4 ms·

> What we need are Surgeon General reports ... There are observational studies demonstrating a correlation between red meat consumption and various health prob

> What we need are Surgeon General reports ... There are observational studies demonstrating a correlation between red meat consumption and various health problems, but risks involved from eating red meat vs. smoking are not remotely comparable, nor is the scientific evidence anywhere near as convincing. Nor does some people eating meat directly affect others’ health, the way smoking in enclosed indoor spaces does. It would be better to give people truthful information about what risks are known and what our confidence is in those, rather than trying to scaremonger or force lifestyle changes based on exaggerated health claims. Climate risks and environmental externalities are a much bigger problem with red meat than direct health effects. (And a better cause for ending subsidies / adding taxes.) If you are just worried about health per se, it would make much more sense to start by targeting soda and alcohol, and follow up by targeting candy, cookies, chips, etc. Even in fast food restaurants, the fries and soda are a bigger health problem than the burgers.

Maursault 4y ago
The claim that eating red meat is not as harmful as smoking is hedging and a fallacy of relative privation. Just because eating plutonium is more deadly than eating red meat doesn't make eating red meat any less harmful. The World Health Organisation has classified cured and processed meats as Group I carcinogens because there is a causal link between consuming these meats and bowel cancer. Group I carcinogens also includes tobacco, alcohol, arsenic and asbestos, all known to cause certain cancers. WHO classified red meat as Group 2A carcinogens, indicating it most likely causes cancer.[1] Group 2A carcinogens includes alcohol, benzine, diesel exhaust, and formaldehyde. And having that many cows around hurts everyone on the planet, vegans included. There's 94M cows in the US, or 1 for every 3 people. But it would take 4 people eating 55 pounds of beef a year to consume one 1400lb. dressed cow. On the face of it, there are, at the very least, 25.5M superfluous cows producing more than 5B pounds of methane every year while consuming 46.5B pounds of alfalfa requiring ~7.2B gallons of water to grow. Say what you will about smoking, but no one ever tried to grow tobacco in a desert during a drought. And I'm not sure soda consumption is a significant contributor to Global Warming. The health concern is the meat eaters' incentive to quit, while I'd like it to stop being so damn hot and killing everything for the sake of meat gluttons indulging themselves. Eating meat is not any kind of virtue, and it is certainly not more important than the biosphere. For the sake of life on Earth, I can live without people eating so much damn meat all the time. [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...
- ahefner 4y ago
  If we're going to raise the cows anyway, I think what you're telling me is that I need to try harder to eat more beef.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > I need to try harder to eat more beef. Definitely. The less red meat eaters the better, so do your best to eat as much as you can.

Maursault 4y ago

The claim that eating red meat is not as harmful as smoking is hedging and a fallacy of relative privation. Just because eating plutonium is more deadly than eating red meat doesn't make eating red meat any less harmful. The World Health Organisation has classified cured and processed meats as Group I carcinogens because there is a causal link between consuming these meats and bowel cancer. Group I carcinogens also includes tobacco, alcohol, arsenic and asbestos, all known to cause certain cancers. WHO classified red meat as Group 2A carcinogens, indicating it most likely causes cancer.[1] Group 2A carcinogens includes alcohol, benzine, diesel exhaust, and formaldehyde. And having that many cows around hurts everyone on the planet, vegans included. There's 94M cows in the US, or 1 for every 3 people. But it would take 4 people eating 55 pounds of beef a year to consume one 1400lb. dressed cow. On the face of it, there are, at the very least, 25.5M superfluous cows producing more than 5B pounds of methane every year while consuming 46.5B pounds of alfalfa requiring ~7.2B gallons of water to grow. Say what you will about smoking, but no one ever tried to grow tobacco in a desert during a drought. And I'm not sure soda consumption is a significant contributor to Global Warming. The health concern is the meat eaters' incentive to quit, while I'd like it to stop being so damn hot and killing everything for the sake of meat gluttons indulging themselves. Eating meat is not any kind of virtue, and it is certainly not more important than the biosphere. For the sake of life on Earth, I can live without people eating so much damn meat all the time. [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...

ahefner 4y ago
If we're going to raise the cows anyway, I think what you're telling me is that I need to try harder to eat more beef.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > I need to try harder to eat more beef. Definitely. The less red meat eaters the better, so do your best to eat as much as you can.