UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet

[the]

How much do you think is too much?

You would have to ask a dietitian.

Why would the dietitian know your meat consumption opinions? Do you not know?

 

[arbygil]

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.

YIKES!

Okay, no - no bouncing tomatoes! Just say no to rubber fruit and vegetables! @-@

I would hope that we do inject human decency and moral values in our food production, but...I'm pretty cynical about it. I haven't seen it happen yet, and we've had all the opportunities to do so.

The biggest problem, actually, isn't that the US produces too much food and third world nations don't have enough. The bigger problem is the warlords who hoard the food from their people, in order to keep them dependent on them. War, poverty, and starvation are the biggest issues.

I agree that the US produces too much food, though, and we use food as a drug and/or crutch far too often - and sadly, we don't even eat the healthy foods anymore, and we'd rather eat mass produced frankenfood or chemicals masquerading as food products.

 

[arbygil]

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.

Dang, I thought I'd responded to you yesterday...oh, well. One more time won't hurt.

The problem I see with the "no side effects" option is...there is no such thing with any food grown in a lab. Heck, there really isn't such a thing with organic produce, when it comes to allergies. But I'd rather know what's in my food, so I don't have to eat splice food. If I get corn spliced with soy, I'd rather know it so I don't react badly to it. That's my main issue - how can we trust drug companies to "get it right" for us if only we know how our bodies will react to the foods we consume? Medicine and technology can only go so far. They decide to create certain foods for us, but it doesn't mean the options are healthy for all.

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.

Eeeexactly. "Olestra" comes to mind. How could have anyone thought that to be *food*?

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.

Just call me the Easter Punny - because puns are not punishment! They are pundemonium!

 

[arbygil]

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.

I do think there are some beautiful things about veganism. The raw foods, the colors, the smells - all are beautifully aromatic. I love eating vegan, but I know I can't make a lifestyle out of it.

In fact, I'm discovering that I may need to consume more bone soups - my knees are starting to get stiff and sore more often. Bone has some excellent trace minerals in it, as well as gelatin and collagen and cartilage and all those things that give us joint mobility. There's some excellent research on that.

In any case, we all need to live a balanced lifestyle. I love to experiment with different foods from different cultures, and Asian, Indian, and African foods are usually my favorite fares.

 

[Quinlan]

The UN wants to destroy the New Zealand economy.

 

[Satya]

Why would the dietitian know your meat consumption opinions? Do you not know?

I eat way too much meat. Your avatar has nothing one me.

 

[Holden On]

I enjoy eating meat and I think I'd have a hard time adapting to a vegetarian lifestyle, but from a human rights standpoint, I think drastically reducing the amount of meat we consume is a great idea. I read somewhere that there is enough food (grain, fruits, vegetables, etc) produced on Earth to allow for every person to eat 3,000 calories a day, but we use so much of the grain we grow to feed livestock for meat consumption that people are going hungry. In short, it's an inefficient use of the calories. I'll have to try and find where I read that so I can post the source. I have a feeling it was in a book I read for class recently....

 

[slant]

You always hear the same arguments from people who oppose Veganism:
- I love meat and animal products, I could never give them up
- I have no problem killing animals
- God put animals on the planet for us to eat
- Being a Vegan is dangerous healthwise due to lack of nutrients
- Veganism is expensive
- Getting eggs and milk from animals doesn't hurt them; just be a Vegetarian

If you love meat and could never give it up, then don't. It's a matter of self discipline; you do get over not eating meat and it isn't that big of a deal at all. You learn to accommodate your body's cravings for say meat and identifying it with a desire for protein; instead of a steak you have peanut butter, which is much healthier for you anyway.

If you have no problem eating animals, then fine. Have no problem eating animals, there's really no sense in debating this particular statement because it attributes stubbornness to the speaker. It's a justification 'well since I see nothing wrong with eating animals then i'm just going to continue to do so, even if others disagree'. At that point in time they really don't want to reason.

Health and veganism......
Everyone likes to comment that you get certain vitamins and such from a meat based diet that you don't if you don't eat meet. And while, for those who have certain diseases which require them to eat certain foods in order to survive, for the majority of all human beings vitamins are not an issue. In fact, American Vegans eat more fruits and vegetables than their meat-eating opponents. While it is true if a vegan just ate junk food they would be unhealthy, that is true for all diets, not just vegan. Any regular meat eater would also be wanting to take vitamin suppliments so to insiutate that just because you don't eat meat you're going to get sick and die is NOT a good arguement against Veganism. There are supplements to take that are non-animal derived except for Vitamin D which can also be contracted from the sun.

Veganism being expensive is also another myth. While, if you buy pre-made foods it's going to tick the ticker, really, Veganism can be as cheap if not cheaper than your average meat eating diet. That's because meat is expensive and fruits and vegetables are cheap; if you prepare your own meals then you are going to save a lot of money. Some people are going to argue 'well what if you dont have enough time'. Well the problem with that is, all of the foods you are going to find that are 'insant' vegan are not aren't going to be healthy. So if one of your concerns is that being a vegan isn't helathy, but you'd rather compromise when you are short on time by heating up a quite unhealthy tv-dinner, then we are finding logical inconsistencies.

I don't want to touch the God arguement. I don't have enough refined points to argue religion.

