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

[Kevbad the Bad]

Oh dear...

View attachment 336787

I love things like this. The all-powerful one, in this case JC, becomes totally powerless when confronted by vegetarian hamburgers. Omnipotent my arse!

 

[editor]

Well, look what this new study from Oxford has found:

Veggie sausages and burgers up to ten times better for environment than meat, study finds​

A huge study of the environmental impact of 57,000 food products in the UK and Ireland has highlighted the extent to which plant-based meat alternatives are better for the planet than consuming meat.

While products such as veggie sausages and veggie burgers contain numerous ingredients and still require manufacturing, packaging and transport, compared to meat they mostly had between a fifth, to less than a tenth of the environmental impact of similar meat products, the researchers said.

The team, led by academics at the University of Oxford said their study was the first time a "transparent and reproducible method" of assessing the environmental impact of multi-ingredient foods had been undertaken.

"It provides a first step towards enabling consumers, retailers, and policymakers to make informed decisions on the environmental impacts of food and drink products", they said.
Lead author, Dr Michael Clark, from Oxford Martin School, said: ‘By estimating the environmental impact of food and drink products in a standardised way, we have taken a significant first step towards providing information that could enable informed decision-making.

In order to assess the 57,000 foods which make up the majority of food and drink available in the UK and Ireland, the team looked at greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water stress, and eutrophication potential – when bodies of water become enriched with nutrients, often causing harmful algal blooms and ultimately killing other life.

The team then combined these four scores into a single estimated composite environmental impact score per 100g of product.

Professor Peter Scarborough, Oxford Professor of Population Health, said: "This work is very exciting. For the first time, we have a transparent and comparable method for assessing the environmental footprint of multi-ingredient processed foods. These types of foods make up most of the supermarket shopping we do, but until now there was no way of directly comparing their impact on the environment.

The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Welcome to nginx!

Link to the study: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2120584119

 

[editor]

And here's something I wholeheartedly support

Rearing livestock and growing crops to feed them has destroyed more tropical forest and killed more wildlife than any other industry. Animal agriculture also produces vast quantities of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

The environmental consequences are so profound that the world cannot meet climate goals and keep ecosystems intact without rich countries reducing their consumption of beef, pork and chicken.

To slash emissions, slow the loss of biodiversity and secure food for a growing world population, there must be a change in the way meat and dairy is made and consumed.

A rapidly evolving market for novel alternatives, such as plant-based burgers, has made the switch from meat easier. Yet in countries such as Britain, meat consumption has not fallen fast enough in recent years to sufficiently rein in agricultural emissions.

In our view, the most likely result will be simple, direct taxes on meat and animal products. Our latest research, published in the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, considered how an environmental tax on meat could work.

Our calculations suggest that the average retail price for meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35%-56% for beef, 25% for poultry, and 19% for lamb and pork to reflect the environmental costs of their production. In the UK, where the average price for a 200g beef steak is around £2.80, consumers would pay between £3.80 and £4.30 at the checkout instead.

Fortunately, our research found that a meat tax, if implemented correctly, need not increase the pressure on poorer households – or the farming industry.

A meat tax is probably inevitable – here’s how it could work

Healthier and more sustainable food could be made cheaper as meat and dairy becomes more expensive.

theconversation.com

And here's a link to the study: University of Chicago Press Journals: Cookie absent

 

[editor]

And here's how the meat producers are using the same dirty tricks as the fossil fuel industry. Some of the rhetoric sure sound familiar around here too:

The study looked at the websites of six organisations representing Britain’s meat industry: the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board, the British Meat Processors Association, the Country Land and Business Association, Craft Butchers, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and Pasture for Life.

Their conclusion? The meat industry frames the debate about the environmental and health aspects of meat consumption “in line with the ‘playbook’ used by producers of other harmful commodities [e.g., the fossil fuel and tobacco industries] to portray their products in a more favourable light and to avoid regulation.”

