5 ms·

This 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,

This 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 ago
Chimpanzees 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 ago
  That 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 ago
    No we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc
    - nobodyandproud 6y ago
      I 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 ago
        We 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 ago
        Your link indicates it’s a hypothesis, and not a widely -accepted PoV.
        nobodyandproud 6y ago
        In 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 ago
        Yes. That would also explain why we prefer dry-aged rather than fresh beef.
      - deepnotderp 6y ago
        I'm well aware of diet variability, but overall we ate lots of meat.
    - Jiejeing 6y ago
      Do you have the same nutritional needs as a hunter gatherer?
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Anyone who does many miles of running in a week, or works a manual labor job, just might.
      - watwut 6y ago
        I am 100% sure they suffered all kinds of malnutrition.
      - deepnotderp 6y ago
        We should encourage people to eat healthier diets, this will not only lead to more fulfilling lives, but also save enormous amounts of healthcare spending. Iirc Hadza life expectancy is 70 years vs 75 for modern humans (excluding child mortality). That's with NO access to modern healthcare! As for me personally, I run 8 mi/day and lift 6 days a week so yes. EDIT: source on hunter gatherers living almost as long as us: https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-long-as-we-do-but-with-limited-access-to-healthcare-104157 https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-...
- 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 5y ago
  My 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
    Where 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 ago
      You're right, I mistook your external costs to mean the subsidized price of meat and dairy. My apologies.

atian 6y ago

Chimpanzees 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 ago
That 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 ago
  No we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    I 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 ago
      We 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 ago
        Your link indicates it’s a hypothesis, and not a widely -accepted PoV.
      - nobodyandproud 6y ago
        In 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 ago
        Yes. That would also explain why we prefer dry-aged rather than fresh beef.
    - deepnotderp 6y ago
      I'm well aware of diet variability, but overall we ate lots of meat.
  - Jiejeing 6y ago
    Do you have the same nutritional needs as a hunter gatherer?
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Anyone who does many miles of running in a week, or works a manual labor job, just might.
    - watwut 6y ago
      I am 100% sure they suffered all kinds of malnutrition.
    - deepnotderp 6y ago
      We should encourage people to eat healthier diets, this will not only lead to more fulfilling lives, but also save enormous amounts of healthcare spending. Iirc Hadza life expectancy is 70 years vs 75 for modern humans (excluding child mortality). That's with NO access to modern healthcare! As for me personally, I run 8 mi/day and lift 6 days a week so yes. EDIT: source on hunter gatherers living almost as long as us: https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-long-as-we-do-but-with-limited-access-to-healthcare-104157 https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-...
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 5y ago
My 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 ago

I 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 ago
Why 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 ago
  Where 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 ago
    You're right, I mistook your external costs to mean the subsidized price of meat and dairy. My apologies.