8 ms·

Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

56 points by hhs 6y ago

war1025 6y ago
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Well that's a bit over the top... Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.
- tomdell 6y ago
  The truth is over the top?
  - CuriouslyC 6y ago
    Because no vegetable farm ever caused habitat destruction or environmental damage...
    - emteycz 6y ago
      That's obviously not true, and also obviously not the point being argued.
    - typon 6y ago
      Terrible straw man argument
    - renaicirc 6y ago
      It's interesting how your response to the point that farming plants is far more efficient and sustainable than farming animals is "but some vegetable farms are bad for the environment, too!"
      - CuriouslyC 6y ago
        Mixed permaculture habitats that mimic nature and incorporate animals are sustainable. The vegatarian mafia would be happy with endless rows of unsustainable conventional monoculture agriculture, I know this because of the blank look so many vegans have give me when I start to talk about permaculture. You're a hypocrite.
        renaicirc 6y ago
        You've accused me of hypocrisy based on your claimed experiences with other people. How charming. In any case, sure, sustainable animal farms exist. Could they meet the meat demands of the US? Popular consensus is no, and [0] lists many authorities who urge a reduction in meat consumption, but I'd be happy for you to convince me otherwise. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat...
    - eigenket 6y ago
      I'll take "whataboutism" for $500 Alex...
  - OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
    It implicitly distorts the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions relative to other sources. And it ignores the health effects of going meatless.
    - tito 6y ago
      What most people miss is that methane (ie from cows) is more than an order of magnitude as impactful as carbon dioxide. This source says methane is 84x the impact of carbon dioxide: https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhou...
      - OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
        That article you linked also says that the largest source of man-made methane is the oil and gas industry.
- kqr 6y ago
  Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    What unit of energy? Calories?
    - henryaj 6y ago
      ...why is the unit important?
    - renaicirc 6y ago
      It's a percentage, so why would the units matter?
    - _Microft 6y ago
      They are talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
      - kebman 6y ago
        My BS-O-metre just went off big time. First off, this is an extreme generalization that does not pick up local differences. Take the Northeren hemisphere for instance, where meat is in many instances the most effective way to utilize our growing conditions to produce edible food. [1] It's just not possible to efficibely use our climate to make sustainable production of vegetables, so meat is in fact a better way to make the most of our growing conditions. The alternative would be to let tons of cultured pastures go to waste, and instead develop extremely expensive and wasteful greenhouse altnernatives that would suck our energy reserves dry. That is why meat production is in fact preferrable in the North. It's just not feasible to produce enough food without spending a lot of resources on imports, due to growing conditions that favour greens that aren't edible for humans, so our best option is then meat for local and "short-travelled" sustenance. [2] Second, there's obviously a place for meat eaters in this biodiversity. Of course, we're "too many" humans (who are of course meat eaters), but on the other hand we're sustaining our current population nicely with progresses made within both environmentally friendly transportation and not to mention advances within industrialized and automated farming. [3] Add to this that the population growth is in fact slowing down. [4] Long story short, the world has a giant surplus of food. [5] The amount of food here isn't the problem. It's the adverse effects local politics, production and transportation that are the problems the grand level, and to that end you can't as a general rule suggest that veggies are the "best" option. Well, it clearly isn't in the northeren hemisphere. In the end the moral question is, should we really force people to eat this, that or the other? I mean, there's obviously no harm in making suggestions, but when those suggestions aren't met with enthusiasm, then change isn't liable to happen without the use of force. And I think can all agree that we are nowhere near a Soylent Green situation, so we still have the option to give people a choice. Personally, my bet are on those developing succulent and protein-rich meat alternatives. The second they can make a product that similar enough, but without the environmental overhead, then people will flock to it. [1]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf [2]: Norwegian language source: https://www.agrianalyse.no/getfile.php/134664-1553523670/Dokumenter/Dokumenter%202019/Rapport%205%E2%80%932019%20Beitemarka%20-%20et%20ukjent%20karbonlager.pdf https://www.agrianalyse.no/getfile.php/134664-1553523670/Dok... [3]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter5.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#:~:text=In%202017%20the%20UN%20predicted,to%20%2B0.1%25%20in%202100.&text=Randers'%20%22most%20likely%20scenario%22,billion%20people%2C%20followed%20by%20decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow.... [5]: https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-food-surplus/a-15452289 https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-food-surplus/a-15452289
