17 ms·
We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption
- meristohm 6y agoThis article is tough to read on mobile without sending to Pocket or something like that. Chimpanzees eat some meat, maybe 2-3% of their diet? We can do that, too. The long-term costs need to be included in meat production. Regulation that affects everyone seems important, so that we don’t get stuck appealing to and hoping for individual responsibility.
- atian 6y agoChimpanzees brains also don't have the same energy demands. We also still don't understand the mechanisms behind rare diseases that are associated with vegetarian diets but also not considered from being overt malnourishment. We are far from ready from centrally advocating for plant-based diets. Seems like the best thing we can do and are doing is introducing more plant-based options on the market.
- Jiejeing 6y agoThat is true, but we (as a society) still eat way too much meat compared to what is required as part of our nutritional intake. I don’t advocate getting the "just right" amount needed (because it is not really easy to compute depending on activity, lifestyle, body type, etc…), but modern meat consumption is neither healthy nor ecologically sustainable.
- deepnotderp 6y agoNo we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc
- nobodyandproud 6y agoI don’t think we can generalize that, because it depends on where the hunter-gatherer lived. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-tanzania-the-conversation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-t... It’s a three day sampling, but fruit and honey make-up a non-trivial portion of their caloric intake. Inuit diet, of course, was mostly fat and protein out of necessity
- fmajid 6y agoWe only started eating vegetables 85,000 years ago. For the 2M years before that it was all meat diet: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate-meat-and-little-else-study/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate...
- nobodyandproud 6y agoYour link indicates it’s a hypothesis, and not a widely -accepted PoV.
- nobodyandproud 6y agoIn fact, one of the conclusions was off: https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/07/beasley-acid-2015/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/07/beasley-acid-2015/ If anything, high acidity shows humans as scavengers rather than hunters.
- fmajid 6y agoYes. That would also explain why we prefer dry-aged rather than fresh beef.
- deepnotderp 6y agoI'm well aware of diet variability, but overall we ate lots of meat.
- Jiejeing 6y ago
- seanwilson 6y ago> We are far from ready from centrally advocating for plant-based diets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition#Positions_of_dietetic_and_government_associations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition#Positions_of_d... "Positions of dietetic and government associations - The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[5][6] They indicate that vegetarian diets may be more common among adolescents with eating disorders, but that its adoption may serve to camouflage a disorder rather than cause one. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council similarly recognizes a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age,[7][8] as does the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[9] British National Health Service,[10] British Nutrition Foundation,[11] Dietitians Association of Australia,[12] United States Department of Agriculture,[13] Mayo Clinic,[14] Canadian Pediatric Society,[15] and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.[16] The British National Health Service's Eatwell Plate allows for an entirely plant-based diet,[17] as does the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) MyPlate.[18][19] The USDA allows tofu to replace meat in the National School Lunch Program.[20] The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics adds that well-planned vegan diets are also appropriate for older adults and athletes.[1]"
- atian 6y ago> properly planned > well-planned For these reasons requiring proper planning on the individual level is why the US require certain foods to be fortified.
- meristohm 6y agoMy argument is for eating less meat because it costs so much in resources to make. A moratorium can be easier (especially when trying to avoid something unhealthy for me and which I feel compelled to consume), but rather than urge everyone to be vegetarian (consistently 5% of USA population[0]) it makes more sense to set limits for everyone, along with introducing options to help the shift. [0] podcast: How to Save a Planet, 2021-03-25, The Beef With Beef
- choeger 6y agoI am not a big fan of this "external cost" talking point. For instance, the health cost do not scale linearly with sales. Why should someone who eats a healthy amount of meat subsidize the health cost of someone who eats an unhealthy amount? I see a different problem with climate emissions: If cattle produces a large quantity of green house gases, should the US meat eater outbid the Indian gasoline buyer? Because I think that's the likely consequence of a global market for emissions. I think it's much more efficient (but frustratingly slow) to set global standards for sustainable production. One could demand a certain level of renewable energy or a particular grazing standard world-wide. This way, no one loses out on the global market.
- igetspam 6y agoWhy should subsidies be based on quantity? If anything, we should subsidize income for the less fortunate and let the market dictate costs. We can all pay the fair market value for goods and then those that need actual assistance can have it. If you want to eat a "healthy amount" of meat, pay for it just the same as a glutton. Giving subsidies to the producers of goods makes little sense because you're directing consumption.
