# Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?



## MrCurry (Nov 4, 2021)

Goodbye burgers. Farewell roast lamb. Sayonara moussaka!

In a future in which climate change is actually being addressed, instead of just being talked about, isn’t it inevitable that one of the first changes imposed on our habits will be that meat is off the menu, first for the majority of mealtimes and eventually entirely?

The UN says that energy usage changes are nowhere near enough for countries to meet their net zero carbon goals, drastic changes in land use are needed and that means growing vegetables in place of raising livestock.  However unimaginable it may seem to dedicated meat eaters, that seems to makes it inevitable that through pricing or other factors such as social stigma, meat will become first an expensive luxury and then maybe unobtainable to normal people.

Helsinki already announced the city will no longer serve any meat in public events and surely other organisations will soon see this as low hanging fruit to start meeting their carbon reduction obligations.

So if change is inevitable, how will it go?  Will McDs and others transition fully to plant based burger alternatives?  Will deep fried crickets replace chicken satay sticks at the local Chinese?  Will the grandkids of our kids generation consider us savages for having eaten actual animals when their everyday experience shows them how completely unnecessary and profligate it was?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

Meat is perfectly healthy and provides nutrition vegan diets cannot. It can also be farmed in a healthy way; restoring the land. Deal with industrial factory farming, don't lecture people on what they should eat


----------



## JimW (Nov 4, 2021)

My smug face beaming at you across a dining table FOREVER


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 4, 2021)

I'm sure this thread will go well with calm, reasonable agruments from all sides.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Meat is perfectly healthy and provides nutrition vegan diets cannot. It can also be farmed in a healthy way; restoring the land. Deal with industrial factory farming, don't lecture people on what they should eat



Well exactly. That fertility has to come from some where. If not from animal products, it will be farmland set aside to grow fertiliser. Or use chemicals.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Meat is perfectly healthy and provides nutrition vegan diets cannot. It can also be farmed in a healthy way; restoring the land. Deal with industrial factory farming, don't lecture people on what they should eat


What nutrition is that then? And where do the animals whose flesh/meat supplies it get the magic nutrients from?


----------



## Flavour (Nov 4, 2021)

It absolutely needs to happen and very very quickly indeed. Good on Helsinki. The growth in veg/vegan establishments -- at least in "cosmopolitan" cities -- is heartening, and I think vegan options are sort of a given on a lot of menus in the UK at this point. I'd just end all subsidies to farmers who keep large numbers of animals overnight. Fuck 'em. 

Yes there will be the usual stuff about the rich still being able to afford it and blah blah blah -- same goes for a lot of stuff. Don't care.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 4, 2021)

Gotta say, I'm into the Beyond Burgers, McPlant Burgers, Vegan Katsu Curries and Veggie Richmond Sausages. If they could keep the plant based meat alternatives as convincing as those things, then I'm all for it.


----------



## Sue (Nov 4, 2021)

skyscraper101 said:


> Gotta say, I'm into the Beyond Burgers, McPlant Burgers, Vegan Katsu Curries and Veggie Richmond Sausages. If they could keep the plant based meat alternatives as convincing as those things, then I'm all for it.


See I'm the opposite -- they're way too meat-like for me. If people like them and it encourages them to eat less meat, then that's great though I'm not sure about how much processing and all that goes into them and how environmentally bad that may be?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

skyscraper101 said:


> Gotta say, I'm into the Beyond Burgers, McPlant Burgers, Vegan Katsu Curries and Veggie Richmond Sausages. If they could keep the plant based meat alternatives as convincing as those things, then I'm all for it.



Beyond Burgers are good.  Not tried the others.  Heard good things about the Veggie Richmond Sausages, which surprised me given the state of the meat ones.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Meat is perfectly healthy and provides nutrition vegan diets cannot. It can also be farmed in a healthy way; restoring the land. Deal with industrial factory farming, don't lecture people on what they should eat



Yeah, big hit on biodiversity from that kind of farming.  Moving to better farming methods would inevitably mean less meat about generally, but hey ho, better than soil erosion, ecosystem collapse etc.  Would be a steak just as a special birthday treat, much like not that long ago.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 4, 2021)

Well it's obvious which way this is going to go. I think though that in relation to climate change a debate around the basic philosophy of eating meat or the particular circumstances it might be beneficial are missing the point a bit really because as a society we're about a million miles away from the point where that's really important. Maybe reduce meat eating by 80% or so and then worry about that stuff.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

Poll fail. No option for "I eat meat once or twice a week and see no need to change that".


----------



## cybershot (Nov 4, 2021)




----------



## MrCurry (Nov 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Poll fail. No option for "I eat meat once or twice a week and see no need to change that".


You might be interested in the final poll option, if you think carrying on eating once or twice a week is and will always be an option.  If things go the way I think they inevitably have to, then even that level of consumption may be unsustainable.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> Yeah, big hit on biodiversity from that kind of farming.  Moving to better farming methods would inevitably mean less meat about generally, but hey ho, better than soil erosion, ecosystem collapse etc.  Would be a steak just as a special birthday treat, much like not that long ago.



Meat for the wealthy, or for special occasions, like champagne.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> You might be interested in the final poll option, if you think carrying on eating once or twice a week is and will always be an option.  If things go the way I think they inevitably have to, then even that level of consumption may be unsustainable.



I think that's loonspud territory.


----------



## Voley (Nov 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Poll fail. No option for "I eat meat once or twice a week and see no need to change that".


That's where I am too. Used to eat meat daily but pretty happy with the changes I've made.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 4, 2021)

Will I be allowed to have a small holding and keep pigs and chickens to slaughter myself?


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 4, 2021)

souljacker said:


> Will I be allowed to have a small holding and keep pigs and chickens to slaughter myself?


For kicks yes. For dinner no.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 4, 2021)

souljacker said:


> Will I be allowed to have a small holding and keep pigs and chickens to slaughter myself?



It's the natural way. You've got to make your own black pudding though.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 4, 2021)

We will have shit farms producing a bit of meat as a bonus rather than meat//dairy farms with shit as a bonus.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 4, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> We will have shit farms producing a bit of meat as a bonus rather than meat//dairy farms with shit as a bonus.



This is actually sort of correct.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 4, 2021)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> It's the natural way. You've got to make your own black pudding though.



No problem with that. I don't want to waste any of the animal.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 4, 2021)

Or just have more festivals.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 4, 2021)

Firstly..  I eat red meat maybe once a week. 
Secondly chicken will still be on the menu.

Beyond that?

I think meat will be a staple for a lot of people who dont live in sunny climates where fruit and veg grow easily and plentifully for a long time yet. 

And finally... I don't think we will be able to stop global warming. Even if every cow on the planet died tomorrow and every car stopped working.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

ddraig said:


> What nutrition is that then? And where do the animals whose flesh/meat supplies it get the magic nutrients from?


a) vitamins, essential fatty acids, complete proteins, all in optimal form for human consumption. Nature is elegant and provides us with what we need and what we know to be beneficial for us. I think that is reassuring and humbling. 
b) they produce it metabolically. Cows eat grass which helps produce nutrient rich meats and organs. No magic required


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

Flavour said:


> It absolutely needs to happen and very very quickly indeed. Good on Helsinki. The growth in veg/vegan establishments -- at least in "cosmopolitan" cities -- is heartening, and I think vegan options are sort of a given on a lot of menus in the UK at this point. I'd just end all subsidies to farmers who keep large numbers of animals overnight. Fuck 'em.
> 
> Yes there will be the usual stuff about the rich still being able to afford it and blah blah blah -- same goes for a lot of stuff. Don't care.


What about people who can't maintain health on so restrictive a diet?


8ball said:


> Yeah, big hit on biodiversity from that kind of farming.  Moving to better farming methods would inevitably mean less meat about generally, but hey ho, better than soil erosion, ecosystem collapse etc.  Would be a steak just as a special birthday treat, much like not that long ago.


To meet people's needs we'd need more space if you aren't eating meat because plants are less nutritionally dense. Soil erosion is much more likely when plant agriculture is the focus rather than including livestock. Steak may have been a treat, but that's a particular cut of meat. We could include way more parts of the animal, be less wasteful that way, include more offal which is extremely good for us.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> What about people who can't maintain health on so restrictive a diet?



Omelettes, eggs, yada yada...


----------



## ddraig (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> a) vitamins, essential fatty acids, complete proteins, all in optimal form for human consumption. Nature is elegant and provides us with what we need and what we know to be beneficial for us. I think that is reassuring and humbling.
> b) they produce it metabolically. Cows eat grass which helps produce nutrient rich meats and organs. No magic required


Are you saying that they can't be got without meat then? Are vegans less healthier than you?


----------



## Sue (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> What about people who can't maintain health on so restrictive a diet?
> 
> To meet people's needs we'd need more space if you aren't eating meat because plants are less nutritionally dense. Soil erosion is much more likely when plant agriculture is the focus rather than including livestock. Steak may have been a treat, but that's a particular cut of meat. We could include way more parts of the animal, be less wasteful that way, include more offal which is extremely good for us.


Like who?


----------



## Flavour (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> What about people who can't maintain health on so restrictive a diet?



wtf are you on about?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

ddraig said:


> Are you saying that they can't be got without meat then? Are vegans less healthier than you?


I have no idea, I don't set myself as a benchmark.

Some nutrients require animal products. Some are optimised best in animal form. Liver is an excellent source of vitmain A, for example, while fish are superb for omega fatty acids. For a vegan diet to be healthy would require a vast global indsutry of supplements (and the associated supply chain). Some plants won't grow locally, livestock doesn't have that problem.

If you tell me you're healthy as a vegan, great. That's your business. I've no interest in proving you wrong. But if you want to make everyone a vegan you are necessarily going to include people for whom that will be catastrophically difficult. I've read far too many stories of people who, and I assume at least some of them are honest, followed a vegan diet, to the best advice possible (which isn't hard to find), and found their health failing. You are welcome to eat a plant based diet, I'd simply like that courtesy to be extended as eating a diet rich in animal food has been transformative for my weight, state of mind and blood sugar.



Flavour said:


> wtf are you on about?



I don't see anything unclear in what I said.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> Omelettes, eggs, yada yada...


Or, as I like to call it, breakfast


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> But if you want to make everyone a vegan...


I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.  Besides, apart from a bit of B12 I'm not sure that many people would need any supplements at all.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.  Besides, apart from a bit of B12 I'm not sure that many people would need any supplements at all.


I think it's entirely dependent on the individual. But I don't feel morally compelled to eat no meat and I don't believe there is a good environmental argument for it either. Addressing factory farming is one area of concern where all can agree, but unfortunately given the nature of the vegan position that won't happen


----------



## Flavour (Nov 4, 2021)

"unfortunately given the nature of the vegan position that won't happen"

so now it's vegans' fault that factory farming can't be ended? have I got that right?


----------



## Sue (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I think it's entirely dependent on the individual. But I don't feel morally compelled to eat no meat and I don't believe there is a good environmental argument for it either. Addressing factory farming is one area of concern where all can agree, but unfortunately given the nature of the vegan position that won't happen


I believe the moon is made of green cheese and I have the YouTube video to prove it an' all.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

Sue said:


> I believe the moon is made of green c***** and I have the YouTube video to prove it an' all.



I hope you know how triggering the c-word can be to vegans, regardless of what colour you make it.


----------



## Sue (Nov 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> I hope you know how triggering the c-word can be to vegans, regardless of what colour you make it.


Vegan cheese obvs.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

Sue said:


> Vegan c***** obvs.



One day there will be such a thing.  But until then, please don't torture them.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

Sue said:


> I believe the moon is made of green cheese and I have the YouTube video to prove it an' all.


You believe the notion that some people can't cope with a vegan diet is exactly equal to the claim the moon isn't real? Discourse isn't for you, perhaps?


----------



## Sue (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> You believe the notion that some people can't cope with a vegan diet is exactly equal to the claim the moon isn't real? Discourse isn't for you, perhaps?


You said:


glitch hiker said:


> I don't feel morally compelled to eat no meat and *I don't believe there is a good environmental argument for it either. *


So you know you can believe whatever, that doesn't necessarily make it true.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

Sue said:


> You said:
> 
> So you know you can believe whatever, that doesn't make it true.


This is vacuous. Consider that animals can graze where plants can't grow and that proper land management livestock can maintain the health of the soil. Just as they always have, in their proper ecological niche. The idea that suddenly, commensurate with industrial revolution, livestock became inimical to the health of the planet, is going to require more evidence than your incredulity. Now, we both agree that factory farming is a problem, so why not address that, rahter than go to the extreme of trying to persuade everyone on earth to give up all animal products entirely and forever.


----------



## Sue (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> This is vacuous. Consider that animals can graze where plants can't grow and that proper land management livestock can maintain the health of the soil. Just as they always have, in their proper ecological niche. The idea that suddenly, commensurate with industrial revolution, livestock became inimical to the health of the planet, is going to require more evidence than your incredulity. Now, we both agree that factory farming is a problem, so why not address that, *rahter than go to the extreme of trying to persuade everyone on earth to give up all animal products entirely and forever.*


I'm not. You're claiming there's no good environmental argument for not eating meat. Go back and read the OP.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> Omelettes, eggs, yada yada...



Some (quite a few) people are allergic to eggs.😕


----------



## StoneRoad (Nov 4, 2021)

For healthy soil, you really need manure from herbivores; which can graze on land that isn't fertile enough or is unsuitable in other ways for growing anything other than grass or trees.

Putting grass etc through a herbivore is quicker and more effective than just composting vegetable waste.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm not. You're claiming there's no good environmental argument for not eating meat. Go back and read the OP.


The claim seems to pertain to deforestation. I'm not arguing for deforestation. We can manage land and graze livestock without having to clear cut the Amazon.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 4, 2021)

And the whattaboutery is strong in this one!


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

ddraig said:


> And the whattaboutery is strong in this one!


For example?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> For example?


most of your posts here


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

A post-meat future will require selling amino acid or vitamin supplements to e.g. Samoyed or Yanomami peoples. No more nomadic reindeer herding or blowpipe hunting for you, go buy some imported tofu. Colonialism at its finest.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> For example?


It's his go-to line when he can't think of anything of worth to post. Don't expect a worthwhile answer.


----------



## smmudge (Nov 4, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Nature is elegant and provides us with what we need and what we know to be beneficial for us. I think that is reassuring and humbling.



How come nature doesn't cook the meat for us 🤔 

Really need some salmonella yum.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> A post-meat future will require selling amino acid or vitamin supplements to e.g. Samoyed or Yanomami peoples. No more nomadic reindeer herding or blowpipe hunting for you, go buy some imported tofu. Colonialism at its finest.


literally nobody, on any of the threads on urban ever on the topic, has ever advocated enforcing a meat-free diet on nomadic peoples of the Arctic circle, you silly dickhead


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 4, 2021)

This will bring all the beef to a new thread.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

Flavour said:


> literally nobody, on any of the threads on urban ever on the topic, has ever advocated enforcing a meat-free diet on nomadic peoples of the Arctic circle, you silly dickhead



And there are probably less than six who would have done so had they thought of it.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

Flavour said:


> literally nobody, on any of the threads on urban ever on the topic, has ever advocated enforcing a meat-free diet on nomadic peoples of the Arctic circle, you silly dickhead



I thought this thread was about a “post-meat future”, not just some rich Western folks buying veggie sausages made with soya protein from previously-forested Brazilian land?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 4, 2021)

StoneRoad said:


> Putting grass etc through a herbivore is quicker and more effective than just composting vegetable waste.


When I had pet rabbits my dad always fed Brussel sprout stalks to them as the resulting manure would compost far faster than the stalks would.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> When I had pet rabbits my dad always fed Brussel sprout stalks to them as the resulting manure would compost far faster than the stalks would.


If he'd also fed them the sprouts, it'd have had the added benefit of not having to eat them himself.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I thought this thread was about a “post-meat future”, not just some rich Western folks buying veggie sausages made with soya protein from previously-forested Brazilian land?


this is some very bad faith bullshit, so off you fuck


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

Flavour said:


> this is some very bad faith bullshit, so off you fuck



Sorry for literally responding to the OP rather than some other proposition that was in your head.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 4, 2021)

Another thing that just ain't going to happen. It's possible we might stop eating animals (or much fewer) if we are able to grow meat in factories from cloned animal tissue. It's only doable in a lab at the moment but I can certainly see it being done on a large enough scale by perhaps the middle of this century. I suspect meat eating will continue to rise in the short term as the developing world economies catch up with the developed ones.
But the belief that there is going to a sudden huge surge to being herbivorous is up there with degrowth and giving up the private cars as things that are just not going to happen ever for whatever reason.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Another thing that just ain't going to happen. It's possible we might stop eating animals (or much fewer) if we are able to grow meat in factories from cloned animal tissue. It's only doable in a lab at the moment but I can certainly see it being done on a large enough scale by perhaps the middle of this century. I suspect meat eating will continue to rise in the short term as the developing world economies catch up with the developed ones.
> But the belief that there is going to a sudden huge surge to being herbivorous is up there with degrowth and giving up the private cars as things that are just not going to happen ever for whatever reason.



The degrowth and the moving away from cars are likely to happen first (if at all) imo.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 4, 2021)

ddraig said:


> most of your posts here


Ok, so if you're going to argue in bad faith we don't need to argue at all, have a nice day


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> The degrowth and the moving away from cars are likely to happen first (if at all) imo.


Economic degrowth is not happening ever, the world's resources are far too unfairly shared, those who have ain't giving them up, those who have not aren't going to accept that but can't do anything about it. Only two ways that will shake down, either growth continues and more resources are created or the haves kill off enough of the have nots to eliminate the problem anyway.
As for private car ownership that currently stands at 81% in this country so I reckon we're probably at or near peak car ownership. EV's are likely to be a greater proportion of average income than ICE vehicles so I suspect 2030's onwards the number of cars in private hands will fall. how far down that is I don't know, it will be interesting to see how autonomous vehicles affect this (assuming I live long enough)


----------



## ska invita (Nov 4, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?


Get used to lab meat.
The countryside will be a nicer place for it, and the abattoirs nicer still


----------



## NoXion (Nov 4, 2021)

I expect eating meat from reared animals will become a lot rarer whenever someone develops a commercially successful way of just growing the flesh instead. A development I would welcome even if animal husbandry wasn't contributing significantly to climate change. Until then, pressure on arable land will make it more expensive, even with subsidies and other cost externalisations.

So meat might become more of a luxury for me. I don't see there's much I can do about that, apart from experiment with making smoked tofu taste more interesting, because I'm certainly not going to be tucking into insects as long as there's anything else that's remotely edible in this world.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 4, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Get used to lab meat.
> The countryside will be a nicer place for it, and the abattoirs nicer still


It will just go underground with poaching and illegal animal rearing and of course there won't be any checks on the welfare of the animals or oversight of the slaughter because you won't know where it's happening.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I expect eating meat from reared animals will become a lot rarer


Puntastic


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Puntastic


medium to well done man myself


----------



## JimW (Nov 4, 2021)

Pub raffles for a sack of lentils.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> But the belief that there is going to a sudden huge surge to being herbivorous is up there with degrowth and giving up the private cars as things that are just not going to happen ever for whatever reason.



It'd happen tomorrow if the price of meat went up 10 times - the way things are going, it seems like it might happen in that fashion but along a longer timescale.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 4, 2021)

I voted for 
Don’t believe the hype - meat will be available forever, nothing much will change

Not because I think we shouldn't reduce meat consumption and not even because I think we won't. 
I just think that we will probably have some form of meat eating for a very long time,  possibly for all of our species existence. 
I have a hope it will become a luxury that demands a price that is used to offset its environmental cost. 
I would also be keen to see crulty free meat, vat grown cells and the like.

I do think it's a much easier sell too.  

Also the alternative options are getting so much better. Let's hope they aren't also secretly terrible.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I thought this thread was about a “post-meat future”, not just some rich Western folks buying veggie sausages made with soya protein from previously-forested Brazilian land?


How rainforest soy is ACTUALLY used... (yes I know it's corn in the graphic)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 4, 2021)

Meat eating is a bit like where we are with cars.

Do we need to reduce? Yes. Will it go away completely? No.


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2021)

I had an email invite to one of those lab meat launch party things. Today. Because I ticked the newsletter option when looking at their website. Obviously I didn’t go. It sounded really Wanki. But I would eat lab meat. Until then, if it’s available and I can afford it I will still eat meat. I don’t eat it every day but you know. I would find it personally very hard to replace fish, chicken, all the rest with alternatives.


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2021)

Can I trade my unused air miles for steak?


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2021)

By which I mean my notional flight budget. That could be an idea.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 4, 2021)

someone in a chatroom yesterday was talking about 3D printed meat - fat, muscle, *tubes *...


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2021)

That said, market forces will present some more alternatives. I know but this whole thing is about market forces.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2021)

clandestine rat burger bars.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 4, 2021)

gentlegreen said:


> someone in a chatroom yesterday was talking about 3D printed meat - fat, muscle, tubes ...



from here








						Can we stomach the latest emerging food innovations?
					

Our growing appetite for novel food tech - from lab grown meat to nano-packaging.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				



Print a burger​A handful of firms are now working on 3D printers that could construct this dinner while you wait, by printing thousands of pre-programmed, sliver-thin layers, stacked on top of each other.
The "ink" used is your food in paste format: printers that can design bespoke pancakes, ice cream and confectionery are already popular in some high-end supermarkets.
However, Ms Almy says companies are now testing the water with much more sophisticated versions. 3D bio-printing can print cells and materials together to create a more complex structured product, like a marbled beef steak.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

ddraig said:


> from here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds delicious!


----------



## ska invita (Nov 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Sounds delicious!


im sure it tastes as rank as the real thing!
if it does taste the same there is zero excuse for meat eaters not to eat it other than sadism


----------



## Raheem (Nov 4, 2021)

At some point, we need to reduce/eliminate the faming of animals. That's not the same as all going vegan though. It's surely not going to help the climate to ignore wild fish and animals as a source of food for humans.


----------



## campanula (Nov 4, 2021)

I don't eat a great deal of meat anyway but would almost certainly resort to some low-level stock-keeping (chickens, ducks) and I really don't see coneys being off the menu anytime soon. If I had space, I would fatten a pair of pigs too. Probably wouldn't be averse to squirrel either, come to think of it. A family down the road from me have a small poultry farm in their teeny back yard. The chickens get turned out onto the public green and kids playground (during school times).


----------



## newme (Nov 4, 2021)

Been studying too much, this is drilled into my brain as Most Economically Advantageous Tender.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 4, 2021)

newme said:


> Been studying too much, this is drilled into my brain as Most Economically Advantageous Tender.


No use if it's not tender might as well eat your shoes.


----------



## newme (Nov 4, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> No use if it's not tender might as well eat your shoes.


I've had school dinners before


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 4, 2021)

newme said:


> I've had school dinners before


I always took a packed lunch.


----------



## newme (Nov 5, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> I always took a packed lunch.


Everyone else had dinner money so we did too, think my mum didn't want me to feel I was differen. Even more so than at that school than at the private school she didnt want me to go to on scholarship cos I could be the poor kid. Didn't entirely get that but frankly that particular school has turned out some horrendous examples of human beings and I am happy as being me as I have turned out, as a result of my life without someone fucking about with it, even if it is me.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 5, 2021)

ddraig said:


> from here
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They've been doing that for years on Star Trek with replicators.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Sorry for literally responding to the OP rather than some other proposition that was in your head.





The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.

If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

xenon said:


> Can I trade my unused air miles for steak?



No, because turning ecological destruction into a fungible commodity is the exact opposite of a solution to the problems we face.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 295510
> 
> The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.
> 
> If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.



I was simply highlighting the absurdity of the OPs "post-meat future". Perhaps they meant "post-meat future in Western Europe" or something, because whatabouting the other uses for the soy found in factory-produced vegetarian sausages isn't something that's relevant to quite a few meat eaters in the rest of the world.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 5, 2021)

xenon said:


> That said, market forces will present some more alternatives. I know but this whole thing is about market forces.



As long as markets remains a thing, this will certainly be the case. But of course some leftists get upset when you remind them that market forces will be evident in a society based on capitalist economics.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, because turning ecological destruction into a *fungible *commodity is the exact opposite of a solution to the problems we face.


a new word for me, but not for Urban !








						Search results for query: fungible
					






					www.urban75.net


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

gentlegreen said:


> someone in a chatroom yesterday was talking about 3D printed meat - fat, muscle, *tubes *...



We all need some insoluble fibre, tubes is the meat equivalent of tomato skins.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 295510
> 
> The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.
> 
> If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.


Surely there are other alternatives for livestock than feeding them soy and clearing forests to grow it.

Plants raised for human consumption will also need space to grow and given the relative lack of nutritional density/calories we will need a lot of space for that.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Surely there are other alternatives for livestock than feeding them soy and clearing forests to grow it.
> 
> Plants raised for human consumption will also need space to grow and given the relative lack of nutritional density/calories we will need a lot of space for that.


No, at this level of meat production there is no alternative. 
Plants raised for human consumption are far more efficient in terms of calories provided per hectare of land use, as, as we've already established, raising animals requires lots of land to be used to grow plants for them _anyway. _
Don't being so dense.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> No, at this level of meat production there is no alternative.



I wouldn't be so sure. Stuff like insects and algae might be able to fill in the gap somewhat. As with the transition to a post-carbon energy economy, I don't think there will be a one-size-fits-nobody solution.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> , as we've already established, raising animals requires lots of land to be used to grow plants for them _anyway. _
> Don't being so dense.


As we've already established animals can be grazed on land that's unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> As we've already established animals can be grazed on land that's unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption.



This alone would not produce the quantities of meat people currently eat in wealthy countries. Not even close


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> As we've already established animals can be grazed on land that's unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption.


Yeah, pasture. I know. What % of animals eaten _worldwide _(and not in some fantasy pastoral North of England/Ireland) are raised on such land?


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> This alone would not produce the quantities of meat people currently eat in wealthy countries. Not even close


It's the inevitable consequence of having "high quality meat" only - all ethical and pastoral and friendly smiling farmers with small herds... ops! That's super expensive now. Only the super rich can afford it. Bye


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> No, at this level of meat production there is no alternative.
> Plants raised for human consumption are far more efficient in terms of calories provided per hectare of land use, as, as we've already established, raising animals requires lots of land to be used to grow plants for them _anyway. _
> Don't being so dense.


I don't think this is true at all, even if I ignore your inability to insult me properly


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 295510
> 
> The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.
> 
> If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.


I've not been convinced either way on the soya argument tbh.

It may be that it is grown for animals to eat with human consumption largely an added extra or it may be grown for humans to eat with the waste and inedible parts used for animal feed. There are arguments against it being grown for animal feed as they could just be fed something cheaper but perhaps that ignores that feeding animals different foods can affect their growth and the amount of meat that need to be produced to feed appetites and the market. There are also issues around land use and clearance for farmland. A lot of deforested land is used for cattle and Soy at different times.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> There are arguments against it being grown for animal feed as they could just be fed something cheaper...



It's nice that you think animals aren't already being fed the cheapest stuff farmers can get away with but I don't think it has much basis in reality.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> There are also issues around land use and clearance for farmland. A lot of deforested land is used for cattle and Soy at different times.



Used for cattle and cattle feed then. Or, to put it another way, used for cattle.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> This alone would not produce the quantities of meat people currently eat in wealthy countries. Not even close


So the level of meat consumption can be addressed, but not in the nonsensical way prescribed that advocated people eat something like 20g meat a day since no one is going to bother doing that, which I suspect is the real point of saying something like that.

How much of the animal is wasted? Are the quantities of meat inclusive of organ meats for example? I don't recall the last time I saw a KFC Chicken Liver burger, for instance (though they may well do)?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I think it's entirely dependent on the individual. But I don't feel morally compelled to eat no meat and I don't believe there is a good environmental argument for it either. Addressing factory farming is one area of concern where all can agree, but unfortunately given the nature of the vegan position that won't happen


So it's the _fault of the vegan_s that factory farming can't be stopped? Seriously. Take a look at the bullshit you're posting.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Used for cattle and cattle feed then. Or, to put it another way, used for cattle.


I have no doubt that removing cattle from the situation would reduce the problem but how much and how significantly without looking at the issues around soy. As popular as soy is among many of those who currently don't eat meat I can only see it getting more popular if there are less cattle. If the crop is still economically viable without the animal feed component deforestation may continue to be a serious issue.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I thought this thread was about a “post-meat future”, not just some rich Western folks buying veggie sausages made with soya protein from previously-forested Brazilian land?


What kind of weird bullshit nonsense is this?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> It will just go underground with poaching and illegal animal rearing and of course there won't be any checks on the welfare of the animals or oversight of the slaughter because you won't know where it's happening.


The bizarre excuses and blame shifting just keep on coming!


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's nice that you think animals aren't already being fed the cheapest stuff farmers can get away with but I don't think it has much basis in reality.


I'm sure many do but where money can be made by investing in a more calorific or nutritious food or some other way of boosting growth to get a bigger or quicker return I'm sure plenty take that option.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 295510
> 
> The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.
> 
> If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.


It's really becoming embarrassing to read the blatant lies and mistruths being posted by the meat fans in this thread.

Just about every study has arrived at the same conclusion: in the face of climate change and the oncoming environmental disaster, the world has to eat less meat. Yet this is one simple fact many seem unable to comprehend or accept,  or just go into Trump like denial in response.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

As an aside, it's interesting to see the explosive growth of non-dairy milk. The usual suspects will whine about its supposed awful taste or manufacture ludicrous fantasy stories about how its environmental impact is somehow worse than dairy, but they'll be lying as usual. 









						From fringe to mainstream: how millions got a taste for going vegan
					

First, it was a fad. Now, as meat consumption falls, it’s part of everyday life … the unstoppable rise of the plant-based diet




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> As an aside, it's interesting to see the explosive growth of non-dairy milk. The usual suspects will whine about its supposed awful taste or manufacture ludicrous fantasy stories about how its environmental impact is somehow worse than dairy, but they'll be lying as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anyone know which is best for baking?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Anyone know which is best for baking?


HTH HAND









						The Best Alt-Milk For Baking
					

Oat milk is the best substitute for dairy in your freshly-baked muffins and more.




					www.epicurious.com
				












						Best The Best Non-Dairy Milks To Meet All Your Needs (From Baking To Latte Frothing) Recipes, News, Tips And How-Tos
					

Learn more about The Best Non-Dairy Milks to Meet All Your Needs (From Baking to Latte Frothing) from the experts at Food Network Canada




					www.foodnetwork.ca
				












						Non-Dairy Milks: Which Are Best for Baking?
					

Whether you have an allergy or just prefer non-dairy milk, it's easier than you think to avoid cow's milk in your favorite baked goods.




					www.allrecipes.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 295510
> 
> The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.
> 
> If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.





SpookyFrank said:


> Used for cattle and cattle feed then. Or, to put it another way, used for cattle.


This old uneducated/ill-informed/disingenuous chestnut, again. 
Soy beans are grown for their oil. The waste product that's left after the oil has been extracted is sold as animal feed. The fact that the waste is 80% of the product is immaterial



> Nearly all soybeans are processed for their oil. Soy processors (such as Cargill & ADM) take the raw soybeans and separate the oil from the meal. The oil may be refined for cooking and other edible uses, or sold for biodiesel production or industrial uses. The processors bake the high-protein fiber that is left after the oil is removed and sell it for animal feed.


Would you rather the waste was dumped in a landfill?






						Uses of Soybeans - North Carolina Soybeans
					






					ncsoy.org


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> So it's the _fault of the vegan_s that factory farming can't be stopped? Seriously. Take a look at the bullshit you're posting.


Can you explain how you've come to that, incredibly bad faith, conclusion? If not then I can't address it


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

You really are a dense fucking idiot. Go enjoy a sausage.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Can you explain how you've come to that, incredibly bad faith, conclusion? If not then I can't address it


Have you forgotten your own words?

_"Addressing factory farming is one area of concern where all can agree, but unfortunately given the nature of the vegan position that won't happen"_

What the fuck has the 'vegan position' got to do with abolishing the vile cruelty and animal abuse inherent in factory farming?


----------



## LDC (Nov 5, 2021)

The debate on this stuff just plumbs the depths of childish boredom sometimes. Want to write something sensible, but just posting these will have to do for now.






						Beasts of burden - Antagonism and Practical History
					

An attempt to rethink the separation between animal liberationist and communist politics.




					libcom.org
				




Slightly easier to read on the screen version here Beasts of Burden: Capitalism, Animals, Communism

And a review of it here Beasts of Burden: Capitalism - Animals - Communism - Do Or Die


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> This old uneducated/ill-informed/disingenuous chestnut, again.
> Soy beans are grown for their oil. The waste product that's left after the oil has been extracted is sold as animal feed. The fact that the waste is 80% of the product is immaterial
> 
> 
> ...


Or both have value. Soy bean oil is about 4 x the price of Soy bean meal but you get about 4 x the weight of meal from a given quantity....  You start with 5KG you get about $1.30 worth of each today. You have to factor transport storage and all that bollocks in but either way both would seem to be equally worth someones while.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> What the fuck has the 'vegan position' got to do with abolishing the vile cruelty and animal abuse inherent in factory farming?



Because vegans aren't interested in compromising with their ideological opponents on matters of shared concern. 

Certainly not in my experience. Maybe you can be the exception, but given your display of bad faith bullshit thus far I think it unlikely.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Because vegans aren't interested in compromising with their ideological opponents on matters of shared concern.
> 
> Certainly not in my experience. Maybe you can be the exception, but given your display of bad faith bullshit thus far I think it unlikely.



You're like a cartoon Daily Mail character manufacturing opinions of all vegans as if they're some sort of ideological army. Or just a dull troll because no one can be this stupid. 

The only reason why factory farms exist is because meat eaters like you continue to buy the shit that comes out of them. Trying to blame vegans just makes you look like a blame-shifting fucking idiot who has become totally detached from reality.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> The debate on this stuff just plumbs the depths of childish boredom sometimes. Want to write something sensible, but just posting these will have to do for now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You think that's sensible? It even has free-roaming goats. 

How would a future global communist society deal with fellow comrade creatures such as rats and mosquitos I wonder?


----------



## LDC (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> How would a future global communist society deal with fellow comrade creatures such as rats and mosquitos I wonder?



I think that's not really the killer difficult question you seem to think it is.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 5, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Or both have value. Soy bean oil is about 4 x the price of Soy bean meal but you get about 4 x the weight of meal from a given quantity....  You start with 5KG you get about $1.30 worth of each today. You have to factor transport storage and all that bollocks in but either way both would seem to be equally worth someones while.


If farmers stopped buying the waste, the price of the oil would rise. If nobody bought the oil, soy production would all but stop. Its grown for the oil.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think that's not really the killer difficult question you seem to think it is.



No, it's the philosophy that led to it that is absurd.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> You're like a cartoon Daily Mail character manufacturing opinions of all vegans as if they're some sort of ideological army. Or just a dull troll because no one can be this stupid.
> 
> The only reason why factory farms exist is because meat eaters like you continue to buy the shit that comes out of them. Trying to blame vegans just makes you look like a blame-shifting fucking idiot who has become totally detached from reality.


And yet, who is the abusive party in this conversation? So far all you've done is throw insults. 

"meat eaters like me" this is infantile.

I haven't once blamed vegans for factory farms, but you're so ideologically driven that discusion is impossible. Common ground is imposible. Proving the point I'm making that you seem unwilling or unable to grasp.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 5, 2021)

lol, Zerzan. Primitivism ain't the answer, even if the apocalypse necessary for a primitivist society to get going were to occur. They'd just get overtaken by those trying to reconstruct.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> If farmers stopped buying the waste, the price of the oil would rise. If nobody bought the oil, soy production would all but stop. Its grown for the oil.


No, it is grown for a profit.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> The bizarre excuses and blame shifting just keep on coming!


If you think that poaching, fishing, hunting, rustling and illegal breading (OK I'm thinking puppy farms there) don't already happen and won't carry on or definitely increase if meat is 'banned' then you're either extremely naive or delusional.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> This old uneducated/ill-informed/disingenuous chestnut, again.
> Soy beans are grown for their oil. The waste product that's left after the oil has been extracted is sold as animal feed. The fact that the waste is 80% of the product is immaterial
> 
> 
> ...


Next they'll be claiming that most wheat is grown for animal food as the straw is used as bedding / eaten by cattle.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 5, 2021)

Cutting out meat has been far less of a pain than I expected tbh.. I still eat fish, hence no claims to be veggie/vegan - though i'm still working on that.  But I've also largely cut down dairy.  I probably miss cheese and eggs more than any meat really.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Anyone know which is best for baking?



I use oat milk for baking normally. Put soy in my coffee. Hazelnut milk is useless for most things but unbelievably delicious in cocoa.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, it's the philosophy that led to it that is absurd.



Ah, well when you put it like that. It's still rubbish.


----------



## LDC (Nov 5, 2021)

NoXion said:


> lol, Zerzan. Primitivism ain't the answer, even if the apocalypse necessary for a primitivist society to get going were to occur. They'd just get overtaken by those trying to reconstruct.



None of those links argue for that at all, if that's what you were referring too.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

Fish can vary a lot but if you’re concerned about CO2 then sardines, mackerel etc is a great option, better than lots of veg.


----------



## JimW (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> So the level of meat consumption can be addressed, but not in the nonsensical way prescribed that advocated people eat something like 20g meat a day since no one is going to bother doing that, which I suspect is the real point of saying something like that.
> 
> How much of the animal is wasted? Are the quantities of meat inclusive of organ meats for example? I don't recall the last time I saw a KFC Chicken Liver burger, for instance (though they may well do)?


I worked in rural development when I first came back here after graduation and the mountain farmers in the communities we served would tend to raise two pigs, one for market and one to slaughter at new year, and likely some chickens. Twenty grams of meat a day would be about right and is why a lot of trad Chinese recipes really only include a bit of pork mince for savour etc. The kind of quantities common in modern industrial diets really are pretty unusual, though IIRC we always did eat a bit more meat than most in the UK.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2021)

Hollis said:


> Cutting out meat has been far less of a pain than I expected tbh.. I still eat fish, hence no claims to be veggie/vegan - though i'm still working on that.  But I've also largely cut down dairy.  I probably miss cheese and eggs more than any meat really.


My meat consumption has gone down a fair bit over the last year or so, but dairy and fish has kinda gone up as a result. I occasionally try the non dairy alternatives for milk/cheese but they’re all bloody awful


----------



## LDC (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, it's the philosophy that led to it that is absurd.



I think treating animals as commodities to make money from is something that's fucked up, has led to loads of problems (even ignoring the 'welfare or rights' kind of stuff) and needs a massive re-think - along with other aspects of society, including very closely related ones like agriculture. It doesn't mean zero meat eating across the world (which I think is neither desirable nor possible), but it almost certainly means a radically different food production system/s to the one/s we have now.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> If you think that poaching, fishing, hunting, rustling and illegal breading (OK I'm thinking puppy farms there) don't already happen and won't carry on or definitely increase if meat is 'banned' then you're either extremely naive or delusional.


Good job I never made that claim, anywhere, ever.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> And yet, who is the abusive party in this conversation? So far all you've done is throw insults.
> 
> "meat eaters like me" this is infantile.
> 
> I haven't once blamed vegans for factory farms, but you're so ideologically driven that discusion is impossible. Common ground is imposible. Proving the point I'm making that you seem unwilling or unable to grasp.


I want factory farms closed down immediately. What common ground should I be exploring and how is my 'ideology' supposedly getting in the way?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Fish can vary a lot but if you’re concerned about CO2 then sardines, mackerel etc is a great option, better than lots of veg.


Better than potatoes? Carrots? Peas? Turnips?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> How would a future global communist society deal with fellow comrade creatures such as rats and mosquitos I wonder?


This thread gets more ridiculous by the hour.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Better than potatoes? Carrots? Peas? Turnips?



I don't have the figures but as those all need dedicated land that can't be wild, as well as planting and fertilizing rather than simply harvesting, then maybe?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think treating animals as commodities to make money from is something that's fucked up, has led to loads of problems (even ignoring the 'welfare or rights' kind of stuff) and needs a massive re-think - along with other aspects of society, including very closely related ones like agriculture. It doesn't mean zero meat eating across the world (which I think is neither deisrable nor possible), but it almost certainly means a radically different food production system/s to the one/s we have now.



I think it's very reasonable to treat food as a commodity to be bought on sold, so I'm not sure it's worth debating with you further on an arguement based on the premise that working class people and animals should stand together in solidarity against capitalism.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I don't have the figures but as those all need dedicated land that can't be wild, as well as planting and fertilizing rather than simply harvesting, then maybe?


Hold on.

You made the claim that "if you’re concerned about CO2 then _sardines, mackerel etc is a great option,* better than lots of veg.*_"

Can you back this claim up and list these vegetables now please, or did you just make it up?

Meanwhile:


> Carbon footprint: high, 5.4 kg CO2e to produce 1 kilogram or 2.2 pounds of other marine fish, a car driving equivalent of 12.5 miles or 20 kilometers
> Destruction: high, sardine production is relatively destructive, negative impact on marine ecosystems, discarded fishing nets pollute oceans, fishing damages coral, sponges and poses severe threat to marine habitats
> 
> *Sardines are…Unsustainable*











						Sardines Benefits + Side Effects | HEALabel Ethical Consumer Guide
					

Sardine benefits and side effects on health, environment, animals, laborers. Are sardines vegan? Sustainable? See sardine pros and cons.




					healabel.com


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Hold on.
> 
> You made the claim that "if you’re concerned about CO2 then _sardines, mackerel etc is a great option,* better than lots of veg.*_"
> 
> Can you back this claim up and list these vegetables now please, or did you just make it up?











						Eating oysters and sardines is better for the environment than most land-based food
					






					fish.uw.edu


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

And mackerel:


Mackerel, filleted, frozen, *1.92 kg CO2e *to produce 1 kilogram or 2.2 pounds of mackerel, a car driving equivalent of *4.5 miles or 7.25 kilometers, *a relatively *low* carbon footprint


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Eating oysters and sardines is better for the environment than most land-based food
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And where does that back up your claim, exactly? It's comparing sardines with pork, beef and chicken, NOT vegetables.


----------



## philosophical (Nov 5, 2021)

There are no specific nutrients in meat that can’t come from a non meat source.
There may be studies about ease of absorption and the way a person processes stuff, and studies of just how much of this compared to that stuff is needed to get whatever b vitamins or amino acids or whatever. 
When I looked into this it turns out that soya can provide those things that carnivores say can only be got via meat.
I am still interested in this though. Can anybody tell us a single _essential _nutrient that can only be got from meat and nowhere else.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> And where does that back up your claim, exactly? It's comparing sardines with pork, beef and chicken, NOT vegetables.



"One surprising finding is that a selective diet of oysters and sardines can even have a lower environmental impact than previous studies have found for vegetarian or vegan diets."


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> "One surprising finding is that a selective diet of oysters and sardines can even have a lower environmental impact than previous studies have found for vegetarian or vegan diets."



Could you now _finally_ name all these vegetables that have a lower CO2 footprint than sardines, mackerel etc please.

You haven't named one yet despite repeated requests.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

philosophical said:


> I am still interested in this though. Can anybody tell us a single _essential _nutrient that can only be got from meat and nowhere else.



Good luck with this.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Could you now _finally_ name all these vegetables that have a lower CO2 footprint than sardines, mackerel etc please.
> 
> You haven't named one yet dspite repeated requests.


According to that dreadful site you linked to above mackerel has a 1.92 kg CO2e, according to that same site rice, potatoes, beans all have a CO2e of above 2kg.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> According to that dreadful site you linked to above mackerel has a 1.92 kg CO2e, according to that same site rice, potatoes, beans all have a CO2e of above 2kg.


Since when was rice a vegetable?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Since when was rice a vegetable?



What is it then? A fish?

Seriously why try and carry on this argument?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What is it then? A fish?


Oh that's funny. But it's really not a vegetable, you know, but feel free to bluster around if you like.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Oh that's funny. But it's really not a vegetable, you know, but feel free to bluster around if you like.



Do you deny my original claim that certain sea fish have a lower CO2 footprint than some vegetables is correct?

It follows than that in a world where everyone is vegetarian, it would be of benefit to society and to the environment for some of those people to replace vegetable protein in their diet with sustainable fish.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Do you deny my original claim that certain sea fish have a lower CO2 footprint than some vegetables is correct?
> 
> It follows than that in a world where everyone is vegetarian, it would be of benefit to society and to the environment for some of those people to replace vegetable protein in their diet with sustainable fish.


Last time I'm asking: could you kindly list all the vegetables that have a higher CO2  footprint than 'sardines, mackerel etc.'

Please support any such vegetable claims with research from credible links. Thanks.

PS have you worked out what rice is yet?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What is it then? A fish?



It's a grain.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Last time I'm asking: could you kindly list all the vegetables that have a higher CO2  footprint than 'sardines, mackerel etc.'
> 
> Please support any such vegetable claims with research from credible links. Thanks.



No, I've given you enough evidence to support my claim, including links to relevant research. The specific figures you want are on the website you used to try and disprove me ffs.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Last time I'm asking: could you kindly list all the vegetables that have a higher CO2  footprint than 'sardines, mackerel etc.'
> 
> Please support any such vegetable claims with research from credible links. Thanks.
> 
> PS have you worked out what rice is yet?


His link does vaguely provide that and the research it cites will be more precise. It talks about how some fish, molluscs and co can be caught with a low footprint of carbon dioxide and other environmental impacts though there is often a trade off amongst these impacts. It is a very personal choice focused article. If we were to look at making larger changes and increasing the amount of fish consumed for environmental reasons I'm not sure whether those impacts would remain small or at a larger scale they would have a larger impact, become unsustainable or inefficient and switch to more damaging methods to deal with any shortfall.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 5, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's a grain.


It's definitely not an animal so it's feelings won't be hurt when it's harvested.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, I've given you enough evidence to support my claim, including links to relevant research. The specific figures you want are on the website you used to try and disprove me ffs.


I asked for a list of all these vegetables, You came out with just one vegetable, a grain and a member of the legumes family.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> I want factory farms closed down immediately. What common ground should I be exploring and how is my 'ideology' supposedly getting in the way?


What does 'immediately' mean? 

I would think it better to work with people who want the same goal so as to facilitate as painless a transition as possible, rather than this vapid 'meat is murder' pissing in the wind. What exactly is your alternative? Wear a big baggy jumper and chuck some gladioli about?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Better than potatoes? Carrots? Peas? Turnips?


Fish is far better for you than those vegetables.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> This thread gets more ridiculous by the hour.


I think your clown car is parked next to the bucket of confetti outside. Honk honk!


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> What does 'immediately' mean?
> 
> I would think it better to work with people who want the same goal so as to facilitate as painless a transition as possible, rather than this vapid 'meat is murder' pissing in the wind. What exactly is your alternative? Wear a big baggy jumper and chuck some gladioli about?



What the fuck are you on about now?

But please elaborate on which people I should be 'working with' and what the work would involve.  

And exactly what positive actions have you been doing recently to  eradicate factory farms?  



glitch hiker said:


> Fish is far better for you than those vegetables.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> I asked for a list of all these vegetables, You came out with just one vegetable, a grain and a member of the legumes family.



Yes because you are obviously here for an argument so there is no point in me copying and pasting the figures from the website you yourself used to quote me the fish figures, because if I do that you’ll come up with some other minor thing to argue about.

If you think my substantive point is actually wrong, then say so.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> What the fuck are you on about now?
> 
> But please elaborate on which people I should be 'working with' and what the work would involve.
> 
> And exactly what positive actions have you been doing recently to  eradicate factory farms?


I'm responding _directly_ to the comment you made about wanting factory farms closed, and I quote, _immediately._ 

At this point I'm thinking you're pretending to be stupid by ignoring the things you say with this affectation of incredulity. 

Again: what do you mean by "immediately"?

The people you should be working with? That's simple. NOT VEGANS YOU FUCKING CLOWN


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes because you are obviously here for an argument so there is no point in me copying and pasting the figures from the website you yourself used to quote me the fish figures, because if I do that you’ll come up with some other minor thing to argue about.
> 
> If you think my substantive point is actually wrong, then say so.


You yourself said that site was 'awful' and so far you've only come up with _one_ vegetable. But don't worry, I'm not asking any more as it's clearly a waste of time, like most of these discussions. 

But again: does the world have to eat a shit load less meat? Irrefutably. And anyone trying to argue otherwise or rolling out endless whataboutery platitudes  is being ignorant and  irresponsible.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> The people you should be working with? That's simple. NOT VEGANS YOU FUCKING CLOWN


Plot well and truly lost.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

philosophical said:


> There are no specific nutrients in meat that can’t come from a non meat source.
> There may be studies about ease of absorption and the way a person processes stuff, and studies of just how much of this compared to that stuff is needed to get whatever b vitamins or amino acids or whatever.
> When I looked into this it turns out that soya can provide those things that carnivores say can only be got via meat.
> I am still interested in this though. Can anybody tell us a single _essential _nutrient that can only be got from meat and nowhere else.











						7 Nutrients You Can’t Get from Plants
					

Learn about 7 nutrients that you cannot get from commonly consumed plant foods. Vegetarians and vegans may be deficient in some of them.




					www.healthline.com


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> 7 Nutrients You Can’t Get from Plants
> 
> 
> Learn about 7 nutrients that you cannot get from commonly consumed plant foods. Vegetarians and vegans may be deficient in some of them.
> ...


That site contradicts itself all the way through that article

1 B12 - easily found in non-animal supplements
2. "Creatine is not essential in your diet, since it can be produced by your liver"
3. "Carnosine is only found in animal-based foods. However, it’s considered nonessential, since your body can form it from the amino acids histidine and beta-alanine."
4.  Your skin can produce vitamin D when it’s exposed to sunlight. However, if your sunlight exposure is limited or you live far from the equator, you must get it from food or supplements.