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  I don’t think it is controversial. I thought the huge environmental impact of meat eating was common knowledge.
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? So if we all stopped eating meat we could cut emissions but a couple of % but if we all stopped driving and turned our heating down/up we could actually make a real difference? Edited with real numbers from https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
    - tito 6y ago
      Wish there was a good tool to give you an answer on this, or a way to poke around and be curious. http://energyliteracy.com/ http://energyliteracy.com/ gets close but it's USA only. This article suggests livestock greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to the entire transportation sector. Basically because methane and carbon dioxide have different effects on warming: https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...
      - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
        I have absolutely no idea what anything means in that chart. If you have a good source I would be delighted to read it.
      - cj 6y ago
        I found that infographic very enlightening. Thanks for sharing.
    - Ma8ee 6y ago
      Agriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%. Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat. Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%
- cj 6y ago
  The article isn’t about vegetables being good “for you”. It’s about a college cafeteria experimenting to reduce carbon emissions and the amount of land required to serve meals: > Last year, University cafeterias (separate from the colleges) announced a 33% reduction in carbon emissions per kilogram of food purchased, and a 28% reduction in land use per kilogram of food purchased.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Something I dont think very many people realize is that cattle are raised on land that is unsuitable for practically any other purpose. They aren't ranching in Manhatten. Leasing land for grazing brings in about $70 an acre while doing it for crops will bring in around $280 an acre. Development of course would bring in amounts that are several orders of magnitude higher. Where cattle are raised, raising cattle is the only purpose available. This is why ranches are out west in the US or in the outback in Australia. If the world stopped raising cattle, a lot of steppes around the world would go back to being completely useless. We wouldnt free up valuable land.
    - eigenket 6y ago
      Thats not hugely relevant though, quoting from the wiki article: "Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef" The overwhelming majority of cows live on maize, soy, barley etc. Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Grazing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Grazing
    - cj 6y ago
      I’d be interested to read more about this. Any sources you’d recommend?
    - astura 6y ago
      Which is entirely irrelevant because 90%+ of cattle produced for meat do not graze, they are fed industrial produced corn and soy in crowded feedlots. We don't have the physical space on earth for all the cattle we currently produce to graze naturally.
- loceng 6y ago
  > Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health That meat is bad for our health is a myth perpetuated by the health industry, as well as by bad research that isn't accounting for processed meat vs. high quality unprocessed meat, nor do the studies account for confounding factors like other unhealthy food that many meat eaters eat. Dr. Georgia Ede is someone to look up on YouTube who's been spending her time debunking bad research on meat. > but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Monocultures are really terrible, and based on the latest thought leaders and their knowledge, the trend needs to move towards allowing animals to roam the land again - which helps aerate and maintain the quality of soil. My guess for future is free-roaming animals in their natural habitat, and vertical farming for vegetables, etc.
  - dr_hooo 6y ago
    Switching to "allowing animals to roam" doesn't seem remotely viable or likely path in the current state of the world. There just doesn't seem to be any incentive which can compete with the maximization of profit.
AnonHP 6y ago
> “All cafeterias and restaurants have a design that ‘nudges’ people towards something. So it is sensible to use designs that make the healthiest and most sustainable food options the easiest to pick without thinking about it,” she said. Hopefully such designs also produce lower quantities of the less desirable options, since food waste has a huge impact on climate change (according to drawdown’s list). > “We know that information alone is generally not enough to get us to change damaging habits. More research is needed on how to set up our society so that the self-interested default decision is the best one for the climate.” This I agree wholeheartedly with. Expecting people to change their behaviors is an exercise in futility. Defaults and convenience matter a lot more.