- choeger 6y agoWhere in my comment did you read the word subsidies? I was talking about the idea of internalizing "external costs" which I think is impractical and also somewhat impossible because at least some external costs do not occur at the point of production but at the point of consumption. edit: Now I get it. You must have misunderstood my point. Let me reiterate. Health care cost are part of the external costs of food. But they occur non-linearly, based on the amount of consumption. But they can only be priced linearly. So someone who eats a little meat would effectively pay the external costs of someone who eats a lot of meat.
- igetspam 6y agoYou're right, I mistook your external costs to mean the subsidized price of meat and dairy. My apologies.
- jschveibinz 6y agoWe eat way more than we used to, and there are more people doing it. Per capita meat consumption in the US (poultry, beef, pork) in 1960 was about 170 lbs per year. Now it’s closer to 220 lbs per person per year. Cheese consumption has almost tripled since 1970. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/ https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st... Let’s all be heroes: Eat less (including meat and cheese), buy less, save money, improve your health, create less waste, drive less, walk more, save water and use less energy. And be a role model for the next generation.
- chillwaves 6y agoIt seems like the market compensates for individual action in a way that diminishes its effect.
- thisCtx 6y agoThe market compensates the future for real consumption? Or are you thinking in purely abstract models? I’m more of a physical sciences type. I feel no obligation to coddle completely made up, self re-enforcing garbage. How is the market compensating for the real impact facing the future of the species? Hint: it’s not. Everyone in power will simply be dead by the time the bill comes due. “Trickle down economics” is a meme intended to mock the rubes. “Fuck them kids” is similarly something we uncomfortably laugh at as a joke while behaving with real indifference.
- chillwaves 6y agoI don't see you proposing a solution. Individual action isn't it. It is a red herring. Government policy is the only way forward.
- thisCtx 6y agoI did not see you propose a solution so much as regurgitate one.
- kuratkull 6y agoNot sure why the author doesn't mention the known (and gaining traction) solution: rotational grazing. It's a rather simple carbon-negative solution. You have a bunch of land, you divide it into paddocks, you rotate ruminants to fresh grass. The previous paddocks regenerate and bind carbon. Repeat. A large plot of land is able to bind carbon for decades. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rotational+grazing+carbon+negative https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rotational+grazing+carbon+negative
- Robotbeat 6y agoI sincerely doubt this fully compensated for methane emissions.
- darksaints 6y agoMaybe. http://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/animalsciencesdept/2016/06/22/cows-carbon-neutral/ http://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/animalsciencesdept/2016/06/22/cows... Bison in particular have such a beneficial effect on soil retention, aeration, and quality, that some scientists view them as part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. Their grazing patterns literally turn everything they touch into more efficient carbon sinks. If this idea is to extend to other livestock, it would do wonders for swine, chicken, sheep, and goat carbon intensity as well, but it probably will never be enough to compensate for cow methane emissions.
- kuratkull 6y agoDo your sincere doubts have any basis to them or did you just want to blurt out something?
- pengaru 6y agoThe future can look pretty grim when you start considering how rapidly quality of life can shift upwards even for huge populations, and how many people on earth have nowhere to go on that scale but up up up. Population growth historically received a lot of attention, but at this point there's enough queued up people waiting to join the West's way of life it looks to me like that ship has sailed. China promptly overtook the US in co2 emissions as they arrived in the past few decades [0], by a wide margin. What does the world look like when India starts competing with China for that position? They certainly have the headcount for it, at least they're mostly vegetarian right? For how much longer... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- ctoth 6y ago> The future can look pretty grim when you start considering how rapidly quality of life can shift upwards even for huge populations, and how many people on earth have nowhere to go on that scale but up up up. The future looks grim. Because life is getting better. for lots of people? Take this anti-humanistic garbage elsewhere. We can solve problems and make a better world without having to decrease, or even slow the increase, of quality of life around the planet. Lab-grown meat. Spacefarms. Whatever. I can think of many ways to increase quality of life universally, and this pessimistic, anti-human sentiment is actively getting in the way. I think at least some of this comes from the new environmental movement, which tends to be much more anti-human than pro-fixes. I just want you to read your first sentence there, and really internalize what you said. How absurd is that?
- sigg3 6y agoI think your assessment is more or less spot on, we've faced down civilizational threats before. I want to add that there's a statistical trend to have less offspring once quality of life improves, as well. That being said, civilizations have come and gone before. I believe we must not fall into "tech religion", and wait for magical solutions when we can and should address many things politically rather than technologically. I am also happy we're reaching for the solar system, because a backup mankind seems prudent.