The authors note four “classic” framing devices deployed which will be very familiar to observers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. First, it “fosters uncertainty about scientific consensus and casts doubt over the reliability of both researchers and the evidence.”

Second, the industry was found to have shifted the focus to deflect attention away from the central issues — for example risk factors for cancer other than meat were highlighted.

Third, the industry portrays itself as a well-intentioned actor, emphasising its own environmental credentials. And finally, there is an emphasis on personal choice.

These devices lead to four broad messages: the evidence is “still open for debate,” “most people have no need to worry,” “keep eating meat to be healthy” and “no need to cut down to be green.

Meat industry propaganda and the climate crisis

We are familiar with the damage tobacco and fossil fuels do — and know that they have spent billions on hiding this. But we largely do not realise the pernicious effect of the meat industry on obscuring the drastic need to reduce animal consumption to fight global warming, writes IAN SINCLAIR

morningstaronline.co.uk

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-policy

 

[editor]

New Scientist piece These are the UK supermarket items with the worst environmental impact

 

[Brainaddict]

I don't eat a lot of meat and am mostly veggie at home, but lately I've given thought to giving up beef altogether. I do like beef sometimes, so I'm torn between thinking my consumption decisions are irrelevant in a world that wants to grow the beef industry anyway, and thinking that it is an industry so damaging that it would be good for my soul to separate myself from it.

 

[editor]

I don't eat a lot of meat and am mostly veggie at home, but lately I've given thought to giving up beef altogether. I do like beef sometimes, so I'm torn between thinking my consumption decisions are irrelevant in a world that wants to grow the beef industry anyway, and thinking that it is an industry so damaging that it would be good for my soul to separate myself from it.

Any amount of reduction is a good thing, although faced with widespread denial and an aggressive meat industry peddling misinformation, I can understand why some people carry on regardless.

The switch to vegetarianism/veganism is having a wider impact though: just look how the non-meat supermarket aisles have grown massively in recent years.

 

[DaphneM]

This makes sense…

Why Are Vegetarians More Likely to Be Depressed?

Scientific findings about the relationship between depression and vegetarian diet have been mixed. A new study aims to clarify the issue.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Funky_monks]

And here's how the meat producers are using the same dirty tricks as the fossil fuel industry. Some of the rhetoric sure sound familiar around here too:

Meat industry propaganda and the climate crisis

We are familiar with the damage tobacco and fossil fuels do — and know that they have spent billions on hiding this. But we largely do not realise the pernicious effect of the meat industry on obscuring the drastic need to reduce animal consumption to fight global warming, writes IAN SINCLAIR

morningstaronline.co.uk

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-policy

No link to the article.

Also, Lord Deben is an odeous cunt. Last time I was in a policy meeting with him, he referred to his 200ac as a "smallholding" and said that poor people are too fat so they should just consume less food full stop and buy higher quality, organic produce like his.

 

[Poot]

This makes sense…

Why Are Vegetarians More Likely to Be Depressed?

Scientific findings about the relationship between depression and vegetarian diet have been mixed. A new study aims to clarify the issue.

www.psychologytoday.com

That it's not a causal link, it's related to some people being more concerned about health than others for mental-health-related reasons? Hardly a revelation. Vegetarians are broadly healthier than the general population, but that's not a causal link, either.

 

[editor]

Here's a little something from the Univ of Bath:

Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products​

The problems with our current protein production system are many and severe, affecting the planet, human health, and animal welfare. PB-APAs offer a healthier and more environmentally sustainable solution which takes into account consumer preferences and behaviour. They are consumed in place of animal products, and should therefore be compared with such products. PB-APAs are found to be preferable from an environmental perspective in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and they do not contribute to the growing global health threats of antibiotic resistance or pandemic risk. They are also preferable from a nutritional perspective in terms of saturated fat, cholesterol, fibre, and a range of other nutrients.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000612

 

[Skim]

This makes sense…

Why Are Vegetarians More Likely to Be Depressed?