- loceng 6y ago
  It's also why convenience stores turned into mostly low quality foods and sugar factories, higher profits, in part to subsidize ever increasing cost of rents to pay rent-seeking landlords; the problem persists to larger grocery chains for some degrees, however food overall would be cheaper if people didn't have access to so much "yummy" processed foods where people are habituated to sugary and saltier food.
supernova87a 6y ago
How about they just go ahead and put a sign on the meat dishes saying "recently sneezed on by someone with Covid" to make the veggie option more appealing?
jmpman 6y ago
That bacon tray is always at the end of the buffet. You regret all the stuff on your plate. What am I doing with all this worthless fruit? I should have waited! If I had known you were here, I would have waited. I would eat only you bacon...
maxharris 6y ago
Stop trying to nudge me. Focus instead on cultured meat, because that actually solves the fundamental problem.
- coderintherye 6y ago
  I'm curious if you've tried Beyond Meat? Not saying it is comparable, but it is quite good in my opinion, much better than the old veggie burger options. Just interested in subjective opinions of people of how close it gets to being a viable alternative to people who currently eat meat.
  - andersource 6y ago
    I've tried it (not OP), and as someone who loves meat (not fanatic though), if I'd been told it's a regular burger there's a decent chance I wouldn't have suspected. Don't remember if the nutritional content is similar to meat but taste-wise, for me, it's definitely a viable alternative.
    - moron4hire 6y ago
      I had the same experience. It wasn't a great burger, mind you, but it still tasted like hamburger. I was reminded of Burger King burgers. But it also cost $15. I'd rather spend that kind of money on a really good portabello burger than something that tastes "exactly" like a fast food burger.
      - coderintherye 6y ago
        If you buy them from the store, it's about $10/lb. I usually make four 1/4 burger patties out of it. Granted, that is still about 2x - 3x the cost of beef locally (depending on which quality level you want to compare it to). But the price also seems to keep coming down over time so I imagine it will eventually be competitive on price.
  - loceng 6y ago
    Comparing high quality meat with a highly processed "meat alternative" shouldn't be judge on taste, and they're not comparable otherwise. Beyond Meat burger ingredients: Water, Pea Protein*, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Rice Protein, Natural Flavors, Cocoa Butter, Mung Bean Protein, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Apple Extract, Pomegranate Extract, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Vinegar, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Lecithin, Beet Juice Extract (for color). Many of these things are not good for many people, and many if not the majority of people aren't connected to their body properly, conditioned by ego mind disconnecting them. Personally I can't do pea protein, canola oil, coconut oil, rice, bean, potato, apple, vinegar, lemon, or lecithin. Those all agitate my GI tract causing different levels of discomfort or pain. What you find in meat however is the same as what's naturally in humans, it's the animal concentrating the plants they eat into nutrients, protein, etc - and high fat red meat like beef has exactly what your body and brain needs and in the right portions. I'm not trying to argue it's not possible to make a comparable option, however it's highly unlikely. I do wonder if a cultured meat substitute is possible as well, as the highest quality meat are from animals in their natural environment under natural environmental stress conditions, it's more likely to create a comparable product though; getting cost down and texture will be the biggest challenges.
avdempsey 6y ago
The temporal dimension is just as important as space. Adding a year between eating meat and a plant-based diet also makes the alternatives more appealing. After being meat and dairy free for awhile my cravings changed. I guess our brains are plastic? I ate (and loved!) meat for 28 years, but today I don't even crave it, and can report I enjoy food just as much as I used to. If being plant-based required will-power, I don't think I'd be able to do it. I think it's actually easier to go all the way, and avoid meat completely, than it is to cut back. If meat is a regular, if limited, part of your diet the craving never goes away.
- archielc 6y ago
  I can relate to your experience on switching to plant-based diet.
- MiguelHudnandez 6y ago
  "Committing 100% is easier than committing 98%." Paraphrased from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-91dMvQQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-91dMvQQo
  - tashoecraft 6y ago
    I’ve found the opposite. I don’t buy meat or dairy groceries so the high majority of my meals are vegan, but if I’m out at a place that doesn’t have a vegan option I’m fine ordering a meat or vegetarian option. I think going majority meat and dairy less without committing 100% would make a much bigger effect in aggregate. We don’t need everyone becoming vegan, actually we can’t even support that. But if having meat and dairy at every single meal wasn’t a requirement, then we’d make a lot of change. Vegetarians and vegans who have meat/dairy rarely shouldn’t be shunned or considered “failed”.
