constitutes good health so I will wish you joy in all that you do and enjoy the sunshine.

 

[Cid]

Can't be bothered to argue about what constitutes good health so I will wish you joy in all that you do and enjoy the sunshine.

Funnily enough I wasn't looking for an argument, it's just a thing to be considered. I shall pop on the bike and take a ride in the peaks. Although maybe not today as it's already a bit hot.