Scientific findings about the relationship between depression and vegetarian diet have been mixed. A new study aims to clarify the issue.

www.psychologytoday.com

The data from one research paper doesn’t magically “make sense”. As the researchers themselves conclude, “more empirical research is needed before any final conclusions can be drawn” and “geographical variation in study location was low, limiting cross-cultural insights”.

 

[Funky_monks]

Here's a little something from the Univ of Bath:

Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000612

Yes, synthetic highly processed foods will save us all.

They haven't been around long enough for any kind of long term study, but believe that if you want.

I look forward to the day that massive multinationals control our food supply chain in its entirety. Seems reasonable from an environmental and socialist perspective because massive industry always has those things at heart.
Yay ethical capitalism.

 

[editor]

Despite the Olympic levels of denial by some blinkered, die-hard meat fans, study after study reaches the same conclusion. This one is from The Lancet:

Our results suggest the adoption of plant-based beef alternatives would reduce the carbon footprint of US food production, which is an ethically important outcome

In summary, the threat of climate change is increasing and plant-based alternatives could help to reduce the carbon footprint of the food system, while also reducing the number of animals needed to meet growing global food demand.

Although future research is needed to assess the ethical implications of plant-based alternatives more fully, the results of our multi-dimensional assessment across multiple ethical perspectives show that shifts from beef to plant-based alternatives have the potential to deliver a number of moral goods, but also reveal that a full accounting of the ethics of such a transition will be complex. Our findings suggest that plant-based alternatives could play an important role in helping to reduce the carbon footprint of the food system and have the additional benefit of increased resource use efficiency, with relatively small (albeit concentrated) negative economic impacts.

DEFINE_ME

 

[editor]

And here's the government's food tsar:

The only way to have sustainable land use in this country, and avoid ecological breakdown, is to vastly reduce consumption of meat and dairy, according to the UK government’s food tsar.

Henry Dimbleby told the Guardian that although asking the public to eat less meat – supported by a mix of incentives and penalties – would be politically toxic, it was the only way to meet the country’s climate and biodiversity targets.


“It’s an incredibly inefficient use of land to grow crops, feed them to a ruminant or pig or chicken which then over its lifecycle converts them into a very small amount of protein for us to eat,” he said.

Currently, 85% of agricultural land in England is used for pasture for grazing animals such as cows or to grow food which is then fed to livestock. Dimbleby, the Leon restaurant chain co-founder and a respected voice in Conservative circles, believes a 30% meat reduction over 10 years is required for land to be used sustainably in England. Others go much further: Greenpeace, for example, say we must reduce our meat intake by 70%.

England must reduce meat intake to avoid climate breakdown, says food tsar

Henry Dimbleby says move is politically toxic but only way to achieve sustainable land use and avoid ecological breakdown

www.theguardian.com

 

[DaphneM]

The data from one research paper doesn’t magically “make sense”. As the researchers themselves conclude, “more empirical research is needed before any final conclusions can be drawn” and “geographical variation in study location was low, limiting cross-cultural insights”.

I just know lots of depressed vegetarians 🌶

 

[editor]

And here's one for all those dreamers who think the solution is to eat organic, pasture-fed meat:

What are the world’s most damaging farm products? You might be amazed by the answer: organic, pasture-fed beef and lamb. I realise this is a shocking claim. Of all the statements in my new book, Regenesis, it has triggered the greatest rage. But I’m not trying to wind people up. I’m trying to represent the facts. Let me explain.


Arable crops, some of which are fed to farm animals, occupy 12% of the planet’s land surface. But far more land (28%) is used for grazing: in other words, for pasture-fed meat and milk. Yet, across this vast area, farm animals that are entirely pasture-fed produce just 1% of the world’s protein.

Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases. The only category in which numbers fall when grazing by cattle or sheep ceases are those that eat dung. Where there are cattle, there are fewer wild mammals, birds, reptiles and insects on the land, and fewer fish in the rivers. Perhaps most importantly – because of their crucial role in regulating living systems – there tend to be no large predators.