There are two types of dietary vitamin D: ergocalciferol (D2), *found in plants*
6. However, iron deficiency is easy to avoid on a well-planned vegan diet that contains plenty of non-heme iron.

etc etc


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> But again: does the world have to eat a shit load less meat? Irrefutably. And anyone trying to argue otherwise or rolling out endless whataboutery platitudes  is being ignorant and  irresponsible.



There are lots of threads about eating less meat. Correct me if i’m wrong but this one is about something different: a “post-meat future” where meat is “entirely off the menu”. 

My point is that while eating less meat is fine, a world where no one eats any meat or fish cant be justified from an environmental point of view, or in fact any other point of view. The notion is absurd.


----------



## Sue (Nov 5, 2021)

Well it's fair to say this is going well...


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Plot well and truly lost.


Let's try this one last time.

You said that you wanted factory farms closed immediately. Correct?

I then asked what you meant by immediately.

You have yet to answer. Go.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There are lots of threads about eating less meat. Correct me if i’m wrong but this one is about something different: a “post-meat future” where meat is “entirely off the menu”.
> 
> My point is that while eating less meat is fine, a world where no one eats any meat or fish cant be justified from an environmental point of view, or in fact any other point of view. The notion is absurd.



Actually, I interpreted it as "How will you respond to the changes in meat production that climate change will bring about?", but on reflection the poll options are a bit confused. I have voted "poll fail" accordingly.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Actually, I interpreted it as "How will you respond to the changes in meat production that climate change will bring about?", but on reflection the poll options are a bit confused. I have voted "poll fail" accordingly.



Call me weird but I read the title and the full text of the first post. It’s surely about a meat-free world.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> That site contradicts itself all the way through that article
> 
> 1 B12 - easily found in non-animal supplements
> 2. "Creatine is not essential in your diet, since it can be produced by your liver"
> ...


All provided better from meat. I see no reason to ditch optimal food and you've yet to provide anything other than hairshirt bullshit, personal abuse, and appeals to emotion.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Let's try this one last time.
> 
> You said that you wanted factory farms closed immediately. Correct?
> 
> ...


I'm so sorry you don't understand what 'immediately' means. 


glitch hiker said:


> All provided better from meat. I see no reason to ditch optimal food and you've yet to provide anything other than hairshirt bullshit, personal abuse, and appeals to emotion.


That wasn't the question being asked though was it? 

And how can something be 'optimal' when its production is having a clearly documented devastating impact on the environment?


----------



## NoXion (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Call me weird but I read the title and the full text of the first post. It’s surely about a meat-free world.



Well, I think that a "meat free world" in the most literal sense just isn't going to happen, for various reasons. The simplest prediction is that meat will get more expensive, and I think that's the prediction most likely to come true.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2021)

Ah, the good old cut-and-thrust of a carnists v veggies thread!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Well, I think that a "meat free world" in the most literal sense just isn't going to happen, for various reasons. The simplest prediction is that meat will get more expensive, and I think that's the prediction most likely to come true.



Yes, as I said, like champagne - something for normal folk to maybe have on rare  occasions, but for the wealthy to spaff away at parties etc.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, as I said, like champagne - something for normal folk to maybe have on rare  occasions, but for the wealthy to spaff away at parties etc.



Which would serve to make meat more of a status symbol, thus making a "post-meat world" even less likely.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Well, I think that a "meat free world" in the most literal sense just isn't going to happen, for various reasons.


I agree, but what is already happening is that non-meat/vegan alternative foods are becoming totally mainstream now, just like what happened with non-dairy milk.
And that's a good thing, by any measure.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> I agree, but what is already happening is that non-meat/vegan alternative foods are becoming totally mainstream now, just like what happened with non-dairy milk.
> And that's a good thing, by any measure.



It's certainly great for the capitalists, judging by the prices.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's certainly great for the capitalists, judging by the prices.


There's plenty of affordable decent veggie/vegan fare although the prices might come down further if they were gifted the same kind of vast subsidies handed out to farmers.



> Currently, British farmers receive £3.4 billion a year in subsidies under the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Controversially, the subsidies are based on how much land a farmer owns and not on how much they produce. To mention a few specific examples, British dairy farmers obtain over £56 million in EU direct payments which make up almost 40% of their annual profits. Lowland and upland livestock farmers receive about £38 million in subsidies which make up over 90% of their annual profits!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, as I said, like champagne - something for normal folk to maybe have on rare  occasions, but for the wealthy to spaff away at parties etc.


Boo fucking hoo.

The entire reason that we're in this mess is because there is an enormous wealth gap and eating meat _is and always fucking has been _a status symbol, a symbol of wealth. It has only very very very recently stopped being so in the West, where wealth levels have been high enough for even the poorest in society to be able to afford meat regularly for decades (but not centuries).

China's meat production increased 35 times its 1961 amount by 2018 -- from 2.5 million tons a year to 88 million tons a year. Over the same period of time the USA's meat production "only" tripled, from 16 to 46  million tons a year. (The UK's did not even double over that period, for comparison... from 2.2 million tons in 1961 to just over 4 million in 2018).

Why do you think the Chinese were eating so much more meat in 2018 than in 1961? Developed a taste for it? Population growth? No. It's because of the increase in wealth. Eating meat regularly is a way of showing yourself and those around you that you are rich. This is not just true in China, it's just a very extreme example. Even India, famously the most vegetarian country in the world, increased its meat production at a greater rate than population growth over the same period, and I can guarantee that most of that "new meat" being produced in India is being eaten by the rich.

I am not interested in arguments where people say shit like "who are you to tell the newly rich of the previously poor countries that they can't enjoy the luxuries the West has enjoyed for decades?"... I don't care. I'm not saying they shouldn't, on an individual level. I don't tell individuals to stop eating meat. I even eat meat myself occasionally. But the fact is it cannot go on, because it's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is too great to be discounted.

P.s. According to research published in Nature in March 2021, meat accounts for 57% of all food system emissions.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Why do you think the Chinese were eating so much more meat in 2018 than in 1961? Developed a taste for it? Population growth? No. It's because of the increase in wealth. Eating meat regularly is a way of showing yourself and those around you that you are rich. This is not just true in China, it's just a very extreme example. Even India, famously the most vegetarian country in the world, increased its meat production at a greater rate than population growth over the same period, and I can guarantee that most of that "new meat" being produced in India is being eaten by the rich.



What total bollocks. The main reason populations eat more meat as they get wealthier is because they can afford it, people like to eat it, and it's a nutritional food type.

It's not because people like to show off.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> I'm so sorry you don't understand what 'immediately' means.


Again, wrong, dumbass. I don't understand what YOU mean by the word in the context you're using it because you haven't explained. I assume you don't want factory farming closed _literally immediately_ because people would starve. So what do YOU mean by immediately.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

It doesn't have to be active "showing off" by throwing a big bbq for all your mates and offering everyone burgers... just the fact of buying it regularly because you can (where once you didn't because you couldn't, but went without) it's the same thing. You don't _need _to eat more meat when you have more money, you just _want to_. It's a luxury, a desire. It's got fuck all to do with nutrition


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> It doesn't have to be active "showing off" by throwing a big bbq for all your mates and offering everyone burgers... just the fact of buying it regularly because you can (where once you didn't because you couldn't, but went without) it's the same thing. You don't _need _to eat more meat when you have more money, you just _want to_. It's a luxury, a desire. It's got fuck all to do with nutrition



You're in cloud cuckoo land.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

whatever, have fun defending the status quo, bye


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> whatever, have fun defending the status quo, bye


The status quo being where people eat a food that is rich in nutrients and energy sufficient to keep them going for a good long time, rather than having to graze like cattle.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> whatever, have fun defending the status quo, bye



I'm not defending the status quo, I even indicated a few posts ago that eating less meat was great if that's what people want to do.

What I'm not doing is advocating for a meat-free world or claiming the main reason people eat more meat when they can afford to is to show off.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> The status quo being where people eat a food that is rich in nutrients and energy sufficient to keep them going for a good long time, rather than having to graze like cattle.





Flavour said:


> Boo fucking hoo.
> 
> The entire reason that we're in this mess is because there is an enormous wealth gap and eating meat _is and always fucking has been _a status symbol, a symbol of wealth. It has only very very very recently stopped being so in the West, where wealth levels have been high enough for even the poorest in society to be able to afford meat regularly for decades (but not centuries).
> 
> ...


that doesn't tell us much in regard to climate change without knowing how big all food systems emissions are and, more specifically, whether they are a problem. It's a disingenuous statement.

Furthermore it may be that, if we deal with the rest of what's polluting the sky, farming won't be such a problem. I'm not saying that's the case, however.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> that doesn't tell us much in regard to climate change without knowing how big all food systems emissions are and, more specifically, whether they are a problem.



Here you are : EDGAR - The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research 

One third of the total. So 57% of a third would be... around 18% of the global total. Enough to warrant action.

Are the emissions a problem? Yes. I thought that was one of the very basic points everyone agreed on.

Keep on reading!


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> I am not interested in arguments where people say shit like "who are you to tell the newly rich of the previously poor countries that they can't enjoy the luxuries the West has enjoyed for decades?"... I don't care. I'm not saying they shouldn't, on an individual level. I don't tell individuals to stop eating meat. I even eat meat myself occasionally. But the fact is it cannot go on, because it's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is too great to be discounted.


Yep. But this simple fact seems irrelevant or unimportant to some because their desire for endless cheap meat apparently transcends any overwhelming environmental concerns.

Cue: more whataboutery


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Here you are : EDGAR - The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research
> 
> One third of the total. So 57% of a third would be... around 18% of the global total. Enough to warrant action.
> 
> ...


Sure, as I've said, let's deal with factory farming. 

I jsut don't see the need to throw the proverbial baby out with the dirty water


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> The status quo being where people eat a food that is rich in nutrients and energy sufficient to keep them going for a good long time, rather than having to graze like cattle.


What the fuck are you on about now? Why would people have to 'graze like cattle'?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Yep. But this simple fact seems irrelevant or unimportant to some because their desire for endless cheap meat apparently transcends any overwhelming environmental concerns.
> 
> Cue: more whataboutery


Now you have a problem with food being affordable? 

No one said anything about 'endless' you dishonest twit


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> What the fuck are you on about now? Why would people have to 'graze like cattle'?


Ok at this point, having asked you three times to explain something you said, it's clear you're just interest in feigning incredulity and hyperbole, this is exhausting bad faith bullshit.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Now you have a problem with food being affordable?
> 
> No one said anything about 'endless' you dishonest twit


So you agree everyone - including you - should drastically reduce their meat/dairy intake yes?
And what are you actively doing to bring about the end of factory farming?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Ok at this point, having asked you three times to explain something you said, it's clear you're just interest in feigning incredulity and hyperbole is exhausting bad faith bullshit.



Sigh. Your question is ridiculous. I clearly have no power to  end factory farming immediately, next week or next year. But if you're asking what I'd like, I'd like the horrifically cruel factories to be closed immediately and by the same fantasy thinking, I'd like there to be alternative food provided immediately forever, well paid jobs for all, council homes for all, a fairer and more equitable planet where the environment trumps individual's needs for a fat steak ofr cheap factory farmed food and much more. I do hope that answers your vital question in full.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> So you agree everyone - including you - should drastically reduce their meat/dairy intake yes?
> And what are you actively doing to bring about the end of factory farming?


I have no idea how much meat people eat nor what their diet otherwise comprises. I personally eat keto, as I've said. I don't overeat for simple reasons of satiety. I don't snack and I don't go to fast food joints for example. 

I'm not personally doing anything to end factory farming. Nor have I claimed to. I'm a member of a socialist political party so beyond working in some small way to build class consciousnes I'm not entirely sure how personal privation helps anyone. We need to first address the capitalist mode of production before we lecture each other, in the working class, about what we should eat and where we should buy it. I buy what I can afford from where I can get it. And I don't feel the slightest guilt about doing so.

If you think me stopping eating meat is a net positive you're deluded


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> Sigh. Your question is ridiculous.


And we're done.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I'm not personally doing anything to end factory farming.
> 
> If you think me stopping eating meat is a net positive you're deluded



And there we have it. "I'll keep on doing whatever I like and I'll make no changes to bring about positive change, no matter how small or big."

You're part of the problem.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Again, wrong, dumbass. I don't understand what YOU mean by the word in the context you're using it because you haven't explained. I assume you don't want factory farming closed _literally immediately_ because people would starve. So what do YOU mean by immediately.


How would people starve? How old are you?? 
Keep digging tho! entertaining


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

editor said:


> And there we have it. "I'll keep on doing whatever I like and I'll make no changes to bring about positive change, no matter how small or big."
> 
> You're part of the problem.


And you're a dishonest clown who repeatedly twists the words of others to effect a pretence of outrage and concern. You expected me to do something about factory farming when you're the one who, after saying they wanted it gone immediately, said they haven't the power to end it themselves. All I said to you was that vegans and non vegans have common cause and could work together toward that aim. In response you've behaved like a petulant child. Now all you have is some cliche rubbish about me being part of the problem? You're a joke mate, jog on.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

ddraig said:


> How would people starve? How old are you??
> Keep digging tho! entertaining


what do you think would happen if all factory farming was immediately shut down? 
do we let the livestock run free into the woods?
do we compensate the farmers and their families and workers?
do we expect them to start growing kale?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> what do you think would happen if all factory farming was immediately shut down?
> do we let the livestock run free into the woods?
> do we compensate the farmers and their families and workers?
> do we expect them to start growing kale?


ah that shit again  
Proper pathetic


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> And you're a dishonest clown who repeatedly twists the words of others to effect a pretence of outrage and concern. You expected me to do something about factory farming when you're the one who, after saying they wanted it gone immediately, said they haven't the power to end it themselves. All I said to you was that vegans and non vegans have common cause and could work together toward that aim. In response you've behaved like a petulant child. Now all you have is some cliche rubbish about me being part of the problem? You're a joke mate, jog on.


Hold on: it was you blaming vegans for not stopping factory farming earlier on, but it turns out you're not only doing absolutely nothing to close them down yourself, but are also unwilling to change your diet in any way at all, despite the vast amount of research saying that a reduction in meat is vital for the planet's survival.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> what do you think would happen if all factory farming was immediately shut down?
> do we let the livestock run free into the woods?
> do we compensate the farmers and their families and workers?
> do we expect them to start growing kale?


you just stop inseminating the cows / pigs  

do we let them run free in the woods? no of course not, that would massively upset the forest ecosystem. the existing livestock would be slaughtered and sold as meat. same as now, but with no next generation.

do we compensate the farmers? only on the condition that they grow appropriate crops in a sustainable way (i.e. no monocultures)

do we expect them to start growing kale? well, if they want to, and there are _market forces_... yes. or whatever else.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

As this is the Climate Change forum it would be good to have a proper sensible thread on how the CO2 footprint of our food can best be reduced globally, with no diversions into silly bunfights.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2021)

HA! that was a good one. i was _this close _to putting you on ignore (as I've done for many others posters, with wonderful benefits to my mental health) but if you keep these crackers coming you may yet be saved


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

ddraig said:


> ah that shit again
> Proper pathetic


should be easy for you to answer then


----------



## ddraig (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> should be easy for you to answer then


Been answered 
Why do you think it's ok to demand answers and not answer yourself, and why are you so defensive of your food choices?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 5, 2021)

ddraig said:


> Been answered
> Why do you think it's ok to demand answers and not answer yourself, and why are you so defensive of your food choices?


Extraordinary. The claim was that we ought shut factory farms immediately. That word has a specific meaning that you are clearly equivocating on to mean "some time in the future". I don't think I need lectures in intellectual honesty from you.

I'm not defensive about my food choices. They have transformed my health over 4 years. I feel no moral obligation to exclude meat from my diet, nor am I convinced that we cannot farm meat in an environmentally sustainable way, as we have for thousands of years.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's certainly great for the capitalists, judging by the prices.



Some of them aren’t bad.  Quorn works out pretty well. Though it gives me the shits if I overdo it.  Not sure if it’s available for general in the USA again after the unpleasant allergic-death business.  Think the FDA said it was fine to be on sale with allergy warnings and an admission that the
main ingredient is mould.

Palm oil, soy and miscellaneous cheap chemicals made into some of the other products is far more profitable, I’m sure.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Extraordinary. The claim was that we ought shut factory farms immediately.


Are you_ still_ going on about this, FFS?

At no point did I say what 'we' should be doing. I expressed a personal opinion of what I'd like to happen if I was suddenly vested with magic powers to close down entire industries on a whim. I then went on to explain what others things I'd like to happen if I had these fantasy magic powers.

Now shut the fuck up about it.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> As this is the Climate Change forum it would be good to have a proper sensible thread on how the CO2 footprint of our food can best be reduced globally, with no diversions into silly bunfights.


Yeah, not going to happen. A few have tried.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Yeah, not going to happen. A few have tried.


It truly jumped the shark when 'vegans' (yes, all of them) were supposedly responsible for factory farms still existing.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 5, 2021)

Each time a new thread about meat appears, the arguments from meat-eaters get weaker, and weaker, and weaker: more and more they boil down to _Wah! I just wanna eat teh meat!_ (not that I have a particular problem with that argument, but be honest about it)
_C_an't even be arsed to contribute really, it's basically playing chess with pigeons at this point.

If humanity doesn't wind its neck in, one day we'll all be cannibals anyway


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Each time a new thread about meat appears, the arguments from meat-eaters get weaker, and weaker, and weaker…



This is liable to happen when better arguments lead to banning from the thread.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 5, 2021)

I'd like a heads up when that happens.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> I'd like a heads up when that happens.



Just check in on that “reasons for banning thread” occasionally.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 6, 2021)

Flavour said:


> you just stop inseminating the cows / pigs
> 
> do we let them run free in the woods? no of course not, that would massively upset the forest ecosystem. the existing livestock would be slaughtered and sold as meat. same as now, but with no next generation.


You can't do that. A lot of the vegetarians are against the slaughter of animals they seem to think they have to live out the rest of their natural lives in some sort of retirement home.  

Unfortunately it's impossible to build a mahoosive safari park for all the farm animals * immediately * and where the hell would you put it. You'd also have to pay for the upkeep of all the animals and still have to deal with the pollution they produce.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You're in cloud cuckoo land.


No, he's right and it's long since gone past contributing to nutrition here and instead become a factor in increasing diseases of affluence like childhood obesity.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2021)

There’s essentially two arguments for cutting down/stopping meat consumption. The environmental one, and the ethical.

The former I can very much get behind. We are clearly facing a climate emergency, we need to act. So the question has to be if we can consume meat in a more sustainable and less environmentally damaging way. I hope and believe the answer to this is yes, we can, but that it will clearly require me to eat (a lot?) less of it - something I’m actively trying to do - and that it will be more expensive as a result.

The ethical argument however I have little time for. We can eat meat and have done so for thousands of years. There is in my mind nothing inherently wrong with killing something for food and I’ve never had any argument come close to convincing me otherwise.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> , nor am I convinced that we cannot farm meat in an environmentally sustainable way, as we have for thousands of years.



Have we fed seven billion people sustainably for thousands of years?

No.

Even pre-industrial agriculture has had vast ecological impacts; deforestation, soil erosion etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> This is liable to happen when better arguments lead to banning from the thread.



Lol, let's have the 'better arguments' then.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There’s essentially two arguments for cutting down/stopping meat consumption. The environmental one, and the ethical.
> 
> The former I can very much get behind. We are clearly facing a climate emergency, we need to act. So the question has to be if we can consume meat in a more sustainable and less environmentally damaging way. I hope and believe the answer to this is yes, we can, but that it will clearly require me to eat (a lot?) less of it - something I’m actively trying to do - and that it will be more expensive as a result.
> 
> The ethical argument however I have little time for. We can eat meat and have done so for thousands of years. There is in my mind nothing inherently wrong with killing something for food and I’ve never had any argument come close to convincing me otherwise.



Well, if you think “we can do X and have done X for thousands of years” is a good ethical argument in defence of X, then you’re probably not well-placed to evaluate the strength of ethical arguments against X. 

Also you haven’t even got “X” right. Ethical veganism doesn’t even come close to entailing the claim that there’s something “inherently wrong with killing something for food”.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

JimW said:


> No, he's right and it's long since gone past contributing to nutrition here and instead become a factor in increasing diseases of affluence like childhood obesity.


meat doesn't make kids fat. Consider the cabinets full of energy drinks and the displauys full of candy and convenience foods and substandard quick snack meals.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> meat doesn't make kids fat. Consider the cabinets full of energy drinks and the displauys full of candy and convenience foods and substandard quick snack meals.


It's a major contributer in the burgers and snack sausages, though of course not the sole factor. For the purposes of the point at hand, a return to 1970s levels of consumption would be beneficial, and then theres the bonus of reduced pollution from intensive farms etc.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

JimW said:


> It's a major contributer in the burgers and snack sausages, though of course not the sole factor. For the purposes of the point at hand, a return to 1970s levels of consumption would be beneficial, and then theres the bonus of reduced pollution from intensive farms etc.


What were those levels of consumption?

The meat itself isn't the problem. I can speak from personal experience on this. I went from 90kg to about 65kg after adopiting a diet high in animal meats and fats and low carb. Do what works for you, but I don't think it's right that folk blame meat for obesity. That's as stupid as saying fat people are lazy. It's also still possible to overeat (despite what some think) on a LCHF diet


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> What were those levels of consumption?
> 
> The meat itself isn't the problem. I can speak from personal experience on this. I went from 90kg to about 65kg after adopiting a diet high in animal meats and fats and low carb. Do what works for you, but I don't think it's right that folk blame meat for obesity. That's as stupid as saying fat people are lazy. It's also still possible to overeat (despite what some think) on a LCHF diet


I'd have to check the rationing figures for exact amounts, but orders of magnitude less.
Almost any diet can consciously be bent to a particular outcome, but it's not laziness to suggest a calorie dense foodstuff if eaten in vastly greater amounts not as part of some cunning diet will contribute to poor health outcomes - that includes other linked conditions like digestive tract cancers and heart disease. Although correlation isn't causation as we all know, that's where the public health stats point.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

JimW said:


> I'd have to check the rationing figures for exact amounts, but orders of magnitude less.
> Almost any diet can consciously be bent to a particular outcome, but it's not laziness to suggest a calorie dense foodstuff if eaten in vastly greater amounts not as part of some cunning diet will contribute to poor health outcomes - that includes other linked conditions like digestive tract cancers and heart disease. Although correlation isn't causation as we all know, that's where the public health stats point.


and how much do we eat now?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 6, 2021)

JimW said:


> I'd have to check the rationing figures for exact amounts, but orders of magnitude less.


Rationing figures? 
I don't recall eating any less meat back in the 70's to what I eat now.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Rationing figures?
> I don't recall eating any less meat back in the 70's to what I eat now.


In China, which was what we were discussing.


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> This is liable to happen when better arguments lead to banning from the thread.


Who's been banned?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, the good old cut-and-thrust of a carnists v veggies thread!


Something you can really get your teeth into.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Who's been banned?



All those meat eaters with bulletproof ethical and environmental justifications for shovelling down all the deep fried frankenchickens their cholesterol-engorged hearts desire. Them and Santa Claus.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

JimW said:


> It's a major contributer in the burgers and snack sausages, though of course not the sole factor. For the purposes of the point at hand, a return to 1970s levels of consumption would be beneficial, and then theres the bonus of reduced pollution from intensive farms etc.



Yeah, gets included in lots of nasty snack foods.  
That said, and admitting that I do like a Beyond Burger or similar now and then, I think the current capitalist effort to make
money from the move to “replacements” is likely to lead to a lot of nasty snack food facsimiles, whereas I think a diet with more fruits, nuts, whole grains, veggies, healthy oils and pulses is where we need to go, with a lot fewer ancillary ingredients such as flavour enhancers etc. on the list.

That needs some attention in terms of people’s access to these foods, advertising regimes, regulation etc.
If a “meat tax” was ringfenced for dealing with this, it could be helpful.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> and how much do we eat now?




These USDA figures look to be something like a six-fold increase since 1980, which gives you a sense of the scale and speed of the change.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> Something you can really get your teeth into.


unlike Kale, which does the exact opposite


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> unlike Kale, which does the exact opposite


Why are you so obsessed with kale?


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

JimW said:


> View attachment 295704
> 
> These USDA figures look to be something like a six-fold increase since 1980, which gives you a sense of the scale and speed of the change.


Chomping on meaty burgers while the world burns...


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Why are you so obsessed with kale?


Why are you obsessed with meat?


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Why are you obsessed with meat?


Because the growing levels of meat consumption are fucking up the planet, destroying the environment and fucking up people's lives. 

What harm is kale causing?


----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Why are you so obsessed with kale?


Because vegetarians/vegans want to force meat eaters to live on a kale only diet for ever and ever. Did you not get the memo?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Because the growing levels of meat consumption are fucking up the planet, destroying the environment and fucking up people's lives.
> 
> What harm is kale causing?


None. 

Meat consumption isn't fucking up people's lives either you hysterical fear mongering clown.


----------



## Skim (Nov 6, 2021)




----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> None.
> 
> Meat consumption isn't fucking up people's lives either you hysterical fear mongering clown.


If it did, would you reduce your meat consumption/give it up?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> If it did, would you reduce your meat consumption/give it up?


If meat was harming me then yes. I've given up other foods I liked for the same reason. 

However that's just speculation. In practice it isn't harming me.


----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> If meat was harming me then yes. I've given up other foods I liked for the same reason.
> 
> However that's just speculation. In practice it isn't harming me.


If meat was harming the environment, would you give it up/reduce your consumption?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> If meat was harming the environment, would you give it up/reduce your consumption?


Shouldn’t the question be, if Glitch Hiker’s meat consumption was harming the environment and his giving it up would change it, would he?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> If meat was harming the environment, would you give it up/reduce your consumption?


I think the question is problematic. It isn't meat that harms the environment, it's to do with how we are producing meat. Vegan farming will have to address similar concerns. So we need to find ways to farm livestock (and plants) that aren't destructive. Capitalism is the major offender here, as it will be for vegan farming. It's no good, for example, if you're an avocado farmer who can't afford to buy them himself because the global market has priced them out of his reach


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> None.
> 
> Meat consumption isn't fucking up people's lives either you hysterical fear mongering clown.



You understand how climate change is contributing to rising sea levels, which in turn are fucking up people's lives, yes? And you understand the relationship between greenhouse gasses and climate change, yes?

No? Then educate yourself before embarrassing yourself further.  



> The global production of food is responsible for a third of all planet-heating gases emitted by human activity, with the use of animals for meat causing twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods, a major new study has found.
> 
> The entire system of food production, such as the use of farming machinery, spraying of fertilizer and transportation of products, causes 17.3bn metric tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, according to the research. This enormous release of gases that fuel the climate crisis is more than double the entire emissions of the US and represents 35% of all global emissions, researchers said.











						Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
					

Production of meat worldwide causes twice the pollution of production of plant-based foods, a major new study has found




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I think the question is problematic. It isn't meat that harms the environment, it's to do with how we are producing meat. Vegan farming will have to address similar concerns. So we need to find ways to farm livestock (and plants) that aren't destructive. Capitalism is the major offender here, as it will be for vegan farming. It's no good, for example, if you're an avocado farmer who can't afford to buy them himself because the global market has priced them out of his reach


Why not give this one a go? Yes or no will do. 


Spymaster said:


> Shouldn’t the question be, if Glitch Hiker’s meat consumption was harming the environment and his giving it up would change it, would he?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> Why not give this one a go? Yes or no will do.


Give what a go?


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Vegan farming will have to address similar concerns.



You really are spectacularly ignorant. Vegan food production doesn't involve having to feed animals, FFS.

I'll put this in large text in the hope it will sink in:

The global production of food is responsible for a third of all planet-heating gases emitted by human activity, *with the use of animals for meat causing twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods*, a major new study has found.

And some more reading for you:









						Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet
					

The report on global land use and agriculture comes amid accelerating deforestation in the Amazon.




					www.nature.com
				












						What is your red meat habit doing to the planet?
					

The latest breaking news, comment and features from The Independent.




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> Why not give this one a go? Yes or no will do.


I'll answer as I see fit, thanks. 

I'd have to first see the evidence my personal food intake is destructive. Then I'd want to know if that food could be produced in a better way. 

It's not a simple binary


----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Give what a go?


Answering your question since glitch hiker doesnt' seem to like mine very much.


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I'll answer as I see fit, thanks.
> 
> I'd have to first see the evidence my personal food intake is destructive. Then I'd want to know if that food could be produced in a better way.
> 
> It's not a simple binary


Feel free to read the links I just posted above. And here's some more:









						Got Beef? Here’s What Your Hamburger Is Doing To The Climate
					

For centuries, the ethics of killing animals for their meat has been a bone of contention among humans. But the looming specter of climate change has given meat eaters an additional dilemma to consider.




					www.forbes.com
				












						We're eating more meat than ever, a huge obstacle in reducing climate change
					

A new study argues that changes to the meat and dairy industry are needed to address climate change.




					fortune.com
				






> These animals contribute as much as a third of the atmospheric methane that is hastening global climate change, according to recent estimates. Much of that is enteric methane, which is produced when cud-chewing animals like cows digest their food. Methane, which can hang around in the atmosphere for a decade, doesn’t linger as long as carbon dioxide does (up to 1,000 years), but it contributes more than 70% as much warming as an equivalent amount of CO2 in the same period. Because of this, the EPA states that “achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential.”


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

editor said:


> You understand how climate change is contributing to rising sea levels, which in turn are fucking up people's lives, yes? And you understand the relationship between greenhouse gasses and climate change, yes?
> 
> No? Then educate yourself before embarrassing yourself further.
> 
> ...


You've equivocated on the statement "meat constumption is fucking up people's lives"

You're a bad faith actor and I'm done talking with you.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> Answering your question since glitch hiker doesnt' seem to like mine very much.


That's dishonest, I answered you.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> Answering your question since glitch hiker doesnt' seem to like mine very much.


Not sure what you mean, Sue. It’s highly unlikely that GH giving up meat will solve climate change, no?


----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> That's dishonest, I answered you.


You were 'answering' while I was posting as you'll see if you check the post times.


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> You've equivocated on the statement "meat constumption is fucking up people's lives"
> 
> You're a bad faith actor and I'm done talking with you.


I've explained it with absolute clarity.

Meat production is a major contributor to climate change (multiple links already provided). And climate change is fucking up people's lives (multiple links already provided).

For example: As rising 'heat shocks' ruin rice crops, Bangladesh faces hunger risk

So which parts are you disputing here?

And here's some more reading for you to ignore:









						Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
					

That means gains for some people, but losses for more




					www.economist.com
				












						Here's how climate change could cause insects to destroy our crops
					

One study predicted that crop yield lost to insects increases 10 to 25% for every 1 degree Celsius.




					www.weforum.org


----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not sure what you mean, Sue. It’s highly unlikely that GH giving up meat will solve climate change, no?


I think it's interesting to discover what would or would not motivate people to change their behaviour, don't you?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think it's interesting to discover what would or would not motivate people to change their behaviour, don't you?


Sure, but you have to frame the proposal sensibly. If you asked me, and my giving up meat would solve global warming, I’d say yes. But it won’t, so the question is moot.


----------



## Sue (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Sure, but you have to frame the proposal sensibly. If you asked me if my giving up meat would solve global warming, I’d say yes. But it won’t, so the question is moot.


Well thanks for putting me right! 🤣


----------



## campanula (Nov 6, 2021)

Tbh, cost is the most likely determinant when it comes to behaviour changes (for me)...along with a growing reluctance to cook (there just is no quick way to knock up a pigeon sandwich). It is entirely possible to eat meat for free(ish) if you are not really fussed about doing the catching and prep.  My dad and grandad were avid poachers and I  still know quite a few who lamp for rabbits. I would never kill a hare because they are rare and beautiful but rabbits!  We probably eat coney at least once a week and sometimes pheasant, and have lost count of the number of geese I have politely declined. I would absolutely keep chooks and a pair of pigs if I didn't live in a tiny urban house (not that this stops my neighbour, who seems to have a thriving duck and poultry farm). In many parts of Norfolk, meat is definitely part of the rural economy (my daughter and I buy a sheep off our neighbour)...as well as fleece...(although I definitely remember meat raffles in the pub). 

This is changing though. My kids wouldn't have the first clue how to skin a rabbit (although the boys were quick to make use of a large wood pigeon some rural yahoo had shot and just left so I dunno) but they make use of 'Hello Fresh' and shit so I doubt they would suddenly morph into ferals, if Morrisons and Aldi weren't an easy option. I can't really imagine starving while there is food on the hoof (bloody muntjacs are practically vermin and absolutely wreck my seedlings and saplings). Years ago, when we had lurchers, sweetheart used to fancifully imagine a diet entirely consisting of wild meat...but seeing as the cooking usually devolved to me, this did not ever gain much traction.
Not advocating everyone who eats meat should go down this route at all...but I can't deny it is a handy source of useful protein in a diet (mine) which mostly consists of very basic constituents.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 6, 2021)

The poll results tell an interesting story. Combining the top three options, around 40% of respondents either have already given up meat or would be willing to. 

A further 24% are reluctant but accept it‘s necessary, so that only leaves around 36% who are opposed to the idea with varying strength of resistance and nearly 20% of them seem to base their opposition on the assumption that “nothing much will change“ and meat is going to remain ubiquitous (Psst.. it won’t!)

I’m more convinced than ever that it won’t be hard to steadily move people to plant based diets with appropriate nudges as the strength of the opposition seems far less than I expected.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 6, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> The poll results tell an interesting story. Combining the top three options, around 40% of respondents either have already given up meat or would be willing to.
> 
> A further 24% are reluctant but accept it‘s necessary, so that only leaves around 36% who are opposed to the idea with varying strength of resistance and nearly 20% of them seem to base their opposition on the assumption that “nothing much will change“ and meat is going to remain ubiquitous (Psst.. it won’t!)
> 
> I’m more convinced than ever that it won’t be hard to steadily move people to plant based diets with appropriate nudges as the strength of the opposition seems far less than I expected.


Yes, if a majority who wants everyone to eat PB foods gets their way those who don't want to or can't are going to have a pretty shitty time. Whether or not that happens in my lifetime, it won't be a circumstance I feel happy about. Would you then object to people privately keeping livestock?


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Yes, if a majority who wants everyone to eat PB foods gets their way those who don't want to or can't are going to have a pretty shitty time. Whether or not that happens in my lifetime, it won't be a circumstance I feel happy about. Would you then object to people privately keeping livestock?


I have no objections to that, but very much doubt my position on the matter will influence things.


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Yes, if a majority who wants everyone to eat PB foods gets their way ...


You do understand the damage that the meat industry is causing to the planet, yes? You've already stated you don't give a fuck and are going to carry on eating as much meat as you like regardless, but sometimes personal choices can't come first.

*People have to eat less meat. Full fucking stop.*


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> The poll results tell an interesting story. Combining the top three options, around 40% of respondents either have already given up meat or would be willing to.
> 
> A further 24% are reluctant but accept it‘s necessary, so that only leaves around 36% who are opposed to the idea with varying strength of resistance and nearly 20% of them seem to base their opposition on the assumption that “nothing much will change“ and meat is going to remain ubiquitous (Psst.. it won’t!)
> 
> I’m more convinced than ever that it won’t be hard to steadily move people to plant based diets with appropriate nudges as the strength of the opposition seems far less than I expected.


In a poll of 72 people, some voted one way and some another. 
Try not to read too far into it, as it may not be indicative of the real world.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> I have no objections to that, but very much doubt my position on the matter will influence things.



I think it may do.

What do you think would be more beneficial to the environment; telling people they have to eat less meat; full fucking stop; or promoting better production practices?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 6, 2021)

editor said:


> You do understand the damage that the meat industry is causing to the planet, yes? You've already stated you don't give a fuck and are going to carry on eating as much meat as you like regardless, but sometimes personal choices can't come first.
> 
> *People have to eat less meat. Full fucking stop.*


Alternatively cut out as much of the CO2 you create that doesn't come from farming, that could be up to 60% of emissions.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Alternatively cut out as much of the CO2 you create that doesn't come from farming, that could be up to 60% of emissions.


No. Just eat less meat +and+ do other stuff too. All this denial and whataboutery is so fucking tedious.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 7, 2021)

Am a sometime meat eater and yes i do agree we should be eating less meat, industrial scale intensive meat farming is horrible blot in our society but i think it will be a long road and extremely difficult one to achieve....there are also other issues that go alongside it...the pet food industry wich is a large slice of meat consumption...cat's for instance cannot survive on a totally plant based diet, there are researches going on to get around this but on doing some internet searches it's a long way off and very problematical.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I think it may do.
> 
> What do you think would be more beneficial to the environment; telling people they have to eat less meat; full fucking stop; or promoting better production practices?


Pleased you think I’m so influential.

I’d be guessing which of those two has more effect, but since telling people in an authoritarian manner to change their ways is not often effective, I’ll choose the second one as a first step in the right direction. It’s a bit of a pointless distinction though isn’t it, as making wholesale changes in the way society operates is not and never will be about a false dichotomy of alternative individual measures but rather implementing a raft of policy changes which produce the necessary paradigm shift in attitudes and behaviours.

The “post-meat future” as I called it in the thread title is an exaggeration of course, I don’t believe we will see a total eradication of meat production, but a very strong shift towards meat-free diets so they account for the overwhelming majority of most people’s daily nutrition seems inevitable through necessity.  The ways in which this change occurs - all the individual nudge factors and changes in the way food choices are perceived - may not be foreseeable for us, just as predicting how the internet would affect people’s lives proved to be a challenge beyond most pundits back in the mid nineties, but yeah, change is coming.

I’ll make one prediction though - posting shamelessly on the “what’s for tea tonight?” thread about the steak and chips you’re having won’t be stigma free forever. Expect being an “out” carnivore to become more and more socially unacceptable and the ravaging hordes of vegans and veggies to tear a strip off meaties who are brave enough to defend their habit instead of hiding it.  You’ll love it Spy, will be right up your street


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> No. Just eat less meat +and+ do other stuff too. All this denial and whataboutery is so fucking tedious.


unless the meat comes from your own land/farm/chicken coup in which case there's no factory farming involved and thus no problem.


----------



## Chilli.s (Nov 7, 2021)

Taxation could be the key to meat consumption. Dirty sausages in a jar, made of snips off the abattoir floor, zero tax. Fillet steak, woowoo maximum tax bracket only for special occasions or the rich have to pay to play.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 7, 2021)

Chilli.s said:


> Taxation could be the key to meat consumption. Dirty sausages in a jar, made of snips off the abattoir floor, zero tax. Fillet steak, woowoo maximum tax bracket only for special occasions or the rich have to pay to play.



Taxation isn't even needed, just remove the huge state subsidies that keep the price of animal products artificially low. Redirect those subsidies into plant and cellular-based innovation.


----------



## Chilli.s (Nov 7, 2021)

Poll is very sneery towards meat eaters too.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> unless the meat comes from your own land/farm/chicken coup in which case there's no factory farming involved and thus no problem.


Gold standard whataboutery.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> Gold standard whataboutery.


No, it’s not


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, it’s not


What percentage of meat do you think comes from people's back yards/chicken coups? And - practically - how many people can get their meat this way, even if they wanted to?

It's just more denial/whatboutery/excuses, and I'm surprised to see you joining in.

The message from science is crystal clear and supported by endless studies: eat less meat. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, it’s not


Depends on your definition of whataboutery. If you use the one where whataboutery is anything that can't be refuted, as some here do, then maybe it is.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> No. Just eat less meat +and+ do other stuff too. All this denial and whataboutery is so fucking tedious.


Im not denying that meat production does cause CO2 emisions, just about everything does. I was saying that instead of the 20% emissions caused by meat production you can make a bigger difference by tackling the othe much larger 80%. But this thread like many others has degenerated into an argument, not about saving the planet but about personal beliefs that eating meat is wrong.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Im not denying that meat production does cause CO2 emisions, just about everything does. I was saying that instead of the 20% emissions caused by meat production you can make a bigger difference by tackling the othe much larger 80%. But this thread like many others has degenerated into an argument, not about saving the planet but about personal beliefs that eating meat is wrong.


People have to eat. But this is the important bit: "Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production."

So people clearly have to change their diets, especially as meat consumption continues to soar. 

Not sure where you're getting this 20% figure from either. 



> The global production of food is responsible for a third of all planet-heating gases emitted by human activity, with the use of animals for meat causing twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods, a major new study has found.
> 
> The entire system of food production, such as the use of farming machinery, spraying of fertilizer and transportation of products, causes 17.3bn metric tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, according to the research.





> This enormous release of gases that fuel the climate crisis is more than double the entire emissions of the US and represents 35% of all global emissions, researchers said.











						Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
					

Production of meat worldwide causes twice the pollution of production of plant-based foods, a major new study has found




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

And a reminder:







Greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram for different food groups. Adapted from Dr Hannah Ritchie/Our World in Data (2020) Data source: Poore & Nemecek (2018). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> And a reminder:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looking at the graph, if I simply switch away from beef to more pork I’ll be doing a fair bit of good. Marvellous.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looking at the graph, if I simply switch away from beef to more pork I’ll be doing a fair bit of good. Marvellous.


And that's your takeaway from that graph? Wow.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 7, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Taxation isn't even needed, just remove the huge state subsidies that keep the price of animal products artificially low. Redirect those subsidies into plant and cellular-based innovation.


So plants for the plebs and foie gras for the master?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> What percentage of meat do you think comes from people's back yards/chicken coups? And - practically - how many people can get their meat this way, even if they wanted to?
> 
> It's just more denial/whatboutery/excuses, and I'm surprised to see you joining in.
> 
> The message from science is crystal clear and supported by endless studies: eat less meat. It's as simple as that.


Denial/excuses of what? You are claiming meat is environmentally bad. What's the impact of eating eggs one collects from the chickens kept in the backyard? Or perhaps something bigger, if you have the land and the expertise to kill and prepare a lamb or a pig? How does that compare to a giant CAFO?

The message you're peddling is in respect of the environment, which is the subject here. I know people also claim WFPBD is healthier, but you can't equivocate between the two and I refute the evidence that says meat isn't healthy.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> People have to eat. But this is the important bit: "Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production."
> 
> So people clearly have to change their diets, especially as meat consumption continues to soar.
> 
> ...


Is meat consumption soaring because more people are eating it or because people are eating it more?

Your conclusion, that people have to change their diets, doens't necessarily follow. You are just unwilling to accept the existence of alternatives


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Is meat consumption soaring because more people are eating it or because people are eating it more?
> 
> Your conclusion, that people have to change their diets, doens't necessarily follow. You are just unwilling to accept the existence of alternatives



It's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion of multiple studies. Have you not read a single link I've posted here? Do you refute the conclusion of those studies?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> It's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion of multiple studies. Have you not read a single link I've posted here? Do you refute the conclusion of those studies?


Again you ignore the point: no one is denying that we ought change how we farm meat now. The problem is your solution is to chuck the baby out with the bathwater because of an ideological bias. I don't share that bias and I don't believe we can't farm meat sustainably.

And not everyone agrees with those studies. For example: New methane emissions metric proposed for climate change policy

Also, answer the questions I asked


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> Not sure where you're getting this 20% figure from either.


The figures stated earlier claimed that 35% of CO2 came from *all* agriculture including from growing plants for food. Of that 2/3rds was due to meat production which makes about 20% of all CO2 emissions are due to meat production.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 7, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> So plants for the plebs and foie gras for the master?



No, fully automated luxury gourmet plant-based and cellular meats for all.

Current first world meat-heavy diets are at the expense of the global poor and future generations


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> And that's your takeaway from that graph? Wow.


Looks like coffee is worse than pork. Shall we all quit that?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looks like coffee is worse than pork. Shall we all quit that?


Everyone should live on apples and nuts.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Everyone should live on apples and nuts.


With bacon


----------



## Flavour (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looks like coffee is worse than pork. Shall we all quit that?



Coffee will also become much more expensive in the coming years as a result of climate change


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looks like coffee is worse than pork. Shall we all quit that?


We could just all switch to instant coffee. They make that from recycled cardboard and marmite.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 7, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> We could just all switch to instant coffee. They make that from recycled cardboard and marmite.


I wondered why I'd gone off coffee.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looks like coffee is worse than pork. Shall we all quit that?


Also, both coffee and chocolate involve human slavery, but I guess that's whataboutery, so isn't admissible. 

But after looking at that graph, I've realised that I'm probably better for the planet than a vegan who drinks coffee and eats chocolate, as I rarely eat beef these days, so it looks like I'm already doing my bit. And having no children puts me in the carbon miser category. I'm actually quite proud of myself now.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Everyone should live on apples and nuts.


And ride to work on a cloud of moral superiority.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looks like coffee is worse than pork. Shall we all quit that?


Sigh. And so the whataboutery continues.

I could be wrong but I suspect you eat far greater quantities of meat than coffee, but that doesn't matter anyway because at no point have I asked you to 'quit' anything.  You just made that up. 

But let's try another approach: the overwhelming scientific consensus is that people should eat less meat. Do you agree with that?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> With bacon



You could probably do a nice roasted thing with apples, nuts and bacon.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Im not denying that meat production does cause CO2 emisions, just about everything does. I was saying that instead of the 20% emissions caused by meat production you can make a bigger difference by tackling the othe much larger 80%. But this thread like many others has degenerated into an argument, not about saving the planet but about personal beliefs that eating meat is wrong.



That was the point from the start.  You can see it from the poll options.

Pretty successful for a troll thread tbf.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 7, 2021)

Any post other than meat = bad with no other thought or consideration of the wider climate is whataboutery now. In the climate change forum. Got ya.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 7, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Also, both coffee and chocolate involve human slavery, but I guess that's whataboutery, so isn't admissible.
> 
> But after looking at that graph, I've realised that I'm probably better for the planet than a vegan who drinks coffee and eats chocolate, as I rarely eat beef these days, so it looks like I'm already doing my bit. And having no children puts me in the carbon miser category. I'm actually quite proud of myself now.


In the case of coffee you get a fuck load of cups for a kg of product. I'd imagine a kilo of beef for a lot of people doesn't go as far.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> the overwhelming scientific consensus is that people should eat less meat. Do you agree with that?


Absolutely.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 7, 2021)

The problem with non-meat meat and other vegetarian alternatives is that they’re heavily processed which we shouldn’t be eating a lot of. Either eat fresh meat or vegetables or both. The weird middle ground is unnecessary.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 7, 2021)

Fuck off I reserve the right to not eat meat and be an unhealthy bastard


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 7, 2021)

8ball said:


> That was the point from the start.  You can see it from the poll options.
> 
> Pretty successful for a troll thread tbf.


I started the thread and it certainly isn’t about ”a personal belief that eating meat is wrong” as I’m a committed meat eater who has meat in most of my main meals.

The reason I started the thread was that i can see the inevitability that people‘s “meat habit” as I called it must change and I’m interested in how we will achieve that and what people’s attitudes to it are. As I said above, I’m surprised the number of votes in the upper half of the poll, as I expected most people to be so attached to meat eating that they would be reluctant to change.

As for arguments on the thread, that’s the responsibility of those individuals. If they can’t discuss a subject without being abusive that‘s not the fault of a “troll thread” is it?


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 7, 2021)

Though I am eating less of that stuff than I was a year ago. Less than a lot of the time I was a meat eater too


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 7, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Though I am eating less of that stuff than I was a year ago. Less than a lot of the time I was a meat eater too



I’m fine with veggie food and if I get a curry it’ll be more likely veggie or seafood. But we’re over fishing also 😂 you can’t really win.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 7, 2021)

Also pizza. 
Mushroom, onion, jalapeño and black olives are my go to four toppings.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> I started the thread and it certainly isn’t about ”a personal belief that eating meat is wrong” as I’m a committed meat eater who has meat in most of my main meals.
> 
> The reason I started the thread was that i can see the inevitability that people‘s “meat habit” as I called it must change and I’m interested in how we will achieve that and what people’s attitudes to it are. As I said above, I’m surprised the number of votes in the upper half of the poll, as I expected most people to be so attached to meat eating that they would be reluctant to change.
> 
> As for arguments on the thread, that’s the responsibility of those individuals. If they can’t discuss a subject without being abusive that‘s not the fault of a “troll thread” is it?



Neither the poll options or thread title match this motive very well.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 7, 2021)

8ball said:


> Neither the poll options or thread title match this motive very well.


You can’t please all the people all the time.

The poll has been quite useful I reckon, as it shows most people seem quite sanguine about changing their habits and of those that aren’t, around 2/3 seem to think it’s simply not going to be necessary.  Some people can’t see beyond the nose on their face I guess.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> The poll has been quite useful I reckon, as it shows most people seem quite sanguine about changing their habits and of those that aren’t, around 2/3 seem to think it’s simply not going to be necessary.


I think either you haven't worded the poll correctly or you're misinterpreting the data, as the voting doesn't show what you think it shows.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 7, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think either you haven't worded the poll correctly or you're misinterpreting the data, as the voting doesn't show what you think it shows.


Fair enough.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 7, 2021)

If meat can be grown in a lab, surely creating synthetic coffee which tastes right is easy by comparison?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> If meat can be grown in a lab, surely creating synthetic coffee which tastes right is easy by comparison?



I don’t know of any work happening on it, but that would be a fine thing.

You know that even of it was a real thing, some people would insist on drinking blood coffee, though.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 7, 2021)

i bought some tofu this morning. Thought I might see if i can reduce meat intake, though I'll never get rid of it entirely. it's a shame that it's way more expensive than what I'd otherwise choose. for the same price i can get 5 tins of sardines and I think that way more nutritious and more content as well. YMMV


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 7, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> i bought some tofu this morning. Thought I might see if i can reduce meat intake, though I'll never get rid of it entirely. it's a shame that it's way more expensive than what I'd otherwise choose. for the same price i can get 5 tins of sardines and I think that way more nutritious and more content as well. YMMV


Worth looking around for the best way to cook it. It can be tasty but really bad if done wrong.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> i bought some tofu this morning. Thought I might see if i can reduce meat intake, though I'll never get rid of it entirely. it's a shame that it's way more expensive than what I'd otherwise choose. for the same price i can get 5 tins of sardines and I think that way more nutritious and more content as well. YMMV


Or you could make yourself an even tastier and equally nutritious veggie meal/soup.


glitch hiker said:


> And not everyone agrees with those studies. For example: New methane emissions metric proposed for climate change policy


Err, no. That categorically does not refute the conclusions of multiple studies into the negative impact of meat production on the environment. 