- loceng 6y ago
  I eat high fat, high quality steak and kale - that's all. It's pretty easy. I find it odd that meat is being described as or associated with a craving though. I've never craved plants or other foods. I'm at 67 hours of a planned 72 hour water fast and I'm not craving food, nor hungry, it's easy once you get past the first day or two to continue for 5-10+ days so long as supplementing for electrolytes. I'm curious what else you changed in your diet or eating behaviours when you stopped eating meat? Did you reduce your sugar and carbohydrates? The quality (processed or not, organic or not) and type of meat you eat as well - as people can have sensitivities and discomfort by eating specific types of meat; chicken and duck bother me some, pork bothers me more, beef is fine.
tito 6y ago
A pound of meat isn't the same as a pound of carrots. In case you're wondering about climate impact per calorie instead of per pound/kg, here's an interesting article from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-... I see a lot of these charts that a pound of beef vs carrots. Just seems dumb, I would have to eat far more than a pound of carrots to match the calories of a pound of beef. Most data/infographic stuff in a climate world bugs me because it's just not well presented. The overall conclusion is the same -- eating meat is a huge carbon footprint compared to vegetables. Climate change has a marketing problem.
- cik2e 6y ago
  The energy per calorie is a very good insight that I hadn’t considered. I do agree that beef is a significant culprit and I tend to eat it rarely. But the environmental concern isn’t a consideration in my diet because it’s not something I’m willing to compromise on. Not only because I like meat, but for the fact that it’s a nutritional powerhouse that would take too much effort to emulate with a vegetarian diet. I try to do my share with respect to carbon by driving a hybrid, and plan on using the most energy efficient options when I own a house. Back to beef. My main reason for avoiding it is the cost. Especially with the more flavorful cuts being extra pricy. Perhaps the best way to lower consumption is a tax like what we have with cigarettes. But I can’t see any political will for this anytime soon in the US. It would be nice to see the more progressive countries in Europe lead the way, like they’ve done with other aspects of emissions control. Edit: typo
  - tashoecraft 6y ago
    I think you saying it’s too much effort to replace beef is really just covering for you liking beef. Which is totally fine, but it’s really not much effort to replace beef out of your diet
    - cik2e 6y ago
      I referred to not being willing to replace meat in general, not beef specifically, due to the difficulty in getting a similar mix of nutrients, not to mention things that you can't get from vegetables, period. Here's a small list [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants#12 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-ge...] but there are plenty more. Sure, some of them are non-essential but those are pretty damn useful for general health, cognitive performance, and athletics. Moreover, some of us respond poorly to carbs in terms of weight management and general well-being. I have ADHD and and a carb-heavy diet really messes with my symptoms. There aren't really any plants that provide enough protein without including a significantly greater amount of carbs so getting all of my calories from plants is a non-starter. I forgot to elaborate on the emissions/calorie issue in my comment (there's that ADHD). The link in the parent shows that many animal-based foods compare favorably with popular vegetables using the emissions/calorie metric. Direct link to the chart: https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/03/11/Food/Images/emissionsCHART_NUupdate.jpg?uuid=g3H2xqlGEeOKe8HGhOJnHw https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/Wash... It feels good to see some vindication on the animal farming emissions issue. It's a huge positive that we can lower our emissions footprint without resorting to a fully plant-based diet.
notatoad 6y ago
i'd be really curious to see a follow-up on this in a year - will this effect continue, or is it only occuring because the meat dishes being so far away is unexpected, and once people get used to the location of the meat dishes they'll skip to them.
legerdemain 6y ago
Today I learned that the British meter is 181 centimeters.
- neonate 6y ago
  They added a meter. FTA: The difference: almost a metre of added distance between the vegetarian and meat options, with an 85cm gap in the first college compared to a 181cm gap in the second
  - legerdemain 6y ago
    Thanks!
sunkenvicar 6y ago
This university found a marketing angle to boost profits.
thegreyone 6y ago
Oh my god, this article is wrong on so many levels.
temporallobe 6y ago
This just comes across as manipulative. Meat eaters don’t want to be “nudged” into eating less meat or becoming vegetarian any more than vegetarians want to be “nudged” into eating meat (even occasionally).