In the UK, my estimates suggest that some 4m hectares of hill and mountain are used for sheep farming. Almost all this land, much of which would otherwise support temperate rainforest, is treeless, as tree seedlings are highly nutritious and selectively eaten by sheep. There are more trees for each hectare in some parts of inner London than there are in the “wild” British hills where sheep graze. The remaining vegetation is badly degraded.

Four million hectares is 22% of the entire farmed area. It’s roughly equivalent to all the land used to grow grain in this country , and 23 times the area used for growing fruit and vegetables. But, in terms of calories, lamb and mutton supply just over 1% of the UK’s food.

We live in a bubble of delusion about where our food comes from and how it is produced. We’ve been dealing in stories when we should be dealing in numbers. Our gastroporn aesthetics, embedded in bucolic fantasy, are among the greatest threats to life on Earth.

The most damaging farm products? Organic, pasture-fed beef and lamb

Analysis: You may be amazed by that answer, but the area of land used for grazing is vast compared with the meat and milk produced

www.theguardian.com

 

[Funky_monks]

And here's one for all those dreamers who think the solution is to eat organic, pasture-fed meat:

The most damaging farm products? Organic, pasture-fed beef and lamb

Analysis: You may be amazed by that answer, but the area of land used for grazing is vast compared with the meat and milk produced

www.theguardian.com

Again,
If you wish to think that in your zeal, then so be it.
If you truly think that highly synthetic processed meat substitutes are in fact "good for you", when magically highly synthetic processed products that contain meat (non cured meat) aren't then so be it - you eat them all you want.

If you think that handing over the food supply chain in its entirety to massive multinationals is a great idea, then that's up to you. You are clearly aware that bias can exist in science, but you leap upon a half arsed study that appears to say exactly what the companies marketing these products want you to believe.

I've given lots of evidence on this thread why this is not the case, as far as I'm concerned.

I understand that you, a layman have the attitude of lots of men of your age that research on the Internet makes you an expert, over and above scientists who's field this is.
I found it disappointing when I posted the opinion of a world renowned environmentalist who happened to be female and you chose to denigrate her because of the man who conducted the interview, rather than listening to her views. I'd expected more than the level of arrogance and casual misogyny round here, to be honest.

 

[Karl Masks]

And here's one for all those dreamers who think the solution is to eat organic, pasture-fed meat:

The most damaging farm products? Organic, pasture-fed beef and lamb

Analysis: You may be amazed by that answer, but the area of land used for grazing is vast compared with the meat and milk produced

www.theguardian.com

what would you recommend for a simple and filling wheat free breakfast?

 

[editor]

Again,
If you wish to think that in your zeal, then so be it.
If you truly think that highly synthetic processed meat substitutes are in fact "good for you", when magically highly synthetic processed products that contain meat (non cured meat) aren't then so be it - you eat them all you want.

If you think that handing over the food supply chain in its entirety to massive multinationals is a great idea, then that's up to you. You are clearly aware that bias can exist in science, but you leap upon a half arsed study that appears to say exactly what the companies marketing these products want you to believe.

I've given lots of evidence on this thread why this is not the case, as far as I'm concerned.

I understand that you, a layman have the attitude of lots of men of your age that research on the Internet makes you an expert, over and above scientists who's field this is.
I found it disappointing when I posted the opinion of a world renowned environmentalist who happened to be female and you chose to denigrate her because of the man who conducted the interview, rather than listening to her views. I'd expected more than the level of arrogance and casual misogyny round here, to be honest.

Ageism, utterly groundless accusations of misogyny and the usual fingers-in-your-ears approach to the overwhelming amount of studies rubbishing your incredibly biased viewpoint means that you're staying on ignore, sunshine. And if you keep on responding, maybe it's best for the thread that I upgrade that to a mutual ignore.

Misogyny? Seriously, go fuck yourself.

 

[editor]

what would you recommend for a simple and filling breakfast?

Toast. Porridge. Fresh fruit. The list is as long as your imagination. No idea why you're asking me this, mind.