It even clearly says: "*We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption*." Do you agree with that or not?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 7, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> If meat can be grown in a lab, surely creating synthetic coffee which tastes right is easy by comparison?


Didn't they have a dandelion coffee substitute in the war?

I've seen a roasted acorn coffe substitute in a survival book and caffeine is easy to synthesise.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 7, 2021)

editor said:


> It even clearly says: "*We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption*." Do you agree with that or not?


Note that says "stop increasing" not just "stop" as you've been saying.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Note that says "stop increasing" not just "stop" as you've been saying.


It's not me that saying meat consumption should be drastically reduced. It's the scientific consensus that has been agreed from multiple studies.
Do you agree with that or not? Or is this one article from three years ago somehow going to negate all those studies and research?

It's no surprise to see the meat industry being caught peddling fake news and disinformation either



> Scientists with the world’s top climate organization made reducing meat consumption an official policy recommendation in 2019, echoing what environmentalists had urged for years: Eating less meat, in particular beef, reduces the large volume of emissions attributed to livestock. That guidance has only accelerated efforts by the beef industry to discredit the notion that strip steaks and cheeseburgers are climate culprits.
> 
> For two years, industry officials and a handful of sympathetic academics, some of whom are funded by livestock business groups, have argued in congressional testimony, newspaper op-eds, and research papers that the climate science is all wrong. There’s even alternative math to prove the cattle industry has been falsely maligned.







__





						Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
					





					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

Who's in favour of a meat tax?



> The idea of a meat tax has been widely discussed across the globe in recent years, particularly as a way to reduce consumption of beef in light of the effects the cattle industry has on the climate crisis. The United Nations has said that emissions from livestock account for 14.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions across the planet. Almost two-thirds of those emissions come from cattle, especially in the form of the methane gas emitted by the animals, according to the United Nations.











						Should you pay a 'meat tax' on your burger? Some environmentalists say it's a necessary step to save the planet
					

Concerns about the climate crisis are fueling the meat-tax debate, especially in connection with the Glasgow COP26 environmental summit




					www.marketwatch.com


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Worth looking around for the best way to cook it. It can be tasty but really bad if done wrong.


I just fried it along with some sardines


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

My focus for both health and environmental reasons is on avoiding what I will loosely call “processed” food (although the reality is more complicated than that, because almost everything involves a process. I’m focused here on factory processes that both bring a lot of chemicals into the mix and also necessitate a lot of food miles as part of the production process). That means avoiding an awful lot of meat-based products. However, it also means avoiding plenty of vegetarian and vegan products too. The idea is just laughable that some of these incredibly highly processed meat-substitute sausages are better for the environment than a sausage from a organically-reared pig that is eating waste vegetable matter and whose manure is being ploughed back into the soil as a result of its natural rooting. It’s not just about whether it’s meat or not meat, it’s also about all the ancillary food industry that surrounds it.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The idea is just laughable that some of these incredibly highly processed meat-substitute sausages are better for the environment than a sausage from a organically-reared pig that is eating waste vegetable matter and whose manure is being ploughed back into the soil as a result of its natural rooting.


Such a cherry-picked and idyllic view of the pig industry. 

No one can disagree that those fortunate "organically-reared pigs that are eating waste vegetable matter" are having a reduced environmental impact, but then you're the vast majority don't have such pleasant lives.  

Here's what the reality often looks like. 













> The environmental impact of soya versus meat production​If choosing between meat and soya, it is important to keep the environmental impacts of soya in perspective. Analyses nearly always suggest that meat is substantially worse in environmental terms than the alternatives.
> 
> Not eating soya directly does not mean that you are not eating soya at all. Per 100 grams, animal products contain the following amounts of embedded soya, from the soya used in feed:
> 
> ...











						Meat-free Sausages and Burgers | Ethical Consumer
					

Ethical and environmental rankings of 28 brands of meat alternatives including tofu. We look at what meat-free products are made of, soya's potential link to deforestation, big businesses buying up vegan brands, shine a spotlight on the ethics of Livekindly Collective and give our recommended buys.




					www.ethicalconsumer.org


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Or you could make yourself an even tastier and equally nutritious veggie meal/soup.
> 
> Err, no. That categorically does not refute the conclusions of multiple studies into the negative impact of meat production on the environment.
> 
> It even clearly says: "*We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption*." Do you agree with that or not?


Anything would be tastier than tofu. I don't hate it (wouldn't be eating it otherwise) but it isn't intrinsically tasty. unlike the broccoli cucumber bok choi and fish and eggs I ate with it.

This is what the quote your referencing says:
_
“We don’t actually need to give up eating meat to stabilise global temperatures,” says Professor Myles Allen who led the study (meat production is a major source of methane). “We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption. But we do need to give up dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Every tonne of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a permanent increase in the methane emission rate. Climate policies could be designed to reflect this.”_

I don't think I've advocated a higher collective meat consumption. In fact I'm willing to believe, in lieu of hard evidence of course, that, with a properly healthy diet, our collective consumption might be less.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Anything would be tastier than tofu. I don't hate it (wouldn't be eating it otherwise) but it isn't intrinsically tasty. unlike the broccoli cucumber bok choi and fish and eggs I ate with it.
> 
> This is what the quote your referencing says:
> 
> ...


Ah you're back to this one article. Why are you refusing to comment or engage on all the other links from established studies?

You sound increasingly like a conspiracy theorist who will constantly ignore the overwhelming consensus of science and multiple studies just because you've found one minor article that has a slightly different viewpoint.

And from the same author:



> There is little scope for technical solutions, it concludes, so the effort needs to be focused on reducing food waste and loss, improving livestock management and encouraging consumers to adopt what the report calls "healthier diets" - *those with a lower meat and dairy content.*
> 
> If a concerted effort managed to achieve that 45% cut in methane emissions, it would help avoid nearly 0.3C of global warming as early as the 2040s, the report claims.
> 
> ...


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Here's what the reality often looks like.


Aren't they farrowing crates for when the pigs give birth?
If they are there should be gaps between the pigs to allow the piglets to get out if the way to prevent them getting crushed by the mother when she rolls over.

If they aren't farrowing crates then that farm is going out of business if they only have that few pigs for all those crates.

Staged?


----------



## Chilli.s (Nov 8, 2021)

There are pigs that are free ranging in fields, I pay extra for that meat and eat less of it as it is a luxury.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Aren't they farrowing crates for when the pigs give birth?
> If they are there should be gaps between the pigs to allow the piglets to get out if the way to prevent them getting crushed by the mother when she rolls over.
> 
> If they aren't farrowing crates then that farm is going out of business if they only have that few pigs for all those crates.
> ...


So now you're going into full Trump-like conspiracy denial and claiming that any images that don't fit your narrative must be 'staged.'

There is plenty of evidence of the cruel and inhumane conditions of intensively farmed pigs.



















						Intensive pig farming - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






> In the UK there are around 11,000 pig farms. Approximately 1,400 of these units house more than 1,000 pigs and contain about 85% of the total UK pig population.[27][28] Because of this, the vast majority of the pork products sold in the UK come from intensive farms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...














						The suffering of farmed pigs - Animal Aid
					

Most pigs in Britain are raised in crowded, dank sheds and get to taste fresh air only briefly while being shunted to and from the breeding units.




					www.animalaid.org.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

So loads of posts of pictures of intensive farming, in response to a post about organic farming.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> So loads of posts of pictures of intensive farming, in response to a post about organic farming.


Because that is not how 8 billion people will be able achieve their aspiration of dying painfully and slowly, the American way ...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

Intensive pig farming is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I don’t eat any pork that has been intensively farmed.  At all.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> So now you're going into full Trump-like conspiracy denial and claiming that any images that don't fit your narrative must be 'staged.'


FFS I've not claimed anything. I questioned it hence the ?


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> FFS I've not claimed anything. I questioned it hence the ?


The very fact that you're '_questioning_' it without offering a single shred of evidence to even suggest that the photo was 'staged' is classic conspiraloon territory and it's as tiresome as fuck.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Intensive pig farming is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I don’t eat any pork that has been intensively farmed.  At all.


Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who eat pork do eat the intensively farmed stuff.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> The very fact that you're '_questioning_' it without offering a single shred of evidence to even suggest that the photo was 'staged' is classic conspiraloon territory and it's as tiresome as fuck.


People learn by questioning things. You ought to try it some time.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who eat pork do eat the intensively farmed stuff.


And my point is that replacing that with _another_ intensive factory process, whilst certainly beneficial in terms of animal welfare, is not inherently better for either health or environment. If you want people to go vegetarian, I don’t think that the solution is to treat horrendously artificial food processing as the pathway.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Ah you're back to this one article. Why are you refusing to comment or engage on all the other links from established studies?


Yes, the article I posted that you responded to. Directly quoting.


editor said:


> And from the same author:


It is entirely possible for the one author to be wrong on one claim and right on another. They are different claims around the issue of animal food and you vacilate between the two constantly. I don't agree that a healthy diet requires no animal food. In fact the comment you highlighted is relevant and so meaningless sans context. One could be eating an unhealthy diet that is high in animal products which contains all sorts of unhealth elements (candy, energy drinks, etc). That diet could be reduced to a level you would still find high and also still meet the criteria of this statement. The problem isnt' meat, it's the standard western diet


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> So now you're going into full Trump-like conspiracy denial and claiming that any images that don't fit your narrative must be 'staged.'
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of the cruel and inhumane conditions of intensively farmed pigs.
> 
> ...



Who are you arguing with?


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And my point is that replacing that with _another_ intensive factory process, whilst certainly beneficial in terms of animal welfare, is not inherently better for either health or environment. If you want people to go vegetarian, I don’t think that the solution is to treat horrendously artificial food processing as the pathway.


Not all vegetarian/vegan food is about 'horrendously artificial food processing' but by throwing around daft and lazy stereotypes like that you've made your agenda painfully obvious.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> People learn by questioning things. You ought to try it some time.



You sounding more and more like an antivaxxer here

But please explain what research you did before 'questioning' whether that picture was 'staged' or not.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I don't agree that a healthy diet requires no animal food.



What you think is totally irrelevant, as there's millions of people enjoying healthy diets that involve no animal products at all.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And my point is that replacing that with _another_ intensive factory process, whilst certainly beneficial in terms of animal welfare, is not inherently better for either health or environment. If you want people to go vegetarian, I don’t think that the solution is to treat horrendously artificial food processing as the pathway.


Apart from all the extra land, food and energy resources that go into feeding animals, of course.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And my point is that replacing that with _another_ intensive factory process, whilst certainly beneficial in terms of animal welfare, is not inherently better for either health or environment. If you want people to go vegetarian, I don’t think that the solution is to treat horrendously artificial food processing as the pathway.



I find cooking to be a lot simpler without meat if I’m looking to keep the amount of processing down (which I have been recently), but that’s just a reflection of my culinary skills.

Out of interest, though, where do you get your non-intensively farmed meat from?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Not all vegetarian/vegan food is about 'horrendously artificial food processing' but by throwing around daft and lazy stereotypes like that you've made your agenda painfully obvious.


No, but the food I was _specifically referencing_ _in the post you originally responded to_ is indeed horrendously artificial and processed.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Out of interest, though, where do you get your non-intensively farmed meat from?


The small farm down the road for pork or another small farm down the road for chicken, or my neighbour’s smallholding for lamb. Don’t often have beef but when I do it likely comes from the small herd that the National Trust keep on the heath in order to stop the heathland  being taken over by trees.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The small farm down the road for pork or another small farm down the road for chicken, or my neighbour’s smallholding for lamb. Don’t often have beef but when I do it likely comes from the small herd that the National Trust keep on the heath in order to stop the heathland  being taken over by trees.



Ah, thanks.  I was hoping you were going to say “go to supermarket x and look for logo y on the packaging”.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Ah, thanks.  I was hoping you were going to say “go to supermarket x and look for logo y on the packaging”.











						Home - Etherley Farm
					






					etherleyfarm.co.uk
				











						Hill House Farm | Pork, Lamb, Beef | Online Butcher | Surrey Hills
					

Hill House Farm ‘farm to fork’ foods includes joints for roasting, hams, bacon, burgers, sausages and much more, all produced from rare breed pork, grass fed lamb & native beef farmed locally in the Surrey Hills. Our Dorking family-run farm connects people to the countryside with great tasting...




					www.hill-house-farm.com


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Home - Etherley Farm
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That looks like an idea for Christmas - thanks!


----------



## JimW (Nov 8, 2021)

I buy my tofu from a bloke who makes it at home then sells it off the back of a flatbed he drives round these couple of villages, cheap and actually tasty on its own, sometimes so fresh it's still warm.
Realise theres little chance of that in the UK but do think people in West who moan about it are like people here who think our bread is shit because they once had a slice of sweet wonderloaf.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> No, but the food I was _specifically referencing_ _in the post you originally responded to_ is indeed horrendously artificial and processed.


Which vegan foods have an environmentally worse impact than, say, beef?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

JimW said:


> I buy my tofu from a bloke who makes it at home then sells it off the back of a flatbed he drives round these couple of villages, cheap and actually tasty on its own, sometimes *so fresh it's still warm.*
> Realise theres little chance of that in the UK but do think people in West who moan about it are like people here who think our bread is shit because they once had a slice of sweet wonderloaf.


Freshly milked from the bean. 
I've given up on cooking tofu myself.  The little Korean place down the road knows how to do it properly, though.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

The growth of vegetarianism/veganism, particularly among the young, is a really gladdening sight. 



> *79 million*
> _The estimated number of vegans in the world_
> 
> *500,000*
> ...











						From fringe to mainstream: how millions got a taste for going vegan
					

First, it was a fad. Now, as meat consumption falls, it’s part of everyday life … the unstoppable rise of the plant-based diet




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

JimW said:


> I buy my tofu from a bloke who makes it at home then sells it off the back of a flatbed he drives round these couple of villages, cheap and actually tasty on its own, sometimes so fresh it's still warm.
> Realise theres little chance of that in the UK but do think people in West who moan about it are like people here who think our bread is shit because they once had a slice of sweet wonderloaf.


No one was moaning about tofu. I simply said it's a bit lacking in flavour. I don't think it a suitable replacement for meat, but I'm happy to try it and have it now and again.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> The growth of vegetarianism/veganism, particularly among the young, is a really gladdening sight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And how many people have kept at it compared with those that tried it and didn't


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> What you think is totally irrelevant, as there's millions of people enjoying healthy diets that involve no animal products at all.


Except for all the people who have come off vegan diets, including at the advice of their doctor, because it wasn't healthy for them to continue.

Again, I don't care if people eat vegan. That's their choice. My entire point is that to make that the only option for all people everywhere is not healthy because I don't believe everyone can live that way.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> And how many people have kept at it compared with those that tried it and didn't


What the fuck are you on about now? Exactly what is your point?


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Except for all the people who have come off vegan diets, including at the advice of their doctor, because it wasn't healthy for them to continue.


Exactly many people is that then out of, say, the UK population of 67 million? What's your sources?  Can you post them here now please? 

And, of course, there's plenty of examples of doctors telling patients to cut back on red meat. In fact it's NHS policy to tell heavy meat eaters to cut back on their intake. 









						Red meat and bowel cancer risk
					

Find out how you can reduce your risk of getting bowel cancer by eating less red and processed meat.




					www.nhs.uk
				






> Even reducing meat intake has a protective effect. Research shows that people who eat red meat are at an *increased risk of death from heart disease, stroke or diabetes*. Processed meats also increase the risk of death from these diseases. And what you don't eat can also harm your health.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Enough chewing the fat, UK politicians: we must stop eating so much red meat | Marco Springmann
					

British diets are as bad as ever, so policymakers must find ways to reduce harm to our health and the planet, says researcher Marco Springmann




					www.theguardian.com
				




Etc etc


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> And how many people have kept at it compared with those that tried it and didn't


One in a hundred who switch to a vegan diet manage to stick with it for a full year. 








						Most people who try a vegan diet don't keep it up for long, a new survey suggests
					

Survey suggests the vast majority of people who try plant-based diet give up within a few days to a few weeks




					inews.co.uk


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> What the fuck are you on about now? Exactly what is your point?


I can't imagine how those words confused you. To be (even) clear(er) I'm asking the relevance of those statistics since they don't speak to how many people who tried Veganuary are still vegans. If people only did it because it's new year and they perhaps felt guilty about seasonal over indulgence then it's not rreally the victory you think it is, no?


editor said:


> Exactly many people is that then out of, say, the UK population of 67 million? What's your sources?  Can you post them here now please?











						62% of Veganuary Participants Have Stayed Vegan, Campaign Survey Finds
					

In January, a record-breaking 168,500 people registered to take part in the Veganuary challenge, now in its fourth year. The organization has since conducted a survey to find out how those participants are getting on after their month of eating a vegan diet. The results of the survey found that...




					www.livekindly.co
				




A few years old but I suspect trends are the same. That's 62% after a few months. How about years?



editor said:


> And, of course, there's plenty of examples of doctors telling patients to cut back on red meat. In fact it's NHS policy to tell heavy meat eaters to cut back on their intake.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you describe the mechanism by which red meat causes bowel cancer?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> One in a hundred who switch to a vegan diet manage to stick with it for a full year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that may just be the food component, since veganism isn't just about food


----------



## JimW (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Freshly milked from the bean.
> I've given up on cooking tofu myself.  The little Korean place down the road knows how to do it properly, though.


Bit like cheese making as I recall, and they skim the skin off the top for a different product you can by dried sheets of for noodles, hotpots and some starter type dishes.
I can only cook the block stuff about three ways myself but got the hang of it mainly by now, but things like the right sort of cooking wine help - glitch hiker wasn't having a go so much as saying you can't really expect the best of it so far from home and back in UK I went for more local bean type foods like pease puddings and butterbeans.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> 62% of Veganuary Participants Have Stayed Vegan, Campaign Survey Finds
> 
> 
> In January, a record-breaking 168,500 people registered to take part in the Veganuary challenge, now in its fourth year. The organization has since conducted a survey to find out how those participants are getting on after their month of eating a vegan diet. The results of the survey found that...
> ...


I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here but it's probably yet more whataboutery. Veganism is on the rise. It's as simple as that. 
And that old article you just quoted proves that!



glitch hiker said:


> Can you describe the mechanism by which red meat causes bowel cancer?



Oh wait. So now the NHS is wrong?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> One in a hundred who switch to a vegan diet manage to stick with it for a full year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, but Veganuary, innit.  A bit of a hair-shirting water-cooling talking point after the indulgences of Christmas.  
Bit like saying none of the Movember people still have moustaches by Christmas.

And what sort of Master Race would they be if any Tom, Dick or Harriet could saunter through the first hazing?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> No, but the food I was _specifically referencing_ _in the post you originally responded to_ is indeed horrendously artificial and processed.



Indeed.

This little exchange is going to be worth watching.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Yeah, but Veganuary, innit.  A bit of a hair-shirting water-cooling talking point after the indulgences of Christmas.
> Bit like saying none of the Movember people still have moustaches by Christmas.


Point is that although may people may leave strict vegan diets behind them, they're likely to now substitute some meat dishes for vegan/veggie meals, which is excellent for the environment.

And that's why the supermarkets now have shitloads of vegan offerings. It's a win all round.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> You sounding more and more like an antivaxxer here


You're the one more like an anti-vaxxer. You believe what you want to believe and refuse point blank to even look at evidence to the contrary even when people have experienced something first hand either that or you move the goal posts or evade questions and move on to some equally irrelevant point.


editor said:


> But please explain what research you did before 'questioning' whether that picture was 'staged' or not.


All I did was simply ask if they were farrowing crates.

How are you supposed to research if something is staged? If someone wanted to stage it they wouldn't be boasting about it to be allow someone to research it.

FYI I don't agree with intensive farming, something I have repeatedly stated on threads like this and have even backed you up when you have flagged up genuine cases of cruelty.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> … and that's why the supermarkets now have shitloads of vegan offerings. It's a win all round.



The supermarkets have had grains, pulses, nuts, fruits, herbs, spices and various vegetables for a pretty long time.

The new additions seem to be ultra-processed products made from cheap ingredients at a very high mark-up, hence the enthusiasm from our friendly neighbourhood capitalists.

Not that they’re all bad - I like a Beyond burger and a couple of other things, but the general movement looks to be in the direction of replacing one kind of poor diet with a more profitable and marketable version.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

JimW said:


> Bit like cheese making as I recall, and they skim the skin off the top for a different product you can by dried sheets of for noodles, hotpots and some starter type dishes.
> I can only cook the block stuff about three ways myself but got the hang of it mainly by now, but things like the right sort of cooking wine help - glitch hiker wasn't having a go so much as saying you can't really expect the best of it so far from home and back in UK I went for more local bean type foods like pease puddings and butterbeans.


I wanted to try fermented tofu but that is very hard to find. Tesco has it on their website, but not locally. It's also more expensive which is unfortunate. As are many non meat options it seems. Things I guess that come from abroad.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here but it's probably yet more whataboutery. Veganism is on the rise. It's as simple as that.
> And that old article you just quoted proves that!


I didn't say it wasn't on the rise. I simply wanted to know if it was quite the rise you think it is when significant percentages don't stick with it. Perhaps because it's too austere. What do you say to those people? Just dismiss them as lazy I guess. 


editor said:


> Oh wait. So now the NHS is wrong?


Classic appeal to authority


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> The new additions seem to be ultra-processed products made from cheap ingredients at a very high mark-up, hence the enthusiasm from our friendly neighbourhood capitalists.



And of course, as already pointed out, there's no way that some of that ultra-processed vegan stuff is going to be better for the environment than (for example) pork from an organically farmed pig. No amount of silly whataboutery is going to change that.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> And of course, as already pointed out, there's no way that some of that ultra-processed vegan stuff is going to be better for the environment than (for example) pork from an organically farmed pig. No amount of silly whataboutery is going to change that.



I’m not sure, these things can be difficult to count and there is definitely some funny accounting going into some of the numbers I have seen.  

One estimate of beef’s impact that I saw was counting rainwater falling on the field.  As if that would all be collected and become part of the human water supply otherwise.

I expect there is a lot of headroom for messing about with soy protein, palm oil and fossil fuel derived chems before you hit the equivalent of beef tbf.

With your organically-farmed pig, a lot might depend on what it is eating.


----------



## JimW (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> I’m not sure, these things can be difficult to count and there is definitely some funny accounting going into some of the numbers
> I have seen.
> One estimate of beef’s impact that I saw was counting rainwater falling on the field.  As if that would all be collected and become part of the human water supply otherwise.
> 
> With your organically-farmed pig, a lot might depend on what it is eating.


The sty was also the toilet in those mountain farms I worked with, but then they put unaged night soil on the veg too so couldn't feel too smug.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Classic appeal to authority



Please, feel free to expand on why the NHS are wrong.

And then you can have a read of this



> In 2011 a report from the Continuous Update Project was published. It found *strong evidence that eating red meat or processed meat increases the risk of bowel cancer.* The analysis of eight cohort studies showed a 17 per cent increased risk per 100g red meat per day (RR: 1.17 (1.05-1.31)). The analysis of nine cohort studies found strong evidence that eating processed meat increases the risk of bowel cancer by 18 per cent per 50g processed meat per day (RR 1.18 (1.10-1.28)). For both analyses the results of the individual studies were generally consistent – adding strength to the association.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Although the results vary, studies from around the world have suggested that a *high consumption of meat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer*. In some studies, fresh meat appears culpable; in others, it's processed, cured, or salted meat — but in all cases the worry is confined to red meat, not chicken.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and the second in women worldwide. More than half of cases occur in more developed countries. The consumption of red meat (beef, pork, lamb, veal, mutton) is high in developed countries and accumulated evidence until today *demonstrated a convincing association between the intake of red meat and especially processed meat and CRC risk.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> I’m not sure, these things can be difficult to count and there is definitely some funny accounting going into some of the numbers
> I have seen.
> One estimate of beef’s impact that I saw was counting rainwater falling on the field.  As if that would all be collected and become part of the human water supply otherwise.
> 
> With your organically-farmed pig, a lot might depend on what it is eating.


Some of the figures I've seen are totally contradictory. Some say beef is 3x worse than pork for CO2 emissions, while others say pork is slightly worse than beef. 
It's hard to know which to believe but it's easy to know which sources not to believe.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> The supermarkets have had grains, pulses, nuts, fruits, herbs, spices and various vegetables for a pretty long time.


Er, yes. But they have not had a large range of vegan foods until recently and not all of that is 'ultra-processed,' so I'm at a loss what your point is here.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> I’m not sure, these things can be difficult to count and there is definitely some funny accounting going into some of the numbers
> I have seen.
> One estimate of beef’s impact that I saw was counting rainwater falling on the field.  As if that would all be collected and become part of the human water supply otherwise.
> 
> With your organically-farmed pig, a lot might depend on what it is eating.



Of course. But the fact remains that there are more and less environmentally sound ways of producing both meat and vegan food. There will be a crossover point at which the food from a well reared local pig is less damaging to the environment than ultra-processed vegan schiz that's been flown around the world. And there'll be degrees in between. Anyone who doesn't get that is a fucking idiot.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Er, yes. But they have not had a large range of vegan foods until recently and not all of that is 'ultra-processed,' so I'm at a loss what your point is here.



I thought I had just reeled off a range of the vegan foods available.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> And then you can have a read of this


Again: can you explain the causal mechanism?


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> I thought I had just reeled off a range of the vegan foods available.


Oh you're playing pedantic silly buggers. OK, I'll try again.

Supermarkets have not had a large range of foodstuffs labelled as "vegan foods" until very recently, and not all of that is 'ultra-processed.'


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Again: can you explain the causal mechanism?


I'm not a scientist so why don't you read up on those studies and find out for yourself? There's plenty of data there.
Or are you now to assert that both the NHS and Harvard have in fact got it all wrong? In which case, let's see your workings.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Oh you're playing pedantic silly buggers.



Brilliant!


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Brilliant!


Oh you're back to your usual pathetic trolling. Time to stick you on ignore again for a while. Bye.


----------



## Chilli.s (Nov 8, 2021)

JimW said:


> I buy my tofu from a bloke who makes it at home then sells it off the back of a flatbed he drives round these couple of villages, cheap and actually tasty on its own, sometimes so fresh it's still warm.
> Realise theres little chance of that in the UK but do think people in West who moan about it are like people here who think our bread is shit because they once had a slice of sweet wonderloaf.


You have inspired me to watch this



All I need is the beans and a straining cloth and I'm going to make some


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Oh you're back to your usual pathetic trolling. Time to stick you on ignore again for a while. Bye.



I still have you on ignore - thought you were going to be less of a dick when you decided to break the mutual ignore pact.  
I really should avoid clicking on "show ignored content". 

Everyone here but you understands the point I was making.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> I'm not a scientist so why don't you read up on those studies and find out for yourself? There's plenty of data there.
> Or are you now to assert that both the NHS and Harvard have in fact got it all wrong? In which case, let's see your workings.


This is not how science works. You're just arguing fallaciously. Yours is the burden of proof. Are you claiming red meat is causal? If so, please tell me the mechanism. I'm not doing your reading for you since, as they are your links, you'll know where to point me.

It's not the NHS responsible for the claim either, iirc. It's the 'EAT Lancet' people.

This is a good analysis: WHO Says Meat Causes Cancer? - Diagnosis Diet for the record she is more pro meat than I.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> This is not how science works. You're just arguing fallaciously. Yours is the burden of proof. Are you claiming red meat is causal? If so, please tell me the mechanism. I'm not doing your reading for you since, as they are your links, you'll know where to point me.
> 
> It's not the NHS responsible for the claim either, iirc. It's the 'EAT Lancet' people.
> 
> This is a good analysis: WHO Says Meat Causes Cancer? - Diagnosis Diet for the record she is more pro meat than I.



Just to be totally clear - it is with _unprocessed_ red meat that the evidence is muddy.
It's more clear with processed meats.  Unfortunately bacon is really not good.* 

* - unless you compare it to a longer life, but with no bacon


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Of course. But the fact remains that there are more and less environmentally sound ways of producing both meat and vegan food. There will be a crossover point at which the food from a well reared local pig is less damaging to the environment than ultra-processed vegan schiz that's been flown around the world. And there'll be degrees in between. Anyone who doesn't get that is a fucking idiot.


Well exactly

For example, the National Trust keep a small herd of bullocks on Dukes Warren on Leith Hill, because this is a sustainable way of preventing trees from supplanting the heathland. (The heathland, in turn, being vital habitat for red-listed ground nesting birds like nightjars).  Once a year, the herd is slaughtered and the meat sold to local residents and butchers. To reiterate, the meat is a side-product of an ecological practice aimed at maintaining vital habitat.

The idea that a meat-substitute burger comprising Christ-knows what chemicals that’s been put through a factory process and involves packaging and warehousing that ships it around the globe is somehow _less ecologically harmful_ than meat from that cattle?  I don’t even know where to start with that.

Can the world eat meat reared in that way?  Probably not, no. So what?  I’m not trying to say what the world should do. The point is simply that things are more complicated than just “all meat destroys the planet and vegetarian food is necessarily superior as an axiomatic principle”


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> This is not how science works. You're just arguing fallaciously. Yours is the burden of proof. Are you claiming red meat is causal? If so, please tell me the mechanism. I'm not doing your reading for you since, as they are your links, you'll know where to point me.
> 
> It's not the NHS responsible for the claim either, iirc. It's the 'EAT Lancet' people.
> 
> This is a good analysis: WHO Says Meat Causes Cancer? - Diagnosis Diet for the record she is more pro meat than I.


Oh for fuck's sake. You're ignoring the advice of the NHS and studies by Harvard in preference for a personal website promoting a faddy diet from someone with absolutely zero relevant qualifications. 



> I am a Harvard-trained, board-certified psychiatrist specializing in nutritional and metabolic psychiatry.



You've gone beyond a joke.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Just to be totally clear - it is with _unprocessed_ red meat that the evidence is muddy.
> It's more clear with processed meats.  Unfortunately bacon is really not good.*
> 
> * - unless you compare it to a longer life, but with no bacon


Well I mean, I can live without _bacon_ or _pepperami! Or anything else I can italicise_


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 8, 2021)

editor said:


> Oh for fuck's sake. You're ignoring the advice of the NHS and studies by Harvard in preference for a personal website promoting a faddy diet from someone with absolutely zero relevant qualifications.
> 
> 
> 
> You've gone beyond a joke.


Correct. I am ignoring the advice of the NHS in this particular instance. OTOH you are doing nothing but arguing fallacies. I've twice asked you the causal factor, but you can't explain it. 

You aren't addressing anything, don't understand what you're saying, all while promoting a faddy diet.

I don't think there's anything more to listen to from you. Another go at explaining the causal factor...?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Correct. I am ignoring the advice of the NHS in this particular instance. OTOH you are doing nothing but arguing fallacies. I've twice asked you the causal factor, but you can't explain it.
> 
> You aren't addressing anything, don't understand what you're saying, all while promoting a faddy diet.
> 
> I don't think there's anything more to listen to from you. Another go at explaining the causal factor...?



There's a potential risk from Maillard reaction products.

(just trying to help editor out a bit so we can get to the next funny...)


----------



## xenon (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Just to be totally clear - it is with _unprocessed_ red meat that the evidence is muddy.
> It's more clear with processed meats.  Unfortunately bacon is really not good.*
> 
> * - unless you compare it to a longer life, but with no bacon



When I buy bacon to cook at home, I get that nitrate free Finnebroke stuff. IIRC it's the curing and colourisation of regular bacon that is problematic.

not that I eat a whole lot of bacon. Once, twice a month maybe. not personly arguing against a reduction in in particular of beef and red meat.

I actually avoided having steak at a pub yesterday as a conscious thing to eat less beef...  OK well I had fish and chips instead. The 3 bbean chili or helloumis and chips didn't appeal so much.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)

xenon said:


> When I buy bacon to cook at home, I get that nitrate free Finnebroke stuff. IIRC it's the curing and colourisation of regular bacon that is problematic.
> 
> not that I eat a whole lot of bacon. Once, twice a month maybe. not personly arguing against a reduction in in particular of beef and red meat.
> 
> I actually avoided having steak at a pub yesterday as a conscious thing to eat less beef...  OK well I had fish and chips instead. The 3 bbean chili or helloumis and chips didn't appeal so much.



Is it much different to regular bacon?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Of course. But the fact remains that there are more and less environmentally sound ways of producing both meat and vegan food. There will be a crossover point at which the food from a well reared local pig is less damaging to the environment than ultra-processed vegan schiz that's been flown around the world. And there'll be degrees in between. Anyone who doesn't get that is a fucking idiot.


So, vast international, interlinked, profit driven, food supply chains are complicated? 

Blimey, who knew.


----------



## xenon (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> Is it much different to regular bacon?



It is quite different TBH. I don't know of other similar nitrate free brands. this one the rashers are thinner and have an almost sweeter taste. Certainly pleasant enough but as I say, not like regular bacon... Mind you if I haven't got that I have still occasionly bought unsmoked back from the local butcher, so may be an unfair comparison. The regular supermarket stuff is rubbish.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Can the world eat meat reared in that way?  Probably not, no. So what?  I’m not trying to say what the world should do. The point is simply that things are more complicated than just “all meat destroys the planet and vegetarian food is necessarily superior as an axiomatic principle”



Spot on. LBJ used to argue something very similar but obviously it just falls on dead ears around here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Spot on. LBJ used to argue something very similar but obviously it just falls on dead ears around here.


Many have argued the same point, myself included. It just results in more graphs and  arm flailing cries of cow rape.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 8, 2021)

This all brings us back to shit farms.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2021)




----------



## WouldBe (Nov 8, 2021)

8ball said:


> View attachment 296001


Good source of fertilizer.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2021)

This made me lol:









						Remainers go plant-based and Leavers stick with meat as food becomes the latest culture war
					

Henry Dimbleby urged Britons to cut meat intake to save the planet - but he's mostly swaying Labour voters so far, a poll shows




					inews.co.uk


----------



## Serene (Nov 9, 2021)




----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2021)

Serene said:


>




Doesn't seem to work when I look at it.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 9, 2021)

Morrisons are doing a trial feeding seaweed supplements to cattle that can cut methane production by up to 80%.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Morrisons are doing a trial feeding seaweed supplements to cattle that can cut methane production by up to 80%.



Was reading about seaweed - seems a lot can be farmed sustainably and some varieties have B12 in them, so also good for feeding humans directly (well, good anyway, but makes a nice vegan B12 source too).
Then again, I'm Welsh and love a bit of laverbread.  Some of the Saesneg can be a bit weird about it.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Morrisons are doing a trial feeding seaweed supplements to cattle that can cut methane production by up to 80%.


link?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2021)

ddraig said:


> link?



Look, I know you must be lacking in energy a bit, but I just Googled "Morrisons seaweed trial cows" and it came right up.
I didn't even spell it right.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 9, 2021)

ddraig said:


> link?


Ceefax


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2021)

8ball said:


> Look, I know you must be lacking in energy a bit ...


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


>




Was naughty, but I've been having a vegan day* so am feeling the smugness.
* - aside from milk in tea


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 9, 2021)

8ball said:


> Was naughty, but I've been having a vegan day* so am feeling the smugness.
> * - aside from milk in tea


Is taking the piss vegan?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2021)

8ball said:


> I've been having a vegan day ...



You've been telling everyone you meet that they shouldn't eat meat?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2021)

8ball said:


> Look, I know you must be lacking in energy a bit, but I just Googled "Morrisons seaweed trial cows" and it came right up.
> I didn't even spell it right.


Why would I be lacking energy? You're the fuckIng troll not thIs thread btw, dIck


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You've been telling everyone you meet that they shouldn't eat meat?



That would be with a capital 'V'.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 9, 2021)

8ball said:


> I've been having a vegan day


Took you long enough to tell us


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 10, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Morrisons are doing a trial feeding seaweed supplements to cattle that can cut methane production by up to 80%.


That's great, but most of agricultural emissions of methane come from rice paddies.....


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> That's great, but most of agricultural emissions of methane come from rice paddies.....


Whataboutery = inadmissible.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> That's great, but most of agricultural emissions of methane come from rice paddies.....


I know but every little helps.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> I know but every little helps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> That's great, but most of agricultural emissions of methane come from rice paddies.....


Er cows are the #1 agricultural source of methane


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> That's great, but most of agricultural emissions of methane come from rice paddies.....



That may be true in terms of total methane emissions, but when you consider methane emissions per kilo of food product, beef is in a league of its own:


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 10, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> That may be true in terms of total methane emissions,


It's total amount of shit we dump in the atmosphere that counts though.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> It's total amount of shit we dump in the atmosphere that counts though.



True, though you lose a lot more of the food supply from, say, cutting rice production in half than by cutting beef production by three quarters.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 10, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> It's total amount of shit we dump in the atmosphere that counts though.


Also, the methane cycle is a thing that has existed since ruminants. The global cattle herd is falling in number and has been for some time, half the world relies on rice for basic nutrition.

Perhaps we ought to be looking at all of the other atmospheric sources of methane that are not natural?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 10, 2021)

8ball said:


> True, though you lose a lot more of the food supply from, say, cutting rice production in half than by cutting beef production by three quarters.


You won't lose any by cutting beef production if other ruminants then take up that space within the environment, wild or farmed. 

You'd have to also have a cull of wild ruminants that encroached on those spaces (in the UK that would probably be deer)


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> You won't lose any by cutting beef production if other ruminants then take up that space within the environment, wild or farmed.
> 
> You'd have to also have a cull of wild ruminants that encroached on those spaces (in the UK that would probably be deer)



I don’t think the massive intensive feedlots in the States and Brazil would spontaneously fill up with a similar density of ruminants.  Especially the rainforest areas.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 10, 2021)

8ball said:


> I don’t think the massive intensive feedlots in the States and Brazil would spontaneously fill up with a similar density of ruminants.  Especially the rainforest areas.


Animals are only finished in feedlots - ranched beef tends to be suckler based, so will be at grass for a lot of it's life. 

But equally, the land area used to support them in terms of grass for hay/silage etc (I know a finishers diet is also made up of grains) should also not support ruminants to make the reduction meaningful


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> View attachment 296193


Or possibly Moorisons.


----------



## Maggot (Nov 10, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Can the world eat meat reared in that way?  Probably not, no. So what?  I’m not trying to say what the world should do. The point is simply that things are more complicated than just “all meat destroys the planet and vegetarian food is necessarily superior as an axiomatic principle”


No one believes that. Of course a minority of meat production is less harmful than some vegan/vegetarian foods. The point is that the vast majority of greenhouse gases in food production come from meat and dairy.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

8ball said:


> Doesn't seem to work when I look at it.



The cow seems to be inhaling the engine exhaust.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Also, the methane cycle is a thing that has existed since ruminants. The global cattle herd is falling in number and has been for some time, half the world relies on rice for basic nutrition.
> 
> Perhaps we ought to be looking at all of the other atmospheric sources of methane that are not natural?


yeh. you're not really supporting your point about rice being the greatest agricultural source of methane. some figures or references would be nice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2021)

incidentally, has anyone mentioned how all the things currently made from cows would in a meat-free future be produced? apart from leather and gelatin, things like car bodies apparently have a glue made from beef, asphalt, soap and crayons?


			https://www.extension.iastate.edu/sites/www.extension.iastate.edu/files/allamakee/Lesson1Activity4Dairy_By_Products.pdf


----------



## Sue (Nov 10, 2021)

(((crayons)))


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> incidentally, has anyone mentioned how all the things currently made from cows would in a meat-free future be produced? apart from leather and gelatin, things like car bodies apparently have a glue made from beef, asphalt, soap and crayons?
> 
> 
> https://www.extension.iastate.edu/sites/www.extension.iastate.edu/files/allamakee/Lesson1Activity4Dairy_By_Products.pdf



I expect alternatives for most of them wouldn't be a problem.  Was interested to see the list of pharmaceutical products, though (which I'm sure come from a tiny proportion of the cows used for meat tbf).


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 10, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> incidentally, has anyone mentioned how all the things currently made from cows would in a meat-free future be produced? apart from leather and gelatin, things like car bodies apparently have a glue made from beef, asphalt, soap and crayons?
> 
> 
> https://www.extension.iastate.edu/sites/www.extension.iastate.edu/files/allamakee/Lesson1Activity4Dairy_By_Products.pdf


Never mind those things - how would crops be grown in a livestock free world, especially with fossil fuel sources getting too expensive? What use will we have for all the parts of plants we don't eat that we've invested resources in to grow (wheat not making the grade for milling, straw, spent brewers grains, beet pulp after sugar is made etc etc)? What happens to all the land unsuitable for cropping? How will the population cope with the massive reduction in food and the price increases that will come along with it?

This is why it's not very constructive to talk about "animals agriculture" and "cropping".


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Never mind those things - how would crops be grown in a livestock free world, especially with fossil fuel sources getting too expensive? What use will we have for all the parts of plants we don't eat that we've invested resources in to grow (wheat not making the grade for milling, straw, spent brewers grains, beet pulp after sugar is made etc etc)? What happens to all the land unsuitable for cropping? How will the population cope with the massive reduction in food and the price increases that will come along with it?
> 
> This is why it's not very constructive to talk about "animals agriculture" and "cropping".


Pure whataboutery. Meat bad!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Never mind those things - how would crops be grown in a livestock free world, especially with fossil fuel sources getting too expensive? What use will we have for all the parts of plants we don't eat that we've invested resources in to grow (wheat not making the grade for milling, straw, spent brewers grains, beet pulp after sugar is made etc etc)? What happens to all the land unsuitable for cropping? How will the population cope with the massive reduction in food and the price increases that will come along with it?
> 
> This is why it's not very constructive to talk about "animals agriculture" and "cropping".


I haven't mentioned either animals agriculture or cropping


----------



## butcher (Nov 10, 2021)

Well sourced, ethically farmed meat is great, over population is the worlds biggest problem, many vegans are insufferable.  That's me done.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2021)

butcher said:


> Well sourced, ethically farmed meat....


...takes up a microscopically small amount of the meat that is produced, so it's pretty much pointless bringing it up in a discussion about the very real damage caused by the meat industry.

Although not every one may agree that there's much ethics in slaughtering animals, anyway.









						There's no such thing as humane meat or eggs. Stop kidding yourself
					

Many people think they consume humane meat, but only a tiny fraction actually do. The majority of consumers are totally wrong about what they eat




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Is There Really Such A Thing As 'Ethical' Meat?
					

A recent report claimed 'ethical beef' is becoming increasingly popular?-?but?is?animal?agriculture?ever?humane?




					plantbasednews.org


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 11, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> incidentally, has anyone mentioned how all the things currently made from cows would in a meat-free future be produced? apart from leather and gelatin, things like car bodies apparently have a glue made from beef, asphalt, soap and crayons?
> 
> 
> https://www.extension.iastate.edu/sites/www.extension.iastate.edu/files/allamakee/Lesson1Activity4Dairy_By_Products.pdf


and as i said earlier...a large off shoot of the meat industry is pet food....dogs would most likely be ok but cats are obligate carnivores....are people gonna advocate large scale euthanasia for pets ?


----------



## kenny g (Nov 11, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> and as i said earlier...a large off shoot of the meat industry is pet food....dogs would most likely be ok but cats are obligate carnivores....are people gonna advocate large scale euthanasia for pets ?


Mass spaying would solve the issue in ten years or so and make a lot of birds happy.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> ...takes up a microscopically small amount of the meat that is produced, so it's pretty much pointless bringing it up in a discussion about the very real damage caused by the meat industry.
> 
> Although not every one may agree that there's much ethics in slaughtering animals, anyway.
> 
> ...


a vegan source is hardly objective on the ethical aspect.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> a vegan source is hardly objective on the ethical aspect.



A vegan _opinion piece,_ at that.

What so many vegheads misunderstand is that meat eaters _reject_ their moral stanpoint on the killing of animals and that most of us are perfectly ok with it. We have many views of what are and aren't acceptable farming practices. 

Many vegetarians and vegans accepts this and just get on with things. Just not the loudest ones!


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 11, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> A vegan _opinion piece,_ at that.
> 
> What so many vegheads misunderstand is that meat eaters _reject_ their moral stanpoint on the killing of animals and that most of us are perfectly ok with it. We have many views of what are and aren't acceptable farming practices.
> 
> Many vegetarians and vegans accepts this and just get on with things. Just not the loudest ones!


I wouldn't say we 'accept' it, I'd say we just say nothing in the same way most people say nothing about dogs shitting in the street or people speeding or littering. It's just not worth the argument most of the time. But silence doesn't imply consent / acceptance, and shouldn't be taken to.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> I wouldn't say we 'accept' it, I'd say we just say nothing in the same way most people say nothing about dogs shitting in the street or people speeding or littering. It's just not worth the argument most of the time. But silence doesn't imply consent / acceptance, and shouldn't be taken to.


I simply don't grant some animals, given that we don't eat from the entire smorgasboard of animal life on earth, exemption from being eaten. Within that I think we should treat them well. But nuance is often the first casualty of a conversation with a vegan. For example, a high profile clown like Earthling Ed. Flying around the world and delivering lectures to kids on how cows will fart the world to apocalypse


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 11, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> I wouldn't say we 'accept' it, I'd say we just say nothing in the same way most people say nothing about dogs shitting in the street or people speeding or littering. It's just not worth the argument most of the time. But silence doesn't imply consent / acceptance, and shouldn't be taken to.



You have to accept that other people's opinions and moral views differ to yours. The alternative is to shout, scream, and stamp your feet about it on internet bulletin boards like frothing loons, and that just entrenches opinions.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 11, 2021)

Well, there's nothing to be gained by taking _every_ opportunity to criticise _every_thing in the world we disagree with or find offensive. It's a question of picking battles - but not arguing with someone doesn't imply any degree of acceptance of their actions. Tolerance is how I'd characterise it, not so much acceptance.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Well, there's nothing to be gained by taking _every_ opportunity to criticise _every_thing in the world we disagree with or find offensive. It's a question of picking battles - but not arguing with someone doesn't imply any degree of acceptance of their actions. Tolerance is how I'd characterise it, not so much acceptance.


In what way to we not accept our actions?
I've been in abattoirs, I still eat meat.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 11, 2021)

butcher said:


> Well sourced, ethically farmed meat is great, over population is the worlds biggest problem, many vegans are insufferable.  That's me done.


are you suggesting we should eat the Vegans? (but only if they are ethically farmed?)


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> In what way to we not accept our actions?
> I've been in abattoirs, I still eat meat.


What percentage of meat eaters would you guess have visited abattoirs?

Personally, I think schoolkids should be invited/encouraged to see the vile, cruel industry that gets the meat/dairy/eggs to their tables real close up. Pretty sure there'd be a lot more vegans/veggies as a result.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> In what way to we not accept our actions?
> I've been in abattoirs, I still eat meat.


I wonder how many would stop eating meat if they did visit an abattoir. I think a few might, for a week or so, but I doubt many would give a sufficient fuck.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 11, 2021)

DaphneM said:


> are you suggesting we should eat the Vegans? (but only if they are ethically farmed?)



Generally speaking (there are exceptions) in western culture, we tend only to eat herbivorous mamals, so vegans would seem to be an ideal addition to a carnist diet. Then there's the population reduction angle to consider ...


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 11, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Generally speaking (there are exceptions) in western culture, we tend only to eat herbivorous mamals, so vegans would seem to be an ideal addition to a carnist diet. Then there's the population reduction angle to consider ...


2 birds, 1 stone. Everyone's a winner!


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

DaphneM said:


> 2 birds, 1 stone. Everyone's a winner!



Aside from the fact that you'd get more meat from a Hooters chicken wing...


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2021)

DaphneM said:


> 2 birds, 1 stone. Everyone's a winner!


More hilarious vegan hate!


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2021)

What a fucking grim industry it is, and yet it's one that some people here want to see carrying on forever. 









						Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker
					

A former abattoir worker describes her job and the effect it had on her mental health.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 11, 2021)

8ball said:


> Aside from the fact that you'd get more meat from a Hooters chicken wing...



Braised Jeff Robinson with ginger and spring onions might be ok, tbf.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> In what way to we not accept our actions?
> I've been in abattoirs, I still eat meat.


How people rationalise eating meat wasn't my point, I meant that meat eating and all its corrolaries are more tolerated than 'accepted'. In the same way as a Conservative government and those who voted for it may be tolerated rather than accepted.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Braised Jeff Robinson with ginger and spring onions might be ok, tbf.


I don't think it'd agree with me.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> What a fucking grim industry it is, and yet it's one that some people here want to see carrying on forever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I posted that article on another thread. The response of the animal abuse fan club that pollute these discussions was to mock the workers quoted in the article, saying things to the effect of 'what did they expect?' and 'they should just get a job elsewhere'. One of these people is a self-styled socialist! Many meat-eaters grapple and wrestle with the ethical implications of the meat industry, but not the dipshit trolls who comment here!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> What percentage of meat eaters would you guess have visited abattoirs?
> 
> Personally, I think schoolkids should be invited/encouraged to see the vile, cruel industry that gets the meat/dairy/eggs to their tables real close up. Pretty sure there'd be a lot more vegans/veggies as a result.



Then we could traipse them round a morgue to discourage car use.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Then we could traipse them round a morgue to discourage life.


CFY


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Then we could traipse them round a morgue to discourage car use.



And round a Quorn factory to round the day off.
<shudders>


----------



## JoeyBoy (Nov 11, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I wonder how many would stop eating meat if they did visit an abattoir. I think a few might, for a week or so, but I doubt many would give a sufficient fuck.


