4 ms·
TL;DR: it is in fact true. Best would be vegetarian diet; failing that, eliminating beef is a huge win. QED if you are not vegetarian and have no interest in b
by aaroninsf 10y ago
TL;DR: it is in fact true. Best would be vegetarian diet; failing that, eliminating beef is a huge win.
QED if you are not vegetarian and have no interest in being, the 'greenest' thing to do is to reduce or eliminate beef consumption.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full is glum.
(I looked at resource usage, not the ethical side; fwiw I'm an ethics-motivated vegetarian myself.)
- pavel_lishin 10y agoIn my experience, out of the commonly-eaten meats, beef tends to be the priciest anyway.
- chetanahuja 10y agoBut not nearly proportional to the ratios of energy/land/water consumption between vegetarian (or say chicken/fish) based food items and beef. E.g., what's the difference in price between a burger made from ground beef vs a similar sandwich with grilled chicken?
- ams6110 10y agoIt's also one of the best for you to eat, assuming it's grass-fed.
- zardo 10y agoSource for that? I've never heard of any beneficial effect of red meat consumption.
- aorth 10y agoJane Goodall's book "Harvest for Hope" had some great statistics about the amount of water alone required to raise a kilogram of beef compared to chicken, rice, etc. I read it over ten years ago but I remember the numbers being jaw dropping. Health issues aside, beef puts a horrible load on the environment.