 

[Karl Masks]

Toast. Porridge. Fresh fruit. The list is as long as your imagination. No idea why you're asking me this, mind.

I amended my question, after you answered it seems. Wheat free.

 

[Pickman's model]

what would you recommend for a simple and filling wheat free breakfast?

Kippers

 

[Funky_monks]

Ageism, utterly groundless accusations of misogyny and the usual fingers-in-your-ears approach to the overwhelming amount of studies rubbishing your incredibly biased viewpoint means that you're staying on ignore, sunshine. And if you keep on responding, maybe it's best for the thread that I upgrade that to a mutual ignore.

Misogyny? Seriously, go fuck yourself.

You are the one who utterly ignored the argument of a world renowned environmentalist woman, simply because it was Russel Brand asking the questions, not me. In fact, you wholly ignored what she had to say and attacked Brand, because apparently when presented with a man interviewing a woman, only the man is of any note to you.

You are the sofa "expert" claiming you have a better grasp of the research than a scientist who's field this is, not me.
Those behaviours do seem typical of men of a certain age.

 

[DaphneM]

what would you recommend for a simple and filling wheat free breakfast?

Bacon

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

what would you recommend for a simple and filling wheat free breakfast?

I gave up on the idea of having a traditional western breakfast. I tend to eat leftovers from the previous day, soup, baked potato or rice. Some common breakfasts I have are miso soup with tofu and rice, a tomato-based veggie soup, beans on wheat-free toast or baked potato, fruit, oatmeal and dried fruit, etc. Sometimes I make tofu "scrambled eggs" and fry up some potato and onions.

<edited to add>
I have trouble with wheat too. I didn't for years, but started having a persistent rash in the mid-90s. It took me years to figure out that it goes away if I stay away from wheat. I'm not sure it's the wheat, or some other processing that it goes through. Doctor basically said: "if it hurts when you do that, don't do that."

 

[Funky_monks]

I amended my question, after you answered it seems. Wheat free.

Any of the innumerable foods that don't contain wheat.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I amended my question, after you answered it seems. Wheat free.

Thanks for asking this question. It makes sense when you have issues with some types of food to ask how to adjust to a meat-free/wheat free diet. The place a lot of people give up on vegetarianism is on what to eat. I started by just trying out different recipes and then getting several together into a rotation once I found some that worked.

 

[editor]

I amended my question, after you answered it seems. Wheat free.

Still not quite sure why you're asking me about wheat free breakfasts, but there seems no shortage of options

Wheat & gluten free breakfast recipes

Wheat & gluten breakfast free recipes for sufferers of wheat allergy, intolerance and celiac disease, including very easy to make wheat free granola

www.wheat-free.org

Gluten-free breakfast recipes | BBC Good Food

Set yourself up for the day with something hearty, that just also happens to be gluten-free. Choose from Turkish one-pan eggs, gluten-free pancakes, slow cooker breakfast beans and more

www.bbcgoodfood.com

13 Gluten-Free Breakfast Recipes | olivemagazine

From pancakes to eggs, bread and bakes, we have a variety of fun and delicious recipes to help you create dreamy breakfast options

www.olivemagazine.com

 

[editor]

You are the one who utterly ignored the argument of a world renowned environmentalist woman, simply because it was Russel Brand asking the questions, not me. In fact, you wholly ignored what she had to say and attacked Brand, because apparently when presented with a man interviewing a woman, only the man is of any note to you.

You are the sofa "expert" claiming you have a better grasp of the research than a scientist who's field this is, not me.
Those behaviours do seem typical of men of a certain age.

We're on mutual ignore now. Fuck your bullshit ageism and your disgusting misogyny accusations. It's not my fault your myopic arguments are being ripped to shreds by experts infinitely more qualified than you, but I'll be fucked if I'm going to put up with your groundless insults, or see this thread being trashed with your unpleasantness

Oh and be sure to look up what mutual ignore means as I really don't want to have to issue warnings.

You've sunk lower in my estimation than you could possibly imagine. Bye.