-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Meat is better for the environment than tofu
- Thread starter tek-monkey
- Start date
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
What a load of toss. Typical non-science reporting from the media - where's the link to the report? From what I can gather from the article it implies that it is worse for the environment if you were to swap all the meat in your diet entirely for 'meat substitutes'. But in reality a vegetarian will eat more vegetables, bread, pasta, cheese, etc etc etc.
Vegetarians DO live longer, so I suppose we are bad for the environment in that respect. I try and make up for that with excessive consumption of alcohol.
Vegetarians DO live longer, so I suppose we are bad for the environment in that respect. I try and make up for that with excessive consumption of alcohol.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Hmm, so therefore by eating meat AND consuming vast quantities of refined apple products, I shall live a shorter life and therefore benefit the environment.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
I think this is it, but I've only had a quick skim. It's 7.3 MB.Monquey said:
db
#chaplife
"...soy, chickpeas and lentils..." don't sound like meat substitutes to me.. and to be fair on the report's author, he does clearly say:Monquey said:
...which agrees with what you're saying.. dunno, from where i'm sitting it looks fairly compelling.. i would have thought the WWF (who surely love cute, cuddly, tasty animals) would research something like this fairly intensively before releasing a report such as this.. i realise they only commissioned it btw, they didn't actually perform the research, but you know what i'm saying..Donal Murphy-Bokern said:
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
I think its fair to say that the study (and the Torygraph article for that matter) is a load of arse. Meat and dairy production is environmentally damaging, unsustainable, inefficient and bad for health - there's no getting away from that. Also, with world population going up the only way food production will keep up is people eating less meat and dairy.tek-monkey said:
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
I didn't see the article disputing that? It simply said refined veggie foods like tofu and pretend bacon are actually worse than the things they 'replace'. As DB pointed out, the article actually says that eating real veg and pasta is much better. Nobody disputed that.henryscat said:
As for the population issue, we should breed less. We're meat eaters, its obvious from our physical attributes. In a 'normal' situation we'd over breed then lots would starve, and the problem would be solved. What we're doing isn't natural.
FooFighter
Well-Known Forumite
Why do vegetarians have meat substitutes - mince, burgers, sausages.
Get your own f**kin' shapes!
Man, as a race, has evolved on a diet of meat protein and vegetables.
We need both.
the relatively recent mass introduction of dairy product could well be a factor in peoples ill health as there hasn't been time for a genetic acceptance.
the human race is a long term plan and cannot be assessed in only hundreds of years.
eventually we will be replaced by the owners -- the mice
Get your own f**kin' shapes!
Man, as a race, has evolved on a diet of meat protein and vegetables.
We need both.
the relatively recent mass introduction of dairy product could well be a factor in peoples ill health as there hasn't been time for a genetic acceptance.
the human race is a long term plan and cannot be assessed in only hundreds of years.
eventually we will be replaced by the owners -- the mice
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
The article makes some pretty dubious comparisons of eating imported soya vs British meat. A huge proportion of our food - including a large quantity of meat - is imported. Eating crops rather than feeding them to animals is a much more efficient use of them. The deforestation that goes on to plant soya is to feed livestock not make tofu.tek-monkey said:
The issue is that the developed world consumes far more than its fair share of resources, including food. There are already people starving - yet the amount by which the developing world is short of food is roughly the same as the over consumption by fat bastards in the west.
Talking of natural - factory farming to produce insane quantities of meat ain't natural either.
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
We don't need both since people quite obviously live perfectly healthy lives on a meat free diet.FooFighter said:
Historically humans have only eaten relatively small quantities of meat, not the huge and increasing quantities that are being consumed today.
The healthiest the nation has been was just after WW2 when rationing was still in place (and peeople were eating limited amounts of meat and a more balanced diet).
Before even considering the ethics of eating dairy... does anyone ever stop to think how patently bonkers consuming cows milk is? Milk is specific to a species and specifically an infant food. Cows milk is for young cows, so shouldn't come as a surprise that most people are actually lactose intolerant to varying extents.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Putting lazy journalism and personal preference aside the issue is a rather more complex one
Because of the newfound wealth of China the global wheat crop is now being directed toward pig feed becuase of the Chinese affection for pork. This in turn takes away the staple diet of the world's poorest people as the cost of the crop increases, this is having and will have catastophic results for a long long time to come
It may not be very interesting to your average European so you probably wont see it in your media of choice anytime soon
Because of the newfound wealth of China the global wheat crop is now being directed toward pig feed becuase of the Chinese affection for pork. This in turn takes away the staple diet of the world's poorest people as the cost of the crop increases, this is having and will have catastophic results for a long long time to come
It may not be very interesting to your average European so you probably wont see it in your media of choice anytime soon
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
I'd agree it is a complex issue, but not sure I'd pin the blame on China particularly. Globally, the quantity of grain fed to animals is a big problem. In terms of grain production, the States have a lot to answer for. The huge subsidies given to grain farmers in the USA massively skews the whole world market and disproportionately affects developing countries because it is difficult for them to compete with artificially cheap exports from the States. On top of that are the "vertically integrated" multinationals like Monsanto who control not only seed production but alongside that fertilisers and agrochemicals. They're guilty of flogging totally unsuitable grain varieties to the developing world and making them reliant on costly fertilisers and pesticides. The encouragement of mono-culture type of farming also has a lot to answer for.John Marwood said:
The whole system of agriculture relies on huge inputs of fertilisers which in turn have relied on cheap plentiful oil. With peak oil production either having being reached, or about to be, that clearly ain't going to continue. The knock-on effects of that are pretty significant as well.