The last thing I've experienced is people somehow believing that as long as you just don't eat meat you will be fine. The eggs and milk, from this opinion, cause no harm to the animal if you eat them. I want to point out how false these statements are. Slaughterhouses work in a very efficient way: if we're killing cows, we also have a milking station for those adept in being milked. If they are unfit or stop giving milk, get too old, etc, they are killed. Same with chickens and whatnot. Plus, Gelatin, something that many vegeterians are willing to eat, is made of ground animal bones.

By FDA standards you CANNOT just pick up already dead carcasses in the wild or on some farm and use their bones. You have to make sure they are healthy first and corpses that were not killed by the farmer or worker are definetely disesased. So, vegeterians are killing animals, yes, indirectly, but they do still harm the animals. If you are being a vegan for standards of economical OR ethical reasons, in order to instill the kind of changes required you are going to have to cut out all animal products of your diet. Then, you can go through the lengthy process of cutting out the leather bags you're carrying around and the silk robes you have in your home.

 

[Barnabas]

To qoute a president "I like bacon"

 

[acd]

The last thing I've experienced is people somehow believing that as long as you just don't eat meat you will be fine. The eggs and milk, from this opinion, cause no harm to the animal if you eat them. I want to point out how false these statements are. Slaughterhouses work in a very efficient way: if we're killing cows, we also have a milking station for those adept in being milked. If they are unfit or stop giving milk, get too old, etc, they are killed. Same with chickens and whatnot.

I understand the thread isn't about the ethics of veganism, but I'd just like the expand upon slant's mention that eating eggs causes no harm to the animal or isn't questionable ethically at least, and then duck out. (Unless there's a new thread for this.)

Chickens are genetically engineered to produce two types:
Broilers for meat
Layers for eggs

Since male layer chicks will not produce eggs and do not produce the right kind of meat, they are weeded out and thrown into the trash. Quite literally. So that's half the layer population killed at birth.

Chicken's natural life expectancy is about 15 to 20 years. Female layers live about 2 years, confined to an over crowded filthy cage.

So, I'd agree that purchasing and consuming eggs is harmful to chickens as it condones cruel industry practices.

 

[Rogue]

check this out http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

That will go over good in the US.

 

[magister343]

I'm no vegetarian, but I only like meat in moderation. It should not be a majority or even plurality of any meal. I eat chicken often, beef maybe once every 6 weeks, and never pork. If everyone ate meat like me there wouldn't be a need for this.


There is really no need to ban or even discourage the consumption of meat, only to get rid of existing perverse incentives. The meat industry in most developed countries receives massive subsidies, both direct and indirect in the form of grain subsidies. In the US most grain produced goes to feed animals used for meat. Not only is this highly inefficient, but rain fed animals produce meat that is far less healthy. Without grain subsidies our beef would be mostly of the lean, high quality grass fed variety. It would cost more and thus be consumed less often, but even if it were not our health would massively improve. Getting rid of agricultural subsidies would greatly shift which crops are produced, towards plants that are both healthier for us and less harmful to the environment. We would see the production of grain drop and of fresh produce rise, which would cause their respective prices to do the opposite and would make it cheaper for families to choose to eat healthy foods instead of junk food. We would grow what we need close to home instead of importing them from places less suited for their growth. It is estimated that US corn subsidies and the resulting displacement of the soy crop is one of the biggest causes of deforestation in the Amazon rain forest. (Europe is no better. I forget whether it is around 40% or 60% of the entire EU budget wasted on environmentally harmful handouts to the agricultural lobby.) These problems can be fixed not by spending more tax money on new programs, but my spending far less.

I'm in favor of technological solutions, just because they tend to be easier to sell. No-kill meat is already being developed by growing cells onto a lattice. If meat could be grown and mass produced, then we could have our steak and eat it too.

Yes, I've heard of this. you can already buy it but it is still ridiculously expensive, and not very high quality. Even those who make it refer to it as shmeat, because it is meat that tastes like shit.

 

[invisible]

the reality of genetically modified foods is that humans have been selectively reproducing and thus genetically modifying food for as long as they have been growing crops and breeding animals. genetic selection of crops has also resulted in more nutritious foods. no food that is farmed by humans is farmed in its original, "natural" form, but has been altered through genetic selection. humans have been genetically modifying food for far, far too long to clutch at more recent modifications as an explanation for a conjectural increase in say peanut allergies - at least, without actual scientific research. objecting to the genetic modification of foods on principle is actually meaningless as to genetically select from farmed foods is simply the way human farming works. some humans have always been allergic to some foods and have had to discover these allergies for themselves. i think that to say fiddling with foods in a lab is different is to make a void distinction; if anything, lab-controlled modification can only be more precise and controlled than a farmer juggling her crops with no greater guiding principle than what seems to work - that if it can continue to survive in the farming environment, and be edible, then it must be good?. just like plant material, meat is a complex of cells, and there's no intrinsic reason why it couldn't be genetically modified and grown in a lab in the same way that vegetable foods are being modified. to say that it has been hypothesised that foods genetically modified in a lab will cause cancer is nothing more than a basis for research, and a hypothesis is by nature potentially falsifiable: in order to make hypothesising meaningful as an argument, we should do actual research.

i'm not saying that there aren't a whole range of potential problems with the shifting of genetic modification of foods to labs, or that it could not possibly result in a different range of allergies or even be carcinogenic, just that we can test for these things in the same way that we have always tested for them in our genetic modification of foods, only perhaps with more reliability - and that to object to it on principle is meaningless.