Used to work on a pig farm for a bit, we had the occasional tour as well, Don't think it ever put anyone off bacon. It certainly never put me off. Pigs are horrible fucking things, got a great deal of satisfaction knowing the fuckers were going to get eaten.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I posted that article on another thread. The response of the animal abuse fan club that pollute these discussions was to mock the workers quoted in the article, saying things to the effect of 'what did they expect?' and 'they should just get a job elsewhere'. One of these people is a self-styled socialist! Many meat-eaters grapple and wrestle with the ethical implications of the meat industry, but not the dipshit trolls who comment here!


I knew a vet who discovered he was allergic to animal blood. He left the profession, as it seemed like a good idea.
I also have a friend who was a boner (tee hee) for 30 years. He still eats meat, and doesn't have nightmares about screaming pigs.


----------



## Winot (Nov 11, 2021)

Haven’t read thread but one of the surprising things of the last few years is how little I’ve missed meat*. 

Daughters gave up meat for climate change reasons in 2019 and so we don’t eat it at home. Bar the occasional sausage. 

I have pointed out to them that cheese is worse than chicken but we are still holding out there. Have increased oat milk consumption though. 

(*I haven’t given up completely - just when cooking at home)


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Winot said:


> I have pointed out to them that cheese is worse than chicken but we are still holding out there.



Also apparently worse than pork, turkey and salmon.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> More hilarious vegan hate!


I eat lamb but I don't hate them, just think they're really tasty!


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 11, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I posted that article on another thread. The response of the animal abuse fan club that pollute these discussions was to mock the workers quoted in the article, saying things to the effect of 'what did they expect?' and 'they should just get a job elsewhere'. One of these people is a self-styled socialist! Many meat-eaters grapple and wrestle with the ethical implications of the meat industry, but not the dipshit trolls who comment here!


Tbf quite a few have wrestled with it on this and similar threads thread and similar looking at more ethical and environmentally friendly ways to eat (often less) meat  and usually got shit for it. They've been weeded out.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 11, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Many meat-eaters grapple and wrestle with the ethical implications of the meat industry


Clearly they don't or they would stop buying it, or at least move to 'ethically'-farmed meats. In which case it becomes a straight decision "Do you think animal welfare/rights is more important than the additional cost" It seems that most people are voting with their wallets and the vote is No.
Like all threads about meat eating this one (which was originally about its environmental impact) has degenerated into an argument about the rights and wrongs of it. Well that's a personal choice, you don't want to eat meat fine, no-one has the right to say otherwise but equally there is nothing wrong or immoral about eating it and other people are entitled to eat it. We're not predators nor herbivores we're scavengers that got smart and changed the rules to suit us, we've evolved to eat some meat.
There is some merit in the argument that people in the developed world eat too much meat to the point where our diets are unbalanced but that's a long way from the "Meat is Murder" argument which has long been settled.
If you want to deter other people from eating meat perhaps you should invest in the companies trying to make it synthetically.


JoeyBoy said:


> Used to work on a pig farm for a bit, we had the occasional tour as well, Don't think it ever put anyone off bacon. It certainly never put me off. Pigs are horrible fucking things, got a great deal of satisfaction knowing the fuckers were going to get eaten.


Funny this, My niece worked on a pig farm albeit an organic 'humane' one (you didn't say whether yours was an industrial one) when she was a teenager and she soon learned to hate them as well. The farmer told her he was sending a load to the abattoir, he was worried it might to upset her. Her answer was "Good can I get to pick which ones?"
I'm with Saul Goodman on this, taking schoolkids on a tour of abattoirs might make some of them think about turning vegan but it will only last until the next time their Mum fries the bacon.


----------



## Sue (Nov 11, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Clearly they don't or they would stop buying it, or at least move to 'ethically'-farmed meats. In which case it becomes a straight decision "Do you think animal welfare/rights is more important than the additional cost" It seems that most people are voting with their wallets and the vote is No.



I'm veggie and being honest, I really don't care about animals. I actually think if it's a straight decision between animal welfare/rights vs cost and people are more interested in the cost thing, eating pets makes a lot of sense -- they're already there and available so cost-wise that would work, no more expensive vet bills etc. 

I'm actually being completely serious btw -- I've genuinely never understood why eating one animal is seen as fine and eating another isn't. (Pigs fine, cats not fine, cows fine, dogs not fine, whatever.) 🤷‍♀️


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 11, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm veggie and being honest, I really don't care about animals. I actually think if it's a straight decision between animal welfare/rights vs cost and people are more interested in the cost thing, eating pets makes a lot of sense -- they're already there and available so cost-wise that would work, no more expensive vet bills etc.
> 
> I'm actually being completely serious btw -- I've genuinely never understood why eating one animal is seen as fine and eating another isn't. (Pigs fine, cats not fine, cows fine, dogs not fine, whatever.) 🤷‍♀️


There are plenty of places in the world where people eat cats and dogs as to why we (the UK) don't, I'm sure it's primarily cultural. However eating predators isn't very efficient,  Raising crops to feed sheep and pigs which are then fed to dogs or tigers so we can eat them is adding a lot of unnecessary time and effort into the cycle. More efficient to eat the pigs and sheep directly.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm veggie and being honest, I really don't care about animals. I actually think if it's a straight decision between animal welfare/rights vs cost and people are more interested in the cost thing, eating pets makes a lot of sense -- they're already there and available so cost-wise that would work, no more expensive vet bills etc.
> 
> I'm actually being completely serious btw -- I've genuinely never understood why eating one animal is seen as fine and eating another isn't. (Pigs fine, cats not fine, cows fine, dogs not fine, whatever.) 🤷‍♀️



And why stop there? Humans are also animals.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2021)

Threads like this make nihilistic misanthropy so much easier.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And why stop there? Humans are also animals.



Good point.  All the fuss about cannibalism always seemed a bit weird.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Threads like this make nihilistic misanthropy so much easier.



Good, it’s clearly a tough battle for you, what with all your empathy and that.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> What percentage of meat eaters would you guess have visited abattoirs?
> 
> Personally, I think schoolkids should be invited/encouraged to see the vile, cruel industry that gets the meat/dairy/eggs to their tables real close up. Pretty sure there'd be a lot more vegans/veggies as a result.


No idea.
I'm all for people going to abattoirs- they soon realise that they are nothing like the videos posted on the Internet by vegan type groups of slaughter.

I don't think I've seen a single one of those videos which is anything like I've experienced first hand in UK abattoirs.
I've been in very small, family run ones that supply their own butchery, I've been in huge ones and I've been in teaching abattoirs attatched to veterinary schools.
There used to be one at Laverstoke Park near Basingstoke which had a public gallery to which anyone could go, complete with Temple-Grandin handling system. Think its shut now, sadly.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I'm all for people going to abattoirs- they soon realise that they are nothing like the videos posted on the Internet by vegan type groups of slaughter.


I'd love to know how you can speak for all people going to abattoirs. Please feel free to elaborate on this.

Mind you, there is plenty of solid evidence of animal abuse, regardless of your irrelevant rose-tinted opinions.





__





						Countryfile host Tom Heap: 'schools should visit abattoirs as part of the national curriculum' | Radio Times
					

Heap says we should "at least install a webcam at every stage of production"



					www.radiotimes.com
				






> A spokesman for the British Meat Processors Association said that it would be difficult to accommodate more than a handful of child visitors to abattoirs each day. How curious – they manage to shove one billion farmed animals through their doors every year.











						Why school trips to abattoirs are essential
					

Countryfile presenter Tom Heap is right to call for school visits to slaughterhouses. It is time children learned the truth about food production




					www.theguardian.com
				




Oh and School trip made me a veggie for life | Brief letters


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> I'd love to know how you can speak for all people going to abattoirs. Please feel free to elaborate on this.
> 
> Mind you, there is plenty of solid evidence of animal abuse, regardless of your irrelevant rose-tinted opinions.
> 
> ...



The only thing I like about Funky_monks posts is how blatantly Stalinist they are in tone - "the slaughterhouses are glorious and loved by all the people. Any footage to the contrary is the work of counter-revolutionaries and fascist wreckers".


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

I see this has degraded into a thread about veganism, again. Quelle surprise!


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I see this has degraded into a thread about veganism, again. Quelle surprise!



Well, it is called "Bye bye MEAT!"...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

8ball said:


> Well, it is called "Bye bye MEAT!"...


Oh yeah. Then carry on frothing, vegans.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> I'd love to know how you can speak for all people going to abattoirs. Please feel free to elaborate on this.
> 
> Mind you, there is plenty of solid evidence of animal abuse, regardless of your irrelevant rose-tinted opinions.
> 
> ...


I said I'm _all for_ people visiting abattoirs.

Please at least read the first line of my post before you do your usual dump of guardian articles etc.

Your second article is bonkers, of course it would be difficult to accommodate more than a handful of children on a busy industrial shop floor, abattoir or otherwise.
Ever been in any kind of factory?


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I said I'm _all for_ people visiting abattoirs.
> 
> Please at least read the first line of my post before you do your usual dump of guardian articles etc.


And then you said: "they soon realise that they are nothing like the videos posted on the Internet by vegan type groups of slaughter."

Please try to remember what you've just posted.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

8ball said:


> Well, it is called "Bye bye MEAT!"...



But not dairy and eggs.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> And then you said: "they soon realise that they are nothing like the videos posted on the Internet by vegan type groups of slaughter."
> 
> Please try to remember what you've just posted.



That has been my experience, yes. So we both think people should see what actually happens. Good.

Also, I fail to understand why you think it's some kinda "gotcha" to post articles supporting my view that people should go and visit abattoirs.
I’ve never tried to deny that meat eating involves death, and I think it would do others some good to see it happening. Masses of food is wasted every day, and if people appreciated that things had to die for their dinner, they might waste less of it.

To add re your quote about kids: I don't think that places with masses of heavy machinery can accommodate a load of children, beef carcasses can weigh half a ton, I think it's bonkers than anyone thinks they should have large groups of kids around gantries etc. Smaller groups are clearly fine though, so what's the problem?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Also, I fail to understand why you think it's some kinda "gotcha" to post articles supporting my view that people should go and visit abattoirs.
> I’ve never tried to deny that meat eating involves death, and I think it would do others some good to see it happening. Masses of food is wasted every day, and if people appreciated that things had to die for their dinner, they might waste less of it.



Although on that last count, we always seem to focus on food, when assorted beings have to die for a wide variety of products,.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

8ball said:


> Although on that last count, we always seem to focus on food, when assorted beings have to die for a wide variety of products,.


Of course. But that's the nature of life on earth, isn't it? Things need to die to grow plants successfully (food or otherwise). Animals out compete each other for resources, which means some die. 

One of the reasons I can accept slaughter is that it's so much more pleasant than any other death nature seems to offer animals.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> One of the reasons I can accept slaughter is that it's so much more pleasant than any other death nature seems to offer animals.



Moreso than it offers humans in a lot of cases, but vegans would say this doesn't justify taking human life, so there may be a flaw there.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

8ball said:


> Moreso than it offers humans in a lot of cases, but vegans would say this doesn't justify taking human life, so there may be a flaw there.


Oh, I'm acutely aware of that. Humans often die horribly behind closed doors in "civillised" society. If I had to choose (and I know I won't get to), I'd much prefer an instantaneous death that I didn't know was coming. 

Animals are not humans. I believe in the concept of society and civilisation and therefore can differentiate the two quite easily. I believe that we should treat the animals as well as we can, but that also means we understand the animal itself and avoid anthropomorphism


----------



## kabbes (Nov 11, 2021)

In a thread about environmentalism, talking about the ethics of killing is as much of a diversion as it would be to discuss recipe preferences.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

kabbes said:


> In a thread about environmentalism, talking about the ethics of killing is as much of a diversion as it would be to discuss recipe preferences.



I'm not sure even the thread starter knows what the thread is meant to be about.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

kabbes said:


> In a thread about environmentalism, talking about the ethics of killing is as much of a diversion as it would be to discuss recipe preferences.


Always ends up happening though doesn't it? 

I suppose that was probably the reason behind the massive oversimplification in the work of Poore et al


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Always ends up happening though doesn't it?
> 
> I suppose that was probably the reason behind the massive oversimplification in the work of Poore et al



Oxford University researchers also fascist agents. Keep routing them out Squealer!


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 11, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Threads like this make nihilistic misanthropy so much easier.





Jeff Robinson said:


> Oxford University researchers also fascist agents. Keep routing them out Squealer!



Poore is well known for his views. 
As for fascism, its you who, by your own admission despises humans, not me.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Poore is well known for his views.
> As for fascism, its you who, by your own admission despises humans, not me.



Hey, page me when people - yourself included - stop justifying the pointless systematic torture and slaughter of other sentient beings and I'll revise my misanthropic perspective. Until then humanity can go fuck itself. lol.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

It's useful to know where the rabbit hole leads.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2021)

8ball said:


> It's useful to know where the rabbit hole leads.



Honestly not as bad as where we currently are.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

#notallvegans obv


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Hey, page me when people - yourself included - stop justifying the pointless systematic torture and slaughter of other sentient beings and I'll revise my misanthropic perspective. Until then humanity can go fuck itself. lol.


There's no need for anybody to justify killing animals for food. 
Maybe stick up a poll to see who agrees with you?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 11, 2021)

editor said:


> Oh and School trip made me a veggie for life | Brief letters


I'd be careful about that. I remember an episode of Jamie Oliver (spit) where he demonstrated how mechanically reclaimed meat was made. All the kids went "yuck" at the results but it didn't put any off them off chicken nuggets. Later he took them to a small holding and pulled some carrots out of the ground and dusted them off. None of the kids would eat them because they had been in the ground. 

So showing kids how their food is produced could lead to them eating more meat and less veg.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> So showing kids how their food is produced could lead to them eating more meat and less veg.


I think vegans are the reason people are eating more meat. People have met them and are going out of their way not to turn into one.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think vegans are the reason people are eating more meat. People have met them and are going out of their way not to turn into one.



Meat consumption has been dropping here for a while (since 2010 if I remember correctly).  It is India and China that are driving the increased demand right now.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure even the thread starter knows what the thread is meant to be about.


It’s about the inevitability that meat consumption must fall, as it’s a disproportionate source of climate damage and if climate change is to be addressed, then such an obvious “target“ will not be ignored by those who pull the polical levers, just because most of us still like to eat meat.

How we get there, I don’t know, but i suppose ever improving meat substitutes will proliferate so we can still feel like we are frying a pan full of mince for our spag bol.

I find it an interesting topic as it’s counterintuitive, no, more than that - almost unimaginable to some of us set in our ways - and yet I see it must happen. Over 20% who chose the last option in the poll don’t see it - time will tell I guess.

The discussion about ethics is an off topic diversion as people have pointed out, but just because I started the thread I don’t feel like I need to be a policeman popping up to tell people what they’re allowed to post.


----------



## _Russ_ (Nov 12, 2021)

Ive been Vegetarian since I was left home at 17 but also dont believe meat as a food stuff will ever disappear so cant answer the single option poll.
Personally I stopped eating meat for moral reasons after poking my head into a battery chicken shed.
I have no problem with meat as food and think its natural, I do have massive issues with modern farming and meat production (as it is shamelessly termed), its not just about humane slaughter (a baffling term in itself)
Its even more about how an animal is treated and regarded when living

I've lived some years on a farm and know what many of the fuckers do
In General they are very hard working but absolutely can not be trusted


----------



## butcher (Nov 12, 2021)

As the UK dairy herd is larger than the beef herd, why focus on meat production if your case is on an environmental basis.

At least beef cattle get a, albeit short, life.

Dairy calves do not.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> It’s about the inevitability that meat consumption must fall, as it’s a disproportionate source of climate damage and if climate change is to be addressed, then such an obvious “target“ will not be ignored by those who pull the polical levers, just because most of us still like to eat meat.
> 
> How we get there, I don’t know, but i suppose ever improving meat substitutes will proliferate so we can still feel like we are frying a pan full of mince for our spag bol.
> 
> ...



That helps clarify where the confusion is coming from, so thanks for the reply.

You have confused a "fall" with elimination, you have also failed to recognise that meat demand is falling in the UK anyway, and you don't seem to grasp where the rise is happening, the extent of it, or why (which is a bit of a tangled web).  Also, all of your language is framed in terms of narcissistic consumer choices, as opposed to the cultural and systemic changes that would be required to cut the overall amount of agricultural emissions.

If there was meant to be a "track" for this thread, it's not surprising we have gone off it.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 12, 2021)

butcher said:


> As the UK dairy herd is larger than the beef herd, why focus on meat production if your case is on an environmental basis.



Because it gives you the opportunity to shout 'MEAT IS MURDER!'


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Because it gives you the opportunity to shout 'MEAT IS MURDER!'



I don't think that was it really.  I think the idea was to attempt a convincing simulation of reasoned discussion.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> ISo showing kids how their food is produced could lead to them eating more meat and less veg.


Yeah right.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 12, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> It’s about the inevitability that meat consumption must fall, as *it’s a disproportionate source of climate damage and if climate change is to be addressed, then such an obvious “target“ *will not be ignored by those who pull the polical levers, just because most of us still like to eat meat.


Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.



Part of the reason it gets focused on is corporate/political mis-direction. 
It's true that if you live in the richer world, then as an average schmo it's probably the single simplest change someone can make to reduce their personal impact, but this gets emphasised endlessly as a motive to keep the focus on individual behaviour, as we have discussed in the past.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> .
> It's true that if you live in the richer world, then as an average schmo it's probably the single simplest change someone can make to reduce their personal impact,


I'd say spending a couple of hours in the loft putting in extra insulation will have a bigger personal impact. Do it then get on with your life instead of spending hours looking at food labels to check there's no animal products in them.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 12, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.


And do you think that we have the luxury of ignoring all sources of climate damage which are not the biggest?  Your argument is fatuous, that meat production isn’t the largest problem and might therefore just as well be ignored. Obviously all avenues to reduce carbon emissions will need to be pursued in parallel! If you don’t realise that, you haven’t begun to comprehend what the response to climate change will look like.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.


One fifth is not a 'piddling amount' by any fucking measure and - unlike heating and power generation - it's not essential because there's plenty of readily available alternatives.









						Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
					

Production of meat worldwide causes twice the pollution of production of plant-based foods, a major new study has found




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Everyone should ditch beef and eat pig and chicken meat, then we can whine at coffee drinkers and chocolate eaters... And people who own mobile phones.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

butcher said:


> As the UK dairy herd is larger than the beef herd, why focus on meat production if your case is on an environmental basis.
> 
> At least beef cattle get a, albeit short, life.
> 
> Dairy calves do not.


They do nowadays - dairy industry is the beef industry.

Most dairy cows will be put to a meat bull most of the time and those calves are destined for beef (we use Aberdeen Angus). The only time they go to a diary bull/ are inseminated with dairy semen is to breed replacements. We now have sexed semen, which means only heifers will be born (and retained into the milking herd). Where sexed semen is not used  the black and white bull calves are now often raised for beef on a scheme- Waitrose do one, I used to know someone who raised black and whites for them.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.


In the EU (and the UK) the emissions from the entire agricultural sector are 10%, 5.1 from cropping, 4.9 from livestock.

These figures are without the sequestration done by pasture, which is better at it than most trees, with the exception of ancient forest. Permanent pasture seems to sequester even more ghg if you lime it.

Enteric methane is a fraction of that - also it conveniently ignores that the methane cycle is a naturally occurring thing that ruminants do.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> One fifth is not a 'piddling amount' by any fucking measure and - unlike heating and power generation - it's not essential because there's plenty of readily available alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Also, read your own article- those figures include packing, transport etc.
You can immediately slash those by buying local meat and not wrapping the stuff in plastic.
To suggest agriculture is responsible for or has any control over supply chains to retailers is disingenuous to say the least.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Also, read your own article- those figures include packing, transport etc.
> You can immediately slash those by buying local meat and not wrapping the stuff in plastic.


Yes. People can do lots of things. Like not buying shitty factory farm products.

But they do - in vast numbers - and your never-ending whataboutery isn't going to change that in the slightest. Try dealing with the reality of the situation rather than inviting wildly improbable alternative realities, like the notion of people in major cities suddenly buying expensive 'local meat' en masse or dishonestly divorcing all the essential processes that gets meat to the consumers' tables.


----------



## xenon (Nov 12, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.



Come on this is daft. Reducing GHG emissions and use of fossil fuels across all sectors is what's needed.

That needant mean never eating meat. Reducing sure. I'm more interested in the environmental arguments about all our food production, how agriculture is managed. There's only a couple of posters on here who seem to have anything informative to say about any of that. The rest is the usual yawnsome stuff.


----------



## Sue (Nov 12, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like *transport*, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.


It's interesting though. There was a recent thread about people cutting down on car use and, strangely enough, loads of folk here really weren't up for that either.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> Yes. People can do lots of things. Like not buying shitty factory farm products.
> 
> But they do - in vast numbers - and your never-ending whataboutery isn't going to change that in the slightest. Try dealing with the reality of the situation rather than inviting wildly improbable alternative realities, like the notion of people in major cities suddenly buying expensive 'local meat' en masse or dishonestly divorcing all the essential processes that gets meat to the consumers' tables.


I do, what you do (and are doing) is trying to say that something you do according to your own set of ethical values is also intrinsically better for the environment. It isn't.
You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef  (see above graph) and that's not taking into account the hectares of plastic covering the planet to grow them.
Would I suggest people stopped eating veg?
No. 

From the *UK soya growers* association website:
The Protein Problem​
The majority of plant based burgers, sausages, nuggets and steaks on the market today are made from some form of protein isolate, with the dominant varieties being soy and pea. Much of this is produced in the US and Canada, where both crops are grown in enormous quantities. Isolating protein from soya or pea is a large scale industrial process, requiring a good deal of energy and water. Often, solvents such as hexane are used and the resulting protein is highly processed, with an awful lot of environmental impact embedded into it. When making plant based products, these isolates can be extruded to give them texture, either in high moisture systems to make a meat like paste, or through a lower moisture system to produce the dried, textured vegetable protein known as TVP.


If you want to make vegetable based food products that replicate the texture of meat, these sort of extruded isolates are the best starting point. Currently however, there is a complete lack of processing facilities to isolate vegetable protein in the UK, meaning that the majority is imported from the US and Canada. It is perhaps not that well known that as the UK market for plant based products develops, most are made from protein grown thousands of miles away that has been put through a highly energy and water intensive process. A recent study on the environmental impact of soy protein isolates showed that *many have a global warming potential higher than that of unprocessed pork and similar to beef, which is perhaps problematic for a manufacturing sector that trades on its environmental credentials.*


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 12, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> And do you think that we have the luxury of ignoring all sources of climate damage which are not the biggest?  Your argument is fatuous, that meat production isn’t the largest problem and might therefore just as well be ignored.


Where the fuck have I said it should be ignored?

You tackle the biggest problems first then work down.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I do, what you do (and are doing) is trying to say that something you do according to your own set of ethical values is also intrinsically better for the environment. It isn't.
> You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef  (see above graph) and that's not taking into account the hectares of plastic covering the planet to grow them.
> Would I suggest people stopped eating veg?
> No.
> ...


That's not even taking into account the deforestation that these burgers will be causing. Then there's the monoculture problem, the artificial fertiliser problem, the pesticide problem, etc.


----------



## pug (Nov 12, 2021)

xenon said:


> Come on this is daft. Reducing GHG emissions and use of fossil fuels across all sectors is what's needed.
> 
> That needant mean never eating meat. Reducing sure. I'm more interested in the environmental arguments about all our food production, how agriculture is managed. There's only a couple of posters on here who seem to have anything informative to say about any of that. The rest is the usual yawnsome stuff.


I'm really interested in how agriculture can work to remove co2 from the atmosphere and store carbon in the soil.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef



This is utter fucking deluded bollocks.


----------



## xenon (Nov 12, 2021)

pug said:


> I'm really interested in how agriculture can work to remove co2 from the atmosphere and store carbon in the soil.



Yep. Better land management, farming has to be part of it, what ever's being grown or raised. I know jack about farming TBH but appreciate good info.

What ever happened to biochar / agrichar. Vaunted as a game changing solution. I think it has it's own problems and the claims were very over hyped, last I read.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef



As much fun as it is watching you incinerate Nutty Jeff and The Vegheads on these threads, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> This is utter fucking deluded bollocks.


Not according to the graph I posted from the EUs "Farm to Fork" policy using the EUs own emissions statistics. 
EU’s Farm to Fork strategy impacts climate, productivity, and trade


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> As much fun as it is watching you incinerate Nutty Jeff and The Vegheads on these threads, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.


Veg and Horticulture: 13.6%
Cattle: 6.8%
See the graph.
But, as I said, I don't think the answer is to stop eating veg. 
I've talked about Horticulture on these kinds of threads before - it can be extremely environmentally damaging. But, the Guardian is not interested in that, it is, apparently mostly interested in ruminants.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Tillage farming is worse


Funky_monks said:


> Veg and Horticulture: 13.6%
> Cattle: 6.8%
> See the graph.
> But, as I said, I don't think the answer is to stop eating veg.
> I've talked about Horticulture on these kinds of threads before - it can be extremely environmentally damaging. But, the Guardian is not interested in that, it is, apparently mostly interested in ruminants.



 Tillage farming releases more CO2 than most meat production creates. But let's not discuss that. Let's just point the finger at meat eaters.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> Yes. People can do lots of things. Like not buying shitty factory farm products.
> 
> But they do - in vast numbers - and your never-ending whataboutery isn't going to change that in the slightest. Try dealing with the reality of the situation rather than inviting wildly improbable alternative realities, like the notion of people in major cities suddenly buying expensive 'local meat' en masse or dishonestly divorcing all the essential processes that gets meat to the consumers' tables.


It's not whataboutery when the figures themsleves include things that aren't directly connnected to meat per se.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Tillage farming is worse
> 
> 
> Tillage farming releases more CO2 than most meat production creates. But let's not discuss that. Let's just point the finger at meat eaters.



Yes, so sensibly, we ought to direct drill where we can (Horticulture, again, particularly bad for using the plough, especially potatoes. You should see the soil lost onto the roads round here from spuds). If we direct drill, we can also use livestock to graze aftermaths, bringing fertility and reducing reliance on external inputs.

But that might actually involve animals and the abandonment of the idea that solutions to sustainably feeding the planet are as simple as just not producing meat.

That would be a sensible discussion and sensible discussions have no place here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Yes, so sensibly, we ought to direct drill where we can (Horticulture, again, particularly bad for using the plough, especially potatoes. You should see the soil lost onto the roads round here from spuds). If we direct drill, we can also use livestock to graze aftermaths, bringing fertility and reducing reliance on external inputs.
> 
> But that might actually involve animals and the abandonment of the idea that solutions to sustainably feeding the planet are as simple as just not producing meat.
> 
> That would be a sensible discussion and sensible discussions have no place here.


We can't continue pumping petrochemical fertilisers into the soil and into the water table. Un-tilled soil holds a massive amount of CO2, and along with all the other problems associated with tillage, we simply can't continue with it. It's absolutely unsustainable. 
Monocultures aren't sustainable. Vegetables aren't sustainable. Nothing is sustainable the way capitalism dictates it must be done. 
But let's blame meat eaters, because a graph in the Guardian says they're bad.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> It's not whataboutery when the figures themsleves include things that aren't directly connnected to meat per se.



Wait, what? How is the packaging and transportation of meat not connected to the meat production and distribution industry?


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Not according to the graph I posted from the EUs "Farm to Fork" policy using the EUs own emissions statistics.
> EU’s Farm to Fork strategy impacts climate, productivity, and trade


"You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef"

You've lost the plot completely.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 12, 2021)

I guess one place to look would be back here 

They make clear in the paper that a lot of mitigation can take place to reduce these foods to the lower end of the impact scale. An example that stuck in the mind when I read (several of these threads ago) it was shallower rice paddies. It will probably require a reduction in the production of some of these foods where the mitigation is not sufficient. There will also be issues around other essential products created as a byproduct that still need to be produced im this way at least temporarily. Cutting back on meat is not the solution to agriculture contribution to climate change but it is likely to be a part of it.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

And just look at the shameful actions of the beef/animal feed industry. Absolute scum.



> A tranche of leaked documents this week shines a light on the fevered lobbying efforts of polluting nations to muddy the waters of climate science.
> 
> Some of the world’s largest producers of coal, oil, beef, and animal feed attempted to water down a key climate change report from the world’s top scientists, according to documents seen by Greenpeace’s investigations outlet Unearthed.





> Meanwhile Brazil and Argentina, both large producers of beef and animal feed, wanted references to the climate benefits of a plant-based diet stripped out.
> 
> Global demand for meat is a major driver of deforestation – and greenhouse gas emissions – in Brazil.











						Beef producers and coal exporters are among nations lobbying for changes to key climate report
					

Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest oil producers, has called for phrases such as 'urgent and accelerated' action to phase out fossil fuel use to be 'eliminated' from the report




					inews.co.uk
				












						COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report
					

Countries are asking the UN to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> "You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef"
> 
> You've lost the plot completely.


Not according to the EUs own statistics on Agricultural emissions, I haven't.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Not according to the EUs own statistics on Agricultural emissions, I haven't.


No mate. You really have. You're in some weird kind of denial and it's not healthy.


























						Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?
					

Food production accounts for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It takes up half of the planet’s habitable surface.




					interactive.carbonbrief.org


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> It's not whataboutery when the figures themsleves include things that aren't directly connnected to meat per se.


i dont think he understands what whataboutery means tbh


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

But look at this!


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> No mate. You really have. You're in some weird kind of denial and it's not healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In case you missed it:


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2021)

Climate crisis is down to too much CO2 being released in to the atmosphere.

Plants take CO2 and turn it in to O2.
Animals take O2 and turn it in to CO2.

This thread is suggesting killing the plants and saving the animals, clearly the opposite is needed and needed now!


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Climate crisis is down to too much CO2 being released in to the atmosphere.
> 
> Plants take CO2 and turn it in to O2.
> Animals take O2 and turn it in to CO2.
> ...


Sadly: photosynthetic inversion.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Sadly: photosynthetic inversion.




Wot? 

You mean animals eating plants? Another reason to kill the fuckers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2021)

I mean, just look at this:









						Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
					

Production of meat worldwide causes twice the pollution of production of plant-based foods, a major new study has found




					www.theguardian.com
				





These people won't be happy until plant production accounts for 100% of all greenhouse gases from food production. They clearly just hate the planet.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wot?
> 
> You mean animals eating plants? Another reason to kill the fuckers.


We don't do so well eating grass. Cattle, on the other hand, love the stuff! 
One thing I'm having a problem with is this... What are the vegans going to do with all the ruminants that start roaming the earth when they do away with cattle? I mean you can't have deer culls, so what's the plan?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> We don't do so well eating grass. Cattle, on the other hand, love the stuff!
> One thing I'm having a problem with is this... What are the vegans going to do with all the ruminants that start roaming the earth when they do away with cattle? I mean you can't have deer culls, so what's the plan?



Get tigers.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wot?
> 
> You mean animals eating plants? Another reason to kill the fuckers.


No, at night photosynthesis can't happen because its dark, so the process flips and plants emit CO2 and take in oxygen. 

Plants only absorb carbon wilst its daylight and they can photosynthesise


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> No, at night photosynthesis can't happen because its dark, so the process flips and plants emit CO2 and take in oxygen.
> 
> Plants only absorb carbon wilst its daylight and they can photosynthesise


Pffft, you and your pesky facts.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> No, at night photosynthesis can't happen because its dark, so the process flips and plants emit CO2 and take in oxygen.
> 
> Plants only absorb carbon wilst its daylight and they can photosynthesise




So, just have the plants growing in northern latitudes in summer and southern ones in winter. This really isn't brain science.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So, just have the plants growing in northern latitudes in summer and southern ones in winter. This really isn't brain science.


Exactly. Grow plants in areas that suit plant growth and grow animals in areas that suit animal growth, kinda like its done now.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

There's someone on this thread who actually thinks that it's better for the environment if people stopped eating veg and ate beef instead. 

Is there anyone else who agrees with this bizarre conclusion?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> There's someone on this thread who actually thinks that it's better for the environment if people stopped eating veg and ate beef instead.
> 
> Is there anyone else who agrees with this bizarre conclusion?



No. Vegetables are healthier in general, regardless of climate change.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> No. A balanced diet of meat and vegetables is healthier in general, regardless of climate change.


CFY


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> In case you missed it: View attachment 296446



What do you think this pie chart proves?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> CFY



I agree with that also. I tend towards fish most of the time than meat, but we’re fucked from that angle also, aren’t we?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> What do you think this pie chart proves?



That, as bad as they are, pie charts can always be made worse?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 12, 2021)

Of course how the Govt will sort this is by placing tax on carbon producing foods. So the rich can continue to enjoy it.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> What do you think this pie chart proves?


It illustrates emissions by sector, from agriculture in the EU 27. 

Seems pretty relevant to the continued assertion that beef is worse for the planet compared to any other agricultural sector. Given that we were until recently in the EU and their carbon accounting is about as good as it gets anywhere....


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I agree with that also. I tend towards fish most of the time than meat, but we’re fucked from that angle also, aren’t we?


We're not fucked if we do things right, but overconsumption and waste is a big problem. 
If we tackled the obesity in America, the rest of the world could eat hamburgers.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> It illustrates emissions by sector, from agriculture in the EU 27.
> 
> Seems pretty relevant to the continued assertion that beef is worse for the planet compared to any other agricultural sector. Given that we were until recently in the EU and their carbon accounting is about as good as it gets anywhere....


Except you're using it to 'prove' that it's better for the environment if people stopped eating veg and ate beef instead.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> It illustrates emissions by sector, from agriculture in the EU 27.



No it doesn't mate.





__





						Performance of the agricultural sector - Statistics Explained
					

Statistics on the performance of the agricultural sector cover how successful farming is in delivering primary agricultural products and services through: the value of agricultural output, price indices for the agricultural industry, measures of agricultural labour productivity and the resource...




					ec.europa.eu
				




(hint, look at the measured output in the middle of the pie chart)


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

Meanwhile



> Cows, pigs and other farm livestock in Europe are producing more greenhouse gases every year than all of the bloc’s cars and vans put together, when the impact of their feed is taken into account, according to a new analysis by Greenpeace.
> 
> The increase in meat and dairy production in Europe over the past decade has made farming a much greater source of emissions, but while governments have targeted renewable energy and transport in their climate policies, initiatives to reduce the impact of food and farming on the climate have lagged behind.











						EU's farm animals 'produce more emissions than cars and vans combined'
					

Greenpeace says bloc must get a grip on reducing greenhouse gases from livestock or risk missing Paris agreement targets




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> No it doesn't mate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's acting like a full on conspiracy nut, sweeping aside endless studies just because he's found a single piechart which he thinks somehow proves them all wrong.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> No, at night photosynthesis can't happen because its dark, so the process flips and plants emit CO2 and take in oxygen.
> 
> Plants only absorb carbon wilst its daylight and they can photosynthesise


Yes, it can. Sort of. If the light reactions have happened in the day the dark reactions can happen at night. Only in some succulents mind. It's not what happens with normal C3 photosynthesis though.


Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Plants take CO2 and turn it in to O2.


No, they don't.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

And here's the harsh reality of what's happening:

The Meat Atlas 2021 exposes that:


Meat production is estimated to increase by 40 million tonnes by 2029, reaching 366 million tonnes of meat per year. To keep up with this, industrial animal farming is on the rise and keeps pushing sustainable models out of the market.
Globally, three quarters of agricultural land is used to raise animals or the crops to feed them. Livestock farming and soybean cultivation are the biggest contributors to deforestation, whose effects include soaring emissions, destruction of indigenous communities’ and small farmers’ livelihoods, and pandemics.
The food sector accounts for between 21% and 37% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Emissions from industrial animal farming account for around 57% of this.
Taken together, 20 livestock firms are responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than Germany, Britain or France. The six of them that are headquartered in the European Union have not disclosed the total emissions from their supply chains.
Agribusiness corporations dominate the market. They operate giant slaughterhouses with often poor working conditions that sparked several COVID-19 mass outbreaks.
Between 2015 and 2020, global meat and dairy companies received over 478 billion US dollars in backing from 2,500 investment firms, banks, and pension funds, most of them based in North America or Europe.









						Europe must curb meat industry to halt climate and biodiversity crises - Friends of the Earth Europe
					

Industrial animal farming is increasingly damaging the climate and biodiversity, according to the 'Meat Atlas' by Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung and Friends of the Earth Europe.




					friendsoftheearth.eu


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> No, they don't.



Correct, but maybe a little finicky.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> Correct, but maybe a little finicky.


One of those moods.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> Wait, what? How is the packaging and transportation of meat not connected to the meat production and distribution industry?


How is it directly connected to meat per se? Since that was my point.

Eating meat and the nature of the supply chain are two separate things, as my example of people keeping chickens domestically illustrated


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

DaphneM said:


> i dont think he understands what whataboutery means tbh


sure says it a lot though


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> How is it directly connected to meat per se? Since that was my point.
> 
> Eating meat and the nature of the supply chain are two separate things, as my example of people keeping chickens domestically illustrated



Another poster who has lost the plot with extra-advanced gold standard whataboutery.  The percentage of people keeping chickens is absolutely microscopic.

But now you're here, do you also believe it's better for the environment if people stopped eating veg and ate beef instead?



DaphneM said:


> i dont think he understands what whataboutery means tbh


Actually I do, thanks.



> the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> No it doesn't mate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the same pie chart but 2020 and not 2019  

From your source:


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> It's the same pie chart but 2020 and not 2019
> 
> From your source: View attachment 296471



I'm confused as to what is being demonstrated here.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> Another poster who has lost the plot with extra-advanced gold standard whataboutery.  The percentage of people keeping chickens is absolutely microscopic.


I guess if you call everything whataboutery you'll correctly identify when it appears 


editor said:


> But now you're here, do you also believe it's better for the environment if people stopped eating veg and ate beef instead?


Ok, so is that question:
a) assuming current factory farming conditions?
b) current capitalist markets?
c) assuming anyone who isn't one of those carnivore nutbags wants beef to replace veg?

because none of those are things I advocate for. I don't want capitalist farming to continue, I already said so. I also don't in any way think peoplke should stop eating veg. The carnivore diet is unproven wonk put froward by utter grifters like Peterson's shitty daughter or that steroid induced twat, Baker, or the 'plandemic' con artist, Ivor Cummins. For the record while I eat keto I have seen a ton of people in that community turn into utter antivax twats during this pandemic.

I just don't see that meat eating is inevitably going to destroy the world.


editor said:


> Actually I do, thanks.


knowing the path and walking the path are not the same, neohopper


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I guess if you call everything whataboutery you'll correctly identify when it appears
> 
> Ok, so is that question:
> a) assuming current factory farming conditions?
> ...


There's really need to load up an answer to a straightforward question with a ton of twisty caveats.  

So I'll try again: right now, do you believe it's better for the environment if people _stopped eating veg and ate beef instead? _And if so, what studies can you produce to support such a claim?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> There's really need to load up an answer to a straightforward question with a ton of twisty caveats.
> 
> So I'll try again: right now, do you believe it's better for the environment if people _stopped eating veg and ate beef instead? _And if so, what studies can you produce to support such a claim?


There is when you're asking me to take a position I don't hold in defence of things I don't agree with that I've already explained. Your problem is that you think this is just simple.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 12, 2021)

So accepting the argument that we need to eat less meat or eventually none at all....how do people propose this should or would happen ?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> So accepting the argument that we need to eat less meat or eventually none at all....how do people propose this should or would happen ?



Brits get to eat meat Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the French get Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Sunday is veggie curry night for everyone.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 12, 2021)

kenny g said:


> Mass spaying would solve the issue in ten years or so and make a lot of birds happy.


Apparently between 10 and 12 million cats in the UK alone......that's a lot of spaying...and how would this be enforced ?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> I'm confused as to what is being demonstrated here.


Emissions Outputs from Agriculture in the EU.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> So accepting the argument that we need to eat less meat or eventually none at all....how do people propose this should or would happen ?


And given that the price of many things, including vegetables, would likely double overnight, how could we afford to eat anything?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Emissions Outputs from Agriculture in the EU.



With the units and stuff, it looks to me like a diagram breaking down how much money was made from the various sectors.

edit:  and it looks like Jeff brought this up earlier, together with a source document which backs this up.  I'm not sure whether I've got horribly confused or you have.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> With the units and stuff, it looks to me like a diagram breaking down how much money was made from the various sectors.
> 
> edit:  and it looks like Jeff brought this up earlier, together with a source document which backs this up.  I'm not sure whether I've got horribly confused or you have.



It’s not you who’s horribly confused


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It’s not you who’s horribly confused



Well, one less thing to be confused about is good.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 12, 2021)

We need to eat less meat, says Welsh minister Lee Waters
					

People should eat less meat in a bid to tackle climate change, says Welsh government minister.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




The Welsh and UK governments have legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2050.

In its latest net zero plan, the Welsh government said its ambition over the next 20 years was to shift people's diet, meaning a "substantial increase in fruit and vegetables, a decrease in red and processed meats and dairy products and a decrease in foods high in fat and sugar".

The report references a recommendation from the independent Climate Change Committee that there should be a "20% cut in meat and dairy consumption by 2030, rising to 35% by 2050 for meat only, with meat and dairy being replaced with plant based products".


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

ddraig said:


> We need to eat less meat, says Welsh minister Lee Waters
> 
> 
> People should eat less meat in a bid to tackle climate change, says Welsh government minister.
> ...



That seems pretty modest.  Just going half-quorn on the mince etc. and tweaking relative portion sizes could get that done for a lot of families.

I do wonder about the “legally binding” bit, since I seem to remember such promises in the past.  Wonder what happens if this is not hit.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> That seems pretty modest.
> 
> I do wonder about the “legally binding” bit, since I seem to remember such promises in the past.  Wonder what happens if this is not hit.


As legally binding as Article 16?    🤣 
Legally binding... Lol


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> As legally binding as Article 16?    🤣
> Legally binding... Lol



Yeah, bit sceptical about that bit too.

Meat consumption in the UK dropped 17% between 2008 and 2019, so seems like a pretty easy target.  Getting a decent increase in fruit and veg consumption seems likely harder to me.

Nothing there I can personally disagree with as an aim, though a little emphasis on moving away from heavily processed foods would have been welcome.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> Yeah, bit sceptical about that bit too.
> 
> Meat consumption in the UK dropped 17% between 2008 and 2019, so seems like a pretty easy target.  Getting a decent increase in fruit and veg consumption seems likely harder to me.


Spot on. Most people can no longer afford fruit, as its price has risen by around 1/3 in the last year, but it's nice to see the wealthy insisting that everyone should give up meat and eat more fruit.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Spot on. Most people can no longer afford fruit, as its price has risen by around 1/3 in the last year, but it's nice to see the wealthy insisting that everyone should give up meat and eat more fruit.



No one is saying “give up” in that article.  There are subsidies currently propping up the fossil fuel industry that could be used to help with initiatives to make decent affordable food more accessible.

Guess it depends on how Governments handle it - just preaching at struggling families to buy more expensive stuff won’t wash.  A related article I saw talked about “behavioural nudges”, which made me a bit sus about the depth of any resulting policies.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> No one is saying “give up” in that article.  There are subsidies currently propping up the fossil fuel industry that could be used to help with initiatives to make decent affordable food more accessible.
> 
> Guess it depends on how Governments handle it - just preaching at struggling families to buy more expensive stuff won’t wash.


The rich love to preach to others about what they should do. This thread is no different. Lots of people shouting about what people should do without giving a single fuck about how they achieve it. It's classic haves/have nots nonsense.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The rich love to preach to others about what they should do. This thread is no different. Lots of people shouting about what people should do without giving a single fuck about how they achieve it. It's classic haves/have nots nonsense.



I’m not party to everyone’s circumstances but I don’t get the impression that the posters on this thread arguing for meat reduction are ‘rich’.

Would agree that things need to go beyond ‘preaching’ from Govt, though.

There’s some low-hanging fruit (pun intended) in terms of the amount of fresh produce that ends up wasted…


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> I’m not party to everyone’s circumstances but I don’t get the impression that the posters on this thread arguing for meat reduction are ‘rich’.
> 
> Would agree that things need to go beyond ‘preaching’ from Govt, though.


They're obviously rich enough to be able to afford to eat plenty of fruit. I can't afford that.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They're obviously rich enough to be able to afford to eat plenty of fruit. I can't afford that.





We’ve seen a big increase in the proportion of economic productivity that goes straight to the richest.  So that could be fixed, or at least helped a lot, but expecting the Tories to prioritise that is clearly a pipe dream.  Not that I think anyone here expects that.

I’ve not found fruit to be terribly expensive generally but I did notice an increased grocery bill the other day and it was the nuts and berries that were causing the hit.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 12, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> Apparently between 10 and 12 million cats in the UK alone......that's a lot of spaying...and how would this be enforced ?


Pay to spay.


----------



## Sue (Nov 12, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> Apparently between 10 and 12 million cats in the UK alone......that's a lot of spaying...and how would this be enforced ?


Folks who want to eat meat can eat them. Win win.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> We’ve seen a big increase in the proportion of economic productivity that goes straight to the richest.  So that could be fixed, but expecting the Tories to prioritise that is clearly a pipe dream.  Not that I think anyone here expects that.


It's easy to insist everyone turns vegan, when you're financially well off enough to make those decisions on others' behalf.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

This notion that fruit and veg is somehow really expensive and out of reach of many is one of the more ridiculous arguments in this thread. It's not hard to find street markets (and supermarkets) selling plenty of fruit and veg that is wildly affordable, even more so if you're going to compare it to beef/pork or whatever (and let's not forget plenty of animal produce is heavily subsidised).

I've had long spells on the dole as a vegetarian and never had problems finding decent veggie food to eat. I mean how cheap are potatoes, carrots, broccoli or loads of other vegetables?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

My own experience, from spending almost two years on a vegetarian (bordering on vegan) diet, tells me that a healthy vegan diet is much more expensive than a healthy omnivorous diet, and that was 12 years ago, when fruit was relatively cheap. I couldn't possibly afford to be a vegan now, as I couldn't afford to eat enough fruit and nuts to provide the nutrients I'd need to eat healthily. 
YMMV


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> This notion that fruit and veg is somehow really expensive and out of reach of many is one of the more ridiculous arguments in this thread. It's not hard to find street markets (and supermarkets) selling plenty of fruit and veg that is wildly affordable, even more so if you're going to compare it to beef/pork or whatever (and let's not forget plenty of animal produce is heavily subsidised).
> 
> I've had long spells on the dole as a vegetarian and never had problems finding decent veggie food to eat. I mean how cheap are potatoes, carrots, broccoli or loads of other vegetables?


Not everywhere is Brixton.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Not everywhere is Brixton.


And I don't care how much my nutrients are subsidised, so long as I can afford them. 
Lots of vegetables, grains, etc aren't considered fit for human consumption, and those are sold as feed for animals that we do eat. What's going to happen to this 'scrap' when meat is off the menu? A perfect example is soy. At present the waste from soy is sold to farmers as feed for animals, and it accounts for ~1/2 of the income from the crop, but if that avenue of revenue is done away with, then the price must rise for human consumption, and to cover costs, it must rise by 100%, unless we can feed the waste to humans, and I'm sure we can feed some of it to us but there will be a shortfall, and farmers are already working on margins that are unsustainable, so the cost of all foodstuffs will rise dramatically, as so much of what we eat is subsidised by what we can't eat getting fed to what we can eat.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 12, 2021)

Seems to me that the answer to all of this is that we eat the rich.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

souljacker said:


> Seems to me that the answer to all of this is that we eat the rich.


It seems to me that a lot of people seem to be advocating for a world where only the rich can afford to eat. Which is pretty much already where we're at.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 12, 2021)

souljacker said:


> Seems to me that the answer to all of this is that we eat the rich.


They're all skin and bone these days.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> They're all skin and bone these days.


Unlike the beloved Churchill, who struggled on steaks, brandy and cigars, while everyone else was living the dream on rations.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> This notion that fruit and veg is somehow really expensive and out of reach of many is one of the more ridiculous arguments in this thread. It's not hard to find street markets (and supermarkets) selling plenty of fruit and veg that is wildly affordable, even more so if you're going to compare it to beef/pork or whatever (and let's not forget plenty of animal produce is heavily subsidised).
> 
> I've had long spells on the dole as a vegetarian and never had problems finding decent veggie food to eat. I mean how cheap are potatoes, carrots, broccoli or loads of other vegetables?


There are no street markets here and the local shops are at the top end of pricing. We have a coop a butchers and a tesco express. The latter remains, inexplicably, more dear than the tesco supermarkets.  Fortunately the supply chain issue seems to have eased but they are not cheap and neither is the coop. From there a decent sized cauli is almost £2. I'd happily eat more avocado but for us in the UK it's absolutley a luxury food. That's a shame given its nutritional profile but who knows how much its carbon footprint is.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> There are no street markets here and the local shops are at the top end of pricing. We have a coop a butchers and a tesco express. The latter remains, inexplicably, more dear than the tesco supermarkets.  Fortunately the supply chain issue seems to have eased but they are not cheap and neither is the coop. From there a decent sized cauli is almost £2. I'd happily eat more avocado but for us in the UK it's absolutley a luxury food. That's a shame given its nutritional profile but who knows how much its carbon footprint is.


Nobody on this side of the planet should be eating avocados. The industry is controlled by drug barons, resulting in farmers who refuse to comply getting murdered, and people who used to rely on avocados for sustenance being unable to afford them because we've priced them out of the market.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Nobody on this side of the planet should be eating avocados. The industry is controlled by drug barons, resulting in farmers who refuse to comply getting murdered, and people who used to rely on avocados for sustenance being unable to afford them because we've priced them out of the market.