56 points by hhs 6y ago

> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Well that's a bit over the top... Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.

tomdell 6y ago
The truth is over the top?
- CuriouslyC 6y ago
  Because no vegetable farm ever caused habitat destruction or environmental damage...
  - emteycz 6y ago
    That's obviously not true, and also obviously not the point being argued.
  - typon 6y ago
    Terrible straw man argument
  - renaicirc 6y ago
    It's interesting how your response to the point that farming plants is far more efficient and sustainable than farming animals is "but some vegetable farms are bad for the environment, too!"
    - CuriouslyC 6y ago
      Mixed permaculture habitats that mimic nature and incorporate animals are sustainable. The vegatarian mafia would be happy with endless rows of unsustainable conventional monoculture agriculture, I know this because of the blank look so many vegans have give me when I start to talk about permaculture. You're a hypocrite.
      - renaicirc 6y ago
        You've accused me of hypocrisy based on your claimed experiences with other people. How charming. In any case, sure, sustainable animal farms exist. Could they meet the meat demands of the US? Popular consensus is no, and [0] lists many authorities who urge a reduction in meat consumption, but I'd be happy for you to convince me otherwise. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat...
  - eigenket 6y ago
    I'll take "whataboutism" for $500 Alex...
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
  It implicitly distorts the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions relative to other sources. And it ignores the health effects of going meatless.
  - tito 6y ago
    What most people miss is that methane (ie from cows) is more than an order of magnitude as impactful as carbon dioxide. This source says methane is 84x the impact of carbon dioxide: https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhou...
    - OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
      That article you linked also says that the largest source of man-made methane is the oil and gas industry.
kqr 6y ago
Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
- xwdv 6y ago
  What unit of energy? Calories?
  - henryaj 6y ago
    ...why is the unit important?
  - renaicirc 6y ago
    It's a percentage, so why would the units matter?
  - _Microft 6y ago
    They are talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
    - kebman 6y ago
      My BS-O-metre just went off big time. First off, this is an extreme generalization that does not pick up local differences. Take the Northeren hemisphere for instance, where meat is in many instances the most effective way to utilize our growing conditions to produce edible food. [1] It's just not possible to efficibely use our climate to make sustainable production of vegetables, so meat is in fact a better way to make the most of our growing conditions. The alternative would be to let tons of cultured pastures go to waste, and instead develop extremely expensive and wasteful greenhouse altnernatives that would suck our energy reserves dry. That is why meat production is in fact preferrable in the North. It's just not feasible to produce enough food without spending a lot of resources on imports, due to growing conditions that favour greens that aren't edible for humans, so our best option is then meat for local and "short-travelled" sustenance. [2] Second, there's obviously a place for meat eaters in this biodiversity. Of course, we're "too many" humans (who are of course meat eaters), but on the other hand we're sustaining our current population nicely with progresses made within both environmentally friendly transportation and not to mention advances within industrialized and automated farming. [3] Add to this that the population growth is in fact slowing down. [4] Long story short, the world has a giant surplus of food. [5] The amount of food here isn't the problem. It's the adverse effects local politics, production and transportation that are the problems the grand level, and to that end you can't as a general rule suggest that veggies are the "best" option. Well, it clearly isn't in the northeren hemisphere. In the end the moral question is, should we really force people to eat this, that or the other? I mean, there's obviously no harm in making suggestions, but when those suggestions aren't met with enthusiasm, then change isn't liable to happen without the use of force. And I think can all agree that we are nowhere near a Soylent Green situation, so we still have the option to give people a choice. Personally, my bet are on those developing succulent and protein-rich meat alternatives. The second they can make a product that similar enough, but without the environmental overhead, then people will flock to it. [1]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf [2]: Norwegian language source: https://www.agrianalyse.no/getfile.php/134664-1553523670/Dokumenter/Dokumenter%202019/Rapport%205%E2%80%932019%20Beitemarka%20-%20et%20ukjent%20karbonlager.pdf https://www.agrianalyse.no/getfile.php/134664-1553523670/Dok... [3]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter5.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#:~:text=In%202017%20the%20UN%20predicted,to%20%2B0.1%25%20in%202100.&text=Randers'%20%22most%20likely%20scenario%22,billion%20people%2C%20followed%20by%20decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow.... [5]: https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-food-surplus/a-15452289 https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-food-surplus/a-15452289
