UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet

[arbygil]

The one thing we have to recognize is, everyone is made differently and everyone's body requires a certain mixture of nutrients to work at optimum efficiency. I have seen extremely unhealthy vegans and I've seen extremely unhealthy carnivores; it depends on what you eat and in what quantities, and if you're eating enough in enough quantities to sustain your body.

Part of the problem in the West is, we're actually starving to death. Our bodies don't have enough nutrients to sustain us. We *do* have substitutes in our diet, by way of corn syrup, artificial flavorings and colorings, preservatives, and so forth. They add stuff to our food in order for companies and industries to get the most bang for their buck. Add artificial stuff to the food, and you can cheapen the quality of the food source.

Growing meat in a lab? Are you insane? We have genetically altered food already, and my assumption is this is one reason allergies are suddenly going wild. Coincidence? Maybe. But I've never seen so many kids so deathly allergic to peanuts - and this all happened a little after the 1990s.

Anyway.

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't force people to eat certain foods/not eat certain foods. Some people need more protein, and some need animal protein to be at optimum efficiency. Some need fish. Some need eggs. Some need fruits and cheese. Some are lactose intolerant, some are allergic to nuts, some cannot process beef, some are allergic to citrus. All these things should be taken into account if we start "regulating" what people shold and should not eat.

Possible solutions? We should share foods and teach other countries to become self-sustaining, and we should help them become self-sustaining. We should invest more in our own organic/natural farms, and quit loading hormones into cows and meat. We should start doing more in our communities, and creating local community-based farms and co-ops that everyone can contribute to, and everyone benefits from. We shouldn't stand for chemical companies controlling our food and eating habits.

We could be so much healthier just by living naturally.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I'd have no problem giving up meat and dairy.

+1

 

[Reon]

Do we really need to completely give up meat? I think it might be more effective to re-adjust our mind set of throwing away food and such and focus more on buying only what we need and using completely all of it. Also, if meat is such a viable issue, I think people should seriously start considering eating insects. It's just protein and it's WAY more efficient than raising a whole cow or chicken, or anything really. It's a daunting idea to most people in the west, but it has been proven before. For example, in singapore I believe (Some asian country), many (poor) people eat silk worms, and even when they moved to the U.S. they still consume them regularly. Because it's not bad for you. If we bolster our meals with insects, it should put less strain on the food market, although, much of this strain is more financial than agricultural

 

[arbygil]

Do we really need to completely give up meat? I think it might be more effective to re-adjust our mind set of throwing away food and such and focus more on buying only what we need and using completely all of it. Also, if meat is such a viable issue, I think people should seriously start considering eating insects. It's just protein and it's WAY more efficient than raising a whole cow or chicken, or anything really. It's a daunting idea to most people in the west, but it has been proven before. For example, in singapore I believe (Some asian country), many (poor) people eat silk worms, and even when they moved to the U.S. they still consume them regularly. Because it's not bad for you. If we bolster our meals with insects, it should put less strain on the food market, although, much of this strain is more financial than agricultural

I'd have no problem with that. Some folks in Mexico fry up crickets and add salt and lime...and the crickets supposedly taste like potato chips. Haven't tried it myself, but if it's tasty and I can't tell that it has feelers and tentacles, then I might eat it.

 

[Soulful]

The one thing we have to recognize is, everyone is made differently and everyone's body requires a certain mixture of nutrients to work at optimum efficiency. I have seen extremely unhealthy vegans and I've seen extremely unhealthy carnivores; it depends on what you eat and in what quantities, and if you're eating enough in enough quantities to sustain your body.

Part of the problem in the West is, we're actually starving to death. Our bodies don't have enough nutrients to sustain us. We *do* have substitutes in our diet, by way of corn syrup, artificial flavorings and colorings, preservatives, and so forth. They add stuff to our food in order for companies and industries to get the most bang for their buck. Add artificial stuff to the food, and you can cheapen the quality of the food source.

Growing meat in a lab? Are you insane? We have genetically altered food already, and my assumption is this is one reason allergies are suddenly going wild. Coincidence? Maybe. But I've never seen so many kids so deathly allergic to peanuts - and this all happened a little after the 1990s.

Anyway.

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't force people to eat certain foods/not eat certain foods. Some people need more protein, and some need animal protein to be at optimum efficiency. Some need fish. Some need eggs. Some need fruits and cheese. Some are lactose intolerant, some are allergic to nuts, some cannot process beef, some are allergic to citrus. All these things should be taken into account if we start "regulating" what people shold and should not eat.

Possible solutions? We should share foods and teach other countries to become self-sustaining, and we should help them become self-sustaining. We should invest more in our own organic/natural farms, and quit loading hormones into cows and meat. We should start doing more in our communities, and creating local community-based farms and co-ops that everyone can contribute to, and everyone benefits from. We shouldn't stand for chemical companies controlling our food and eating habits.

We could be so much healthier just by living naturally.

Amen.