Maybe I need to look some shit up.  I like avocados.  I don’t eat that many but I love an avocado on toast with a bit of marmite.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> This notion that fruit and veg is somehow really expensive and out of reach of many is one of the more ridiculous arguments in this thread. It's not hard to find street markets (and supermarkets) selling plenty of fruit and veg that is wildly affordable, even more so if you're going to compare it to beef/pork or whatever (and let's not forget plenty of animal produce is heavily subsidised).
> 
> I've had long spells on the dole as a vegetarian and never had problems finding decent veggie food to eat. I mean how cheap are potatoes, carrots, broccoli or loads of other vegetables?



It’s not out of the reach of me, but I don’t want to be disparaging of other people’s circumstances.

You also need a certain amount of free time, as well as the necessary facilities, to make decent veggie grub at home.  I have it, but not everyone does.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

8ball said:


> Maybe I need to look some shit up.  I like avocados.  I don’t eat that many but I love an avocado on toast with a bit of marmite.


There's plenty of information available. Here's the first bit a google search returned. 








						Inside the bloody cartel war for Mexico's multibillion-dollar avocado industry
					

It's not just drugs. Mexico's cartels are fighting over avocados.




					www.latimes.com


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 13, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> No it doesn't mate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From your link


> Mineral fertilisers accounted for 45 % of the nitrogen input in the EU in 2014, manure accounting for another 38 %.


Not sure where you get all that manure from if you do away with meat production. A 38% reduction in fertilizer could result in a 38% loss in crop output.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's plenty of information available. Here's the first bit a google search returned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kinda looks like a capitalism issue more than an avocado issue.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

8ball said:


> Kinda looks like a capitalism issue more than an avocado issue.


It looks more like an 'us demanding food we shouldn't be eating' issue to me. 
The cartels weren't interested until the global demand for avocados skyrocketed.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It looks more like an 'us demanding food we shouldn't be eating' issue to me.
> The cartels weren't interested until the global demand for avocados skyrocketed.



I never demanded an avocado.  I just found one in a supermarket and liked it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> From your link
> 
> Not sure where you get all that manure from if you do away with meat production. A 38% reduction in fertilizer could result in a 38% loss in crop output.


It won't. It'll result in a massive increase in petrochemical fertilisers. Resulting in further pollution of waters.


----------



## butcher (Nov 13, 2021)

The elephant in the room is, as I stated in my original reply, over population.

It doesn't matter what the ever increasing population eats, there are just too many of us.

A bit of a harder question to answer ( and I have no answers for it).  Still nature usually finds a way of sorting this sort of thing out...


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> From your link
> 
> Not sure where you get all that manure from if you do away with meat production. A 38% reduction in fertilizer could result in a 38% loss in crop output.


Post #22



CNT36 said:


> We will have shit farms producing a bit of meat as a bonus rather than meat//dairy farms with shit as a bonus.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

butcher said:


> The elephant in the room is, as I stated in my original reply, over population.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the ever increasing population eats, there are just too many of us.
> 
> A bit of a harder question to answer ( and I have no answers for it).  Still nature usually finds a way of sorting this sort of thing out...


Currently increasing. The global fertility rate is crashing. It has halved since 1950 and will continue to fall likely hitting as low as 1.7 by 2100. Barring something like immortality that  means a decreasing population. Also where is this ever increasing growth happening? Low income countries where many people live on two fifths of fuck all a day. The planet can support a lot  more of them a than Butchers or CNT36s.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Post #22


A cow can only produce so much shit a day. A vastly reduced farmed animal population will result in vastly reduced shit production.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It won't. It'll result in a massive increase in petrochemical fertilisers. Resulting in further pollution of waters.


Not if petrochemicals are banned but would also result in vast amounts of CO2 being released as well.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Not everywhere is Brixton.


Which towns don't have street markets or cheap supermarkets? Or access to online supermarkets?









						Cheapest online supermarkets 2022
					

The best UK online supermarkets and websites are reviewed, rated and ranked. Plus how to save money on internet food shopping and even get groceries for free.




					www.savethestudent.org
				




This notion that it's somehow cheaper to eat meat is utter tosh but not half as tosh as the ludicrous argument that eating beef is better for the environment.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

Cows are not the only source of shit. Are they the most efficient? Also a move away from trying to produce as much meat as possible might help create a diet that has less knock on effects upon the environment.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Which towns don't have street markets or cheap supermarkets? Or access to online supermarkets?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The one I Iive in and the one I lived in previously didn't have street markets. A farmers market (often not cheap) on a Friday if you're lucky. One has a supermarket in town and the other doesn't. The one with a supermarket is a long town and it is at one end and a fair walk. The one without a supermarket has several out of town but a hell of a distance for some of the residents let alone for those further west who have no alternative. Of course all those who would struggle to get to one of these supermarkets are shit hot at ordering online from them.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> The one I Iive in and the one I lived in previously didn't have street markets. A farmers market (often not cheap) on a Friday if you're lucky. One has a supermarket in town and the other doesn't. The one with a supermarket is a long town and it is at one end and a fair walk. The one without a supermarket has several out of town but a hell of a distance for some of the residents let alone for those further west who have no alternative. Of course all those who would struggle to get to one of these supermarkets are shit hot at ordering online from them.


But meat is somehow much cheaper than fruit and veg, yes? Because that is supposedly the point being argued here.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> But meat is somehow much cheaper than fruit and veg, yes? Because that is supposedly the point being argued here.


I don't track the price of things I don't buy. Or much really. I buy the same shit over and over so until it hurts or I consider a change I won't pay much attention. Though saying that I've noticed a lot of changes of packaging,  quantity and size lately.

I was responding to your assertion that we all live in a world surrounded by supermarkets and street markets. For many that is not the reality. If your solution is lifestyle changes for millions it might be worth considering how they live.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

Eating a healthy diet is too expensive for many Britons, research finds
					

Freedom to choose between health and unhealthy food is a 'myth', report author says




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




But no worries if you have money


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> II was responding to your assertion that we all live in a world surrounded by supermarkets and street markets.


Because that's exactly what I claimed


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Because that's exactly what I claimed


My bad you were just asking questions...

Not sure why your response to me answering them was to ask me a question about something I hadn't commented on?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 13, 2021)

Climate change: Do I need to stop eating meat?
					

Some people are switching to plant-based diets to reduce their carbon footprint.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




What is the wider impact of what we eat?​How we produce our food does not just affect our global emissions, but has a wider environmental impact, such as on biodiversity.

"We live on a planet where nature is being squeezed out" says Mike Barrett, executive director of science and conservation at the World Wildlife Fund.
"Half of all habitable land is used for agriculture, and three-quarters of that land is used to feed and raise livestock."

Mr Barrett says: "To feed a growing world population, it's far more efficient to use land to produce crops that people can consume directly, and to have a fair global approach ensuring that parts of the world with diets high in meat and dairy shift towards more plant-based foods."


----------



## 8ball (Nov 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Eating a healthy diet is too expensive for many Britons, research finds
> 
> 
> Freedom to choose between health and unhealthy food is a 'myth', report author says
> ...



Maybe you’re better than me at cooking stuff involving meat, or getting meat cheaply, but I think you can eat well more cheaply without meat than with it.  

Though I think eating _badly_ is likely cheaper if meat products are included.  Vegan processed crap is often more expensive than meat-based processed crap.

If eating well is the goal (as is stated in the new “legally binding commitments”), then the plant-based goal seems easier to get to than the meat-based goal (quite aside from the environmental commitment obv).


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Which towns don't have street markets or cheap supermarkets? *Or access to online supermarkets?*


Most online supermarkets have a min order value. My local one is £40. I've just been to the supermarket and spent £28 to feed me and 2 dogs for a week. So would have to buy 2 weeks of food at a time. Not sure fresh fruit and veg would last well for 2 weeks.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Most online supermarkets have a min order value. My local one is £40. I've just been to the supermarket and spent £28 to feed me and 2 dogs for a week. So would have to buy 2 weeks of food at a time. Not sure fresh fruit and veg would last well for 2 weeks.


That's good going. You sharing theirs?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> That's good going. You sharing theirs?


No, they share mine. 

Cheap ready meals.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Which towns don't have street markets or cheap supermarkets? Or access to online supermarkets?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


given the nutritional density of meat I'd say it very well can be cheaper. A lot of vegan food is expensive. I already mentioned tofu, and it's not loaded with nutrients either


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 13, 2021)

And yet no one has given any solutions to how we are to get to a place with a much less/or no meat consuming population ? I work in a supermarket and can report we sell shit loads of meat...there are small meat free and vegan areas in my shop but it's tiny compared to the bulk of what else is sold....


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> And yet no one has given any solutions to how we are to get to a place with a much less/or no meat consuming population ? I work in a supermarket and can report we sell shit loads of meat...there are small meat free and vegan areas in my shop but it's tiny compared to the bulk of what else is sold....


Try and encourage people to eat less for environmental/health reasons? Make it more expensive/less available?

I mean if we stopped/reduced factory farming, prices would presumably need to go up.


----------



## butcher (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> My bad you were just asking questions...
> 
> Not sure why your response to me answering them was to ask me a question about something I hadn't commented on?


Because Ed has appears to have become a bit Frank Doberman about the whole meat thing since eschewing meat and dairy, ie unable to do ought but quoth the Nicean creed of the  converted Vegan.

Generally I find him a benign Despot of the boards but in this case he seems a trifle autocratic...

A little less vim and more considered respect for debate and differing views would perhaps encourage more reasoned exchange.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Try and encourage people to eat less for environmental/health reasons? Make it more expensive/less available?
> 
> I mean if we stopped/reduced factory farming, prices would presumably need to go up.


Price the poor out of existence?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Try and encourage people to eat less for environmental/health reasons? Make it more expensive/less available?
> 
> I mean if we stopped/reduced factory farming, prices would presumably need to go up.


And cut subsides


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Price the poor out of existence?



It's not pricing the poor out of existence, it would be making meat more expensive as a public heath measure, both on personal and environmental levels. Because there are other things people can eat. 

Obviously it's a regressive tax and there are discussions to be had about that. But then again, making things more expensive has been effective in terms of reducing smoking/drinking...









						Minimum unit alcohol price has 'lasting impact'
					

The benefits of implementing a minimum cost for alcohol continue to have an impact, a new study finds.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				












						Price, Income, and Affordability as the Determinants of Tobacco Consumption: A Practitioner’s Guide to Tobacco Taxation
					

AbstractIntroduction. Tobacco product prices and consumers’ income are the two major economic determinants of tobacco demand. The affordability of tobacco produ




					academic.oup.com


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

ddraig said:


> And cut subsides


Or move the subsidies elsewhere to encourage people to eat less meat.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> given the nutritional density of meat I'd say it very well can be cheaper. A lot of vegan food is expensive. I already mentioned tofu, and it's not loaded with nutrients either


So beef is now cheaper than vegetables? Awesome stuff.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

butcher said:


> Because Ed has appears to have become a bit Frank Doberman about the whole meat thing since eschewing meat and dairy, ie unable to do ought but quoth the Nicean creed of the  converted Vegan.
> 
> Generally I find him a benign Despot of the boards but in this case he seems a trifle autocratic...
> 
> A little less vim and more considered respect for debate and differing views would perhaps encourage more reasoned exchange.


Thanks for the unprovoked personal attack, but - FYI - I'm not vegan and never have been. I just wish people would follow the advice coming from experts - and not the meat loons here - and eat less meat. And that's what I've been consistently saying throughout this thread (and the others).


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Try and encourage people to eat less for environmental/health reasons? Make it more expensive/less available?
> 
> I mean if we stopped/reduced factory farming, prices would presumably need to go up.


Can you imagine what a political hot potato that would be....so only the affluent would be able to afford meat ? When i was a child i remember when meat was more of a luxury but we have now had generations that have grown used to cheap meat and i can forsee huge problems......


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Most online supermarkets have a min order value. My local one is £40. I've just been to the supermarket and spent £28 to feed me and 2 dogs for a week. So would have to buy 2 weeks of food at a time. Not sure fresh fruit and veg would last well for 2 weeks.


Iceland and Sainsbury's is £25 not that all this whataboutery has got much to do with anything because if there's no local shops, it'll be more expensive for supermarket meat deliveries too.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> Can you imagine what a political hot potato that would be....so only the affluent would be able to afford meat ? When i was a child i remember when meat was more of a luxury but we have now had generations that have grown used to cheap meat and i can forsee huge problems......


So what other ideas do you have to cut back meat consumption? Why not tax the fuck out  of meat and massively subsidise meat-free products for the less well off.


----------



## tep (Nov 13, 2021)

getting enough protein is an issue and has always has been a class issue not helped by the cynical methods that industry advertise 'with protein' when on close observation of the contents show something like less than 6% protein. Plus the issue that a lot of non meat products have proteins that are not as easily absorbed or have more aggressive proteins like gluten, lectin etc. so i get why people buy meat. What i don't get is why the need so much meat.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> Can you imagine what a political hot potato that would be....so only the affluent would be able to afford meat ? When i was a child i remember when meat was more of a luxury but we have now had generations that have grown used to cheap meat and i can forsee huge problems......


Hopefully everyone would eat less meat. I can't remember there being an outcry when cigarette prices go up about only the affluent being able to afford fags, can you? But I do know a load of reasonably well-off people where price was a factor in their giving up. 

And look at the effect of all those public health campaigns. Loads of young folk are now utterly horrified at the whole idea of smoking. Maybe we need something similar around meat reduction?

People may have grown used to cheap meat but that has had consequences environmentally and health-wise so maybe we need to reverse that. Maybe it again needs to be looked at as a treat or something that people have a few times a week rather than every day.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> So what other ideas do you have to cut back meat consumption? Why not tax the fuck out  of meat and massively subsidise meat-free products for the less well off.


You make it sound so simple, as i said i agree that we eat too much meat as a society but it's a much more complicated issue......and tbh i can't see it happening in the foreseeable future and taxing the hell out of meat would still mean it would be the preserve of the affluent.....loads of people are just not going to change their tastes and habits that have been in place for generations that fast...


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> You make it sound so simple, as i said i agree that we eat too much meat as a society but it's a much more complicated issue......and tbh i can't see it happening in the foreseeable future and taxing the hell out of meat would still mean it would be the preserve of the affluent.....loads of people are just not going to change their tastes and habits that have been in place for generations that fast...


But it's not been generations. You yourself said you remember when it was viewed as more of a luxury.

And look at the massive societal change we've had round smoking. When I was young, huge numbers of people smoked and smoked everywhere. Now if you smoke, you're verging on social pariah status. And that change has been in what, 30 years?

Off the top of my head, seatbelt wearing and drink driving are other examples where major societal change has occurred in my lifetime so it is possible.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Hopefully everyone would eat less meat. I can't remember there being an outcry when cigarette prices go up about only the affluent being able to afford fags, can you? But I do know a load of reasonably well-off people where price was a factor in their giving up.
> 
> And look at the effect of all those public health campaigns. Loads of young folk are now utterly horrified at the whole idea of smoking. Maybe we need something similar around meat reduction?
> 
> People may have grown used to cheap meat but that has had consequences environmentally and health-wise so maybe we need to reverse that. Maybe it again needs to be looked at as a treat or something that people have a few times a week rather than every day.


I work in a shop that is in a very low wage poorer (being diplomatic 'hard') area.....we still sell a lot of fags and tobacco and really don't think people (even those of us that smoke) equate fags on the same level as meat....fucking hell eviromental issues...i walk to work in large amounts of litter everyday, we sell huge amounts of bags for life if not more than before (our local students especially) there is a massive disconnect between these messages and large swathes of the population....and no i'm not being a snob (before anyone makes a comment) just saying what i see everyday ! Just think that persuading huge amounts of people to radically change their diet will be an uphill struggle


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> I work in a shop that is in a very low wage poorer (being diplomatic 'hard') area.....we still sell a lot of fags and tobacco and really don't think people (even those of us that smoke) equate fags on the same level as meat....fucking hell eviromental issues...i walk to work in large amounts of litter everyday, we sell huge amounts of bags for life if not more than before (our local students especially) there is a massive disconnect between these messages and large swathes of the population....and no i'm not being a snob (before anyone makes a comment) just saying what i see everyday ! *Just think that persuading huge amounts of people to radically change their diet will be an uphill struggle*


I'm not saying it'll be easy but we need to start discussing/thinking about this stuff and sooner rather than later.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> But it's not been generations. You yourself said you remember when it was viewed as more of a luxury.
> 
> And look at the massive societal change we've had round smoking. When I was young, huge numbers of people smoked and smoked everywhere. Now if you smoke, you're verging on social pariah status. And that change has been in what, 30 years?
> 
> Off the top of my head, seatbelt wearing and drink driving are other examples where major societal change has occurred in my lifetime so it is possible.


It is generations...i'm quite old you know......and yes smoking attitudes may have changed for some but in my world definitely not a social pariah.....a high percentage of my colleagues smoke and as i said we still sell shit loads of fags and tobacco


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> You make it sound so simple, as i said i agree that we eat too much meat as a society but it's a much more complicated issue......and tbh i can't see it happening in the foreseeable future and taxing the hell out of meat would still mean it would be the preserve of the affluent.....loads of people are just not going to change their tastes and habits that have been in place for generations that fast...


No I think it's an incredibly difficult task, as witnessed by the pro-meat cultists in full denial here. 

The kind of people who claim that we'd be better off eating beef instead of vegetables, and that vegetables are suddenly exorbitantly expensive and not as cheap as meat.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> It is generations...i'm quite old you know......and yes smoking attitudes may have changed for some but in my world definitely not a social pariah.....a high percentage of my colleagues smoke and as i said we still sell shit loads of fags and tobacco


I am too . It would be interesting though to see what effect increasing cigarette prices has had on your tobacco sales as I'd be surprised if it hadn't had some.

'the effects of taxation (on smoking cessation and ultimately on smoking prevention in the longer-term [1], and on reducing tobacco consumption and prevalence among young people e.g. “*The World Bank has calculated that a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes on average reduces demand by 4% in high-income countries such as the UK. The effect of a 10% price increase on the 77 billion cigarettes sold in the UK would be to reduce consumption by about 3 billion cigarettes per year.”* [1,2]

*"A recent systematic review amongst 13 to 24 year olds also concluded that price affected both the number of young smokers and the amount of tobacco consumed.”*) [1,2]
*increasing the price of cigarettes due to the consistent evidence that it is more effective in reducing smoking in lower-income adults and among smokers in manual occupations and “the intervention for which there is the strongest evidence as a measure for reducing smoking-related inequalities in health” *[6,7]



			Health Outcomes Performance Management: Welcome


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

tep said:


> getting enough protein is an issue and has always has been a class issue not helped by the cynical methods that industry advertise 'with protein' when on close observation of the contents show something like less than 6% protein. Plus the issue that a lot of non meat products have proteins that are not as easily absorbed or have more aggressive proteins like gluten, lectin etc. so i get why people buy meat. What i don't get is why the need so much meat.


I've never encountered any problems at all in getting enough protein. Ever.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> I am too . It would be interesting though to see what effect increasing cigarette prices has had on your tobacco sales as I'd be surprised if it hadn't had some.
> 
> 'the effects of taxation (on smoking cessation and ultimately on smoking prevention in the longer-term [1], and on reducing tobacco consumption and prevalence among young people e.g. “*The World Bank has calculated that a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes on average reduces demand by 4% in high-income countries such as the UK. The effect of a 10% price increase on the 77 billion cigarettes sold in the UK would be to reduce consumption by about 3 billion cigarettes per year.”* [1,2]
> 
> ...


I'm sure pricing etc has had an effect but it's still a very large (albeit) minority....also vaping is probably taking it's place


----------



## 8ball (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> Can you imagine what a political hot potato that would be....so only the affluent would be able to afford meat ? When i was a child i remember when meat was more of a luxury but we have now had generations that have grown used to cheap meat and i can forsee huge problems......



On the other hand, meat consumed in relatively high quantities is a pretty recent thing that hasn’t been happening very long. And meat consumption has been dropping here for a while.  

The tricky part is making sure people on a wide range of income have access to a variety of healthy food (esp. the fruit/veg etc.).


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> I'm sure pricing etc has had an effect but it's still a very large (albeit) minority....also vaping is probably taking it's place


Sure. But smoking rates among young folk look to have decreased so I guess that minority will continue to decrease.

And yep on the vaping front. There's still not enough evidence about long-term effects but it currently appears to be less harmful than tobacco so that feels like a (harm reduction) win.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Iceland and Sainsbury's is £25 not that all this whataboutery has got much to do with anything because *if there's no local shops, it'll be more expensive for supermarket meat deliveries too.*


No it won't you'd just need to order more and meat freezes better that a lot of fruit and veg.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> No it won't you'd just need to order more and meat freezes better that a lot of fruit and veg.


Frozen fruit and veg are good


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

8ball said:


> The tricky part is making sure people on a wide range of income have access to a variety of healthy food (esp. the fruit/veg etc.).


Whataboutery.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Frozen fruit and veg are good


Yes if you've got a big enough freezer for large bags if frozen veg and fruit.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 13, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Yes if you've got a big enough freezer for large bags if frozen veg and fruit.


If you take all the meat out, you probably do.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Yes if you've got a big enough freezer for large bags if frozen veg and fruit.


Sure but you could be using that meat freezer space you mentioned for it.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Iceland and Sainsbury's is £25 not that all this whataboutery has got much to do with anything because if there's no local shops, it'll be more expensive for supermarket meat deliveries too.


Iceland didn't have much fruit and veg last time I was in there and as I still find myself traipsing down to the co-op for satsumas on delivery day I guess that is still the case. It is £25 plus an additional delivery charge or £40 for free delivery. Sainsbury's doesn't have a great reputation for affordability.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

butcher said:


> Because Ed has appears to have become a bit Frank Doberman about the whole meat thing since eschewing meat and dairy, ie unable to do ought but quoth the Nicean creed of the  converted Vegan.
> 
> Generally I find him a benign Despot of the boards but in this case he seems a trifle autocratic...
> 
> A little less vim and more considered respect for debate and differing views would perhaps encourage more reasoned exchange.


Tbf I don't think he's used any of this superpowers on this thread so hardly autocratic whatever disagreements I have with him.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Iceland didn't have much fruit and veg last time I was in there and as I still find myself traipsing down to the co-op for satsumas on delivery day I guess that is still the case. It is £25 plus an additional delivery charge or €40 for free delivery. Sainsbury's doesn't have a great reputation for affordability.


Sure there was frozen veg but absolutely, access to cheap and healthy food needs to be looked at. Maybe somewhere to shift some of those subsidies to.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> So beef is now cheaper than vegetables? Awesome stuff.


Boswell Farms (tesco brand) beef is £1.55 (iirc) for half a kg from Tesco. 

Perfectly edible (we can quibble about the quality of those Tesco brands, but that's the price and if you can't afford much else that's what you buy). 

Regardless of its environmental impact beef is extremely nutritious. For the same price I can buy a cauliflower. I enjoy Cauli and Beef. But nutritionally the veg hasn't got as much as the beef and if I were forced to choose then I'd buy the beef.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Thanks for the unprovoked personal attack, but - FYI - *I'm not vegan and never have been*. I just wish people would follow the advice coming from experts - and not the meat loons here - and eat less meat. And that's what I've been consistently saying throughout this thread (and the others).


Wait, what?


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Boswell Farms (tesco brand) beef is £1.55 (iirc) for half a kg from Tesco.
> 
> Perfectly edible (we can quibble about the quality of those Tesco brands, but that's the price and if you can't afford much else that's what you buy).
> 
> Regardless of its environmental impact beef is extremely nutritious. For the same price I can buy a cauliflower. I enjoy Cauli and Beef. But nutritionally the veg hasn't got as much as the beef and if I were forced to choose then I'd buy the beef.


500g of lentils in Tesco for £1.15.









						Nutrition Comparison: Lentils Vs Beef
					

Detailed nutrition comparison for lentils vs beef. Both beef and lentils are high in calories, iron, potassium and protein. Lentil has more thiamin and folate, however, beef contains more riboflavin, niacin and Vitamin B12.




					www.soupersage.com
				




What's your point, caller?

Eta tl:dr. Lentils are more of a reasonable/usual substitute for mince than cauliflower. Beef and lentils are much of a muchness nutrition-wise. Lentils are a bit cheaper than mince but may require more cooking so all in all,  they're probably about the same cost wise.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Iceland didn't have much fruit and veg last time I was in there and as I still find myself traipsing down to the co-op for satsumas on delivery day I guess that is still the case. It is £25 plus an additional delivery charge or £40 for free delivery. Sainsbury's doesn't have a great reputation for affordability.


Where are you hoping to go with this argument and what doe it have to do with the science that says people need to reduce their meat consumption?


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Regardless of its environmental impact beef is extremely nutritious


That's great to hear. But it's also one of the most environmentally damaging impact  on the planet, and that's why scientists are saying people have to eat less of the fucking stuff.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> 500g of lentils in Tesco for £1.15.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And there we have it:


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> 500g of lentils in Tesco for £1.15.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That your posting horseshit. Firstly that comparison isn't equal. You're comparing two different weights. Secondly beef has more calories, therefore its macronutrient content (and thus energy) is greater. The idea there is more quality iron in lentils is laughable. Heme iron is a better source. Lentils are just carbs


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> And there we have it:


Hey everyone! Stop eating meat, you murderers! You're killing Mother Earth!

No, I'm not _actually_ a vegan though. It's all just performative.

You fucking joke


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> That your posting horseshit. Firstly that comparison isn't equal. You're comparing two different weights.


From the link:

'We compared the *nutritional contents of cooked beef versus cooked lentils *(100g each) below using 2020 USDA and NIH data[1].'



glitch hiker said:


> Secondly beef has more calories, therefore its macronutrient content (and thus energy) is greater. The idea there is more quality iron in lentils is laughable. Heme iron is a better source. Lentils are just carbs


More calories, sure. Also more fat. Protein the same. Why not try half and half lentils and mince? Would cut your fat and reduce your meat consumption a bit so all good eh?


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Where are you hoping to go with this argument and what doe it have to do with the science that says people need to reduce their meat consumption?


You seem to have a foot in the people should just change their eating habits camp. To do that they need to have access to affordable nutrition.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> You seem to have a foot in the people should just change their eating habits camp. To do that they need to have access to affordable nutrition.


Sure. Cheap lentils for all is a message I'm sure we can all get behind.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> That your posting horseshit. Firstly that comparison isn't equal. You're comparing two different weights. Secondly beef has more calories, therefore its macronutrient content (and thus energy) is greater. The idea there is more quality iron in lentils is laughable. Heme iron is a better source. Lentils are just carbs


Surely price is more relevant than weight in this case?


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Sure. Cheap lentils for all is a message I'm sure we can all get behind.


Cheap lentils for everyone else is a message I can get behind.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> You seem to have a foot in the people should just change their eating habits camp. To do that they need to have access to affordable nutrition.


Again, it's_ the scienc_e telling people to eat less meat because of its horrendous impact on the environment, and the argument that meals without beef or whatever are somehow unaffordable is embarrassingly stupid.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Hey everyone! Stop eating meat, you murderers! You're killing Mother Earth!


Sorry who are you quoting here?


----------



## butcher (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Thanks for the unprovoked personal attack, but - FYI - I'm not vegan and never have been. I just wish people would follow the advice coming from experts - and not the meat loons here - and eat less meat. And that's what I've been consistently saying throughout this thread (and the others).


Fair play, I actually agree with you. Perhaps with different parameters and caveats.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Again, it's_ the scienc_e telling people to eat less meat because of its horrendous impact on the environment, and the argument that meals without beef or whatever are somehow unaffordable is embarrassingly stupid.


I'm not questioning the science. I'm questioning the effectiveness of what I think your approach to achieving that is. You seem to be relying on individuals deciding one day to reduce their meat  consumption because they are convinced by the science. I'm not sure this will be sufficient and telling people to goto street markets and supermarkets that don't exist won't help. Something more radical than individual lifestyle changes is needed that doesn't dismiss concerns about potential negative impacts of reducing meat consumption and actively deals with them whether they affect the environment, health, the economy or something else.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2021)

Sue said:


> 500g of lentils in Tesco for £1.15.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looking at that you need nearly 3 times as much lentils as beef to get the same calories. So where 500g of beef costs £1.55 to get the same calories from lentils it would cost ~£3.45

I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> And there we have it:


Wrong.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Looking at that you need nearly 3 times as much lentils as beef to get the same calories. So where 500g of beef costs £1.55 to get the same calories from lentils it would cost ~£3.45
> 
> I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.


Also if you need nearly 3 times the weight of lentils to beef you also need to multiple the pollution of lentils by 3 as well to be able to compare them properly. How do lentils compare to beef when that is taken into account?


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Also if you need nearly 3 times the weight of lentils to beef you also need to multiple the pollution of lentils by 3 as well to be able to compare them properly. How do lentils compare to beef when that is taken into account?


Awesome logic


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> Awesome logic


Just simple maths.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Just simple maths.


Yet the kind of 'maths' that is totally unsupported by the worldwide consensus of climate change scientists, who all agree that people need to eat less meat.


----------



## Sue (Nov 14, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Looking at that you need nearly 3 times as much lentils as beef to get the same calories. So where 500g of beef costs £1.55 to get the same calories from lentils it would cost ~£3.45
> 
> I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.



If we''re going purely on calories vs price, then there are 260 calories in a 58g Mars bar for 80p or something so living on Mars bars seems like not a bad bang for your buck .

Your numbers look off though. If we're comparing 100g of cooked mince with 100g of cooked lentils, the calorific ratio is 277:166.

But the cooked:uncooked lentil weight is approx 2:1. I don't know what the cooked:uncooked mince weight is but I suspect it's less than 2:1. 

So... 

500g of cooked mince = 1385 (5x277) cals for £1.55

500g of cooked lentils = 830 (5x166) cals for £0.58 (0.5x£1.15)

So bearing in mind I'm slightly pissed, looks to me like nutritionally and cost-wise, they're in the same ballpark 

Why not give lentils a whirl eh? Use some to replace some of your mince. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!









						Blog
					

Get the latest news, tips and tricks from Merchant Gourmet.




					www.merchant-gourmet.com


----------



## Raheem (Nov 14, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Looking at that you need nearly 3 times as much lentils as beef to get the same calories. So where 500g of beef costs £1.55 to get the same calories from lentils it would cost ~£3.45
> 
> I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.


Most of us could do without the calories, though.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Cheap lentils for everyone else is a message I can get behind.



Free chickpeas for all!


----------



## Raheem (Nov 14, 2021)

8ball said:


> Free chickpeas for all!


I see you have your finger on the pulse.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Also if you need nearly 3 times the weight of lentils to beef you also need to multiple the pollution of lentils by 3 as well to be able to compare them properly. How do lentils compare to beef when that is taken into account?


Please don't add logic to this discussion. Logic is worse than whataboutery.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 14, 2021)

You would also have to convince people that have probably never eaten or cooked lentils that it's a good thing......Just Eat and Deliveroo etc would have to have a radical re-think too....listening to people at work and the amount of take out a lot of people seem to have (i almost never have any) it's mostly arranged around meat it seems.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> You would also have to convince people that have probably never eaten or cooked lentils that it's a good thing......Just Eat and Deliveroo etc would have to have a radical re-think too....listening to people at work and the amount of take out a lot of people seem to have (i almost never have any) it's mostly arranged around meat it seems.


But let's assume all parents are rich, and they come home from their middle-class jobs to their middle-class homes where they feed their middle-class kids with middle-class lentils. It's almost as if some people here don't care about people who can't afford to eat the way rich people say they should.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 14, 2021)

It's also about what people know.....had an argument once (it was actually with my sister) who was going down the road of criticising people on low incomes that struggle with food....if you are on a low income with kids for example and have never considered a more vegetarian eating regime you are going to buy what you and your kids will eat...so if it's burgers or nuggets or the cheaper end of the meat industry but you know your family will definitely eat it you'll go with that rather than risk buying and making food that they might not eat on your limited budget...it's a bit like the enviromental campaining....there is a large disconnect with swathes of the population imo


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> It's also about what people know.....had an argument once (it was actually with my sister) who was going down the road of criticising people on low incomes that struggle with food....if you are on a low income with kids for example and have never considered a more vegetarian eating regime you are going to buy what you and your kids will eat...so if it's burgers or nuggets or the cheaper end of the meat industry but you know your family will definitely eat it you'll go with that rather than risk buying and making food that they might not eat on your limited budget...it's a bit like the enviromental campaining....there is a large disconnect with swathes of the population imo


How very PC of you 
Let's just call a cunt a cunt.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 14, 2021)

Sue said:


> Why not give lentils a whirl eh? Use some to replace some of your mince. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are these “puy” lentils they’re talking about in that link? Is that just another name for red lentils?

Substituting some lentils in place of a proportion of beef mince in a recipe is something I never thought of doing, but makes a lot of sense as you’d still have the flavour of the meat and could presumably reduce the overall cost since lentils bulk up so much during cooking you wouldn’t need as much lentils as the weight of the meat you omitted.

Where I live, beef mince has really gone up in price in the past few years and now “regular price” in the supermarket would be over £8/kg and when on offer they mark it down to around £6.80/kg, which probably sounds crazy high by U.K. standards.  

We already buy it far less often than we used to, because the price is a deterrent. I really don’t think it takes much in terms of price differential to start changing people‘s behaviour.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

Sue said:


> From the link:
> 
> 'We compared the *nutritional contents of cooked beef versus cooked lentils *(100g each) below using 2020 USDA and NIH data[1].'
> 
> ...


Why would I want to cut my fat? Also lentils aren't complete proteins.

You are comparing two different weights of food. 70g with almost three times as much in weight of Lentils. Calories measure energy which the human body needs, obviously. So if you eat 70g of beef you'll get more than if you eat Lentils. I personally can't stomach the latter because the carb content is bad for me. OTOH beef will keep me going for hours.

Fortunately though I'm not arguing people only eat beef and no veg whatsoever, as I've already made clear.



CNT36 said:


> Surely price is more relevant than weight in this case?


Not for me. 

According to that evidence Lentils are by definition less filling because they confer less energy. and energy from carbs is less efficient.



editor said:


> Sorry who are you quoting here?


No one.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Let's just call a cunt a cunt.


I'll work my way down.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 14, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Cheap lentils for everyone else is a message I can get behind.



They are already pretty much the cheapest protein you can buy


----------



## Sue (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> According to that evidence Lentils are by definition less filling because they confer less energy. and energy from carbs is less efficient.


I think you're confusing calorie content and satiety which are different things. (Does a high calorie, high sugar food make you feel as full as a lower calorie, high protein one? No.)

But you know what? It's pretty clear you're not really open to changing what you eat and it's a nice day so I'm going to leave you to it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 14, 2021)

"energy from carbs is less efficient"

This is the latest sock puppet account from the keto cultist fuckwit Awesome Wells isn't it?


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 14, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> They are already pretty much the cheapest protein you can buy


Something else I don't buy but haven't said anything about them being expensive. I was replying to someone with a similar sentiment but I'm not eating the fucking things. In fact I criticised Glitch a few posts back for talking about weight rather than price in his comparisons avoiding someone else's point about their cheapness.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think you're confusing calorie content and satiety which are different things. (*Does a high calorie, high sugar food make you feel as full as a lower calorie, high protein one? No.)*
> 
> But you know what? It's pretty clear you're not really open to changing what you eat and it's a nice day so I'm going to leave you to it.



I believe I alluded to this when I pointed out how Lentils aren't filling because they are carbs which, essentially, reduce to sugars in the body. Is eating a pound of lentils as bad as a pound of candy? Obviously not. But carbs are poor quality fuel. So yes they are different, but they are also connected since calories are what we use to measure energy. However not all calories are equal. 1g of Fat = 9cals and 1g of protein/carbs = 4. You;ll feel fuller for longer eating meat than lentils. I certainly do. But again, i'm not arguing people only eat beef


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "energy from carbs is less efficient"
> 
> This is the latest sock puppet account from the keto cultist fuckwit Awesome Wells isn't it?


another loser for the ignore list.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Something else I don't buy but haven't said anything about them being expensive. I was replying to someone with a similar sentiment but I'm not eating the fucking things. In fact I criticised Glitch a few posts back for talking about weight rather than price in his comparisons avoiding someone else's point about their cheapness.


That was the point. I bought up cheap minced beef from tesco and lentils were offered as a slightly cheaper alternative


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> Yet the kind of 'maths' that is totally unsupported by the worldwide consensus of climate change scientists, who all agree that people need to eat less meat.


Wtf has that got to do with what I was going on about?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 14, 2021)

Not sure if this was shared yet, but it was on the bbc yesterday and it seemed pertinent to the discussion.









						Climate change: Do I need to stop eating meat?
					

Some people are switching to plant-based diets to reduce their carbon footprint.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Also interesting graphic below from that article suggesting beer has a similar environmental impact to milk which surprised me.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2021)

Sue said:


> If we''re going purely on calories vs price, then there are 260 calories in a 58g Mars bar for 80p or something so living on Mars bars seems like not a bad bang for your buck .


That would be fine if all you needed to live on was calories but you don't, you need protein and minerals and vitamins etc as well. 

So if you're comparing 3 times as much lentils as beef then the lentils will have 1/3rd of the amount of protein and vitamins in it as well.

You're article has glaring mistakes in it as well regarding the vitamin content.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 14, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "energy from carbs is less efficient"
> 
> This is the latest sock puppet account from the keto cultist fuckwit Awesome Wells isn't it?


Ahhhhh, that does explain a lot.


----------



## Saunders (Nov 14, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> What are these “puy” lentils they’re talking about in that link? Is that just another name for red lentils?
> 
> Substituting some lentils in place of a proportion of beef mince in a recipe is something I never thought of doing, but makes a lot of sense as you’d still have the flavour of the meat and could presumably reduce the overall cost since lentils bulk up so much during cooking you wouldn’t need as much lentils as the weight of the meat you omitted.
> 
> ...


Puy lentils are little bluey green ones. They’re delicious. Much more flavour and texture than red ones.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 14, 2021)

Saunders said:


> Puy lentils are little bluey green ones. They’re delicious. Much more flavour and texture than red ones.


Ok thanks. Strangely I’ve never heard of them. Will have to try them sometime.


----------



## butcher (Nov 14, 2021)




----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

Saunders said:


> Puy lentils are little bluey green ones. They’re delicious. Much more flavour and texture than red ones.



Yeah, I’ve used them in place of beef in a chilli (never mixed them with beef but sounds a pretty obvious idea).  The texture is kind of close even without doing that. 

They look blue at first but are more beefy red colour when cooked.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> They are already pretty much the cheapest protein you can buy



Would be interested to see how they compare with tinned tuna, but that’s not really an objection, and they might work out cheaper tbf.

Not as much protein per calorie, but the whole protein business is massively overstated as has been discussed at length in the past.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> You;ll feel fuller for longer eating meat than lentils. I certainly do.



I do too, so include whole grains and nuts and seeds and have found it really satiating with the things I tend to make.

I tend to include:

Pulses (most often chickpeas and either some type of peas or beans)
A whole grain (often brown rice, sometimes bulgar wheat or cous cous- often cooked separately)
Mixed nuts
Toasted pumpkin seeds
One “watery veg”
One starchy veg
One leafy green veg
At least one other veg (or mushrooms)
A bunch of herbs and spices
Often a bit of veggie stock
Tinned toms
Some fresh cherry toms
Onions, peppers
Usually a dash of toasted sesame oil and a dash of cider vinegar for seasoning / acidity for nutrient absorption - added on serving.

Did it due to an autoimmune health thing and was trying to figure out if a food was causing it (have narrowed it down to preserved cooked meats <not all of them but it’s unpredictable> and wines over a year old <again, somewhat unpredictable in terms of type>).  And beer is a bit of a lottery. 

Was surprised how full it kept me and for how long.  I think it’s the protein, fat and fibre, which will help the sugars to release really slowly as well as being filling in themselves.

Also surprised to be doing quite a lot of pooing at first (was expecting farts but got high-volume poo instead, which settled after a week as predicted by someone on here). 

I make a big batch and freeze it (my freezer is tiny, but old takeaway containers stack really well). It worked out about £25 tops for 10 pretty big meals iirc (I have a _really_ big cooking pot).  That included some herbs and bits that left enough to go into other batches, so def cheaper than £2.50 a meal.  I appreciate even that could be an issue for someone really struggling (and obv cooking costs/time factor in too).  The nuts and seeds add to the cost a bit tbf.

I expect all the above is super-elementary to the seasoned vegheads on this thread.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> and energy from carbs is less efficient.


Could you share the science that led you to this awesome conclusion?

Oh and are you that tiresome wanker Awesome Wells?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> Could you share the science that led you to this awesome conclusion?
> 
> Oh and are you that tiresome wanker Awesome Wells?



Oh, it's just the energy density thing.

And he's right that you'll have an easier time getting fat by drinking beef dripping than eating an equivalent weight of oatmeal, but that's rather mis-stating the goal of all of this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> That your posting horseshit. Firstly that comparison isn't equal. You're comparing two different weights. Secondly beef has more calories, therefore its macronutrient content (and thus energy) is greater. The idea there is more quality iron in lentils is laughable. Heme iron is a better source. Lentils are just carbs





glitch hiker said:


> Why would I want to cut my fat? Also lentils aren't complete proteins.
> 
> You are comparing two different weights of food. 70g with almost three times as much in weight of Lentils. Calories measure energy which the human body needs, obviously. So if you eat 70g of beef you'll get more than if you eat Lentils. I personally can't stomach the latter because the carb content is bad for me. OTOH beef will keep me going for hours.



Ah, another edition of 'biochemistry for halfwits' from team carnivore 

E2a: although tbh it looks like you're actually just that tedious cunt Wells reborn yet again.


----------



## campanula (Nov 14, 2021)

It is hard to discuss this when there are such polarised views. I generally eat meat most days...but with caveats regarding what sort of meat. I don't eat beef or pork, and could envisage no scenario where I would choose to eat a Macdonalds. I occasionally buy a lamb but mostly eat free range chooks (3 times a week probably...but usually just 1 chicken) and rabbit, fish  and a mixture of freebies cos I know farmers and gamekeepers). I know that this is a ridiculously unlikely model for most people but I did just want to make a point that adopting simple binary positions on something as nuanced and divergent as the food industry and the politics involved, is doomed to fail. And this is on a macro level, involving global markets. and corporate farming. Once we accept the tricky subjective issues involved in personal taste (I hate lentils), culture, cost, knowledge base and even picky children...it all seems like shouting into the void. I am often a bit scoffing of feeble, incremental and slow generational changes...but for sure, the vexatious issues around food choices and accessibility are inevitably going to be emphasised by global climate crisis. There are a many possible mini-solutions...from bringing back domestic science into the national curriculum, food co-ops, communal kitchens, to simple pledges of 1 meat free day a week, which, I think, will be more effective than finger-pointing and shoutiness. Plus, I am always uncomfortable framing this sort of thing as individual choices...when we really need much broader, collective and systemic changes.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ah, another edition of 'biochemistry for halfwits' from team carnivore
> 
> E2a: although tbh it looks like you're actually just that tedious cunt Wells reborn yet again.


deal with the point or fuck off, don't really care which. Either way no one learns anything from your vapid ignorance, cunt


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> Could you share the science that led you to this awesome conclusion?
> 
> Oh and are you that tiresome wanker Awesome Wells?


Why? You haven't even got the courage of your own convictions you stupid hypocrit


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> deal with the point or fuck off, don't really care which. Either way no one learns anything from your vapid ignorance, cunt



Ooh! Quite the charmer.  Which point were you referring to?  That fat has more calories per unit weight than carbohydrate?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Why? You haven't even got the courage of your own convictions you stupid hypocrit



Is this a case of "they're onto me, so I'll get my three remaining insults in before I'm booted"?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

8ball said:


> Ooh! Quite the charmer.  Which point were you referring to?  That fat has more calories per unit weight than carbohydrate?


Yes fat has more calories than protein and carbs, I said that above. 9 cals to 4 per gram for the other two.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Why? You haven't even got the courage of your own convictions you stupid hypocrit


I'll ask again.  Are you that tiresome cunt Awesome Wells?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Yes fat has more calories than protein and carbs, I said that above. 9 cals to 4 per gram for the other two.



I think most people who have looked up the basics of macronutrients know this.
The question is, so what?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

8ball said:


> Is this a case of "they're onto me, so I'll get my three remaining insults in before I'm booted"?


Do what you like, I don't owe people here anything. Certainly not the clown who's spent 26 pages calling everything whataboutery and denouncing all meat consumption while not practicing what he preaches. Nothing to learn from people like that


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> I'll ask again.  Are you that tiresome cunt Awesome Wells?


You can ask as many times as you like. I'm not remotely interested in this silly bullshit. I'm more interested in why you fel the need to argue the moral high ground from a positoin of such rank hypocrisy.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 14, 2021)

8ball said:


> I think most people who have looked up the basics of macronutrients know this.
> The question is, so what?


so you'll get more energy from a gram of fat than carbs, plus fat is required for fat soluble vitamins


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> so you'll get more energy from a gram of fat than carbs, plus fat is required for fat soluble vitamins



The "so what" question remains...


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2021)

8ball said:


> Is this a case of "they're onto me, so I'll get my three remaining insults in before I'm booted"?


And off he pops, no doubt to return under yet another name as he is utterly obsessed with this site.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

Aw, ref!

I was looking forward to hearing how that observation was meant to be somehow relevant! 

(It would make sense if animal fat was the only kind of fat and the main problem with diets in this country was a lack of calories, neither of which is true, so I couldn’t see where it was meant to be going)


----------



## nogojones (Nov 14, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> You make it sound so simple, as i said i agree that we eat too much meat as a society but it's a much more complicated issue......and tbh i can't see it happening in the foreseeable future and taxing the hell out of meat would still mean it would be the preserve of the affluent.....loads of people are just not going to change their tastes and habits that have been in place for generations that fast...


Maybe if we ration meat. Everyone gets 500g (or whatevers) of meat tokens a week, no exemptions for restaurants like in the war, where the rich were essentially not rationed. The poor or the vegans/veggies, could make a bit on the side selling off their tokens to all the Jeremy Clarksons they know, or if they really wanted to trigger them they could burn them in the streets.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

nogojones said:


> Maybe if we ration meat. Everyone gets 500g (or whatevers) of meat tokens a week, no exemptions for restaurants like in the war, where the rich were essentially not rationed. The poor or the vegans/veggies, could make a bit on the side selling off their tokens to all the Jeremy Clarksons they know, or if they really wanted to trigger them they could burn them in the streets.



Plus an option to enter them into a meat raffle…


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> This notion that fruit and veg is somehow really expensive and out of reach of many is one of the more ridiculous arguments in this thread. It's not hard to find street markets (and supermarkets) selling plenty of fruit and veg that is wildly affordable, even more so if you're going to compare it to beef/pork or whatever (and let's not forget plenty of animal produce is heavily subsidised).
> 
> I've had long spells on the dole as a vegetarian and never had problems finding decent veggie food to eat. I mean how cheap are potatoes, carrots, broccoli or loads of other vegetables?


Meat is subsidised in exactly the same way veg is subsidised.
BPS (Basic Payments Scheme) was the main subsidy payment before we left the EU (the others were "stewardship" for environmental works). BPS is a flat rate based on the area farmed - so, as such the extensive sector received the most subs - the main beneficiaries of this were: arable (wheat, barley and OSR are produced under the cost of production in a lot of cases), extensive livestock (beef sucklers, sheep), and extensive veg (spuds, carrots, broccoli, onions). 
Because it takes up less actual space, intensive veg (tomatoes etc) and intensive meat (some pig, poultry) attracts almost no subsidy whatsoever. Pig and Poultry provide 80% of the meat consumed in this country and do this essentially without subsidy. 

Post Brexit, this is being phased out and the new scheme (ELMS) is based on environmental works only.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's plenty of information available. Here's the first bit a google search returned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See also: Horticulture in southern Spain, which appears to rely on actual human trafficking from North Africa. 

Campaign: The fight for agricultural workers' rights in southern Spain | Ethical Consumer


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> And off he pops, no doubt to return under yet another name as he is utterly obsessed with this site.



There's a few of them, aye.


----------



## xenon (Nov 14, 2021)

people had him clocked ages ago, including myself. He could’ve stuck around but it’s always with the over-the-top insults.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

I have some time for the keto diet in terms of helping people with some stubborn kinds of epilepsy, but it leads some people to come out with some funny claims.  

Including from some people who previously suffered from the condition, which is forgivable in that case imo.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

xenon said:


> people had him clocked ages ago, including myself. He could’ve stuck around but it’s always with the over-the-top insults.



Yeah, I was mostly interested to see where it led.  Thought he’d keep a lid on it for longer.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 14, 2021)

I believe that even if meat is never eaten again that climate change is still inevitable.

It's a convenient scapegoat to distract people from the things that are really destroying the planet. Things that are so profitable to the rich that they'll never stop. They'll continue to find strawmen and scapegoats to bait and switch the public with whilst the world burns.

Quite frankly I don't care anymore. It's their kids that will suffer the longest. Unable to buy their way out of hell but wealthy enough to prolong the agony.

It's like that Ben Elton book Stark.
I'll be long dead and I (along with the majority of me friends) am not leaving descendants behind to suffer it.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 14, 2021)

Gromit said:


> It's like that Ben Elton book Stark.
> I'll be long dead and I (along with the majority of me friends) am not leaving descendants behind to suffer it.


I've never read it, but is it really that bad?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2021)

I think I might have read it a really, really long time ago.


----------



## xenon (Nov 14, 2021)

8ball said:


> Yeah, I was mostly interested to see where it led.  Thought he’d keep a lid on it for longer.



Always ends the same way though doesn't it. Gets increasingly biligerant and weirdly defensive about his dietry choices...

ON the keto thing. I eat a relatively low carb diet, most weeks. Not much bread pasta etc. The usual dislike of processed carbs that leaves me feeling bloated, indigestion blah, blah. But also I'm sitting around most of the day and get a few caliries more than is probably wise from beer. 

Fortunately I do like most beans, all the beans. Unfortunately I CBA cooking much....