Ma8ee 6y ago
I don’t think it is controversial. I thought the huge environmental impact of meat eating was common knowledge.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? So if we all stopped eating meat we could cut emissions but a couple of % but if we all stopped driving and turned our heating down/up we could actually make a real difference? Edited with real numbers from https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
  - tito 6y ago
    Wish there was a good tool to give you an answer on this, or a way to poke around and be curious. http://energyliteracy.com/ http://energyliteracy.com/ gets close but it's USA only. This article suggests livestock greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to the entire transportation sector. Basically because methane and carbon dioxide have different effects on warming: https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...
    - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
      I have absolutely no idea what anything means in that chart. If you have a good source I would be delighted to read it.
    - cj 6y ago
      I found that infographic very enlightening. Thanks for sharing.
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    Agriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%. Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat. Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%
cj 6y ago
The article isn’t about vegetables being good “for you”. It’s about a college cafeteria experimenting to reduce carbon emissions and the amount of land required to serve meals: > Last year, University cafeterias (separate from the colleges) announced a 33% reduction in carbon emissions per kilogram of food purchased, and a 28% reduction in land use per kilogram of food purchased.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Something I dont think very many people realize is that cattle are raised on land that is unsuitable for practically any other purpose. They aren't ranching in Manhatten. Leasing land for grazing brings in about $70 an acre while doing it for crops will bring in around $280 an acre. Development of course would bring in amounts that are several orders of magnitude higher. Where cattle are raised, raising cattle is the only purpose available. This is why ranches are out west in the US or in the outback in Australia. If the world stopped raising cattle, a lot of steppes around the world would go back to being completely useless. We wouldnt free up valuable land.
  - eigenket 6y ago
    Thats not hugely relevant though, quoting from the wiki article: "Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef" The overwhelming majority of cows live on maize, soy, barley etc. Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Grazing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Grazing
  - cj 6y ago
    I’d be interested to read more about this. Any sources you’d recommend?
  - astura 6y ago
    Which is entirely irrelevant because 90%+ of cattle produced for meat do not graze, they are fed industrial produced corn and soy in crowded feedlots. We don't have the physical space on earth for all the cattle we currently produce to graze naturally.
loceng 6y ago
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health That meat is bad for our health is a myth perpetuated by the health industry, as well as by bad research that isn't accounting for processed meat vs. high quality unprocessed meat, nor do the studies account for confounding factors like other unhealthy food that many meat eaters eat. Dr. Georgia Ede is someone to look up on YouTube who's been spending her time debunking bad research on meat. > but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Monocultures are really terrible, and based on the latest thought leaders and their knowledge, the trend needs to move towards allowing animals to roam the land again - which helps aerate and maintain the quality of soil. My guess for future is free-roaming animals in their natural habitat, and vertical farming for vegetables, etc.
- dr_hooo 6y ago
  Switching to "allowing animals to roam" doesn't seem remotely viable or likely path in the current state of the world. There just doesn't seem to be any incentive which can compete with the maximization of profit.