You raise a great point. I used to know someone who is allergic to most forms of plant-based protein. Beans, nuts, legumes, and soy were pretty much out of the question for her.

 

[slant]

Part of my diet has been the restriction of and complete elimination of: high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, partially hydrogenated oils, things that are cooked in oil or great or high in fat content

I think that goes with what you are saying arbygil.

 

[Skathac]

Growing meat in a lab? Are you insane?

Yes? No? Maybe? Jury is still out but I guess if I was the spokesperson for lab grown meat and gave myself a frightful hairdo the general consensus might be yes.

I was just trying to provide an alternative to quitting cold turkey. Hah hah!
Then I come back and read the thread again, notice I missed whytiger mentioning the same concept. So who you callin insane

I disagree.

I did.

I have now been vegan for one entire year.

I'm glad you find such meals enjoyable Slant. Even though red meat hurts me I still have to have a nibble now and again. Not to mention I just can't see giving up chicken and pork. I really can't see how I could enjoy and dumplings...it must have chicken to be complete.

 

[88chaz88]

An cattle ranch in Mato Grosso, Brazil. The UN says agriculture is on a par with fossil fuel consumption because both rise rapidly with increased economic growth.

Not sure I can trust a report that begins with a very basic grammatical error.

 

[enfp can be shy]

vegan since last year - best thing that ever happened to my body =)

it's very easy nowadays btw, and it's only going to get even easier and cheaper

imagine the amount of veg bio-mass that you waste when you consume animal product, you can supply yourself much much longer if you eat the source instead, that's all

 

[arbygil]

Part of my diet has been the restriction of and complete elimination of: high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, partially hydrogenated oils, things that are cooked in oil or great or high in fat content

I think that goes with what you are saying arbygil.

*Nod.* Absolutely, slant.

Yes? No? Maybe? Jury is still out but I guess if I was the spokesperson for lab grown meat and gave myself a frightful hairdo the general consensus might be yes.

I was just trying to provide an alternative to quitting cold turkey. Hah hah!
Then I come back and read the thread again, notice I missed whytiger mentioning the same concept. So who you callin insane

Lol. I think eating replicated, cloned, or otherwise genetically altered meat is abhorrent, on principle. The grains and vegetables that have been altered in some way already cause issues in some, because scientists can (and do) splice things together that don't naturally grow together. If the body doesn't know how to break down those foods, then allergies could be one consequence. At the furthest extreme, it's hypothesized that cancer cells more easily multiply when a body consumes genetically altered food.

If scientists haven't perfected vegetables and fruits, how the heck are they going to perfect meat? That's my (pardon the pun) beef.

vegan since last year - best thing that ever happened to my body =)

it's very easy nowadays btw, and it's only going to get even easier and cheaper

imagine the amount of veg bio-mass that you waste when you consume animal product, you can supply yourself much much longer if you eat the source instead, that's all

Good for you! I tried it for six months, but I really needed more protein. Eating vegan is much easier *if* you can tolerate wheat and soy, which I can't. If you can't tolerate those two, you more or less have to rely on higher carbohydrate vegetables and grains, and that can spike your sugar levels if you're diabetic. Quorn is one alternative, but...it's made of a mold derivative, and mold and I aren't exactly friends in the allergy department, either.

Remember, though, eating vegan is not for everyone - nor is eating just meat. There's a balance, and that's the major issue. We should eat the balanced diet that works for us as individuals. My very best diet would consist of natural or organic wild fish, eggs, occasional red meat, non-starchy vegetables, and occasional lower glycemic fruit. I've found that this is how I function best and how I feel at my best. Now, do I eat that way? Noooo...and I wish I ate that way more often! But even here I have to watch for mercury in my fish, pesticides/genetic drift on my veggies and fruit, and hormones in my meat.

Hmm...(side note) I think I'm going to try to go back to that menu in the summer, and see how I do.

 

[Skathac]

Lol. I think eating replicated, cloned, or otherwise genetically altered meat is abhorrent, on principle. The grains and vegetables that have been altered in some way already cause issues in some, because scientists can (and do) splice things together that don't naturally grow together. If the body doesn't know how to break down those foods, then allergies could be one consequence. At the furthest extreme, it's hypothesized that cancer cells more easily multiply when a body consumes genetically altered food.

If scientists haven't perfected vegetables and fruits, how the heck are they going to perfect meat? That's my (pardon the pun) beef.

I understand where you are coming from, just really wanted to get a bit more light hearted with the discussion. I believe that if anything is introduced to the consumer it needs to be tested thoroughly to ensure that no negative side effects are caused by the product. Seeing all these commercials for drugs on the tele there must be a percentage of acceptable side effects, I really can't agree with anything larger than 0 side effects.