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2021)

Gromit said:


> I believe that even if meat is never eaten again that climate change is still inevitable.
> 
> It's a convenient scapegoat to distract people from the things that are really destroying the planet. Things that are so profitable to the rich that they'll never stop. They'll continue to find strawmen and scapegoats to bait and switch the public with whilst the world burns.
> 
> ...


I think that whilst its nice - personal lifestyle choices beyond not having kids that people will realistically do make very little difference. 

I was looking for the EU version of this graph earlier (local geography being much more relevant) - it shows what has to change really. Will it? IMO, the reason "no meat" is being pushed by the organs of capital (MSM etc) is because the processors have spotted a lucrative gap in the market to sell us more ultra processed food and, if the NHS slides into the history books, this is lucrative for the healthcare industries also. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sector-–-pie-charts.png


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> IMO, the reason "no meat" is being pushed by the organs of capital (MSM etc) is because the processors have spotted a lucrative gap in the market to sell us more ultra processed food and, if the NHS slides into the history books, this is lucrative for the healthcare industries also. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sector-–-pie-charts.png


Just when I thought that the '_it's better to give up veg than beef_' comment wouldn't ever be bettered, you've now come up with this truly ludicrous conspiracy, fact-free theory!


----------



## Gromit (Nov 14, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I've never read it, but is it really that bad?


There is a saying that hell is other people.

Imagine if the only people left were rich capital cunts. The sort that caused the ruination of the planet to begin with.

The scenario Ben Elton painted.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> Just when I thought that the '_it's better to give up veg than beef_' comment wouldn't ever be bettered, you've now come up with this truly ludicrous conspiracy, fact-free theory!


You don't think that the Guardian and The Independent are organs of Capitalists?

All the big processors are investing in meat free meat - as did channel 4 Meatless Farm secure major investment from Channel 4


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> You don't think that the Guardian and The Independent are organs of Capitalists?


I think your conspiracy theory is utter bollocks.



Funky_monks said:


> All the big processors are investing in meat free meat - as did channel 4 Meatless Farm secure major investment from Channel 4


So is this your proof of a conspiracy? Of course dairy farms/meat producers are going to diversify into non-meat products because they're simply following consumer demand.

In fact, loads of farmers - big and small - have already switched from dairy milk to non-dairy products like oat milk, and that's a total win for the environment.









						Why Struggling Dairy Farmers Are Transitioning to Vegan Milk Production
					

Could a shift to plant-based milk be the saving grace for the dying dairy industry? Plant-based dairy company Miyoko's Creamery says yes.




					www.livekindly.co
				












						Former Dairy Farmers Can't Face Killing Cows: Switch To Oat Milk Instead
					

Bradley Nook Farm used to produce dairy and then organic beef. But owner Jay Wilde could no longer face slaughtering cows




					plantbasednews.org


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2021)

editor said:


> I think your conspiracy theory is utter bollocks.
> 
> So is this your proof of a conspiracy? Of course dairy farms/meat producers are going to diversify into non-meat products because they're simply following consumer demand.
> 
> ...


I didn't say it was a conspiracy - you did. Its marketing as far as I'm concerned. In the past they were marketing highly processed meat, but the bottom has fallen out of that market. 

Farmers are not the processors - in fact farmers are something of an annoyance to them (chicken aside). Your article makes no sense by the way - are they growing the oats or processing oats grown elsewhere? Dairy ground generally would make shite cropping ground, so they must be very lucky.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I didn't say it was a conspiracy - you did. Its marketing as far as I'm concerned. In the past they were marketing highly processed meat, but the bottom has fallen out of that market.


Err, that's exactly what you implied with your mad post.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2021)

editor said:


> Err, that's exactly what you implied with your mad post.


Nope - Marketing involves the press, unless you don't know how that works....


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Nope - Marketing involves the press, unless you don't know how that works....


And the stuff about 'they' wanting to sell us 'ultra processed foods' and it being 'lucrative for the healthcare industries' as the 'NHS slides into the history books'?

Why are you linking all these random elements together in the same paragraph?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 15, 2021)

Ultra-processed foods and for-profit healthcare?
My, what bizarrely random and far-flung concepts to draw a connection between....


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 15, 2021)

butcher said:


> The elephant in the room is, as I stated in my original reply, over population.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the ever increasing population eats, there are just too many of us.



You can't ignore consumption either. How much pollutants does the average POTUS expend vs a child in slum housing? 
So the danger, Malthus, is that the rich clear the slums to maintain their lifestyles. There's a war coming anyway.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You can't ignore consumption either. How much pollutants does the average POTUS expend vs a child in slum housing?
> So the danger, Malthus, is that the rich clear the slums to maintain their lifestyles. There's a war coming anyway.



Heard that. Lots and lots of wars, depending on who you're reading/following/listening to.

The China/Taiwan/Japan war. The NK/SK war. The US civil war 2. The Ireland war. The UK war. The revolutions war(s). The resources war(s). The race war(s), etc.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 15, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Heard that. Lots and lots of wars, depending on who you're reading/following/listening to.
> 
> The China/Taiwan/Japan war. The NK/SK war. The US civil war 2. The Ireland war. The UK war. The revolutions war(s). The resources war(s). The race war(s), etc.


Well there's stuff brewing with Russia and the West and China and the West. Which will probably put paid to some of the others as Nationalism becomes centre stage once again.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well there's stuff brewing with Russia and the West and China and the West. Which will probably put paid to some of the others as Nationalism becomes centre stage once again.



That's a lot of soldiers to feed/clothe. Can't see them all taking the vegetarian/vegan option.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2021)

Person on the internet: "The science is unequivocal, The science says...."
Scientist who's field it is: "No it isn't" _shows some peer reviewed papers_
Person on the Internet: "Yes it is" _shows lots of press articles based around the work of the same two scientists (Poore and Nimeck)_

This is literally where we are with this debate


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2021)

Certainly plenty to chew over.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Person on the internet: "The science is unequivocal, The science says...."
> Scientist who's field it is: "No it isn't" _shows some peer reviewed papers_
> Person on the Internet: "Yes it is" _shows lots of press articles based around the work of the same two scientists (Poore and Nimeck)_
> 
> This is literally where we are with this debate


Do you disagree that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that red meat consumption must go down?

Or are you still sticking with your wild conspiracy theories and the notion that people would be better off giving up veg than beef?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 15, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Person on the internet: "The science is unequivocal, The science says...."
> Scientist who's field it is: "No it isn't" _shows some peer reviewed papers_
> Person on the Internet: "Yes it is" _shows lots of press articles based around the work of the same two scientists (Poore and Nimeck)_
> 
> This is literally where we are with this debate



This coming from the guy who got Euros and carbon emissions mixed up in woeful misreading of a graph he submitted as evidence. You have consistently exposed yourself as having the moral and intellectual integrity of a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2021)

editor said:


> Do you disagree that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that red meat consumption must go down?
> 
> Or are you still sticking with your wild conspiracy theories and the notion that people would be better off giving up veg than beef?


I didn't say that did I?
I pointed to a graph. My opinion comes after the bit where I write "I think that...." just to clarify.
The consensus is far from that - Poore and Nemeck think that, and it is their few papers that spawned almost all your lay press articles. 

Since you want to go down this route- do you admit to either lying or just making stuff up when you said that meat was "heavily subsidised" and veg was not?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This coming from the guy who got Euros and carbon emissions mixed up in woeful misreading of a graph he submitted as evidence. You have consistently exposed yourself as having the moral and intellectual integrity of a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.


See my post - cut and pasted the wrong graph. This doesn't negate the reams of peer reviewed stuff I've posted prior, in spite of that.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I didn't say that did I?
> I pointed to a graph. My opinion comes after the bit where I write "I think that...." just to clarify.
> The consensus is far from that - Poore and Nemeck think that, and it is their few papers that spawned almost all your lay press articles.
> 
> Since you want to go down this route- do you admit to either lying or just making stuff up when you said that meat was "heavily subsidised" and veg was not?



And what you said was very clear and I really can't be arsed trying to keep up with your dancing about, denials, barking claims and off-the-wall conspiracy theories.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2021)

editor said:


> And what you said was very clear and I really can't be arsed trying to keep up with your dancing about, denials, barking claims and off-the-wall conspiracy theories.


So, you're admitting you didn't read my post. 

How about your making shit up to suit you?


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> So, you're admitting you didn't read my post.


Again:


editor said:


> And what you said was very clear and I really can't be arsed trying to keep up with your dancing about, denials, barking claims and off-the-wall conspiracy theories.


It's not my fault you post up such utter nonsense, but I'm done arguing with someone who's like the Jehovah's Witness of meat.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2021)

editor said:


> Again:
> It's not my fault you post up such utter nonsense, but I'm done arguing with someone who's like the Jehovah's Witness of meat.


So, apart from the one cut and paste error on a graph, which of my peer reviewed sources are nonsense please?

You still haven't addressed your lying about subsidies


----------



## butcher (Nov 15, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You can't ignore consumption either. How much pollutants does the average POTUS expend vs a child in slum housing?
> So the danger, Malthus, is that the rich clear the slums to maintain their lifestyles. There's a war coming anyway.



Do tell o soothsayer.....and while your at give me some lottery numbers!  TBF there is always a war but if you are privvy to the plans for a big new one I am all ears.....

Yes, Malthusian theory is simplistic but then meat bad veg good is _reducto in absurdam_ too.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> See my post - cut and pasted the wrong graph. This doesn't negate the reams of peer reviewed stuff I've posted prior, in spite of that.



So, your back up is the 'Our World in Data' breakdown of emissions by sector. If you read the text accompanying that graph it rather undermines your efforts to minimise the environmental impact of animal agriculture. I've highlighted the relevant portions in red:  



> *Rice cultivation (1.3%):* flooded paddy fields produce methane through a process called ‘anaerobic digestion’. Organic matter in the soil is converted to methane due to the low-oxygen environment of water-logged rice fields. _1.3% seems substantial, but it’s important to put this into context: rice accounts for around one-fifth of the world’s supply of calories, and is a staple crop for billions of people globally_.
> 
> *Agricultural soils (4.1%):* Nitrous oxide – a strong greenhouse gas – is produced when synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are applied to soils. This includes emissions from agricultural soils for all agricultural products – including food for direct human consumption, _animal feed_, biofuels and other non-food crops (such as tobacco and cotton).
> 
> ...











						Emissions by sector
					

How much of CO2 emissions come from electricity, transport, or land use? What activities do our greenhouse gases comes from?




					ourworldindata.org


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 16, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So, your back up is the 'Our World in Data' breakdown of emissions by sector. If you read the text accompanying that graph it rather undermines your efforts to minimise the environmental impact of animal agriculture. I've highlighted the relevant portions in red:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You might want to have another look at that.

5.8% from livestock

4.1% from agricultural soils
1.3% from rice prod
3.5% from crop burning
1.4% from cropland
10.3% total from crops.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> So, apart from the one cut and paste error on a graph, which of my peer reviewed sources are nonsense please?
> 
> You still haven't addressed your lying about subsidies


It's not me making up nonsense claims and absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories.



> Currently, British farmers receive £3.4 billion a year in subsidies under the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Controversially, the subsidies are based on how much land a farmer owns and not on how much they produce. To mention a few specific examples, British dairy farmers obtain over £56 million in EU direct payments which make up almost 40% of their annual profits. Lowland and upland livestock farmers receive about £38 million in subsidies which make up over 90% of their annual profits!
> 
> A sheep farmer from North York Moors national park in northern England, who owns about 700 sheep over 1,250 acres, makes around £12,000 profit in a good year, and even this small income would be impossible without subsidies worth about £44,000 from the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
> 
> In comparison, farmers growing cereals obtain about £40 million in EU direct payments (equivalent to almost 80% of their annual profit) but half of the cereals, pulses and oil crops are used for animal feed meaning that about £20 million of the subsidies for cereals are still for the livestock and dairy industry. And for fruit farms, the basic payment scheme only makes up roughly 10% of their annual profit (2014-2015).











						UK farming subsidies and Brexit explained — Surge | Creative Non-Profit for Animal Rights
					

Following on from our recent video on subsidies - Why a cheeseburger can cost less than fruit - Surge project manager Tatiana von Rheinbaben delves deeper into UK farming subsidies pre- and post-Brexit.




					www.surgeactivism.org
				






> Every year the EU hands out billions in subsidies to Europe's meat and dairy industries. These direct subsidies make up the vast bulk of EU agricultural subsidies, which eat up 40% of the European budget, dwarfing the UK's net contribution. The UK also chooses to put meat and dairy on a par with healthier, more sustainable and more morally defensible foods by allowing them to be sold at 0% VAT.
> 
> Meat and dairy farming is inherently inefficient and eats up around 70% of the grain production of industrialised countries.
> 
> ...


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 16, 2021)

Did we rejoin the EU after we brexited?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

editor said:


> It's not me making up nonsense claims and absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I literally explained that in my post.

You said: veg was not subsidised and meat was.

I explained how subs work and therefore that extensive beef and sheep attract subs, whilst generally pig does not and poultry certainly doesn't (chicken sheds are not big enough to quality for BPS).
Pig and poultry make up 80% of the meat eaten in the UK.

Extensive veg certainly attracts a lot of subsidy as do combinable crops (cereals oilseeds)

So, plant foods are very heavily subsidised unless intensive polytunnel stuff.

Of course the extensive livestock industry attracted more money gross on an area based payments system, *much less land in the UK is croppable.
Agricultural land use in the UK:

*


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> Did we rejoin the EU after we brexited?


No.
BPS is being phased out. It will be replaced by ELMS which is for environmental works only, as per the "stewardship" schemes prior to BREXIT.

The combinable crops sector is in something of a panic about this as the wheat price hasn't really risen in real terms since the 90s, whereas the cost of diesel and fertiliser has. Expect grains to get a hell of a lot more expensive once it goes.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

This "extreme combining"  is about the max gradient a combine can cope with IF the soil is sufficiently good to support crops.

How much land in the UK is steeper than that? 

You'd have to be really really careful how you cultivated on that slope if you didn't want to lose all the soil downhill if it rained, so on my opinion is a bit irresponsible. Soils are critical in carbon sequestration.


----------



## butcher (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks Nice to see you are making it simple enough for the townies to grasp 😁


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

butcher said:


> Funky_monks Nice to see you are making it simple enough for the townies to grasp 😁


I generally have limited sympathy for farmer/landowners (as opposed to tennants or workers) who whinge, lots were born into extreme privilege.

However, of late, they do seem to keep having to explain themselves to Bob, works in an office but has read the odd newspaper....

"Why not just grow crops for human consumption?"

Gosh, if only farmers ( many of whom have been managing the same land for generations) had thought of that solution it was so obvious and under our noses the whole time! Thanks Bob, for pointing that out.....


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I literally explained that in my post.
> 
> You said: veg was not subsidised and meat was.
> 
> ...



The land subsidies are changing post Brexit though if they haven’t already. Whatever the wording it will protect the aristocracy though. I think they’re going for climate change reasons now. The Royals will still get their wedge.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The land subsidies are changing post Brexit though if they haven’t already. Whatever the wording it will protect the aristocracy though. I think they’re going for climate change reasons now. The Royals will still get their wedge.



But I thought Brenda’s little speech during the failed COP26 shindig was a selfless gesture of faith in an egalitarian future.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The land subsidies are changing post Brexit though if they haven’t already. Whatever the wording it will protect the aristocracy though. I think they’re going for climate change reasons now. The Royals will still get their wedge.


See my two posts about ELMS (the new subs post BREXIT): Posts #808 and in more detail #768

I made a much more detailed post about them in one of the other threads on this subject - in theory they are for environmental and "public goods" (eg access), but in practice they are paving the way for the subsidy burden to be taken on by the private sector through carbon offsetting and environment banking schemes that use the concept of Natural Capital. 

see: https://www.environmentbank.com/


----------



## ddraig (Nov 16, 2021)

butcher said:


> Well sourced, ethically farmed meat is great, over population is the worlds biggest problem, many vegans are insufferable.  *That's me done*.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

An example of how "the" science around enteric methane is far from settled: 
Rethinking methane from animal agriculture - CABI Agriculture and Bioscience


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2021)

ddraig said:


>



Well, exactly.  We’ve dealt with that neo-Malthusian nonsense so many times I can’t be arsed with it any more.

Anyone fancy picking up the baton?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 16, 2021)

At the very least, I'd say a plan b is needed, just in case COP27 isn't able to achieve a consensus for the selective culling of humans.


----------



## butcher (Nov 16, 2021)

ddraig said:


>


Well it is like a nasty spot you don't want to touch but keep having to have a probe at every now and again.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2021)

Raheem said:


> At the very least, I'd say a plan b is needed, just in case COP27 isn't able to achieve a consensus for the selective culling of humans.



There hasn’t been much of it (the neo-Malthusian bollocks) in the media lately.

I’m always disappointed to see it on here.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> You said: veg was not subsidised and meat was.


Could you provide that quote where I say that "veg is not subsidised"?

Thanks.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> An example of how "the" science around enteric methane is far from settled:
> Rethinking methane from animal agriculture - CABI Agriculture and Bioscience


The vast scientific consensus does not support this view, but you're doing that conspiracy thing of declaring one study as somehow capable of overwriting everything else because it fits your confirmation bias.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

editor said:


> The vast scientific consensus does not support this view, but you're doing that conspiracy thing of declaring one study as somehow capable of overwriting everything else because it fits your confirmation bias.


If it does, you'd have reams of papers to quote beyond Poore and Nimeck, but, you don't. That is an example that arrived on my desk today - I've posted loads of others. 

I think that maybe you think that an opinion piece in the Guardian is some how the same as a scientific journal article.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> If it does, you'd have reams of papers to quote beyond Poore and Nimeck, but, you don't. That is an example that arrived on my desk today - I've posted loads of others.
> 
> I think that maybe you think that an opinion piece in the Guardian is some how the same as a scientific journal article.


So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is _not_ contributing to climate change in any way at all?
 And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

editor said:


> This notion that fruit and veg is somehow really expensive and out of reach of many is one of the more ridiculous arguments in this thread. It's not hard to find street markets (and supermarkets) selling plenty of fruit and veg that is wildly affordable, even more so if you're going to compare it to beef/pork or whatever (and let's not forget plenty of animal produce is heavily subsidised).
> 
> I've had long spells on the dole as a vegetarian and never had problems finding decent veggie food to eat. I mean how cheap are potatoes, carrots, broccoli or loads of other vegetables?


There you go. 

Veg is affordable but meat is heavily subsidised to become so. 

If you were in any way not being disingenuous here, why mention that meat is subsidised and neglect to mention that veg is also heavily subsidised. 

Indeed, if you ate only poultry and pork, your veg would be subsidised and your meat wouldn't. 

Do you need any more straws to clutch or will you actually admit that you know categorically fuck all about how either food is produced or how subsidies work?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

editor said:


> So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is _not_ contributing to climate change in any way at all?
> And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?


I'm claiming that there isn't a scientific consensus around enteric methane, its one of the most contested things within my field currently.

You are confusing a few articles by two authors with a "consensus" because they have made it into the mainstream press.

You do understand that I was reading off a graph for the veg part, you, again have failed to read my posts. A clue: my opinion starts with the bit where I write "I think that" and, in that case, after I wrote those words, I then wrote: "I don't think we should give up eating veg" or words to that effect.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I'm claiming that there isn't a scientific consensus around enteric methane, its one of the most contested things within my field currently.
> 
> You are confusing a few articles by two authors with a "consensus" because they have made it into the mainstream press.
> 
> You do understand that I was reading off a graph for the veg part, you, again have failed to read my posts. A clue: my opinion starts with the bit where I write "I think that" and, in that case, after I wrote those words, I then wrote: "I don't think we should give up eating veg" or words to that effect.


Can you just answer the questions please? They're really quite straightforward and don't need to be accompanied by a load of bluster and obfuscation.

And no matter how much you try and bluff your way out of it, your original statements were crystal clear. If you're now saying that you got it wrong or got carried away, maybe it would be easier just to say so. 

And then you can answer this one:



editor said:


> Could you provide that quote where I say that "veg is not subsidised"?
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

editor said:


> Can you just answer the questions please? They're really quite straightforward and don't need to be accompanied by a load of bluster and obfuscation.
> 
> And no matter how much you try and bluff your way out of it, your original statements were crystal clear. If you're now saying that you got it wrong or got carried away, maybe it would be easier just to say so.
> 
> And then you can answer this one:


I'm very clear - if you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you go back and read my posts again. Plenty have understood them. 

It seems its only you, on this thread who has misunderstood me, even Jeff engages on points I've actually made as opposed to deliberately misunderstanding them, presumably for effect. 

I have no idea where you get your staggering arrogance from - I wouldn't ever presume to lecture you on computer programming/web design (or whatever it is that you do for work). I read a lot of politics threads on here and never really contribute because I know that whilst I have ideas, I'm nothing like as well read as the people on those threads, people who seem to have dedicated their lives to political theory, so I read and try to learn. I've spent quite a lot of my time explaining agriculture to people who have no experience of it - as you may be aware, most of my family are from greater Manchester, also I do a hell of a lot of outreach work in schools and yet none (including primary school age children) have failed to grasp it quite as spectacularly as you have. 

And yet, when it comes to something I've spent most of my adult life doing, and now lecture in that subject at university level, you, who reads the fucking Guardian and thinks it is somehow an infallable organ of truth which should not be questioned think that you have all the answers. It's fucking staggering.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 16, 2021)

editor said:


> So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is _not_ contributing to climate change in any way at all?
> And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?


What consensus?

Earlier in the thread you stated CO2 from livestock accounted for 35% of CO2.

I revised that down to 20%

On the news about COP26 they quoted 10.x%

From Jeff's pie chart it's only 5.8%

So which one is right? When there's nearly 30% difference between the top and bottom figures how can you be so certain that your right?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> When there's nearly 30% difference between the top and bottom figures how can you be so certain that your right?



It’s down to whether it’s the highest or lowest, and which end you want it to be at.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> I'm very clear - if you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you go back and read my posts again. Plenty have understood them.
> 
> It seems its only you, on this thread who has misunderstood me, even Jeff engages on points I've actually made as opposed to deliberately misunderstanding them, presumably for effect.
> 
> ...


Why won't you answer the simple questions I asked?

They're directly related to your claims here and if you're such an (incredibly biased) expert then it should be really easy to give a straightforward and concise reply without fudging, prevaricating or trying to change the subject. 



editor said:


> So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is _not_ contributing to climate change in any way at all?
> And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?





editor said:


> Could you provide that quote where I say that "veg is not subsidised"?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> What consensus?
> 
> Earlier in the thread you stated CO2 from livestock accounted for 35% of CO2.
> 
> ...


How about you read the question again. Slowly, if that helps.

Do you think it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg rather than beef?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 16, 2021)

I don’t think militant vegetarians do themselves many favours. Cowspiracy was riddled with bullshit.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2021)

editor said:


> Why won't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> 
> They're directly related to your claims here and if you're such an (incredibly biased) expert then it should be really easy to give a straightforward and concise reply without fudging, prevaricating or trying to change the subject.


Ive answered them. 

Read them, or don't. It's up to you. But your game of deliberately misunderstanding posts for effect is tedious, and is making you look like something of an idiot. 

How do you know I'm "incredibly biased" - how long have you spent in the field of agriculture or agricultural science?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> How about you read the question again. Slowly, if that helps.
> 
> Do you think it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg rather than beef?


Yeah - I didn't say that, you've missed a very important "according to this graph" before the rest of "it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg than beef" a graph, I later I realised I posted in error (and said so). 

Its odd that you are using that one straw to try and wrestle some sort of moral victory as opposed to the reams of stuff I have not posted in error. Its almost like you don't have a point.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t think militant vegetarians do themselves many favours. Cowspiracy was riddled with bullshit.


To be fair, most NETFLIX documentaries are.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Ive answered them.
> 
> Read them, or don't. It's up to you. But your game of deliberately misunderstanding posts for effect is tedious, and is making you look like something of an idiot.


You haven't answered them at all you fucking liar.

Truth is, I'm utterly bored with your lies and bluster. The way you won't even consider cutting back on meat and keep making excuses for a disgusting industry that burns up resources and causes real suffering means I have absolutely zero respect for you, your position or your bizarre conspiracy theories,

But just like every thread before, you and a handful of pro-meat zealots have destroyed any prospect of an informed debate so I'll leave you to it. Funny thing is that in a way I wish you were right, and all this rising meat consumption and factory farms weren't disastrous for the planet like you claim. But I simply don't believe you.

But I'm out and I'm putting you on ignore. Bye.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> You haven't answered them at all you fucking liar.
> 
> Truth is, I'm utterly bored with your lies and bluster. The way you won't even consider cutting back on meat and keep making excuses for a disgusting industry that burns up resources and causes real suffering means I have absolutely zero respect for you, your position or your bizarre conspiracy theories,
> 
> ...


😂

"I've realised I've made myself like an utter dick, so I'm going to throw my toys out of the pram, and stick my fingers in my ears"


----------



## kabbes (Nov 17, 2021)

He has definitely answered those questions, I have to say. I’ve been reading what everybody says and I know what his answers have been. For the avoidance of doubt, they were:

“So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is _not_ contributing to climate change in any way at all?”

— No. everything “contributes to climate change” in some way.

“And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?”

— Depends in both cases what, if anything, they replace these things with.  However, probably not.

And, in both cases, he has been clear also to answer

— so what?  The questions don’t serve as any kind of jump off point. If you want to address the massive problem of how people are to be fed, you have to go a lot deeper than “is this of zero contribution to climate change?” and “is the whole of the beef industry bigger or less of a contributor than the whole of the vegetable industry”


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> How about you read the question again. Slowly, if that helps.
> 
> Do you think it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg rather than beef?


Perhaps you should re-read your own post as you don't seem to be able to remember what you posted. I was replying to your first question.


> So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is _not_ contributing to climate change in any way at all?


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 22, 2021)

Just an observation - watching some of channel 4 output this afternoon I noticed no fewer than three tv ads which seemed to be on the theme of eating less meat.

Wagamama were advertising that 50% of their menu choices now don’t have meat, the hairy bikers were pushing Knorr vegetable stock pots to a dedicated meat eater and Sainsbury’s were suggesting adding chick peas and lentils to dishes to halve their meat content. Those were just the ones I noticed. 

There‘s definately a trend underway, seems to me at least.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> Just an observation - watching some of channel 4 output this afternoon I noticed no fewer than three tv ads which seemed to be on the theme of eating less meat.
> 
> Wagamama were advertising that 50% of their menu choices now don’t have meat, the hairy bikers were pushing Knorr vegetable stock pots to a dedicated meat eater and Sainsbury’s were suggesting adding chick peas and lentils to dishes to halve their meat content. Those were just the ones I noticed.
> 
> There‘s definately a trend underway, seems to me at least.



Of course companies will leap on such a trend because there's so much capacity for meaty profit margins on vegetable products, because people are happy to pay the same price as their meat-based alternatives.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 22, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> Just an observation - watching some of channel 4 output this afternoon I noticed no fewer than three tv ads which seemed to be on the theme of eating less meat.
> 
> Wagamama were advertising that 50% of their menu choices now don’t have meat, the hairy bikers were pushing Knorr vegetable stock pots to a dedicated meat eater and Sainsbury’s were suggesting adding chick peas and lentils to dishes to halve their meat content. Those were just the ones I noticed.
> 
> There‘s definately a trend underway, seems to me at least.



I'm fully onboard with it. And I'm exactly the target market as a meat eater trying to eat less of it, so the more meat alternatives that can sway me with the better. And tbh the quality of Beyond burgers or even the McPlant burger at McDonalds are already enough to make me not want to bother with beef burgers ever again now.


----------



## Sue (Nov 22, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> Just an observation - watching some of channel 4 output this afternoon I noticed no fewer than three tv ads which seemed to be on the theme of eating less meat.
> 
> Wagamama were advertising that 50% of their menu choices now don’t have meat, the hairy bikers were pushing Knorr vegetable stock pots to a dedicated meat eater and Sainsbury’s were suggesting adding chick peas and lentils to dishes to halve their meat content. Those were just the ones I noticed.
> 
> There‘s definately a trend underway, seems to me at least.


TBF, Wagamama have long had a separate veggie/vegan menu as have quite a few of the big chains. The problem is more that you often have to know they exist and ask for them. (Wagamama did do a thing a few years ago where they asked if you also wanted a veggie/vegan menu which was good I thought.)


----------



## 8ball (Nov 22, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> There‘s definately a trend underway, seems to me at least.



Have you been living under a rock for the last 4 years?


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 22, 2021)

skyscraper101 said:


> And tbh the quality of Beyond burgers or even the McPlant burger at McDonalds are already enough to make me not want to bother with beef burgers ever again now.


I’ve never tried one of these ”fake” burgers but I guess I should take the chance next time it arises. 



8ball said:


> Have you been living under a rock for the last 4 years?


Maybe, yes. I deffo don’t normally see U.K. tv ads, which is why they were noticeable to me.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 22, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> I’ve never tried one of these ”fake” burgers but I guess I should take the chance next time it arises.
> 
> 
> Maybe, yes. I deffo don’t normally see U.K. tv ads, which is why they were noticeable to me.



I’ve tried the “No Bull” and the “Beyond” burgers and was impressed with both (the former isn’t as good, but is also about half the price, so no complaints there).

They both beat a lot of “real” burgers imo.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 23, 2021)

Yeah - vegan burgers are fine.  Vegan ice cream also - I've tasted stuff just as good as the dairy equivalent.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 23, 2021)

Hollis said:


> Yeah - vegan burgers are fine.


I guess the trick to getting these things to really take off is if they can be made to be the cheaper alternative to meat burgers. That’s assuming there can be sufficient production capacity to meet that level of demand. I really know nothing about how these things get made and whether they can be made efficiently in the kind of volumes needed to shift the fast food market away from beef patties.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2021)

Hollis said:


> Yeah - vegan burgers are fine.  Vegan ice cream also - I've tasted stuff just as good as the dairy equivalent.



Interesting, given how bad the “cheese” is.
Will give it a try.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 23, 2021)

8ball said:


> Interesting, given how bad the “cheese” is.
> Will give it a try.


The ice cream is much better than the cheese. Lacks something in texture or at least has a slightly different texture. The Magnum's not bad.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 23, 2021)

Sue said:


> TBF, Wagamama have long had a separate veggie/vegan menu as have quite a few of the big chains. The problem is more that you often have to know they exist and ask for them. (Wagamama did do a thing a few years ago where they asked if you also wanted a veggie/vegan menu which was good I thought.)



The vegan options at Wagamama are amazing and it's the first chain restaurant to have 50% plant-based options. I do worry about the separate vegan menu though. Vegan food isn't just for vegans but perhaps non-vegans are less likely to specifically request a vegan menu than pick vegan options from a mixed menu?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 23, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> The ice cream is much better than the cheese. Lacks something in texture or at least has a slightly different texture. The Magnum's not bad.



The vegan Ben and Jerry's is very good.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The vegan options at Wagamama are amazing and it's the first chain restaurant to have 50% plant-based options. I do worry about the separate vegan menu though. Vegan food isn't just for vegans but perhaps non-vegans are less likely to specifically request a vegan menu than pick vegan options from a mixed menu?



Not been there in years, but def agree with that last bit.  A place I go to sometimes has a separate vegan menu but some things, like the Beyond cheeseburger, are on both (no difference re: the vegan cheese either).  I'd sooner just have one menu with some labelling.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2021)

MrCurry said:


> Just an observation - watching some of channel 4 output this afternoon I noticed no fewer than three tv ads which seemed to be on the theme of eating less meat.
> 
> Wagamama were advertising that 50% of their menu choices now don’t have meat, the hairy bikers were pushing Knorr vegetable stock pots to a dedicated meat eater and Sainsbury’s were suggesting adding chick peas and lentils to dishes to halve their meat content. Those were just the ones I noticed.
> 
> There‘s definately a trend underway, seems to me at least.


Yeah, as I said, this is great news for the processors and manufacturers of highly processed foods - the main cost in those containing meat was the meat itself and the main scandals around them were mostly about how little meat they contained. This way they can be all filler and stamp a little green plant logo on them so people somehow think they are eco-friendly.

There's the trend: Number of vegans Great Britain 2019 | Statista

The number of Vegans had risen to a staggering 1.16% of the population by 2019. Be interesting to see what happens post covid (during COVID meat sales went through the roof).


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Yeah, as I said, this is great news for the processors and manufacturers of highly processed foods - the main cost in those containing meat was the meat itself and the main scandals around them were mostly about how little meat they contained. This way they can be all filler and stamp a little green plant logo on them so people somehow think they are eco-friendly.



Presumably you’re talking about Wagamama.  I haven’t heard of any scandals involving veggie stock cubes, chickpeas or lentils containing less than the stated amount of meat.


----------



## Sue (Nov 23, 2021)

8ball said:


> Presumably you’re talking about Wagamama.  I haven’t heard of any scandals involving veggie stock cubes, chickpeas or lentils containing less than the stated amount of meat.


Wagamama's not highly processed either so must admit I'm a bit confused.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2021)

Sue said:


> Wagamama's not highly processed either so must admit I'm a bit confused.



It seemed _kinda_ processed when I’ve been, but in the way I expect from a lot of Asian food.

I don’t know whether their meat-free choices make them more so.


----------



## Sue (Nov 23, 2021)

8ball said:


> It seemed _kinda_ processed when I’ve been, but in the way I expect from a lot of Asian food.
> 
> I don’t know whether their meat-free choices make them more so.


Tofu/veggies/noodles/rice whatever. Not v processed imo. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2021)

Sue said:


> Tofu/veggies/noodles/rice whatever. Not v processed imo. 🤷‍♀️



Yeah, not _super-procesed_ imo based on those ingredients.  Would have to know more about preservatives etc. because you could argue on similar grounds that McDonalds isn’t especially processed.


----------



## Saunders (Nov 23, 2021)

Sue said:


> Tofu/veggies/noodles/rice whatever. Not v processed imo. 🤷‍♀️


A few years ago one of my kids (the vegan) was in hospital in London and his and my joy when I brought him some food from their nearest branch.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2021)

Saunders said:


> A few years ago one of my kids (the vegan) was in hospital in London and his and my joy when I brought him some food from their nearest branch.



Hey, when the alternative is hospital food I don’t think it’s a big diff that it’s the vegan kid.


----------



## Saunders (Nov 23, 2021)

8ball said:


> Hey, when the alternative is hospital food I don’t think it’s a big diff that it’s the vegan kid.


Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but for me it looked, tasted and smelled like good food.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2021)

Saunders said:


> Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but for me it looked, tasted and smelled like good food.



Yeah, not dissing it, not had their vegan grub.  Have spent enough time in hospitals though.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 24, 2021)

Saunders said:


> Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but for me it looked, tasted and smelled like good food.



The wagamama vegan menu is so good! Here are a few of the dishes (before anyone asks, the "egg" is coconut and siracha mayo):


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2021)

That looks better than the non-vegan stuff I've had a Wagamama.


----------



## Sue (Nov 24, 2021)

Damn you, Jeff Robinson. I'm hungry and that ^ has really not helped. 😡


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 24, 2021)

Sue said:


> Damn you, Jeff Robinson. I'm hungry and that ^ has really not helped. 😡



Genuinely sorry. I did appreciate that risk but indulgently posted them anyway


----------



## likesfish (Dec 3, 2021)

Burgers Archives - Really Happy Chicken

tried this perfectly edible and tastier than KFC


----------



## 8ball (Dec 3, 2021)

Pics look good.  I’m not v familiar with seitan.


----------



## Skim (Dec 4, 2021)

Vegan Fried Chick*n Products - VFC
					

VFC products are made from wheat protein wrapped in a crispy southern fried corn flake coating. VFC's Bites and Fillets cook in around 20 minutes at 200C.




					vfcfoods.com
				




Finally got hold of some VFC ‘chicken’ the other day. Very good indeed.


----------



## Skim (Dec 4, 2021)

Hollis said:


> Yeah - vegan burgers are fine.  Vegan ice cream also - I've tasted stuff just as good as the dairy equivalent.


The Jude’s range is lush.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2021)

skyscraper101 said:


> Gotta say, I'm into the Beyond Burgers, McPlant Burgers, Vegan Katsu Curries and Veggie Richmond Sausages. If they could keep the plant based meat alternatives as convincing as those things, then I'm all for it.


Problem with these is how processed they are and how expensive. There’s still no alternative, apart from Quorn, for those who want to cook their food.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 4, 2021)

Basically I m too bone idol to change can live without meat. 
Understand industrial meat production is shit  for me and the planet may try eating more meat free. 
 But hate preachy vegans 99.9% are fine the other 0.01% on the other hand😱


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2021)

likesfish said:
			
		

> I m too bone idol





likesfish , yesterday


----------



## likesfish (Dec 4, 2021)

Bloody intelligence nazis. 
Check your thinking privilege 🤬🤣


----------



## redcogs (Dec 4, 2021)

i'll miss eating pies.  Pies are enjoyable to me.


----------



## Sue (Dec 4, 2021)

redcogs said:


> i'll miss eating pies.  Pies are enjoyable to me.


You know veggie pies are a thing..?


----------



## redcogs (Dec 4, 2021)

i have enjoyed greggs vegan sausage rolls also


----------



## redcogs (Dec 4, 2021)

but ive been eating and enjoying pies and pasties for at least 65 years


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 4, 2021)

Sue said:


> You know veggie pies are a thing..?


Apple pies have never had meat in or at least I hope not.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 4, 2021)

Plus pies and pasties are widely available in the supermarket cheap section


----------



## redcogs (Dec 4, 2021)

does chicken paste count ?  i enjoy chicken paste butties


----------



## 8ball (Dec 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Problem with these is how processed they are and how expensive. There’s still no alternative, apart from Quorn, for those who want to cook their food.



The No Bull burgers are about half the price of the Beyond ones.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> The No Bull burgers are about half the price of the Beyond ones.


Still premade burgers though


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 4, 2021)

There's always bean stew.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Still premade burgers though



Oh, see what you mean.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 4, 2021)

We’ve discover the joys of grilled portobello mushroom and halloumi burgers and honestly they are much nicer than any of the pre made ones. 

Wife marinades them in soy sauce and sesame oil and cooks them until juicy as hell.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There's always bean stew.


And there always will be.


----------



## Sue (Dec 4, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> We’ve discover the joys of grilled portobello mushroom and halloumi burgers and honestly they are much nicer than any of the pre made ones.
> 
> Wife marinades them in soy sauce and sesame oil and cooks them until juicy as hell.


I hope it's not a mushroom in a bun = a burger thing because that is one of my pet hates. Its not a burger, it's a bloody mushroom in a bun ffs.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 4, 2021)

Sue said:


> I hope it's not a mushroom in a bun = a burger thing because that is one of my pet hates. Its not a burger, it's a bloody mushroom in a bun ffs.



Its delicious is what it is.

Though I'll never forgive that pub that sold me a sweet potato burger that was literally just a slice of sweet potato.


----------



## Sue (Dec 4, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Its delicious is what it is.
> 
> Though I'll never forgive that pub that sold me a sweet potato burger that was literally just a slice of sweet potato.


Pubs have form for that on the mushroom front which is exactly my point.


----------



## Skim (Dec 4, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Its delicious is what it is.
> 
> Though I'll never forgive that pub that sold me a sweet potato burger that was literally just a slice of sweet potato.


I had a roast potato burger recently. It was definitively not a burger.


----------



## Ĝasper (Dec 4, 2021)

Trapped gas
Too much fibre

Transition smoothly to the veg, and thank me later.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 4, 2021)

Ĝasper said:


> Trapped gas
> Too much fibre
> 
> Transition smoothly to the veg, and thank me later.



Big sudden increases in pulses can lead to issues.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 5, 2021)

Grilled aubergine with cheese makes a great "burger"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 6, 2021)

redcogs said:


> does chicken paste count ?  i enjoy chicken paste butties



Bleugh. Used to get given this in my lunches as a kid. Inedible muck.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 6, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Bleugh. Used to get given this in my lunches as a kid. Inedible muck.


especially tasty on buttered toast 😅


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 7, 2021)

Sue said:


> Pubs have form for that on the mushroom front which is exactly my point.


The last time I had meat was the reverse. I thought the mushroom burger was a mushroom in a bun but it was a mushroom on a beefburger in a bun. Live and learn.


----------



## NoXion (Dec 7, 2021)

redcogs said:


> i'll miss eating pies.  Pies are enjoyable to me.



Pies aren't going anywhere. Even the ones containing meat.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 7, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> The last time I had meat was the reverse. I thought the mushroom burger was a mushroom in a bun but it was a mushroom on a beefburger in a bun. Live and learn.



Clue would have been the word "burger".
Though I agree with all parties that they should either do one thing or the other.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 7, 2021)

8ball said:


> Clue would have been the word "burger".
> Though I agree with all parties that they should either do one thing or the other.


Their next door neighbours call a mushroom  in a bun a mushroom burger.


----------



## Sue (Dec 7, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Their next door neighbours call a mushroom  in a bun a mushroom burger.


So do many pubs etc. 😡


----------



## 8ball (Dec 7, 2021)

Sue said:


> So do many pubs etc. 😡



On a brighter note, I have noticed a downtick in the abuse of the word "pie".


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 10, 2022)

Let them eat gorse









						Protein from gorse bushes could feed millions of people, says expert
					

Invasive prickly plant is widely cleared in Scotland and has been used as animal fodder in the past




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## stavros (Jan 17, 2022)

Veg diet plus rewilding gives 'double climate dividend'.


----------



## MrCurry (Jan 18, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Let them eat gorse
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting article, but could be a lot more informative if it gave some clue as to what gorse based human food might look like?  The closest it comes is to hint at “gorse protein isolates”, but what the heck does that mean I wonder?

I mean are we going to see gorse burgers, gorse nuggets, or will it be less identifiable and just a generic “plant based protein” meat substitute of some kind?

As tempting as it is to dismiss it as ridiculous, I suspect these kinds of solutions will indeed be part of the “post meat future“, whether people know the origins or not.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 18, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Let them eat gorse
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I personally am looking forward to getting my protein from air.









						AIR PROTEIN
					






					www.airprotein.com


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 18, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I personally am looking forward to getting my protein from air.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So it's not from air it's from bacteria / mould.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 18, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> So it's not from air it's from bacteria / mould.


 
Sounds delicious either way.


----------



## editor (Jan 18, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> So it's not from air it's from bacteria / mould.


Better that than ripped out of a once-living creature that lived a life of relentless cruelty, eh?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 18, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> So it's not from air it's from bacteria / mould.



Well, Quorn is mould, so hey ho, their nuggets are pretty good.

The ‘air’ thing is a handy investment pitch.


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 18, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Interesting article, but could be a lot more informative if it gave some clue as to what gorse based human food might look like?  The closest it comes is to hint at “gorse protein isolates”, but what the heck does that mean I wonder?
> 
> I mean are we going to see gorse burgers, gorse nuggets, or will it be less identifiable and just a generic “plant based protein” meat substitute of some kind?
> 
> As tempting as it is to dismiss it as ridiculous, I suspect these kinds of solutions will indeed be part of the “post meat future“, whether people know the origins or not.


Given that cows eat gorse I think I will be happy to get my gorse second-hand as it were!


----------



## editor (Jan 18, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Given that cows eat gorse I think I will be happy to get my gorse second-hand as it were!


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 18, 2022)

8ball said:


> Well, Quorn is mould, so hey ho, their nuggets are pretty good.
> 
> The ‘air’ thing is a handy investment pitch.


Bacteria and mould can't make protein from just air though. The article likens the process to wine and cheese / yoghurt making. In wine the mould (yeast) uses the sugars in the fruit to provide it's energy to grow. Likewise in yoghurt / cheese the bacteria use the sugar in milk as an energy source. Unless this factory is next door to a sweet factory you don't find sugar in the air. It does say that renewable energy will be used in the process so unless they have found mould / bacteria that run on electricity then there is some crucial information missing from their process description in where the 'food' for the bacteria / mould comes from.


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 18, 2022)

editor said:


>


😘


----------



## 8ball (Jan 18, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Bacteria and mould can't make protein from just air though. The article likens the process to wine and cheese / yoghurt making. In wine the mould (yeast) uses the sugars in the fruit to provide it's energy to grow. Likewise in yoghurt / cheese the bacteria use the sugar in milk as an energy source. Unless this factory is next door to a sweet factory you don't find sugar in the air. It does say that renewable energy will be used in the process so unless they have found mould / bacteria that run on electricity then there is some crucial information missing from their process description in where the 'food' for the bacteria / mould comes from.



Yeah, by “handy investment pitch”, I didn’t mean it was accurate. 

I’m quite intrigued about the production process, though.


----------



## Micky D (Apr 16, 2022)

They can invent all the non meat frankenstein foods they can imagine but you can never beat a real steak , lamb chops , pork belly , bacon ...


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2022)

Micky D said:


> They can invent all the non meat frankenstein foods they can imagine but you can never beat a real steak , lamb chops , pork belly , bacon ...


And on that note, you can tuck into a juicy, meaty ban from this thread, Rambo.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 16, 2022)

I’d have no problem being veggie again, and eating completely plant based food for several days a week. Biggest issue would be what to feed fussy children, given certain meats are both tolerated by them and are an efficient way of getting certain nutrients in them. Tbf the youngest is almost dairy free.


----------



## Poot (Apr 16, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I’d have no problem being veggie again, and eating completely plant based food for several days a week. Biggest issue would be what to feed fussy children, given certain meats are both tolerated by them and are an efficient way of getting certain nutrients in them. Tbf the youngest is almost dairy free.


My boy used to embarrass me no end by going to his mates' houses and eating ALL the meat, then asking for seconds, then making sure that everyone knew he was the poor hard-done-to son of vegetarians. Sod.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 25, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Interesting article, but could be a lot more informative if it gave some clue as to what gorse based human food might look like?  The closest it comes is to hint at “gorse protein isolates”, but what the heck does that mean I wonder?
> 
> I mean are we going to see gorse burgers, gorse nuggets, or will it be less identifiable and just a generic “plant based protein” meat substitute of some kind?
> 
> As tempting as it is to dismiss it as ridiculous, I suspect these kinds of solutions will indeed be part of the “post meat future“, whether people know the origins or not



I’ve done a bit of work for this group and a lot of it actually looks and tastes a lot like real food and gorse/whin-based equivalents for a lot of pie-like, loaf-like, biscuit-like foods are well developed. Gorse pie is actually pretty nice and surprisingly colourful.

As ever, the problem is provenance though and despite a fair whack of public funding, the big money behind this is the national and international scale animal feed manufacturers, who seem hell-bent on owning as much of this possible food-future and it’s rights/related processes as they possibly can.


----------



## stavros (Apr 25, 2022)

Can anyone recommend where sells vegan butter? I've had a cursory look in the Coop, Tesco and M&S, plus my local farm shop, but I can't see any.


----------



## bcuster (Apr 25, 2022)

Meat and seafood are so expensive, it is really time for me to find alternatives. Plus, I've been watching too many Dodo videos on Twitter. Maybe we shouldn't be killing animals to eat in the 21 century, in the 1st place...


----------



## Saunders (Apr 25, 2022)

stavros said:


> Can anyone recommend where sells vegan butter? I've had a cursory look in the Coop, Tesco and M&S, plus my local farm shop, but I can't see any.


The best vegan butter I’ve tasted is called Naturli, black packaging with white writing, comes as spreadable in a tub and also in a block. The sainsburys I shop in all sell it as do all the wholefood shops I go in. It’s really pretty good, great for lactose intolerant people too. I have a few vegan and lactose intolerant fam and friends so always have some in the fridge, and use it it baking a lot.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2022)

stavros said:


> Can anyone recommend where sells vegan butter? I've had a cursory look in the Coop, Tesco and M&S, plus my local farm shop, but I can't see any.


The Naturli stuff is good, but I always get the cheapo Flora vegan marg which is excellent stuff.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2022)

Here's same good news:



> All fast food will eventually become vegan, a leading plant-based restaurateur has said, after Burger King trialled making one of its flagship restaurants completely meat-free.
> 
> The Burger King outlet in Leicester Square, London, has been offering only vegan food for a month to test its popularity. This includes a plant-based version of its Whopper burger, as well as a “chicken” katsu burger and vegan nuggets.
> 
> ...











						Burger King ends all-vegan London branch trial amid prediction trend will become norm
					

Critics say trial in Leicester Square is ‘manipulative’ but expert says fast food ideally suited for plant-based dishes




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2022)

Also in the news (I'll be giving the insects a swerve, mind):



> Numerous studies have shown that moving towards a plant-based diet has benefits for both health and the planet.
> 
> A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended a switch to balanced diets that are rich in plants like grains and vegetables, with a moderate intake of sustainably produced meat and dairy.











						Lab-grown meat and insects 'good for planet and health'
					

Switching to futuristic foods will reduce carbon emissions and save land and water, a study suggests.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## CNT36 (Apr 26, 2022)

> “It’s extremely manipulative. It’s right where all of the clubs are and hungry drunk people, for example, won’t have many options. Burger King has been there for as long as I can remember. So it’s basically trying to force people into consuming chemically enhanced fake meat.”


Leicester Square well known for being devoid of places to eat.


----------



## furluxor (Apr 26, 2022)

I'm already a herbivore. I'd love to say it's for the environment and the animals but whilst I care for both, the bulk of my motivation comes from 1) health; 2) aversions. Dr Greger's "How Not To Die", after being tested for quackery (free of any), became a big hit in my house. I have often also felt uncomfortable eating meat/fish/dairy, I guess the cognitive dissonance manifesting as an aversion? Either way, it all worked out well in the end.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Leicester Square well known for being devoid of places to eat.


It's laughable nonsense, isn't it?


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 1, 2022)

editor said:


> The Naturli stuff is good, but I always get the cheapo Flora vegan marg which is excellent stuff.