AnonHP 6y ago

> “All cafeterias and restaurants have a design that ‘nudges’ people towards something. So it is sensible to use designs that make the healthiest and most sustainable food options the easiest to pick without thinking about it,” she said. Hopefully such designs also produce lower quantities of the less desirable options, since food waste has a huge impact on climate change (according to drawdown’s list). > “We know that information alone is generally not enough to get us to change damaging habits. More research is needed on how to set up our society so that the self-interested default decision is the best one for the climate.” This I agree wholeheartedly with. Expecting people to change their behaviors is an exercise in futility. Defaults and convenience matter a lot more.

loceng 6y ago
It's also why convenience stores turned into mostly low quality foods and sugar factories, higher profits, in part to subsidize ever increasing cost of rents to pay rent-seeking landlords; the problem persists to larger grocery chains for some degrees, however food overall would be cheaper if people didn't have access to so much "yummy" processed foods where people are habituated to sugary and saltier food.

supernova87a 6y ago

How about they just go ahead and put a sign on the meat dishes saying "recently sneezed on by someone with Covid" to make the veggie option more appealing?

jmpman 6y ago

That bacon tray is always at the end of the buffet. You regret all the stuff on your plate. What am I doing with all this worthless fruit? I should have waited! If I had known you were here, I would have waited. I would eat only you bacon...

maxharris 6y ago

Stop trying to nudge me. Focus instead on cultured meat, because that actually solves the fundamental problem.

coderintherye 6y ago
I'm curious if you've tried Beyond Meat? Not saying it is comparable, but it is quite good in my opinion, much better than the old veggie burger options. Just interested in subjective opinions of people of how close it gets to being a viable alternative to people who currently eat meat.
- andersource 6y ago
  I've tried it (not OP), and as someone who loves meat (not fanatic though), if I'd been told it's a regular burger there's a decent chance I wouldn't have suspected. Don't remember if the nutritional content is similar to meat but taste-wise, for me, it's definitely a viable alternative.
  - moron4hire 6y ago
    I had the same experience. It wasn't a great burger, mind you, but it still tasted like hamburger. I was reminded of Burger King burgers. But it also cost $15. I'd rather spend that kind of money on a really good portabello burger than something that tastes "exactly" like a fast food burger.
    - coderintherye 6y ago
      If you buy them from the store, it's about $10/lb. I usually make four 1/4 burger patties out of it. Granted, that is still about 2x - 3x the cost of beef locally (depending on which quality level you want to compare it to). But the price also seems to keep coming down over time so I imagine it will eventually be competitive on price.
- loceng 6y ago
  Comparing high quality meat with a highly processed "meat alternative" shouldn't be judge on taste, and they're not comparable otherwise. Beyond Meat burger ingredients: Water, Pea Protein*, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Rice Protein, Natural Flavors, Cocoa Butter, Mung Bean Protein, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Apple Extract, Pomegranate Extract, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Vinegar, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Lecithin, Beet Juice Extract (for color). Many of these things are not good for many people, and many if not the majority of people aren't connected to their body properly, conditioned by ego mind disconnecting them. Personally I can't do pea protein, canola oil, coconut oil, rice, bean, potato, apple, vinegar, lemon, or lecithin. Those all agitate my GI tract causing different levels of discomfort or pain. What you find in meat however is the same as what's naturally in humans, it's the animal concentrating the plants they eat into nutrients, protein, etc - and high fat red meat like beef has exactly what your body and brain needs and in the right portions. I'm not trying to argue it's not possible to make a comparable option, however it's highly unlikely. I do wonder if a cultured meat substitute is possible as well, as the highest quality meat are from animals in their natural environment under natural environmental stress conditions, it's more likely to create a comparable product though; getting cost down and texture will be the biggest challenges.

avdempsey 6y ago

The temporal dimension is just as important as space. Adding a year between eating meat and a plant-based diet also makes the alternatives more appealing. After being meat and dairy free for awhile my cravings changed. I guess our brains are plastic? I ate (and loved!) meat for 28 years, but today I don't even crave it, and can report I enjoy food just as much as I used to. If being plant-based required will-power, I don't think I'd be able to do it. I think it's actually easier to go all the way, and avoid meat completely, than it is to cut back. If meat is a regular, if limited, part of your diet the craving never goes away.

archielc 6y ago
I can relate to your experience on switching to plant-based diet.
MiguelHudnandez 6y ago
"Committing 100% is easier than committing 98%." Paraphrased from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-91dMvQQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-91dMvQQo
- tashoecraft 6y ago
  I’ve found the opposite. I don’t buy meat or dairy groceries so the high majority of my meals are vegan, but if I’m out at a place that doesn’t have a vegan option I’m fine ordering a meat or vegetarian option. I think going majority meat and dairy less without committing 100% would make a much bigger effect in aggregate. We don’t need everyone becoming vegan, actually we can’t even support that. But if having meat and dairy at every single meal wasn’t a requirement, then we’d make a lot of change. Vegetarians and vegans who have meat/dairy rarely shouldn’t be shunned or considered “failed”.
loceng 6y ago
I eat high fat, high quality steak and kale - that's all. It's pretty easy. I find it odd that meat is being described as or associated with a craving though. I've never craved plants or other foods. I'm at 67 hours of a planned 72 hour water fast and I'm not craving food, nor hungry, it's easy once you get past the first day or two to continue for 5-10+ days so long as supplementing for electrolytes. I'm curious what else you changed in your diet or eating behaviours when you stopped eating meat? Did you reduce your sugar and carbohydrates? The quality (processed or not, organic or not) and type of meat you eat as well - as people can have sensitivities and discomfort by eating specific types of meat; chicken and duck bother me some, pork bothers me more, beef is fine.