- CynicusRex 6y agoWestern humans are like orcs.
- adriand 6y agoIndustrial agriculture is depleting the soil, abusing animals, polluting our water and significantly contributing to planet-destroying climate change. How about we start tackling the problem by ending subsidies and requiring meat producers to pay for what are currently treated as externalities. If meat eaters had to pay the real cost of their food, I suspect overall consumption would decrease far more than any campaign for behavioural changes.
- NicoJuicy 6y agoThe cause is overpopulation. Not agriculture. Less people, less problems. More people, more problems. Just look at the world population since 1950 The current solution is more efficient agriculture ( ofc ) or finding better and viable alternatives Forcing way more expensive meat is not a good option. Too many jobs will be lost at once and people will view it as an attack on their freedom. Nobody will want to make that decision and i don't think it's realistic to execute. I'd like some research on this too. Since I remember young vegans from school to be unhealthy looking and needing vitamin supplements. Even China added eggs and other things to the school diet, since they wanted to catch up on height with japanese people. They had positive effects within 1 generation. Just 1 example: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/vegetarian-kindergarten-china-ordered-meat-032237863.html https://sg.news.yahoo.com/vegetarian-kindergarten-china-orde... I'll let my kids eat meat and they can decide what they want when they are full-grown. Ps. I've met countless of vegans being offended by these claims/observations, while they couldn't find any proof against it. Joy... I invite you to debunk it. Please... Alter my POV with some evidence.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- seanwilson 6y agoWhy not reduce government subsidies on meat and add tax based on the pollution generated? Existing meat alternatives that are cheap to produce and create less pollution would then have a fair chance to compete? I can't see how meat alternatives are ever going to be able to compete otherwise. We already have a ton of good cow milk alternatives to choose from and people aren't rapidly switching to them so I don't expect e.g. lab meat to change much unless it was an order of magnitude cheaper.
- BuyMyBitcoins 6y agoSadly, it’s because the farmers and agricultural sector will fight tooth and nail to prevent any subsidies from going away. Plus, the average consumer is going to notice the increased price of food and is likely to vote in a reactionary way. I don’t wish to be a pessimist but I don’t see how such a necessary but unpopular thing could be passed in the political landscape today. On a bright note though, I remember the Beef Association (or something along those lines) were protesting against meat substitutes being sold alongside real meat in the same refrigerator. They seem to have at least lost that battle at the chain grocery stores.
- sAbakumoff 6y agoClimate change gonna hit us by 2030
- baybal2 6y agoWhen I was living in Russia, back in early nineties, the family could've only eaten meat once in 1-2 weeks. For us, it wasn't much special to have a week without meat. Later, I though we were well off to have it 1-2 times a week. It was just not part of the culture in the part of Russia we were, and it was, and I think still, considered simply wasteful, and irrational. When I moved to Canada in 2009, the whole idea of eating mean not only every day, but multiple times a day was hard to digest. In the end, I got used to this. I became rather fat.
- watwut 6y agoI don't know about where you lived in Russia specifically, but eastern block was eating meat every day during communism itself. Twice every day, for dinner and lunch.
- baybal2 6y agoNo it wasn't, whomever told you that told you a blatant lie. Meat twice a day was a luxury even for Moscow, and that with CPSU keeping Moscow well fed at any cost. In regions, it was a norm for meat shortages in excess of 1 month. In class 4 cities, and ethnic republics, it was even worse, some form of mild scurvy was a norm there.
- watwut 6y agoWell, I personally lived there and personally eate all that meat. And we were not particularly rich, most of people we knew could afford more. School lunches had meat them 4 days a week, as a rule. All the kids ate school lunches except those with too much allergies. Scurcy was not norm, that is not true. You also don't get scurvy from not eating meat.
- dazag 6y agoWell, I came to this news feed, because I thought there were some standards, that where higher than in other places. If you just go to the end of the article you can read "Dan Blaustein-Rejto is director of food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research center in Oakland, California. Alex Smith is a food and agriculture research analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, where he studies agricultural innovation, the future of meat production and consumption, and alternative proteins. He owns stock in Beyond Meat." PFfffffffffffffffF!! BULLSHIT! this is fucking propagando and news advertisement. I am looking for the first person who want to shoot his own foot?!?! so sad and lame...