It’s absolute Frankenstein food. Intensively manufactured seed oils, of which this product will probably have more than 1 and as many as 5, is one of the main reasons we have an obesity epidemic.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2022)

editor said:


> Also in the news (I'll be giving the insects a swerve, mind):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I suspect that cultured meat will have an easier time being marketed than insects. Moan about how irrational it is as much as you like, but guess what, people aren't fundamentally rational beings. Rational thought requires active effort. Otherwise the free market would actually work as its proponents like to claim it does.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 1, 2022)

NoXion said:


> I suspect that cultured meat will have an easier time being marketed than insects. Moan about how irrational it is as much as you like, but guess what, people aren't fundamentally rational beings. Rational thought requires active effort. Otherwise the free market would actually work as its proponents like to claim it does.



You _will_ eat the bugs! 

I don’t think I’ve seen cultured meat _or_ bugs on the shelves at regular food shops.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 1, 2022)

furluxor said:


> I'm already a herbivore. I'd love to say it's for the environment and the animals but whilst I care for both, the bulk of my motivation comes from 1) health; 2) aversions. Dr Greger's "How Not To Die", after being tested for quackery (free of any), became a big hit in my house. I have often also felt uncomfortable eating meat/fish/dairy, I guess the cognitive dissonance manifesting as an aversion? Either way, it all worked out well in the end.


If your motivation comes from health, and as a herbivore if you are eating manufactured seed oils I really advise you to look into this.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2022)

8ball said:


> You _will_ eat the bugs!



Some people are already digging their heels in about that. Hopefully what will happen is that all the fuss and stupid culture war bullshit will be largely focused on bug-based food, and cultured meat slips into place while the idiots are distracted.

The slaughter-meat lobby might be a potential fly in that ointment, but I think economics will win out in the end.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> It’s absolute Frankenstein food.


Do you mean Frankenstein or Frankenstein’s Monster?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 1, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Some people are already digging their heels in about that. Hopefully what will happen is that all the fuss and stupid culture war bullshit will be largely focused on bug-based food, and cultured meat slips into place while the idiots are distracted.
> 
> The slaughter-meat lobby might be a potential fly in that ointment, but I think economics will win out in the end.



Have you tried any cultured meat?  I’ve no idea what it’s like, how much it costs etc.

The bugs will most likely be ground up and used as ingredients, I think.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 1, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you mean Frankenstein or Frankenstein’s Monster?



I thought the monster was more of a steak kind of guy.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2022)

"Frankenstein food" is such a fucking garbage term. It's emotive bullshit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2022)

8ball said:


> I thought the monster was more of a steak kind of guy.


I’m lost. Which one is using Flora?


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2022)

8ball said:


> Have you tried any cultured meat?  I’ve no idea what it’s like, how much it costs etc.
> 
> The bugs will most likely be ground up and used as ingredients, I think.



I've not tried any yet, no. I assume that's because it's yet to reach critical mass. But as far as I can tell, there is no technical reason why it couldn't.

I think bugs are more likely to be used as animal feed.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 1, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m lost. Which one is using Flora?



I wouldn’t use it when cooking steak.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2022)

8ball said:


> I wouldn’t use it when cooking steak.



Isn't Flora made from sunflower oil? I've cooked plenty of meat using sunflower oil. It has a high burning temperature which makes it ideal for such cooking.

The idea that seed oils are some dietary evil is just bizarre to me.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> I've not tried any yet, no. I assume that's because it's yet to reach critical mass. But as far as I can tell, there is no technical reason why it couldn't.
> 
> I think bugs are more likely to be used as animal feed.



There are cricket flour enthusiasts, but it’s currently quite expensive.



			https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bugvita-Cricket-Powder-Six-Legged-Superfood/dp/B089DNJMJT/ref=asc_df_B089DNJMJT/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=430833441007&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15953146706224943432&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006507&hvtargid=pla-996184375117&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=102739074409&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=430833441007&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15953146706224943432&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006507&hvtargid=pla-996184375117


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Isn't Flora made from sunflower oil? I've cooked plenty of meat using sunflower oil. It has a high burning temperature which makes it ideal for such cooking.
> 
> The idea that seed oils are some dietary evil is just bizarre to me.



Flora =/= sunflower oil, but it’s not a good choice for cooking steak anyway.

Try a peanut oil or light olive oil.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> "Frankenstein food" is such a fucking garbage term. It's emotive


But it really isn’t. Our food now is made up of garbage. Seed oils. Highly processed carbohydrates. Processed sugar. There isn’t a nutritious calorie amongst any of it.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> "Frankenstein food" is such a fucking garbage term. It's emotive bullshit.



That was the intention tbf.  Anti-GMO campaigners wanted to create a bogeyman without the hassle of needing to explain anything or persuade anyone.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

On checking myself I feel the need to make a correction.

It seems Frankenstein’s monster’s diet of choice was one of nuts and berries.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 2, 2022)

I thought that sunflower oil broke down harmfully at high temperatures? I'd understood that lard (  ) and olive oil and rapeseed oil were better for cooking, why I changed over to rapeseed a couple of years ago.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> It’s absolute Frankenstein food. Intensively manufactured seed oils, of which this product will probably have more than 1 and as many as 5, is one of the main reasons we have an obesity epidemic.


So the obesity epidemic is down to people using Naturili? Be sure to produce some supporting evidence to back up that claim. Or just STFU with your hysterical bullshit..


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

editor said:


> So the obesity epidemic is down to people using Naturili? Be sure to produce some supporting evidence to back up that claim. Or just STFU with your hysterical bullshit..


Not Naturili per se but seed oils in general (but you knew this is what I was saying). Along with highly processed food, refined sugar and carbohydrates, these unnatural foods are loved by the food industry. Cheap, tasty and long shelf life. Practically devoid of nutrition. It’s why people are so fat now.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2022)

When people discuss the 'obesity epidemic' they need to understand that the science on it is really not that clear... Nor can you infer from 'eating loads of refined white bread probably not good' that 'drinking soy products' is just as bad (even though the soy may even be 'more processed'). This bollocks about natural/unnatural (see naturalistic fallacy) doesn't really get you anywhere... That said I'm not particularly inclined to endorse vegan products; it's true that many are shit substitutes for their meat/dairy counterparts (vegan cheese is particularly egregious - like 1g protein/100g - wtf?). Key question really though is serious outcomes, easiest and least fallible way to get a grasp of what's going on... Not 'did they lose 5kg over this 3 month study' or something, but 'do vegans have higher rates of heart disease, higher rates of obesity' etc. No, they do not.

The root causes of these health outcomes (I'm inclined not to use 'obesity epidemic' because it has a tendency to be levelled against groups that already have it really fucking hard) lie in poverty, access to food etc. Eating refined foods isn't bad in itself, eating even slightly refined carbs specifically certainly has been hugely overblown... It has lead to the rise of new eating disorders like orthorexia (obsession with 'clean eating'), fed into by aforementioned naturalistic fallacy. What is very likely problematic is that people have to rely on these as their _primary_ source of calories, and that they're relying on the absolute shittiest versions. Because they're cheap, because you can prep them in whatever short amount of time you have left between multiple shit jobs and childcare. Equally when making claims about the benefits of veganism etc you have to keep that in mind - vegans are going to tend to have more time and income, they're going to tend to be drawn from groups that are 'health conscious' and/or actively engaged with politics/environmental stuff. That's a huge selection bias.

To put it succinctly; science is unclear, don't worry too much about diet, make your choices based on ethics and try to avoid the worst of the processed food world. Cook from scratch when you can, and if you can't er... Fuck capitalism?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> I thought the monster was more of a steak kind of guy.



He was a vegetarian.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

I don’t agree with eating refined foods isn’t bad in itself.  Who is going to be healthier in the long run? Somebody who has a couple of slices of refined white bread with marge for breakfast most days or somebody  who has a couple of eggs? We’ve been fed this “a calorie is a calorie” thing and it’s not true. We’re seeing an epidemic of diseases of the metabolism and it is from what people put in their mouths along with lack of sleep and the environment they’re living in.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> But it really isn’t. Our food now is made up of garbage. Seed oils. Highly processed carbohydrates. Processed sugar. There isn’t a nutritious calorie amongst any of it.



Wrong. Calories are calories. The reason that there's an obesity epidemic is because many people are consuming more calories than they are expending in physical activity. Processed foods are easier to digest, why else do you think it's so easy to get fat eating them?


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> Not Naturili per se but seed oils in general (but you knew this is what I was saying). Along with highly processed food, refined sugar and carbohydrates, these unnatural foods are loved by the food industry. Cheap, tasty and long shelf life. Practically devoid of nutrition. It’s why people are so fat now.



That's contradictory nonsense.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> That's contradictory nonsense.



Agree.  A lot of the substitutes fail badly on the “tasty” front.  Especially the ‘cheese’.

Also, the obesity problem isn’t down to just one thing, but foods engineered to be compulsive while non-satiating is certainly a factor.  I don’t think that is overwhelmingly the case for the products we are talking about here, though.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> I don’t agree with eating refined foods isn’t bad in itself.  Who is going to be healthier in the long run? Somebody who has a couple of slices of refined white bread with marge for breakfast most days or somebody  who has a couple of eggs? We’ve been fed this “a calorie is a calorie” thing and it’s not true. We’re seeing an epidemic of diseases of the metabolism and it is from what people put in their mouths along with lack of sleep and the environment they’re living in.



You should have both eggs and bread for breakfast. The former has protein for building and repairing your body, while the latter has carbs which you need for energy. If you're vegan you can substitute something else that's protein-rich, although I can't advise what because I'm not vegan myself.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Agree.  A lot of the substitutes fail badly on the “tasty” front.  Especially the ‘cheese’.
> 
> Also, the obesity problem isn’t down to just one thing, but foods engineered to be compulsive while non-satiating is certainly a factor.  I don’t think that is overwhelmingly the case for the products we are talking about here, though.



I think they're getting close with some of the more high-quality meat substitutes. Quorn is delicious but unfortunately it's as expensive, if not more so, than meat.

If food doesn't fill you properly, then you're going to eat more of it to compensate. Stuff like fibre adds bulk to the food, filling the stomach quicker and causing it to send that "I'm full" signal sooner.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> I don’t agree with eating refined foods isn’t bad in itself.  Who is going to be healthier in the long run? Somebody who has a couple of slices of refined white bread with marge for breakfast most days or somebody  who has a couple of eggs? We’ve been fed this “a calorie is a calorie” thing and it’s not true. We’re seeing an epidemic of diseases of the metabolism and it is from what people put in their mouths along with lack of sleep and the environment they’re living in.



Sleep is another utterly bobbins thing that has been spun off the demonstrably false claims of one person. The 'calorie is not a calorie' thing in popular consciousness comes from that shitty journalist Taubes and his cronies. There are some elements of truth to it, but it broadly comes down to 'keep your diet reasonably balanced and you'll be fine', not 'fear all white bread'.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> I think they're getting close with some of the more high-quality meat substitutes. Quorn is delicious but unfortunately it's as expensive, if not more so, than meat.



Yeah, agree with that.  Quorn is pretty good (though I can’t eat that much without my guts playing up).

Also some of the burgers are really good.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

Getting fat from eating food with no nutrition seems like it would violate thermodynamics. What is all that adipose tissue being made out of then?


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> That's contradictory nonsense.


Yep. It's frankly embarrassing stuff.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

editor said:


> Yep. It's frankly embarrassing stuff.



I'm sure if you lived off nothing but crisps and white bread, you'd have deficiencies in micronutrients, although I'm not sure how that would make you fat.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

Fairly comprehensive and balanced comparison here. But most non-ranty, non axe-grinding people probably knew this anyway:



> Nutritionally, the major differences between plant-based and regular butter are that plant-based butters are cholesterol-free, generally lower in saturated fat, and higher in healthier monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (6Trusted Source, 14Trusted Source).
> 
> Still, while plant-based butters contain a healthier fatty acid profile, they’re just as calorie-dense as regular butter. As a result, eating too much of either can result in excessive calorie intake and potentially weight gain over time.





> Overall, plant-based butters generally provide healthier types of fats. However, as they shouldn’t be a primary source of calories in your diet, choosing plant-based over regular butter alone is unlikely to significantly affect your health.





> Plant-based butter is a vegan alternative to regular dairy butter.
> 
> In general, plant-based butter products are lower in saturated fat and higher in monounsaturated fat than regular butter. They may also be better for the environment.
> 
> ...











						Is Plant-Based Butter Healthy? Nutrition and How It Compares
					

Plant-based diets have grown in popularity due to their benefits for health, the environment, and animal welfare. This article reviews the nutritional content of plant-based butters, their potential benefits and downsides, and how they compare to real butter.




					www.healthline.com


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

Also, the demonisation of dietary fat has introduced a whole range of awful-tasting "reduced fat" products that I diligently avoid. Food manufacturers replacing fat with sugar isn't an improvement.

It's also fallacious; like assuming that eating protein will automatically make you muscular. I can attest that my own protein-rich diet has not improved my wet-noodle muscle tone.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

Another interesting, Spanish-based study here:



> This study shows that the majority of plant-based cheese alternatives available in Spanish supermarkets do not have a good nutritional profile.
> 
> Nevertheless, although relatively few products are available, healthier options could be found, such as those goods composed mainly of cashew nuts and tofu.
> 
> The replacement of dairy cheese by cashew nut- and tofu-based plant-based alternatives could reduce intakes of salt and total fats, while replacing the intake of saturated with unsaturated fats. Future investigations should address the health effects of substituting dairy cheese with plant-based cheese products. The assessment of the environmental impact of plant-based cheese also deserves further attention.











						Nutritional Quality of Plant-Based Cheese Available in Spanish Supermarkets: How Do They Compare to Dairy Cheese?
					

Plant-based cheese is one of the most increasingly consumed dairy alternatives. Evidence is lacking on their nutritional quality. We aimed to evaluate the nutritional composition of the plant-based cheese options available in Spanish supermarkets, and ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




If science ever cracks decent-tasting, reasonably nutritious vegan cheese I suspect there'll be a whole load more people switching from veggie to vegan.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

You don’t need carbs for energy. 


NoXion said:


> Wrong. Calories are calories. The reason that there's an obesity epidemic is because many people are consuming more calories than they are expending in physical activity. Processed foods are easier to digest, why else do you think it's so easy to get fat eating them?


 Quality of calories makes a massive difference to peoples health. If you are feeding your engine with poor quality fuel you make yourself sick. There is evidence of that all around us today. 

You don’t need carbs for energy. You especially do not need poor quality carbs for it. I eat very few carbs and I’ve never been more energetic and healthier. I cut down by wearing a glucose monitor and stopped eating the foods that caused my blood sugar and thus my insulin levels to spike. I get my bloods done every 6 months now and all indicators keep improving since I cut out highly processed food, manufactured oil and cut carbs way down.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> You don’t need carbs for energy.
> 
> Quality of calories makes a massive difference to peoples health. If you are feeding your engine with poor quality fuel you make yourself sick. There is evidence of that all around us today.
> 
> You don’t need carbs for energy. You especially do not need poor quality carbs for it. I eat very few carbs and I’ve never been more energetic and healthier. I cut down by wearing a glucose monitor and stopped eating the foods that caused my blood sugar and thus my insulin levels to spike. I get my bloods done every 6 months now and all indicators keep improving since I cut out highly processed food, manufactured oil and cut carbs way down.


So your meat diet led to health problems. Sorry to hear that.


----------



## DaphneM (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Yeah, agree with that.  Quorn is pretty good (though I can’t eat that much without my guts playing up).



So your meat-free diet led to health problems. Sorry to hear that.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> So your meat-free diet led to health problems. Sorry to hear that.





Not a meat free diet at all.  I just bought some of their nuggets because someone on here said they were pretty good.
Which they are.  In moderation.  Reactions to Quorn are very common.

Keep an EpiPen handy if trying them for the first time.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

editor said:


> So your meat diet led to health problems. Sorry to hear that.


No it didn’t. As I said my carb rich, processed food diet did. And I proved it by getting tested and wearing glucose monitors.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> So your meat-free diet led to health problems. Sorry to hear that.


And another failed troll makes you look stupid again.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2022)

.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> No it didn’t. As I said my carb rich, processed food diet did. And I proved it by getting tested and wearing glucose monitors.


What's your personal bad diet choices got to do with the topic of this thread?


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

Cid said:


> Sleep is another utterly bobbins thing that has been spun off the demonstrably false claims of one person. The 'calorie is not a calorie' thing in popular consciousness comes from that shitty journalist Taubes and his cronies. There are some elements of truth to it, but it broadly comes down to 'keep your diet reasonably balanced and you'll be fine', not 'fear all white bread'


Really recommend “Why we Sleep” by Mathew Walker.  Cracker of a book about the science of sleep


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> You don’t need carbs for energy.
> 
> Quality of calories makes a massive difference to peoples health. If you are feeding your engine with poor quality fuel you make yourself sick. There is evidence of that all around us today.
> 
> You don’t need carbs for energy. You especially do not need poor quality carbs for it. I eat very few carbs and I’ve never been more energetic and healthier. I cut down by wearing a glucose monitor and stopped eating the foods that caused my blood sugar and thus my insulin levels to spike. I get my bloods done every 6 months now and all indicators keep improving since I cut out highly processed food, manufactured oil and cut carbs way down.



Your brain very specifically requires glucose to function properly. It can get some of its energy from ketones, though most on low carb diets won’t be in ketosis. And if you are in ketosis, you’ll still need glucose, which your body gets via gluconeogenesis. 

The rest is just anecdote; I’ve had similar warning signs and all I did was cut down on drinking, make an effort to cook more and get back on the bike. Same result and I don’t have to kick myself for eating the odd pizza or develop complexes around various food groups.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> Really recommend “Why we Sleep” by Mathew Walker.  Cracker of a book about the science of sleep



It’s full of shit and has been debunked.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> You don’t need carbs for energy.
> 
> Quality of calories makes a massive difference to peoples health. If you are feeding your engine with poor quality fuel you make yourself sick. There is evidence of that all around us today.
> 
> You don’t need carbs for energy. You especially do not need poor quality carbs for it. I eat very few carbs and I’ve never been more energetic and healthier. I cut down by wearing a glucose monitor and stopped eating the foods that caused my blood sugar and thus my insulin levels to spike. I get my bloods done every 6 months now and all indicators keep improving since I cut out highly processed food, manufactured oil and cut carbs way down.



You absolutely do need carbs, especially if you are physically active. It's a source of energy that's more readily available to the body than fat or protein. That ready availability is also what makes it easy to over-eat them, especially if one isn't physically active and the carbs come in the form of sugars or refined flours. That's why obesity and diabetes are such big problems.

If I hadn't taken sandwiches and Kendal mint cake with me on my trip up Snowdon in 2018, I would have fucking collapsed. People can and do over-indulge in carbs without enough fibre to go with them, but the idea that we don't need carbs is just arrant nonsense.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

Bit confused about where sleep has come into this.
Sleep is good.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Not a meat free diet at all.  I just bought some of their nuggets because someone on here said they were pretty good.
> Which they are.  In moderation.  Reactions to Quorn are very common.
> 
> Keep an EpiPen handy if trying them for the first time.



You know, I wish I knew why I'm seemingly not allergic to anything. It's great not having to worry about eating certain things, and I'd like others to have the chance to experience the same.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> You know, I wish I knew why I'm seemingly not allergic to anything. It's great not having to worry about eating certain things, and I'd like others to have the chance to experience the same.



Maybe you ate a lot of mud as a toddler. 

I think it's just a sensitivity to one of the proteins rather than an allergy as such with me and Quorn.
We didn't evolve to eat mould, so it's not that surprising.

I'd like to not be allergic to shiitake mushrooms, penicillin and whatever pollen is about in August, though.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Bit confused about where sleep has come into this.
> Sleep is good.



It is. But the specific 8 hours a day, any less and you’re a mess of metabolic disease and vulnerable to heart disease is bobbins…


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2022)

Cid said:


> It’s full of shit and has been debunked.


I looked it up and found this. Ouch!









						Matthew Walker's "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors - Alexey Guzey
					

See discussion of this essay on the forum, Hacker News (a), Marginal Revolution (a), Andrew Gelman’s blog 1 (a), 2 (a), 3 (a), 4 (a), /r/slatestarcodex (a), Twitter (a), listen to BBC interviewing me and Walker himself about it or listen to my interview with Smart People Podcast discussing it...



					guzey.com


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

Cid said:


> It is. But the specific 8 hours a day, any less and you’re a mess of metabolic disease and vulnerable to heart disease is bobbins…



Serious sleep deprivation def messes with your metabolism, though.  I expect the precise amounts vary by person.
It's regularly quoted that Einstein liked a minimum of 10 hours.

I personally like about five and a half hours decent sleep each night and an hour mid-afternoon.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

Cid said:


> Your brain very specifically requires glucose to function properly. It can get some of its energy from ketones, though most on low carb diets won’t be in ketosis. And if you are in ketosis, you’ll still need glucose, which your body gets via gluconeogenesis.
> 
> The rest is just anecdote; I’ve had similar warning signs and all I did was cut down on drinking, make an effort to cook more and get back on the bike. Same result and I don’t have to kick myself for eating the odd pizza or develop complexes around various food groups.


I’m not in ketosis but I dip in and out. I work up to a few days fasting every 6 months and I find being in ketosis before you fast for a bit makes it easier. Agree it’s just anecdote but it works for me and measurably so. 

I wasn’t sick either - was a bit over weight and getting heavier as I got older. Starting to look like fake food water Bill Gates if you will. I want to be around for the grandkids and I agree it’s just anecdote but it works for me both in my detailed blood results and in how I feel.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Serious sleep deprivation def messes with your metabolism, though.  I expect the precise amounts vary by person.
> It's regularly quoted that Einstein liked a minimum of 10 hours.



Yeah but everyone says everything about Einstein. Sleep obviously is important - the problem is that the specific ideas raised in Walker's book do not stand up to scrutiny and have been widely spread through society in general. The Tl:dr is you're probably getting enough sleep, and worrying about it will only make it worse.

I apologise for embracing this whole tangent about diet and sleep, it just annoys the shit out of me that so much stuff is uncritically accepted in those spaces. And it is incredibly widespread and can be profoundly damaging; eating disorders, people swinging into depression because they ate a carb, keto/low carb ending up verging on being meat promo (you can low carb vegan of course, it's just harder), assumption that keto will be just fine (we have very little idea of long-term impacts).


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

Cid said:


> Yeah but everyone says everything about Einstein. Sleep obviously is important - the problem is that the specific ideas raised in Walker's book do not stand up to scrutiny and have been widely spread through society in general. The Tl:dr is you're probably getting enough sleep, and worrying about it will only make it worse.
> 
> I apologise for embracing this whole tangent about diet and sleep, it just annoys the shit out of me that so much stuff is uncritically accepted in those spaces. And it is incredibly widespread and can be profoundly damaging; eating disorders, people swinging into depression because they ate a carb, keto/low carb ending up verging on being meat promo (you can low carb vegan of course, it's just harder), assumption that keto will be just fine (we have very little idea of long-term impacts).



Fair point about Einstein - that's why I said "quoted".  
There has been a fair amount of discussion about Matt Walker's book, but it seems at the very least that there are plenty of factual inaccuracies and some important omissions.

Should really be a matter of finding the amount of sleep where you feel your best imo (which, incidentally is also Alexey Guzey's* conclusion).

* - author of the piece that editor linked to


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> I’m not in ketosis but I dip in and out. I work up to a few days fasting every 6 months and I find being in ketosis before you fast for a bit makes it easier. Agree it’s just anecdote but it works for me and measurably so.
> 
> I wasn’t sick either - was a bit over weight and getting heavier as I got older. Starting to look like fake food water Bill Gates if you will. I want to be around for the grandkids and I agree it’s just anecdote but it works for me both in my detailed blood results and in how I feel.



It's not that it doesn't work as such... Making lifestyle changes is how you get a handle on these things. The problem is that the promoters of these systems deal in absolutes; you need to be low carb, if that doesn't work you're not doing it right etc. If it works for you and feels sustainable, that's great... though tbh I will caveat that as again we don't really know the impact of repeated ketosis, or even long-term low carb in general (especially for high meat/high meat fat stuff). Point is that there are numerous ways of doing these things, some will work great for some people and be crap for others (e.g no fucking way am I fasting - physical job)... But that isn't what the likes of Taubes will tell you, it's their pet theory or you're doomed.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 2, 2022)

Cid said:


> It's not that it doesn't work as such... Making lifestyle changes is how you get a handle on these things. The problem is that the promoters of these systems deal in absolutes; you need to be low carb, if that doesn't work you're not doing it right etc. If it works for you and feels sustainable, that's great... though tbh I will caveat that as again we don't really know the impact of repeated ketosis, or even long-term low carb in general (especially for high meat/high meat fat stuff). Point is that there are numerous ways of doing these things, some will work great for some people and be crap for others (e.g no fucking way am I fasting - physical job)... But that isn't what the likes of Taubes will tell you, it's their pet theory or you're doomed.


Agree. Fuck extremists in any sphere. I have a degree in food science and I worked for a while in the industry so I’m not coming to this uncritically or without measuring my physical responses. 

I’m firmly of the opinion the food industry makes us sick and the Pharma industry makes us a little bit better. But thats a whole other argument.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> There are cricket flour enthusiasts, but it’s currently quite expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bugvita-Cricket-Powder-Six-Legged-Superfood/dp/B089DNJMJT/ref=asc_df_B089DNJMJT/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=430833441007&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15953146706224943432&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006507&hvtargid=pla-996184375117&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=102739074409&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=430833441007&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15953146706224943432&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006507&hvtargid=pla-996184375117


Something not quite right with that. 10g of cricket powder contains 17.5g of fat and 69g of protein.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Something not quite right with that. 10g of cricket powder contains 17.5g of fat and 69g of protein.





Amounts are per 100g.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Amounts are per 100g.


Thought that must be the case but when it says 10g serving to start with it confuses matters.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Thought that must be the case but when it says 10g serving to start with it confuses matters.



Inaccuracy in product descriptions on Amazon?

Sacre bleu!


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 2, 2022)

NoXion said:


> You absolutely do need carbs, especially if you are physically active. It's a source of energy that's more readily available to the body than fat or protein. That ready availability is also what makes it easy to over-eat them, especially if one isn't physically active and the carbs come in the form of sugars or refined flours. That's why obesity and diabetes are such big problems.
> 
> If I hadn't taken sandwiches and Kendal mint cake with me on my trip up Snowdon in 2018, I would have fucking collapsed. People can and do over-indulge in carbs without enough fibre to go with them, but the idea that we don't need carbs is just arrant nonsense.


Its reductionism. 

You need the other two macronutrients (fats, protein) to survive, and are therefore, essential. You can survive without carbs and some people (certain diabetics for example) seem to do better without them. 
Just because you _*can*_ survive without carbs, doesn't mean you *should*. 

There does seem to be mounting evidence that highly processed foods do seem to be quite bad for you, but this could be because they are often both very palatable and very energy dense, and so it is easy to overconsume. There are also a lot of unknowns around your gut microbiome.  

Re; "A calorie is a calorie" - whilst this is categorically true (its the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1KG of water by 1 degree celcius), your body, however is not a bomb calorimiter, which is the instrument used to measure the calorie content of foods. What it does, is combusts the food in pure oxygen and measure the amount of heat energy given off (I have used one in feed trials). Your body isn't that efficient. Here is an example - two slices of bread, one white, one wholemeal, both at 100Kcal per slice. Your body will derive more energy from the white slice because a higher percentage of the wholemeal slice is fibre, which we cannot digest (and is kind of the point of fibre). You would expend more energy breaking down a steak than steak mince as the latter has essentially been partially masticated and the collagen started to be broken down. 

This is an interesting watch:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2022)

Protein takes around 30% of the energy in contains to digest. Carbs around 10%, fats even less.

This article features an experiment with processed food showing how processing reduces the energy to digest as well.

It repeats the idea that it takes more energy to digest celery than it contains -  the eat yourself thin with celery idea, which isn't quite a clear-cut fact* – but the numbers for digestion of different food stuffs are about the same as I've seen elsewhere.

Research Review: A calorie isn't a calorie - Precision Nutrition


*For the celery idea, the point is that you will burn more calories during the time you're eating it than you receive. ie:



> you’ll still starve on a diet of celery, just more slowly than not eating at all.



Does eating celery really burn calories? | BBC Science Focus Magazine


----------



## furluxor (Jun 4, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> If your motivation comes from health, and as a herbivore if you are eating manufactured seed oils I really advise you to look into this.



Thanks, I did follow through with your advice. It looks like there are studies pointing both ways and so it's not possible to conclude anything at the moment. Either way, the oils used for all the deep-fried junk food can't be great for you. My nutrition sensei Dr Greger doesn't use oil at all. I do use oil, including seed oil, as I've found the oil-free diet unpalatable. I'll be interested to see if any further studies will come out on this.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 4, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Re; "A calorie is a calorie" - whilst this is categorically true (its the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1KG of water by 1 degree celcius), your body, however is not a bomb calorimiter, which is the instrument used to measure the calorie content of foods. What it does, is combusts the food in pure oxygen and measure the amount of heat energy given off (I have used one in feed trials). Your body isn't that efficient. Here is an example - two slices of bread, one white, one wholemeal, both at 100Kcal per slice. Your body will derive more energy from the white slice because a higher percentage of the wholemeal slice is fibre, which we cannot digest (and is kind of the point of fibre). You would expend more energy breaking down a steak than steak mince as the latter has essentially been partially masticated and the collagen started to be broken down.
> 
> This is an interesting watch:



Yes.  I mean, petrol is incredibly calorific but good luck obtaining metabolic energy from it.


----------



## DaphneM (Jun 4, 2022)

Uranium contains about 18 million kCal per gram


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 4, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Uranium contains about 18 million kCal per gram


Deep fried in petrol for that extra calorific kick.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 5, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Yes.  I mean, petrol is incredibly calorific but good luck obtaining metabolic energy from it.



Is anyone seriously proposing a petrol-based diet?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 5, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Is anyone seriously proposing a petrol-based diet?



No one needs to.









						Why Our Food is So Dependent on Oil
					

Excellent review of the current cheap-oil-energy and material intensity of UK food production and makes a good case for relocalisation as integral to improving the situation.




					www.resilience.org


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Is anyone seriously proposing a petrol-based diet?


What’s that got to do with anything?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 5, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Uranium contains about 18 million kCal per gram




Still fewer than a bowl of chips in Wetherspoons.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 5, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> Not Naturili per se but seed oils in general (but you knew this is what I was saying). Along with highly processed food, refined sugar and carbohydrates, these unnatural foods are loved by the food industry. Cheap, tasty and long shelf life. Practically devoid of nutrition. It’s why people are so fat now.



So, no nutrients but also so many nutrients that everyone is now fat. Fascinating.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 5, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> I’m not in ketosis but I dip in and out. I work up to a few days fasting every 6 months and I find being in ketosis before you fast for a bit makes it easier. Agree it’s just anecdote but it works for me and measurably so.



Oh good, a ketosis/fasting crank lecturing everyone about stuff which, if he understood it, he wouldn't be a ketosis/fasting crank.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2022)

Cid said:


> Yeah but everyone says everything about Einstein. Sleep obviously is important - the problem is that the specific ideas raised in Walker's book do not stand up to scrutiny and have been widely spread through society in general. The Tl:dr is you're probably getting enough sleep, and worrying about it will only make it worse.
> 
> I apologise for embracing this whole tangent about diet and sleep, it just annoys the shit out of me that so much stuff is uncritically accepted in those spaces. And it is incredibly widespread and can be profoundly damaging; eating disorders, people swinging into depression because they ate a carb, keto/low carb ending up verging on being meat promo (you can low carb vegan of course, it's just harder), assumption that keto will be just fine (we have very little idea of long-term impacts).


tbh one of my take-aways from things like the keto diet is that it's a demonstration of how flexible humans are. There are certain combinations of substances that we need from our food, but we can get those combinations in all kinds of different ways. 

Another take-away from reading up on keto is that it's a decent demonstration of just how much we still need to learn about diet. We've learned a huge amount in the last 100 years, but there is still basic (non-crank) disagreement even about whether or not a high-cholesterol diet really is bad for your heart. It can take time for paradigms like this to change, but it is now more or less accepted that 'low-fat' products that reduce fat by raising carbohydrates are probably worse than useless. Plus, as ever, there is this problem with even respectable-looking research: 



> In 2016, it was revealed that influential research in the 1960s that had downplayed the role of sugar in coronary heart disease had been funded by the sugar industry7.



Is there more to a healthy-heart diet than cholesterol?

There was an article in New Scientist a couple of years ago (I don't subscribe any more so can't link) whose main thrust was that it's wrongheaded to think of there being one good diet. We all react differently to things like carbs and fats, and something that works for one person won't work for another. Plus, someone who is very active needs a very different balance from someone who isn't. That feels right to me, while the old injunction to eat lots of different fresh fruit and veg plus some meat and fish but not too much, and combining that with a bit of exercise, is still sound for most people.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 5, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh one of my take-aways from things like the keto diet is that it's a demonstration of how flexible humans are. There are certain combinations of substances that we need from our food, but we can get those combinations in all kinds of different ways.
> 
> Another take-away from reading up on keto is that it's a decent demonstration of just how much we still need to learn about diet. We've learned a huge amount in the last 100 years, but there is still basic (non-crank) disagreement even about whether or not a high-cholesterol diet really is bad for your heart. It can take time for paradigms like this to change, but it is now more or less accepted that 'low-fat' products that reduce fat by raising carbohydrates are probably worse than useless. Plus, as ever, there is this problem with even respectable-looking research:
> 
> ...



I’d say some of the old injunctions were too heavy in their endorsement of refined carbs, but otherwise in agreement.


----------



## Cid (Jun 5, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh one of my take-aways from things like the keto diet is that it's a demonstration of how flexible humans are. There are certain combinations of substances that we need from our food, but we can get those combinations in all kinds of different ways.
> 
> Another take-away from reading up on keto is that it's a decent demonstration of just how much we still need to learn about diet. We've learned a huge amount in the last 100 years, but there is still basic (non-crank) disagreement even about whether or not a high-cholesterol diet really is bad for your heart. It can take time for paradigms like this to change, but it is now more or less accepted that 'low-fat' products that reduce fat by raising carbohydrates are probably worse than useless. Plus, as ever, there is this problem with even respectable-looking research:
> 
> ...



To be clear what I'm talking about isn't carbs v fats, keto v whatever etc... I'm talking more about the framing of those things, and where that puts the advocates for one or another system. Because in reality I think those specific diets come less from a desire to understand health and outcomes, more from the fact that it's a lot easier to market them as 'the answer'. Keto particularly I think there are very good reasons to avoid; standard iterations increase meat consumption, we don't know a lot about long term impacts, it's difficult for it to be part of a long-term lifestyle change etc etc... but that's almost a tangential point. As you say diet is extremely complex, effects will vary from person to person, and certainly can vary over wider populations.

Even the old adage is kind of open to question - "eat food, not too much, mostly plants", that's from Michael Pollan... He is a specific person, with a particular agenda. As far as I can remember it's mostly pretty safe in his case, though I believe he's quite anti-gmo. He's absolutely not a scientist though. Hopefully you get what I mean here - so much of dietary advice (as opposed to dietary science, though as you mention of course that can be tainted too) is driven by people who are published authors, and whose books have caught on for one reason or another. The actual science is genuinely hard to do - you can only perform the highest standard of study for a few days (metabolic chamber), you can only perform good studies for a couple of months (where you have participants in a ward with controlled meals, exercise etc). Otherwise you have to rely on population studies that are really hard to control and highly vulnerable to stuff like p-hacking.

What frustrates me is that stuff with very little evidence behind it filters out into the mainstream... 'A calorie is not a calorie' might come from er... person you linked above, or from someone like Giles Yeo. Pretty sensible takes rooted in more well established metabolic science. But it might also come from the sugar is toxic, weight loss is entirely to do with insulin response crowd. And the latter get _a lot_ of traction because they're very good at publicity and very confident in their presentation. And will happily appear with popular quacks like Dr Oz.

My own approach is to try and use the stuff that seems well established and... makes sense. Like sure, cut down on refined carbs, they are very obviously easy to over-consume. And I know that for me eating a decent amount of protein keeps me full. But at the same time I'm not going to over restrict... The reality is that I'm going to be fine if I have cake or pizza sometimes. But yeah, I also like cycling and am an excellent cook, so it's probably not advice I'd extend beyond myself. Er... Conclusion - diet is complex, anyone saying that their approach, specifically their restrict x or y approach, is the answer is probably full of shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2022)

Yes, main thing is not to be dogmatic, but to enter ketosis you need to be dogmatic. I would think that sets the keto diet a bit apart as it's something that requires long-term elimination of kinds of food that we are perfectly well evolved to eat. I don't think cutting out bread, rice and pasta is going to harm someone. But when I hear that bananas are off the menu, my eyebrows start to raise.

Having said that, the fact that the mechanism for ketosis switches on in humans when deprived of carbs shows that it has evolved in us at some point (quite possibly long before we became human) as a mechanism for surviving when there is a shortage of carbs. It's probably not going to kill you, and if it helps you lose weight, that might be a positive. Problem I've noted in two friends who go keto periodically is that they put the weight straight back on when they come off it. And when they're full keto, while they report that they feel great, seen from the outside they're not exactly bundles of energy.

ETA: I suspect that the subjective report of 'feeling good' when on keto is at least partly explained by the sense of achievement for reaching ketosis in the first place, reinforced by seeing the weight start to come off. They're not lying, our subjective reports just aren't always reliable.


----------



## Cid (Jun 5, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, main thing is not to be dogmatic, but to enter ketosis you need to be dogmatic. I would think that sets the keto diet a bit apart as it's something that requires long-term elimination of kinds of food that we are perfectly well evolved to eat. I don't think cutting out bread, rice and pasta is going to harm someone. But when I hear that bananas are off the menu, my eyebrows start to raise.



Restricting is how you get to disordered eating... I think you've got to remember that these are things we frequently do in group settings; going for a pizza, birthday cake etc. If you regard a diet as something you 'go on' it makes intuitive sense that cutting out carbs for a while will work. And it will work in reality too... But only short term. The problem is that once people 'go back to normal' they will almost invariably put the weight back on... exactly why is where we get into more speculative stuff of course, but we can say that most diets fail and are often actually counterproductive. Personal theory (well, not mine obvs, one I think makes sense) is that there's something of a rebound effect going on; build up a bit of a complex around pizza, but really like pizza. Eat shitty pizza variants from time to time. Remember good pizza, watch friends eating it without worries. Eat good pizza, feel like you're a failure and nothing's worth it any more. Binge for for a few weeks. Diet. Repeat. Disordered eating. 

So how do diets succeed? People who do are certainly in the minority (I think the figure that always gets bandied about is 10%, but that sounds suspicious). Again, not super clear. But as I recall (I'm sorry I'm not referencing this stuff, way too much to check over) it's usually by making changes that are long term sustainable. Cook more, cook better... Learn to enjoy that. Enjoy social eating, and don't feel there's some need to compensate. Of course then we get to the issue that this is really something you require a fair amount of privilege to do - cooking takes time, cooking well takes more time and money etc. 



littlebabyjesus said:


> Having said that, the fact that the mechanism for ketosis switches on in humans when deprived of carbs shows that it has evolved in us at some point (quite possibly long before we became human) as a mechanism for surviving when there is a shortage of carbs. It's probably not going to kill you, and if it helps you lose weight, that might be a positive. Problem I've noted in two friends who go keto periodically is that they put the weight straight back on when they come off it. And when they're full keto, while they report that they feel great, seen from the outside they're not exactly bundles of energy.
> 
> ETA: I suspect that the subjective report of 'feeling good' when on keto is at least partly explained by the sense of achievement for reaching ketosis in the first place, reinforced by seeing the weight start to come off. They're not lying, our subjective reports just aren't always reliable.



Yep. See above. 

Also worth noting that things our body does to survive are not always good for it. One of the groups that often gets brought up around low carb diets is Inuit peoples... Thing is though they actually have genetic adaptations that stop them from going into ketosis... Repeat ketosis put enough of a selection pressure on that group that it actually resulted in genetic change. That is a bit of a warning sign to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2022)

Next book on my reading list is Nick Lane's Transformer, which is all about the Krebs cycle. This is the cascade of chemical reactions that takes place within cells during respiration. Lane talks about how this cycle can go in either direction - one way during respiration to release stored energy from chemicals, but also in reverse to store energy by making chemicals. As we get older, this reverse-Krebs starts to happen more often, which is why we tend to put on weight - reverse-Krebs taking energy and making more of us. It's also what happens inside cancer cells, which stop using energy to do whatever work they're supposed to be doing and instead use it to make more of themselves. 

Lane's solution to this problem is rather unsexy. As you get older, eat a bit less and exercise a bit more. This will help your cells maintain good Krebs-cycle habits, keeping your weight down and helping to prevent cancer. 

Interesting point about the Inuit. Looking into it a bit further, it's not just humans that don't do permanent ketosis. Neither do other animals - obligate carnivores get glucose from gluconeogenesis using amino acids, which is what the Inuit are doing when they eat raw meat.

The T. Colin Campbell Center isn't an entirely neutral source, but this article is well-referenced, and pretty damning of ketosis as anything other than a temporary emergency state. Its analysis of the efficiency of ketones as an energy source versus glucose bears out by what I see subjectively in friends. 



> Even when exercising at a submaximal level (for example, biking at a moderate speed), heart rate and adrenaline levels rise more when people are eating a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet[4] vs. a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. This results in those on the high fat diet perceiving that they are working harder to achieve the same pace as the high-carbers, and they have much more difficulty speeding up their pace in sprints or climbs.



Is the Ketogenic Diet Natural for Humans?

This is the study they cite:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1158881/pdf/jphysiol00293-0292.pdf

Ketosis is clearly suboptimal in terms of performance. That doesn't make it lethal - having reduced athletic ability is going to be a massive selection pressure in and of itself, and would explain it being rapidly selected out of human populations - but it rings alarm bells regarding sustainability.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 5, 2022)

Dietary practice that makes people smell bad in negative selection pressure shocker!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2022)

The thing that works for me is the 5/2.  I first did it about five years ago and went from 14st to 11.5st.  Now, every time I creep back up to 12st, I do it again for a while, which works out about once every year or two.  It takes about 12 weeks to lose half a stone.  The real trick of it on my brain is not so much the fast days themselves, but the fact that it trains me to just cope with less food, and I end up three months later just generally eating less.

I don’t evangelise about it though.  It works for me, it doesn’t work for others.  It’s more about psychology than special biometric shortcuts, I think.


----------



## butcher (Jun 7, 2022)

Maybe a meat free future will look depressed, interesting meta analysis with good caveats

Eta the journal has a very high impact score too




			https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2021.1974336


----------



## Skim (Jun 7, 2022)

butcher said:


> Maybe a meat free future will look depressed, interesting meta analysis with good caveats
> 
> Eta the journal has a very high impact score too
> 
> ...



“[…] critics […] pointed out that Dobersek had recieved more than $10,000 in grant money from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association "to conduct a systematic review on 'Beef for a Happier and Healthier Life.'”

People who eat meat report lower levels of depression and anxiety than vegans do, a recent analysis suggests

The author is quoted in that piece:

“How many people have you met that are both happy and diet all the time?" Urska Dobersek, a psychologist at the University of Southern Indiana who co-authored the analysis, told Insider. "Probably very few - and there is a strong, scientific reason for that - restrictive diets make people unhealthy and unhappy in the long term."

Except veganism isn’t a weight-loss diet: it’s an ethical stance.


----------



## Skim (Jun 7, 2022)

The journal article’s metric score is irrelevant… unlike the disclosure statement:

Disclosure statement​UD, SA, JA, and GW have previously received funding from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
Funding​This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2022)

If it's posting up nonsense studies time, why not go with this one: 



> Tracking Happiness asked 11,537 people in the USA to track their moods and asked about their diets. The results were then grouped into four categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian and meat-eater. Vegans reported 7% higher happiness rating than meat-eaters, who fell below the average rating of 6.90.
> 
> Interestingly, the study suggested that it wasn’t just the plants that were making people happier; happier people are more likely to turn plant-based. Out of the 8,988 meat-eaters surveyed, those who reported the highest happiness ratings were more likely to adopt a fully vegan diet in the future. The main driver for going vegan or vegetarian, according to the study, is the environment, with 32% of the surveyed herbivores saying that protecting the environment was their biggest motive, and these were the people who had the highest happiness scores. Those who cited animal cruelty tended to have the lowest ratings within the plant-based groups.











						Is there any truth to vegans being happier than meat-eaters?
					

A new study claims that chomping on plant-based foods can make us happier than eating meat. Here's why.




					www.stylist.co.uk


----------



## butcher (Jun 7, 2022)

Skim said:


> The journal article’s metric score is irrelevant… unlike the disclosure statement:
> ​



I did mention the caveats.


----------



## butcher (Jun 7, 2022)

editor said:


> If it's posting up nonsense studies time, why not go with this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps read the one I posted and their selection criteria, is the stylist a peer reviewed journal? Probably by your standards.....


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2022)

butcher said:


> Perhaps read the one I posted and their selection criteria, is the stylist a peer reviewed journal? Probably by your standards.....


Do you really think it's a credible study, particularly given the conclusions they leap to and the fact that it's funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association?





> A recent study of research on diet and mental health found a possible association between meat-free diets and risk of depression and anxiety.
> 
> The data does not prove any causal link between meat eating and mental health, according to the researchers, despite some media headlines that the study found meat can improve mental health.
> 
> ...











						There are serious problems with a widely-shared study that claimed meat-eaters have better mental health than vegetarians
					

A recent research analysis of mental health and diet reportedly claimed that eating meat can improve mental health — but that's not what the data says




					www.insider.com


----------



## butcher (Jun 7, 2022)

If I was honest, I think most meta analysis is so inconclusive as to be bollocks and should not be used as evidence to promote personal views, I also think these communal meat/vegan bashing threads usually end up in pointless squabbling.

BTW your ref above mainly says that the problem was most people did not read the caveats which I explicitly pointed out in my OP


"Dr. Edward Archer, a co-author of the study and chief science officer for the data analytics firm Evoving FX, told Insider that the research does not show that meat can _improve_ mental health, or that avoiding it can _cause_ mental health issues.

"We were very careful to say no causal inference should be made. We offered lots of information for both sides of the debate," he said in an interview. "We cannot say that meat-free diets cause mental illness. What we did find is that the research doesn't support the idea that eliminating meat can improve mental health." "


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2022)

butcher said:


> If I was honest, I think most meta analysis is so inconclusive as to be bollocks and should not be used as evidence to promote personal views, I also think these communal meat/vegan bashing threads usually end up in pointless squabbling.
> 
> BTW your ref above mainly says that the problem was most people did not read the caveats which I explicitly pointed out in my OP
> 
> ...


You made zero reference to the content or nature of the caveats, blithely posting "Maybe a meat free future will look depressed, interesting meta analysis with good caveats."
Which suggests you were going along with this deeply flawed study.

If you posted the above quote in your original post, the reaction would have been quite different,


----------



## butcher (Jun 8, 2022)

caveat: a warning to consider something before taking any more action, or a statement that limits a more general statement


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 8, 2022)

Here’s a good one:



> Slaughterhouse Workers (SHWs) have a higher prevalence rate of mental health issues, in particular depression and anxiety, in addition to violence-supportive attitudes… there is some evidence that slaughterhouse work is associated with increased crime levels. The research reviewed has shown a link between slaughterhouse work and antisocial behavior generally and sexual offending specifically.





			https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380211030243


----------



## butcher (Jun 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Here’s a good one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quite believable having met a fewv of the under appreciated workers in the meat industry. 

Mind you wasn't  Hitler a vegetarian? 🤣 (nb I do know)


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2022)

I don’t think that using the psychological difficulties encountered by slaughterhouse workers as an “gotcha!” in an internet debate is a great look, to be honest.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I don’t think that using the psychological difficulties encountered by slaughterhouse workers as an “gotcha!” in an internet debate is a great look, to be honest.



It wasn't a gotcha and that's a rather selective criticism, given the posts that it was directly in response to.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It wasn't a gotcha and that's a rather selective criticism, given the posts that it was directly in response to.


It was a gotcha.  You aren't interested in the psychological welfare of slaughterhouse employees.  You just found a study that helped you in your claim that eating meat is bad. 

If you are seeking to become genuinely interested then I can tell you that there's a lot of literature out there about the psychological effects of working in a slaughterhouse.  The subject is nuanced and highly variable dependent on cultural context.  To understand it requires more than a surface level reading of a quantitative study based on a medicalised paradigm of mental health -- that's just one tiny piece of a much bigger puzzle.  There are ethnographic studies, discourse analyses, phenomenological analyses, all sorts.  Working in a slaughterhouse can take a tremendous toll on all aspects of a person's life and the fact that in certain contexts it can be relatively vulnerable people that end up working there complicates this picture.  It's one of many ways in which the power relations of capital act to create distress on those at the bottom of the chain.  It's a problem that certainly _could_ be solved by just nobody eating meat.  It's not the only solution, however.  And I have little doubt that the same power relations act to create distress for those working in the non-meat agricultural sector, and similarly need more nuanced answers than "stop eating fruit", for example.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> It was a gotcha.  You aren't interested in the psychological welfare of slaughterhouse employees.  You just found a study that helped you in your claim that eating meat is bad.
> 
> If you are seeking to become genuinely interested then I can tell you that there's a lot of literature out there about the psychological effects of working in a slaughterhouse.  The subject is nuanced and highly variable dependent on cultural context.  To understand it requires more than a surface level reading of a quantitative study based on a medicalised paradigm of mental health -- that's just one tiny piece of a much bigger puzzle.  There are ethnographic studies, discourse analyses, phenomenological analyses, all sorts.  Working in a slaughterhouse can take a tremendous toll on all aspects of a person's life and the fact that in certain contexts it can be relatively vulnerable people that end up working there complicates this picture.  It's one of many ways in which the power relations of capital act to create distress on those at the bottom of the chain.  It's a problem that certainly _could_ be solved by just nobody eating meat.  It's not the only solution, however.  And I have little doubt that the same power relations act to create distress for those working in the non-meat agricultural sector, and similarly need more nuanced answers than "stop eating fruit", for example.