tito 6y ago

A pound of meat isn't the same as a pound of carrots. In case you're wondering about climate impact per calorie instead of per pound/kg, here's an interesting article from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-... I see a lot of these charts that a pound of beef vs carrots. Just seems dumb, I would have to eat far more than a pound of carrots to match the calories of a pound of beef. Most data/infographic stuff in a climate world bugs me because it's just not well presented. The overall conclusion is the same -- eating meat is a huge carbon footprint compared to vegetables. Climate change has a marketing problem.

cik2e 6y ago
The energy per calorie is a very good insight that I hadn’t considered. I do agree that beef is a significant culprit and I tend to eat it rarely. But the environmental concern isn’t a consideration in my diet because it’s not something I’m willing to compromise on. Not only because I like meat, but for the fact that it’s a nutritional powerhouse that would take too much effort to emulate with a vegetarian diet. I try to do my share with respect to carbon by driving a hybrid, and plan on using the most energy efficient options when I own a house. Back to beef. My main reason for avoiding it is the cost. Especially with the more flavorful cuts being extra pricy. Perhaps the best way to lower consumption is a tax like what we have with cigarettes. But I can’t see any political will for this anytime soon in the US. It would be nice to see the more progressive countries in Europe lead the way, like they’ve done with other aspects of emissions control. Edit: typo
- tashoecraft 6y ago
  I think you saying it’s too much effort to replace beef is really just covering for you liking beef. Which is totally fine, but it’s really not much effort to replace beef out of your diet
  - cik2e 6y ago
    I referred to not being willing to replace meat in general, not beef specifically, due to the difficulty in getting a similar mix of nutrients, not to mention things that you can't get from vegetables, period. Here's a small list [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants#12 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-ge...] but there are plenty more. Sure, some of them are non-essential but those are pretty damn useful for general health, cognitive performance, and athletics. Moreover, some of us respond poorly to carbs in terms of weight management and general well-being. I have ADHD and and a carb-heavy diet really messes with my symptoms. There aren't really any plants that provide enough protein without including a significantly greater amount of carbs so getting all of my calories from plants is a non-starter. I forgot to elaborate on the emissions/calorie issue in my comment (there's that ADHD). The link in the parent shows that many animal-based foods compare favorably with popular vegetables using the emissions/calorie metric. Direct link to the chart: https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/03/11/Food/Images/emissionsCHART_NUupdate.jpg?uuid=g3H2xqlGEeOKe8HGhOJnHw https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/Wash... It feels good to see some vindication on the animal farming emissions issue. It's a huge positive that we can lower our emissions footprint without resorting to a fully plant-based diet.

notatoad 6y ago

i'd be really curious to see a follow-up on this in a year - will this effect continue, or is it only occuring because the meat dishes being so far away is unexpected, and once people get used to the location of the meat dishes they'll skip to them.

legerdemain 6y ago

Today I learned that the British meter is 181 centimeters.

neonate 6y ago
They added a meter. FTA: The difference: almost a metre of added distance between the vegetarian and meat options, with an 85cm gap in the first college compared to a 181cm gap in the second
- legerdemain 6y ago
  Thanks!

sunkenvicar 6y ago

This university found a marketing angle to boost profits.

thegreyone 6y ago

Oh my god, this article is wrong on so many levels.

temporallobe 6y ago

This just comes across as manipulative. Meat eaters don’t want to be “nudged” into eating less meat or becoming vegetarian any more than vegetarians want to be “nudged” into eating meat (even occasionally).