We started distinguishing ourselves as different from our fellow animals the more complex our tool usage became. At this point all we can do is continue to build off of that, improved technology, but I feel all too often the word acceptable is tossed around instead of perfect. New tools at this level need to be perfect, acceptable is making a spearpoint out of a rock and being happy with it just being able to do the job. I believe this should carry over into everything including synthetic foods, but they may never be suitable for human consumption. If the drug companies have anything to say about it though, we'll get acceptable synthetic foods that most people can digest and others it might outright kill. Or at least lead to anal leakage, increased risk of heart disease, explosive diarrhea, dry mouth, ect. With these guys it would probably be the most horrible experience imaginable if you are one of the unlucky individuals in the acceptable side effects range.

On a lighter note, no need to pardon puns! Puns are fun. Been reading Piers Anthony for a very long time, one of my favorite authors. Probably wouldn't find things nearly as punny as they are otherwise.

 

[whytiger]

Lol. I think eating replicated, cloned, or otherwise genetically altered meat is abhorrent, on principle. The grains and vegetables that have been altered in some way already cause issues in some, because scientists can (and do) splice things together that don't naturally grow together. If the body doesn't know how to break down those foods, then allergies could be one consequence. At the furthest extreme, it's hypothesized that cancer cells more easily multiply when a body consumes genetically altered food.

If scientists haven't perfected vegetables and fruits, how the heck are they going to perfect meat? That's my (pardon the pun) beef.

The problem is not that scientists haven't perfected vegetables and fruit. It's that they have perfected them for growing and transport, not for actually tasting good or being healthy. In fact, the kind of tomatoes that come in a can actually bounce when they fall out of the truck. Disgusting. If we're going to give people incentives, let's give scientists and producers incentives to develop decent foods. With 7 billion people on the planet, we're sort of stuck with technological solutions, but that doesn't mean we can't inject some human decency and moral values into our use of those technologies.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The U.N. can kiss my ass - and eat whatever might come out of it.

Why doesn't the UN look into promoting (via substantial funding) the development of better food livestock?

The humble, Australian Kangaroo, for instance produces very lean, tasty meat (so I have been told) - there are two problems with the Kangaroo as a meat source: 1) they have not been bred into a domesticated species; 2) their meat is temperamental and prone to being overcooked easily.

Instead of throwing out stupid and impossible ideas, the UN should start doing something constructive like stock development.

The difference is, unrealistic ideas don't cost anything; real solutions cost a mint to develop. It's time the UN actually started doing something constructive.

 

[Stu]

....

eii has tossed out some very compelling facts about the impact of a livestock based diet. The UN is completely within its mandate by calling the worlds attention to it.
the "kiss my ass I'm gonna eat what I want" attitude is ridiculous when the compared to the sustainability question.

I took the liberty of editing eii's remarks....


"""Here are some incentives from John Robbins' Diet For A New America. Although the numbers are a little dated (published over 10 years ago), they are still facts.


HUNGER:
-The Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million 
-Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million

20%- corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 

80%of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock:
-
95
% oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock:
90
% protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock:

every2.3 seconds a child dies as a result of malnutrition:

250-Pounds of beef produced per acre: 

56% of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production:


ENVIRONMENTAL:
-Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
-Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels 
-

Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more


-Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 
-Percentage of U.S.

topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85
-

Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million 
-

Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds 
-

Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75 
-

Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet 
-

Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year

CANCER:
-Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times 
-For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times 
-For women who eat butter and cheese 2-4 times a week: 3.25 times 
-Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times 
-Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times.

CHOLESTEROL:
-Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 
-Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
-Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours
-Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack 
-How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds 
-Average U.S. man

 

[Satya]

People aren't going to change what they buy based on any amount of news stories, scientific analysis, or simple word of mouth. The only way to reduce the amount of meat people consume is to remove it from the market and provide other alternatives. If its available and people have the money, they will buy it.

Nah, it will eventually be outpriced. The cost of meat will rise significantly in time and it will become a luxury for the rich and elite because the rest of us will only be able to afford a vegen diet mixed with some fried cockroaches and grubs.

 

[Satya]

How much do you think is too much?

You would have to ask a dietitian.

 

[Satya]

The difference is, unrealistic ideas don't cost anything; real solutions cost a mint to develop. It's time the UN actually started doing something constructive.

The UN doesn't have the power to do anything constructive. It can only make suggestions and create treaties and agreements. The market will eventually make meat unaffordable. That will solve the problem very quickly.

 

[eii]

eii has tossed ..

Hey, Apostelytizer, thanks for doing that! The text lost formating when I posted it, I was thinking about separating them when I have more time.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Remember, though, eating vegan is not for everyone - nor is eating just meat.

I know. My words are only aimed to encourage someone who wonders whether it's too difficult; at least for me it wasn't. If I ever begin to feel uncomfortable, I'm returning to animal products, for example, it's not a one-way ticket. To those who are curious, I recommend trying some period, say a month. If you feel good / better, you can continue, if not, return to usual. I used to think this whole veganism is pretty creepy, but only in the first week of trying I was surprised by how much better I felt.

After all we are not even discussing extreme urge, for now, it's just about reducing animal consumption a little, that would be nice.

 

[the]

I think people should be allowed to eat as much meat as they want without the government getting in their bizness.