So you're going to continue ignoring the fact that it was posted in response to a study - funded by a beef industry check off program lol - about eating meat and mental health?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So you're going to continue ignoring the fact that it was posted in response to a study - funded by a beef industry check off program lol - that eating meat is good because of psychological welfare?


That study was a bullshit piece of research.  I ignored it because it had _already been pointed out_ that it was a bullshit piece of research.  And then you posted something using the suffering of vulnerable people just to have your own gotcha moment.  So I pointed out that this is not a good look.  You can carry on insisting it _is _a good look if you like, but it's not doing you an favours.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> That study was a bullshit piece of research.  I ignored it because it had _already been pointed out_ that it was a bullshit piece of research.  And then you posted something using the suffering of vulnerable people just to have your own gotcha moment.  So I pointed out that this is not a good look.  You can carry on insisting it _is _a good look if you like, but it's not doing you an favours.



I've long since stopped caring about what's considered a 'good look' on these boards, I really couldn't give a shit. Your defensive and condescending reaction has been interesting though.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I don’t think that using the psychological difficulties encountered by slaughterhouse workers as an “gotcha!” in an internet debate is a great look, to be honest.


It is a worrying and well documented by-product of the meat industry though.



			https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380211030243#:~:text=Staff%20with%20the%20job%20role,other%20roles%20in%20the%20slaughterhouse.
		










						Prevalence of serious psychological distress among slaughterhouse workers at a United States beef packing plant - PubMed
					

Workers at a US industrial slaughterhouse experienced higher prevalence of SPD compared to United States population-wide estimates, but occupational risk factors for this outcome were not identified.




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				












						Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker
					

A former abattoir worker describes her job and the effect it had on her mental health.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 8, 2022)

More dodgy corporate veggie-washing kiboshed by the ASA:









						Tesco plant-based food advert banned as misleading
					

The supermarket's claims of environmental benefit had not been substantiated, says watchdog



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## ddraig (Jun 8, 2022)

a butcher, shill and fraud, who'd have guessed!


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> More dodgy corporate veggie-washing kiboshed by the ASA:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But...


> The ASA said that it was generally accepted that by switching to a more plant-based diet, consumers could cut their overall environmental impact.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> It is a worrying and well documented by-product of the meat industry though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is both worrying, and well-documented, which I also pointed out.  The very fact that there is worrying psychological distress is precisely why this is worth proper attention rather than it just being used to win internet arguements.

So, you’ve read those papers, right?  What do you think about the issues they raise, and what do you think they imply might be the best way of resolving them?  Are there any aspects of the papers you view as potentially problematic or limiting in terms of their methodology?  What do you think about the models of mental health they employ (particularly the potentially ontologically inconsistent approach evident within the literature review)?  Don’t you think that their bias towards a realist positivist epistemology presupposes that the issues created by the individualist social setup favoured by capitalist economies are inevitable, rather than the capitalist model itself being the underlying driver of the issues creating the distress?


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> It is both worrying, and well-document, which I also pointed out.  The very fact that there is worrying psychological distress is precisely why this is worth proper attention rather than it just being used to win internet arguements.
> 
> So, you’ve read those papers, right?  What do you think about the issues they raise, and what do you think they imply might be the best way of resolving them?  Are there any aspects of the papers you view as potentially problematic or limiting in terms of their methodology?  What do you think about the models of mental health they employ (particularly the potentially ontologically inconsistent approach evident within the literature review)?  Don’t you think that their bias towards a realist positivist epistemology presupposes that the issues created by the individualist social setup favoured by capitalist economies are inevitable, rather than the capitalist model itself being the underlying driver of the issues creating the distress?


The only real way to resolve the mental health damage caused to workers at slaughterhouses is for industrial meat production to end. And that process starts with individuals. Where are you along that journey?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> The only real way to resolve the mental health damage caused to workers at slaughterhouses is for industrial meat production to end.


I disagree.  Did you read the papers you posted up?


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I disagree.  Did you read the papers you posted up?


I skim read the content and read the conclusions but I doubt if you sat down and studied each word in depth either so I'm not sure what your Big Point is.

I want to see barbaric industrial meat production ended and I'm not really interested if you agree with me or not.

But seeing as you avoided answering my question, I can only assume that you're happy to consume the products of industrial meat production and care little for the mental welfare of those tasked with killing your food for you.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> I skim read the content and read the conclusions but I doubt if you sat down and studied each word in depth either so I'm not sure what your Big Point is.


I don’t know, man — you’re the one who posted them up.  I presumed you did so because of their content, but apparently you just thought that the conclusion looked like it helped you win an internet argument.  Good luck with that.  I’m more interested in the actual psychology.  Those papers are way more than what is put into their conclusion.  And yes, I did read each word “in depth”, i.e. I read the papers properly.  I read psychology papers all the time, I’m used to it.

Anyway, you are clearly not interested so I will not persist.


editor said:


> I want to see barbaric industrial meat production ended and I'm not really interested if you agree with me or not.
> 
> But seeing as you avoided answering my question, I can only assume that you're happy to consume the products of industrial meat production and care little for the mental welfare of those tasked with killing your food for you.


You can assume what you want about me.  I’ll say this about mental welfare, though — at least I actually take an interest in it as a proper subject and don’t just use it as a wedge issue to batter through my personal ideology.


----------



## butcher (Jun 8, 2022)

ddraig said:


> a butcher, shill and fraud, who'd have guessed!


Who is this referring to?


----------



## srb7677 (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> I skim read the content and read the conclusions but I doubt if you sat down and studied each word in depth either so I'm not sure what your Big Point is.
> 
> I want to see barbaric industrial meat production ended and I'm not really interested if you agree with me or not.
> 
> But seeing as you avoided answering my question, I can only assume that you're happy to consume the products of industrial meat production and care little for the mental welfare of those tasked with killing your food for you.


There is a moral and ethical case for moving beyond meat. Humans are fully capable of surviving without it.

However it remains true that biologically speaking in terms of both our teeth and digestive systems we have evolved as omnivores, both meat and vegetable eaters. 

Throughout our existence on this planet we have killed animals to eat them. What the advance of civilisation has done is to divorce most of us from that process, so we experience meat as a pre-packaged commodity on supermarket shelves. Throughout most of prehistory meat and other animal products, eg furs, were essential for our survival but this is no longer true today.
But many of us are of an age where we were raised to eat meat and have always done so. It is not easy to change at my age, and any temptation by anyone to indulge in any self-righteous morally superior lecture in response to this will do nothing but make me did my heels in. 

I am not persuaded that eating meat as all our ancestors have done makes me a morally bad person, and anyone who tries to make me feel bad will not win me round but turn me against them. But at the moment I am open to persuasion if it takes an understanding tone.

The change to a wholly vegetarian society is not going to happen overnight but gradually, and the people need to be carried along with it and be on board at every stage.


----------



## MrCurry (Jun 8, 2022)

srb7677 said:


> There is a moral and ethical case for moving beyond meat. Humans are fully capable of surviving without it.
> 
> However it remains true that biologically speaking in terms of both our teeth and digestive systems we have evolved as omnivores, both meat and vegetable eaters.
> 
> ...


I think that’s an example of why, while it remains an issue of individual proactive choice to turn veggie / vegan, numbers will be limited, however pressing or persuasive the macro arguments might be for why we as a society might need to do it.  At an individual level of course there’s plenty of reasons why it’s easier, more comfortable, cheaper even in some cases to be a meat eater today, and while that’s the case, most people won’t make big changes. 

That’s why (it seems to me) that what will push us towards “the end of meat” will be changes in the whole socioeconomic system which first make it expensive, then difficult, and maybe finally we will all be compelled, if we’re not rich, to not carry on eating meat 5+ nights a week. And of course I might be wrong about that, but I started this thread because I could see the clear data from unarguable sources which said that if we are to fix climate change we very likely do have to change our diets, not a just little, but a huge amount. And I wondered how that might happen.

I agree with you srb7677 it‘ll happen slowly, but i’m quite sure we will get there, because it seems we have to.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I don’t know, man — you’re the one who posted them up.  I presumed you did so because of their content, but apparently you just thought that the conclusion looked like it helped you win an internet argument.  Good luck with that.  I’m more interested in the actual psychology.  Those papers are way more than what is put into their conclusion.  And yes, I did read each word “in depth”, i.e. I read the papers properly.  I read psychology papers all the time, I’m used to it.
> 
> Anyway, you are clearly not interested so I will not persist.
> 
> You can assume what you want about me.  I’ll say this about mental welfare, though — at least I actually take an interest in it as a proper subject and don’t just use it as a wedge issue to batter through my personal ideology.


You literally can't answer a straightforward question, can you? It's all showboating and fluster. 

But if you 'take an interest' in the mental welfare of slaughterhouse workers, what are you actually doing to improve their lot?


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

srb7677 said:


> Throughout our existence on this planet we have killed animals to eat them.


For clarity, not every civilisation has done that. I've been consistently arguing that people should drastically reduce their meat intake, but judging by the considerable resistance shown by some posters here, even that modest step is going to take a very long time indeed.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> You literally can't answer a straightforward question, can you? It's all showboating and fluster.


No probs.  Maybe you could find me some more things you haven't read to help convince me you're right?


editor said:


> But if you 'take an interest' in the mental welfare of slaughterhouse workers, what are you actually doing to improve their lot?


I'm doing a Masters in the subject, to try to _really _understand it.  Understanding things is the first step to resolving them.  I'm pretty sure that it stands more chance of actually helping than would reducing the small amount of meat I eat still further.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> No probs.  Maybe you could find me some more things you haven't read to help convince me you're right?
> 
> I'm doing a Masters in the subject, to try to _really _understand it.  Understanding things is the first step to resolving them.  I'm pretty sure that it stands more chance of actually helping than would reducing the small amount of meat I eat still further.


And once again, the flannel, fluster and obfuscation comes out. Sigh.


----------



## DaphneM (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> The only real way to resolve the mental health damage caused to workers at slaughterhouses is for industrial meat production to end. And that process starts with individuals. Where are you along that journey?


Or use robots


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2022)

(((robots)))


----------



## Cid (Jun 8, 2022)

Agriculture is notorious for appalling labour practices, not like the meat side of it is in any way unique. I mean come on, when the generic term for the people who get seasonal workers into positions is 'gangmasters' it's a bit of a warning sign.









						Shocking extent of modern slavery in agriculture revealed - Farmers Weekly
					

The shocking extent of labour exploitation and modern-day slavery in agriculture has been laid bare in a new report by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse




					www.fwi.co.uk


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Or use robots


So you'd be OK with killer robots slaughtering animals, yes?


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> But if you 'take an interest' in the mental welfare of slaughterhouse workers, what are you actually doing to improve their lot?


Seeing how supermarkets are trying to push the price of everything down, including meat, I can't see that slaughterhouse people are going to be paid that highly. So it's a possibility that financial worries could be causing the depression.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> So you'd be OK with killer robots slaughtering animals, yes?



Beats them slaughtering humans.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Seeing how supermarkets are trying to push the price of everything down, including meat, I can't see that slaughterhouse people are going to be paid that highly. So it's a possibility that financial worries could be causing the depression.


You don't think the brutality of slaughtering sentient beings all day might not just play a teensy weensy part in their mental health? 









						The disturbing link between slaughterhouse workers and PTSD
					

As animal rights activists it’s easy to demonise slaughterhouse workers, the cogs in the machinery of death. We ask ourselves what drives a person to choose to kill sentient beings for hours each day, a constant barrage of the most horrendous sights, sounds and smells. We round up the research and a




					www.surgeactivism.org
				












						The harrowing psychological toll of slaughterhouse work
					

‘You feel isolated from society, not a part of it. Alone.'




					metro.co.uk
				












						We Need To Talk About The Mental Health of Abattoir Workers
					

The Mental Health of Abattoir Workers, problems faced by abattoir workers, why killing animals for a living can affect your mental health,




					eluxemagazine.com


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> You don't think the brutality of slaughtering sentient beings all day might not just play a teensy weensy part in their mental health?


Do you think they are forced to work there?
Do you think they wouldn't have realised what it involved when they applied for the job?


----------



## butcher (Jun 8, 2022)

kabbes said:


> No probs.  Maybe you could find me some more things you haven't read to help convince me you're right?
> 
> I'm doing a Masters in the subject, to try to _really _understand it.  Understanding things is the first step to resolving them.  I'm pretty sure that it stands more chance of actually helping than would reducing the small amount of meat I eat still further.


Come on, you know academic qualifications in the field being discussed cut no ice here.

You could even lecture on a subject and if it doesn't fit it will be dismissed as whataboutery or some other repeated neologism


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 8, 2022)

editor said:


> You literally can't answer a straightforward question, can you? It's all showboating and fluster.
> 
> But if you 'take an interest' in the mental welfare of slaughterhouse workers, what are you actually doing to improve their lot?


What are you actually doing to improve the lot of tantalum miners in Congo? Or do you just not care, you monster?


----------



## butcher (Jun 9, 2022)

Shocking extent of modern slavery in agriculture revealed - Farmers Weekly


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 9, 2022)

butcher said:


> Shocking extent of modern slavery in agriculture revealed - Farmers Weekly




"We're all wondering who did this" says gunman


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 9, 2022)

The responses to the suffering experienced by slaughterhouse workers were fairly predictable: what about child labourers mining coltan in the DRC? What about slavery and hyper-exploitation in plant agriculture? Well, here's my response: child exploitation and slavery should be ended (in slaughterhouses and elsewhere)! I also think we should strive for a world where slaughterhouses don't exist either.

But the people bringing up child labour and slavery on this thread don't want to see an end to slaughterhouses. They are pro-slaughterhouse. I presume the thinking is something like this: just as there is nothing inherently harmful with people picking vegetables or mining minerals so too is there nothing inherently wrong with slaughterhouse work. What's wrong in all these instances is the exploitation of the workers, not the work activity itself. All these activities could, under different socioeconomic conditions, be good work.

The problem with this is that it fails to consider what's distinctive about slaughterhouse work: it involves the penning, restraining and killing of sentient beings against their will. This is an activity that, to put in conservatively, is prone to be psychologically damaging. Consider this study cited in the systematic literature review I posted above:



> The qualitative work conducted by Victor and Barnard (2016) found that South African SHWs reported suffering from the following psychological issues at the beginning of their employment* as a consequence of their first kill*: trauma, intense shock, paranoia, fear, anxiety, guilt, and shame.



Notice that the psychological trauma is documented after the _first_ kill. People who own allotments don't experience anxiety, guilt and shame after they rip the first carrot out of the ground. One thing the slaughterhouse apologists seem unwilling or unable to grasp is that slaughterhouse work is inherently violent and participation in violence is psychologically damaging. Whilst working conditions for SHWs can be improved, violence can't be excised for the slaughterhouse, it is its raison d'etre. This is why slaughterhouse work can't be glibly  assimilated as just another example of 'exploitation under capitalism'.


----------



## butcher (Jun 9, 2022)

ddraig said:


> a butcher, shill and fraud, who'd have guessed!


Still waiting to hear who you are specifically defaming here


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 10, 2022)

editor said:


> If it's posting up nonsense studies time, why not go with this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, a peer reviewed metanalysis of a body of research is "nonsense", but the Guardian is a beacon of truth. Gotcha.


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 10, 2022)

butcher said:


> If I was honest, I think most meta analysis is so inconclusive as to be bollocks and should not be used as evidence to promote personal views, I also think these communal meat/vegan bashing threads usually end up in pointless squabbling.
> 
> BTW your ref above mainly says that the problem was most people did not read the caveats which I explicitly pointed out in my OP
> 
> ...


That's how epidemiological studies work - they identify correlations worthy of clinical trials. Correlation does _not _equal causation. 

Although, it does slightly amuse me the amount of epidemiological studies the anti meat lot cite to "prove" meat is bad for you. 
Not to mention their willingness to completely ignore any allegations of bias against Joseph Poore, who not only receives finding from vegan groups, but also makes speeches/sits on discussion panels on behalf of Viva!


Seventh day adventists, eh? 😂


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 10, 2022)

srb7677 said:


> There is a moral and ethical case for moving beyond meat. Humans are fully capable of surviving without it.
> 
> However it remains true that biologically speaking in terms of both our teeth and digestive systems we have evolved as omnivores, both meat and vegetable eaters.
> 
> ...


Hominins (including _sapiens_) spent two million years evolving as hypercarnivores. The inclusion of greater amounts of plant material came with the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago in the middle east. 

Humans were apex predators for two million years, study finds: What did our ancestors eat during the stone age? Mostly meat

I am aware that this is a lay press article about the journal published article, which I feel makes the findings more accessible. I can link to the actual study if pedants so wish.


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 10, 2022)

butcher said:


> Come on, you know academic qualifications in the field being discussed cut no ice here.
> 
> You could even lecture on a subject and if it doesn't fit it will be dismissed as whataboutery or some other repeated neologism


You're wrong, I believe the term is "industry shill". I'd like my massive house, payrise and executive automobile now please, "big meat".


----------



## butcher (Jun 10, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> You're wrong, I believe the term is "industry shill". I'd like my massive house, payrise and executive automobile now please, "big meat".


How do you know my nickname and no you cannot have a payrise


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 10, 2022)

anyone here been to a slaughterhouse ? fucking hell. its horrifying


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 10, 2022)

not-bono-ever said:


> anyone here been to a slaughterhouse ? fucking hell. its horrifying


Yes, several.

Most recently was at Foyle.
Pretty old Temple Grandin style handling system and clever use of sliding doors ensure that cattle have no idea whats going on and are calm.


----------



## butcher (Jun 11, 2022)

not-bono-ever said:


> anyone here been to a slaughterhouse ? fucking hell. its horrifying



Yes, two different one.  A small family run one and a larger family run one. My job is selling meat and I think that it is responsible to be aware of all steps between farm and block.

The first run by a nearby Butchers, the second by a farming and abattoir based business.  I have used both for private kills of cattle from a local council tenant farmer, the larger on also as a wholesaler.

Both are also involved in animal husbandry as well as meat production, both treat animals with respect both before and after slaughter, that's why I use them.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

Presumably all of these slaughterhouses have published footage on their websites of the animals beings killed, to show the public how awesome and humane it is?


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Presumably all of these slaughterhouses have published footage on their websites of the animals beings killed, to show the public how awesome and humane it is?


No, you can actually go and visit.
That one does tours for farmer groups and various students ( Biology etc).
I don't know if they still do, but Laverstoke Park had a public viewing gallery.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> No



How interesting


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How interesting


Why, If you can literally go and watch?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Why, If you can literally go and watch?



So they have material on their websites/social media accounts inviting the public into their slaughterhouses?


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So they have material on their websites/social media accounts inviting the public into their slaughterhouses?


You'll have to look it up - Laverstoke Park literally had a public viewing gallery and those trips were advertised.
Foyle, probably not but they don't hide it either, taking groups round is often mentioned on their social media.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> You'll have to look it up - Laverstoke Park literally had a public viewing gallery and those trips were advertised.
> Foyle, probably not but they don't hide it either, taking groups round is often mentioned on their social media.



So that’s a ‘no’ again. Again, very interesting.


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So that’s a ‘no’ again. Again, very interesting.


Why is it interesting?
Can I see video footage of your workplace online?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So that’s a ‘no’ again. Again, very interesting.



Why? I don't expect to see videos of embalming on a funeral director's website, nor do I expect to see videos of lettuce harvesting on a salad producer's website.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Why is it interesting?
> Can I see video footage of your workplace online?



Yes?


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yes?


Link please


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Link please



I post pseudonymously so I’m not revealing my workplace. But it’s far from alone in being a place that publishes workplace promotional photos and videos. It’s very common.



platinumsage said:


> Why? I don't expect to see videos of embalming on a funeral director's website, nor do I expect to see videos of lettuce harvesting on a salad producer's website.



The funeral directors thing is easily explainable due to cultural norms around respect for the dead. If you go on to YouTube there’s tonnes of footage of farmers harvesting crops. The only footage from slaughterhouses is undercover exposés from animal rights organisations. That should probably tell you something about their nature.


----------



## DaphneM (Jun 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why? I don't expect to see videos of embalming on a funeral director's website, nor do I expect to see videos of lettuce harvesting on a salad producer's website.


Home | Bryans Salads has extensive pictures of lettuce harvesting


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The funeral directors thing is easily explainable due to cultural norms around respect for the dead. If you go on to YouTube there’s tonnes of footage of farmers harvesting crops. The only footage from slaughterhouses is undercover exposés from animal rights organisations. That should probably tell you something about their nature.



I'm now looking for videos of my local council's contractors conducting routine cleaning of public toilets, but there's nothing on their website. I assume therefore that the cleaners are up to some sort of perversion.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm now looking for videos of my local council's contractors conducting routine cleaning of public toilets, but there's nothing on their website. I assume therefore that the cleaners are up to some sort of perversion.


 
A quick YouTube shows a whole bunch of videos of that


----------



## kabbes (Jun 11, 2022)

I’m a TikTok sensation with my stylish coverage of exciting risk management processes.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> A quick YouTube shows a whole bunch of videos of that




That's not the company that cleans the toilets, it's a cleaning systems developer and that's a training video.

Quite similar to this sort of video, of which there are plenty made public by companies providing equipment and systems for abattoirs:


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What are you actually doing to improve the lot of tantalum miners in Congo? Or do you just not care, you monster?


Difference is that it's _incredibly_ easy to replace some meat dishes with non meat substitutes. But then you knew that anyway.


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That's not the company that cleans the toilets, it's a cleaning systems developer and that's a training video.
> 
> Quite similar to this sort of video, of which there are plenty made public by companies providing equipment and systems for abattoirs:



There's a video of the slaughter process on the AHDBs youtube too if you can be bothered to look for it.


----------



## DaphneM (Jun 11, 2022)

Quite an interesting article here









						Covid-19 Makes the Case for More Meatpacking Robots
					

The coronavirus has hit meat processing plants hard. But not in Denmark, where automation makes for safer slaughterhouses.




					www.wired.com


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That's not the company that cleans the toilets, it's a cleaning systems developer and that's a training video.
> 
> Quite similar to this sort of video, of which there are plenty made public by companies providing equipment and systems for abattoirs:




From China, where public concern for farmed animal welfare is negligible.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> From China, where public concern for farmed animal welfare is negligible.



So you acknowledge that the lack of videos on abattoir company websites in the UK isn’t due to how inhumane even the finest  abattoirs are, but is due to the proportion of the population who are militant veganists and who can’t cope with the very idea.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So you aknlowdge that the lack of videos on abattoir company websites in the UK isn’t due to how inhumane even the finest  abattoirs are, but is due to the proportion of the population who are militant veganists and who can’t cope with the very idea.



lol


----------



## kabbes (Jun 11, 2022)

If there were videos on the websites of abattoirs, and they showed good practices, would you be willing to accept that?  Or would you say that they’d just cleaned up for the purpose of filming a video and this was unrepresentative of everyday practice?  Because if you aren’t willing to take any video they show on good faith, what would even be the point of having the video?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 11, 2022)

The fact that YouTube feels the need to make that age-restricted is telling imo. It's a demonstration of how disconnected most people are from the processes that are used to produce our food that we need to be warned about potential trauma before we get a peek at how it's done.

It's interesting that FM says abattoirs use the Temple Grandin methods. Good to hear. All about keeping the cows calm and not panicking them. They have no idea what's about to happen. And if you can keep them calm right up to the last second - then a stun gun knocks out consciousness instantly - what is left to object to other than the fact that you are ending a life? Seems to me that is the bit that is really being objected to rather than any details of the process. The cow is there with its head in the block looking at you one second, then you put a bolt in its brain and it is dead the next second.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 11, 2022)

Jesus fucking wept


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 11, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The fact that YouTube feels the need to make that age-restricted is telling imo. It's a demonstration of how disconnected most people are from the processes that are used to produce our food that we need to be warned about potential trauma before we get a peek at how it's done.
> 
> It's interesting that FM says abattoirs use the Temple Grandin methods. Good to hear. All about keeping the cows calm and not panicking them. They have no idea what's about to happen. And if you can keep them calm right up to the last second - then a stun gun knocks out consciousness instantly - what is left to object to other than the fact that you are ending a life? Seems to me that is the bit that is really being objected to rather than any details of the process. The cow is there with its head in the block looking at you one second, then you put a bolt in its brain and it is dead the next second.



Yes. Animals have yo be killed to be eaten, since we don't eat them alive. The killing process needs to be as clean and humane as possible but there's no getting away from the fact that they're being killed. Everyone who eats meat accepts that.


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Animals have yo be killed to be eaten, since we don't eat them alive. The killing process needs to be as clean and humane as possible but there's no getting away from the fact that they're being killed. Everyone who eats meat accepts that.


I'm not actually sure a lot of meat eaters do accept that - I think quite a lot of the population don't really know where their food comes from. 
For me (and presumably lots of other eaters of meat), that is the humane aspect of slaughter.
If we are going to have prey animals, we need to kill them in a way that causes minimum suffering vs the natural world, which we do.
Nature doesn't deal in quick deaths usually.


----------



## butcher (Jun 11, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Jesus fucking wept


BTW still have not answered the question of whom you were defaming earlier in the thread


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I'm not actually sure a lot of meat eaters do accept that - I think quite a lot of the population don't really know where their food comes from.


Always reminds me of when Oliver took some school kids to a farm and pulled some carrots out of the ground. The kids wouldn't eat them as "they had been in the dirt".


----------



## Funky_monks (Jun 11, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Always reminds me of when Oliver took some school kids to a farm and pulled some carrots out of the ground. The kids wouldn't eat them as "they had been in the dirt".


I've known people want to bin shop bought root veg because they've dropped it on the floor and now it "will have germs on it". They seemed to think my suggestion that it could be saved by washing it was somewhat unhygenic and appeared to think veg on supermarket shelves has somehow been sterilised............


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I've known people want to bin shop bought root veg because they've dropped it on the floor and now it "will have germs on it". They seemed to think my suggestion that it could be saved by washing it was somewhat unhygenic and appeared to think veg on supermarket shelves has somehow been sterilised............


Maybe they just grow in the plastic bags on the shelves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 11, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Always reminds me of when Oliver took some school kids to a farm and pulled some carrots out of the ground. The kids wouldn't eat them as "they had been in the dirt".


I'll let kids off, but I doubt all the comments under that abattoir vid are from kids. Quite a few 'no more hamburgers for me' comments. Makes you wonder what exactly they thought happened.


----------



## souljacker (Jun 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Presumably all of these slaughterhouses have published footage on their websites of the animals beings killed, to show the public how awesome and humane it is?


There was a BBC documentary a while back where they showed the whole process but it doesn't seem to be on iPlayer sadly. It was pretty in depth and showed the whole process.


----------



## stavros (Aug 26, 2022)

My first attempt at making my own oat milk today. It didn't go badly, but I need a bigger blender to make it workable on a regular basis.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 26, 2022)

stavros said:


> My first attempt at making my own oat milk today. It didn't go badly, but I need a bigger blender to make it workable on a regular basis.
> 
> View attachment 339753


I


----------



## bcuster (Aug 27, 2022)

I'm going to try to make oat tea with cinnamon


----------



## furluxor (Sep 2, 2022)

stavros said:


> My first attempt at making my own oat milk today. It didn't go badly, but I need a bigger blender to make it workable on a regular basis.



Do you strain it in some way or do anything else to it after blending? I've blended mine and it was fine for breakfast but after it sat in the fridge it turned sludgy. Or do you just not keep it that long?


----------



## stavros (Sep 2, 2022)

furluxor said:


> Do you strain it in some way or do anything else to it after blending? I've blended mine and it was fine for breakfast but after it sat in the fridge it turned sludgy. Or do you just not keep it that long?


I strained it through some muslin for an hour or so, sitting in a sieve. That's meant to get the remaining solids out.

These were the rough instructions I followed.


----------



## stavros (Sep 3, 2022)

I gave it another go last night, using a cheap kitchen cloth, and I think I got a better result than using the muslin gauze. It doesn't taste as good as the shop-bought oat milk, but I got very nearly a litre of it from 100g of oats.

If nothing else I'm saving on packaging - it's an annoyance that you don't seem to be able to get oat milk in anything larger than a 1lt Tetra pack.


----------



## furluxor (Sep 5, 2022)

stavros said:


> If nothing else I'm saving on packaging



That was my main motivation for trying to make my own. I have mostly given up and just use water / oats for blended breakfasts but now that the porridge season is coming in I might have to rethink my strategy (I do like a moat around my porridge)


----------



## stavros (Sep 5, 2022)

I've made tea/coffee for guests before, using (non-self made) oat milk, and without them knowing. I'm pleased to say that none of those who I suspect would be distrustful of such a product has spat out their drink in disgust.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 5, 2022)

stavros said:


> I've made tea/coffee for guests before, using (non-self made) oat milk, and without them knowing. I'm pleased to say that none of those who suspect would be distrustful of such a product has spat out their drink in disgust.



You may just be overestimating the politeness of your guests.

Maybe try sneakily disguising some alcohol-free beer and serving that up.

Not in tea.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2022)

stavros said:


> I've made tea/coffee for guests before, using (non-self made) oat milk, and without them knowing. I'm pleased to say that none of those who I suspect would be distrustful of such a product has spat out their drink in disgust.


I've had the same with friends (and workmen) who I'm sure would be quick to point out if there was a problem with the taste. But every time, the whole cup has been happily glugged down, sometimes with a thank you for a  'nice cuppa'


----------



## WhyLikeThis (Sep 6, 2022)

Dutch city becomes world’s first to ban meat adverts in public
					

Haarlem’s move is part of efforts to cut consumption after meat was found to contribute to climate crisis




					www.theguardian.com
				




A good move but too little too late.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

Would this count?


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

stavros said:


> I've made tea/coffee for guests before, using (non-self made) oat milk, and without them knowing. I'm pleased to say that none of those who I suspect would be distrustful of such a product has spat out their drink in disgust.


I would think it would be polite to ask if people minded funny milk tbh. lots of people have gluten intolerances/nut allergies.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> I would think it would be polite to ask if people minded funny milk tbh. lots of people have gluten intolerances/nut allergies.


I’ve never heard of an allergy to oat milk.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> I would think it would be polite to ask if people minded funny milk tbh. lots of people have gluten intolerances/nut allergies.



I guess if it's the certified gluten-free stuff the chances are small if its people you know.

Aside from being a bit weak and having that taste of having had a Weetabix steep in the tea (which I don't mind tbf), I find oat milk ok for tea.
Though tbf I've noticed I'm more likely to find cold, still full cups of tea lying around the house when trying the oat milks.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> I would think it would be polite to ask if people minded funny milk tbh. lots of people have gluten intolerances/nut allergies.


What's gluten got to do with any plant milk??  
Would it not be polite to ask a human if they minded having cow's milk that's meant for calves?


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> I’ve never heard of an allergy to oat milk.











						Oat Allergy: What You Need to Know
					

Oat allergy is the body’s reaction to a protein found in oats called avenin. Symptoms of oat allergy include itchy or irritated skin, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Since oats are often processed in the same facilities as wheat, a reaction to oats may actually be a result of gluten...




					www.healthline.com
				




Here you go


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> What's gluten got to do with any plant milk??
> Would it not be polite to ask a human if they minded having cow's milk that's meant for calves?











						Is Oat Milk Gluten-Free? BRANDS THAT ARE! - Meaningful Eats
					

Have you ever wondered if oat milk is gluten-free? IT DEPENDS! This article will give you all of the information!




					meaningfuleats.com
				




Hazelnut milk obviously not great for people with nut allergies


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Would it not be polite to ask a human if they minded having cow's milk that's meant for calves?


Why would you need to? If people were asked if they want milk most would assume it was cows milk.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Why would you need to? If people were asked if they want milk most would assume it was cows milk.



“Would you like milk with that? It came from a cow”


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

I wonder how many people in the UK have actually suffered an adverse health reaction from_ unknowingly drinking tea with oat milk in it._

I'm sure these people suggesting that it is a valid concern will have evidence of plenty of damning cases to hand otherwise they're going to look like they're utterly desperate purveyors of world class whataboutery.

And for reference:



> Symptoms of CMPA often start in the early weeks and months of life. There are many possible symptoms which may suggest your baby has a cow’s milk allergy. Allergic symptoms can affect one or more of the body’s systems, including the skin, digestive and, less commonly, breathing or blood circulation. Allergic symptoms may be called mild, moderate or severe.











						Cow's Milk Allergy | Allergy UK | National Charity
					

Free Allergy Support & Resources




					www.allergyuk.org
				






> With these criteria, cow's milk allergy is shown to affect between 1.8% and 7.5% of infants in the first year of life





			https://www.bsaci.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Milk-guideline-pdf.pdf


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Why would you need to? If people were asked if they want milk most would assume it was cows milk.



That's how I get away with using the dog's milk when I have guests.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> “Would you like milk with that? It came from a cow”


doubt it will catch on...


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 7, 2022)

I wish I liked oat milk, but I find it yukky in tea.  My son has it as he's vegan, but I can't stomach it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> I wonder how many people in the UK have actually suffered an adverse health reaction from_ unknowingly drinking tea with oat milk in it._
> 
> I'm sure these people suggesting that it is a valid concern will have evidence of plenty of damning cases to hand otherwise they're going to look like they're utterly desperate purveyors of world class whataboutery.
> 
> ...


For context, babies can have allergies to quite a few different foods - including milk substitutes such as soya milk - as their bodies work out what is dangerous to them and what isn't. Babies mostly grow out of a cow's milk allergy. 

As mentioned here, there is evidence to suggest that _not_ introducing certain foods can increase the chances that the allergies will persist. 



> Foods that can trigger an allergic reaction are:
> 
> 
> cows' milk
> ...




Food allergies in babies and young children


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For context, babies can have allergies to quite a few different foods - including milk substitutes such as soya milk - as their bodies work out what is dangerous to them and what isn't. Babies mostly grow out of a cow's milk allergy.
> 
> As mentioned here, there is evidence to suggest that _not_ introducing certain foods can increase the chances that the allergies will persist.
> 
> ...


Babies and people have allergies to all sorts of things, but that wasn't the question I asked though, so I'll ask again:

I wonder how many people in the UK have actually suffered an adverse health reaction from_ unknowingly drinking tea with oat milk in it?_


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I wish I liked oat milk, but I find it yukky in tea.  My son has it as he's vegan, but I can't stomach it.


Which brand did you try?  They vary _enormously_ in taste.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> What's gluten got to do with any plant milk??
> Would it not be polite to ask a human if they minded having cow's milk that's meant for calves?


It would be a pretty odd specification when it is by far the most common type of milk.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Why would you need to? If people were asked if they want milk most would assume it was cows milk.


Because it's for baby cows! Duh


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Because it's for baby cows! Duh


What does that have to do with being polite?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Is Oat Milk Gluten-Free? BRANDS THAT ARE! - Meaningful Eats
> 
> 
> Have you ever wondered if oat milk is gluten-free? IT DEPENDS! This article will give you all of the information!
> ...


And your gluten free fact free claim?? Or just going to dodge that one until the next failed 'gotcha' attempt?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

It's totally normal to drink the milk of other animals, and traditional etc etc


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> And your gluten free fact free claim?? Or just going to dodge that one until the next failed 'gotcha' attempt?


sorry i dont understand? what gluten free fact claim?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> sorry i dont understand? what gluten free fact claim?


Yours doofus


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> It's totally normal to drink the milk of other animals, and traditional etc etc


Who said that?

Also Oatly and some other oat milks are not gluten free so I'd think it would be sensible to ask as most people won't be expecting oat milk. They'd expect cow's milk as standard so would be more likely to say no if lactose intolerant.  It's just not being a dick really.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Yours doofus


you mean that oats are not gluten free?


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Why would you need to? If people were asked if they want milk most would assume it was cows milk.





Spymaster said:


> “Would you like milk with that? It came from a cow”


Not those exact words but generally speaking when I’m offered a cup of tea it comes with either an offer of milk specifying they’ve got vegan milk, or warning/apologising if they’ve only got cow’s milk. 

If someone’s round my house for a cuppa I generally know them well enough to be aware of their dietary needs.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Is Oat Milk Gluten-Free? BRANDS THAT ARE! - Meaningful Eats
> 
> 
> Have you ever wondered if oat milk is gluten-free? IT DEPENDS! This article will give you all of the information!
> ...


Do you think perhaps editor’s guests might have mentioned it if they have allergies? 

Speaking for myself here, but I’m not running a catering service. It’s small scale social in my home. If people have a problem ingesting certain substances they tend to mention it when food or drink is on offer.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

wtf. I mean, it's a small thing but not telling people what you're feeding them seems a bit off. My sister in law is insanely gluten intolerant, and while tbh she generally makes sure everyone knows it I don't know if she would if she was just having a brew, which is generally assumed to be a gluten free item.

People are wankers about plant milks, but I don't think that's a reason for not telling them you're feeding it to them.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Do you think perhaps editor’s guests might have mentioned it if they have allergies?
> 
> Speaking for myself here, but I’m not running a catering service. It’s small scale social in my home. If people have a problem ingesting certain substances they tend to mention it when food or drink is on offer.


My mother has gluten intolerance and would not usually worry about the prospect of her cup of tea containing gluten.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Babies and people have allergies to all sorts of things, but that wasn't the question I asked though, so I'll ask again:
> 
> I wonder how many people in the UK have actually suffered an adverse health reaction from_ unknowingly drinking tea with oat milk in it?_


Dunno. It's odd for you to mention whattabouttery, though, when you're the one pointing at baby allergies. 

Seems to me to be basic manners to tell people what you're giving them. If you ask someone you don't know 'do you take milk?', there will be an underlying assumption for most people that you're talking about animal milk. 'I've only got oat milk, is that ok?' seems to me to be the right thing to say if the answer is 'yes'.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> If someone’s round my house for a cuppa I generally know them well enough to be aware of their dietary needs.


Yeah, my local builder has had his printed on the side of the van.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

So no one can cite a single example of someone suffering any kind of serious health problems after some _absolute rotter_ put in a bit of oat milk into their tea? 

Perhaps we can dismiss this whataboutery from the usual suspects and get back to the discussion in hand?


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

killer b said:


> wtf. I mean, it's a small thing but not telling people what you're feeding them seems a bit off. My sister in law is insanely gluten intolerant, and while tbh she generally makes sure everyone knows it I don't know if she would if she was just having a brew, which is generally assumed to be a gluten free item.


You'd think someone who is 'insanely gluten intolerant' would make it their business to tell people that before they prepare them any food or drink, no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> So no one can cite a single example of someone suffering any kind of serious health problems after some _absolute rotter_ put in a bit of oat milk into their tea?
> 
> Perhaps we can dismiss this whataboutery from the usual suspects and get back to the discussion in hand?


Oat allergies are rare but exist. Babies can have allergies to a range of things - this is part of growing up. And on a general note, it's good form to tell people what you're feeding them.

That probably covers it. 

It is a bit ironic, though, to hear people boasting how they've slipped milk substitutes past unsuspecting visitors. I would not dream of attempting to slip a vegan/veggie animal products on the sly.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> You'd think someone who is 'insanely gluten intolerant' would make it their business to tell people that before they prepare them any food or drink, no?


I've answered this in the actual sentence you're replying to.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is a bit ironic, though, to hear people boasting how they've slipped milk substitutes past unsuspecting visitors. I would not dream of attempting to slip a vegan/veggie animal products on the sly.


Love the dramatic hyperbole, there.

Still waiting for all the documented, hard-hitting evidence of all these people suffering dire health consequences as a result of someone 'slipping' in a bit of oat milk into a cuppa when they came to visit.

(PS When I go around someone's house, I tell them that I don't take cow's milk. Strange how all these fictional people with awful oat milk allergies can't manage to express their preference, what with at least one in three Brits now drinking plant based milk).









						Sales of oat milk overtake almond
					

The cream of the vegan milk crop: Sales of oat milk overtake almond in the UK  Read more.



					www.mintel.com


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is a bit ironic, though, to hear people boasting how they've slipped milk substitutes past unsuspecting visitors. I would not dream of attempting to slip a vegan/veggie animal products on the sly.



That's totally different though. If someone gave me (a non vegan) tea with a non dairy milk in it. I wouldn't get cross at all. If I was a vegan and someone tricked me into drinking milk I'd be furious.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

skyscraper101 said:


> That's totally different though. If someone gave me (a non vegan) tea with a non dairy milk in it. I wouldn't get cross at all. If I was a vegan and someone tricked me into drinking milk I'd be furious.


Indeed. It's a facile comparison.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

skyscraper101 said:


> That's totally different though. If someone gave me (a non vegan) tea with a non dairy milk in it. I wouldn't get cross at all. If I was a vegan and someone tricked me into drinking milk I'd be furious.


I don't think it's totally different. I think it's a case of reciprocating consideration. It is thoughtless to give someone plant milk without checking with them first that they're ok with it. In many people's worlds, the word 'milk' refers to the secretion made by mammals, and that will be their default assumption when offered something called 'milk'.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

skyscraper101 said:


> That's totally different though. If someone gave me (a non vegan) tea with a non dairy milk in it. I wouldn't get cross at all. If I was a vegan and someone tricked me into drinking milk I'd be furious.


if I had a nut allergy, i would generally think I was safe drinking a cup of tea & if someone tricked me into drinking hazelnut milk I would be furious


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> So no one can cite a single example of someone suffering any kind of serious health problems after some _absolute rotter_ put in a bit of oat milk into their tea?
> 
> Perhaps we can dismiss this whataboutery from the usual suspects and get back to the discussion in hand?


Health problems have to be serious to count?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> if I had a nut allergy, i would generally think I was safe drinking a cup of tea & if someone tricked me into drinking hazelnut milk I would be furious


Or possibly dead.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Because it's for baby cows! Duh


You don't think cows milk drinkers know that?


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Health problems have to be serious to count?


OK. Perhaps you can find ample  documented evidence of health problems of even a minor nature arising from someone who had oat milk 'slipped' into their cuppa when they were visiting someone (and who presumably  forgot to tell anyone about their allergy in advance).


Because if you can't, then this is one fucking giant sized piece of endless strawman whataboutery.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think it's totally different. I think it's a case of reciprocating consideration. It is thoughtless to give someone plant milk without checking with them first that they're ok with it. In many people's worlds, the word 'milk' refers to the secretion made by mammals, and that will be their default assumption when offered something called 'milk'.


You're wrong, and if you were veggie or vegan you'd understand why.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> You're wrong, and if you were veggie or vegan you'd understand why.


Wrong about which bit?

Others should consider your requirements but you don't have the same responsibility? Which bit?


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> So no one can cite a single example of someone suffering any kind of serious health problems after some _absolute rotter_ put in a bit of oat milk into their tea?
> 
> Perhaps we can dismiss this whataboutery from the usual suspects and get back to the discussion in hand?


What was the discussion in hand? I thought it was this. It is not whataboutery. You replied to Stavros and people replied to you. I'd suggest there was a difference between workmen who you likely don't know well and  guests. Giving people something that could give them a shit day isn't really on. I'd done similar in the past thought about it after and decided it may not have been the best idea. Just because people don't nod along to every word you say doesn't make it whataboutery.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> You're wrong, and if you were veggie or vegan you'd understand why.


I'm veggie or vegan and don't understand why.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

Editor isn't going to admit it here, but the next time he makes a stranger/new guest a cup of tea, he will tell them that it's oat milk.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> OK. Perhaps you can find ample  documented evidence of health problems of even a minor nature arising from someone who had oat milk 'slipped' into their cuppa when they were visiting someone (and who presumably  forgot to tell anyone about their allergy in advance).
> 
> 
> Because if you can't, then this is one fucking giant sized piece of endless strawman whataboutery.


Well I saw earlier the Coeliac society see it as worth mentioning on their website. How would people know? They'd have their "nice cuppa" fuck off somewhere else and feel shit for a mysterious reason.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Editor isn't going to admit it here, but the next time he makes a stranger/new guest a cup of tea, he will tell them that it's oat milk.


Not now he won't.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Editor isn't going to admit it here, but the next time he makes a stranger/new guest a cup of tea, he will tell them that it's oat milk.


Wow. We can add mind reading to your abilities now! 
Any news on all these documented cases of people falling ill after imbibing a little bit of oat milk?


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Well I saw earlier the Coeliac society see it as worth mentioning on their website. How would people know? They'd have their "nice cuppa" fuck off somewhere else and feel shit for a mysterious reason.


So if you had a medical need for gluten free products you wouldn't dream of mentioning it when someone went to make you a cup of tea? How strange.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> So if you had a medical need for gluten free products you wouldn't dream of mentioning it when someone went to make you a cup of tea? How strange.


Why the fuck would you think it necessary to mention it for a cup of tea? Gluten isn't usually found in tea unless it's added by an inconsiderate wanker. 

Perhaps in editor world people need to ask for gluten / nut free water as well.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Why the fuck would you think it necessary to mention it for a cup of tea? Gluten isn't usually found in tea unless it's added by an inconsiderate wanker.
> 
> Perhaps in editor world people need to ask for gluten / nut free water as well.


Here. Educate yourself: Coeliac UK response to Starbucks introducing Oat milk

Anyway, in the complete absence of a shred of evidence that a visitor's to anyone's house has got ill from someone 'slipping' in a slop of oat milk into a cup of tea. I'm done arguing this total non-point.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> So if you had a medical need for gluten free products you wouldn't dream of mentioning it when someone went to make you a cup of tea? How strange.


My sister in law has problems with gluten (her brother and  mother are coeliac but she is undiagnosed) and has never specified no oat milk. Of course it is not just gluten as avenin can be problematic as well. There are also people who are unaware of the details of plant milks. I didn't know for example that oat milk could end up contaminated with gluten. People who assume that milk means cows milk and those who don't know they have anything to worry about from plant milks are likely a large minority. Just seems fair to give them a choice in the matter so they know to avoid it in future.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Why the fuck would you think it necessary to mention it for a cup of tea? Gluten isn't usually found in tea unless it's added by an inconsiderate wanker.
> 
> Perhaps in editor world people need to ask for gluten / nut free water as well.


Tbf it's not an obvious thing and if you're drinking it all the time it becomes your normal so could easily do it without thinking. I have and now I'd ask. I don't know why people get so upset at the suggestion of showing a little consideration.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Here. Educate yourself: Coeliac UK response to Starbucks introducing Oat milk


It says there that Starbucks highlight the allergen risk to customers, which seems a sensible thing to do if you're serving a possible allergen where people might not expect it


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Here. Educate yourself: Coeliac UK response to Starbucks introducing Oat milk
> 
> Anyway, in the complete absence of a shred of evidence that a visitor's to anyone's house has got ill from someone 'slipping' in a slop of oat milk into a cup of tea. I'm done arguing this total non-point.


From your link


In the meantime, as we do not know the levels of gluten involved, *we advise our members to be aware of this risk* in making purchasing decisions regarding these products.

Seems like knowing what your consuming can be important.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think it's totally different. I think it's a case of reciprocating consideration. It is thoughtless to give someone plant milk without checking with them first that they're ok with it. In many people's worlds, the word 'milk' refers to the secretion made by mammals, and that will be their default assumption when offered something called 'milk'.



Weird that this needs to be explained.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Wow. We can add mind reading to your abilities now!



My self-awareness meter has blown _again_.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> From your link
> 
> 
> In the meantime, as we do not know the levels of gluten involved, *we advise our members to be aware of this risk* in making purchasing decisions regarding these products.
> ...


That's more like it


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Weird that this needs to be explained.



No, it isn't.

Would be weird IRL, obv.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> From your link
> 
> 
> In the meantime, as we do not know the levels of gluten involved, *we advise our members to be aware of this risk* in making purchasing decisions regarding these products.
> ...


If you're a multinational business, absolutely. In private situations - like when someone offers you a cup of tea when you're visiting - I'd say the onus switches to the individual if they are hyper sensitive to what appears to be a rare allergy. 

I certainly have no problem telling people I don;t want cow's milk in my tea, and that's not even going to make me ill.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> If you're a multinational business, absolutely. In private situations - like when someone offers you a cup of tea when you're visiting - I'd say the onus switches to the individual if they are hyper sensitive to what appears to be a rare allergy.
> 
> I certainly have no problem telling people I don;t want cow's milk in my tea, and that's not even going to make me ill.


I'd do the same but I wouldn't assume everyone behaved exactly like me.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Here. Educate yourself: Coeliac UK response to Starbucks introducing Oat milk
> 
> Anyway, in the complete absence of a shred of evidence that a visitor's to anyone's house has got ill from someone 'slipping' in a slop of oat milk into a cup of tea. I'm done arguing this total non-point.


So if you were using soy or nut based milk you have no problem running the risk of potentially killing someone from anaphylaxis because you can't be arsed letting people know. 

Good luck with your defence if someone sues for assault or manslaughter.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Good luck with your defence if someone sues for assault or manslaughter.



Oh, come on.  "No one gave me the stats when it came up on my internet forum" has to be pretty watertight, surely?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Here. Educate yourself: Coeliac UK response to Starbucks introducing Oat milk


[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, that article clearly points out that the onus is on the provider of the beverage to point out potential allergens, but nevermind eh.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> So if you were using soy or nut based milk you have no problem running the risk of potentially killing someone from anaphylaxis because you can't be arsed letting people know.
> 
> Good luck with your defence if someone sues for assault or manslaughter.


Admire the continued whataboutery as oat milk is quietly and deceitfully  replaced with 'soy or nut based milk' to set up an _entirely different_ scenario to the one under discussion.

And then gaze in awe as the poster loses the plot completely and starts banging on about the tea maker being sued for "assault or manslaughter."

But - going along with your fantastic 'what if' scene setting - could you explain to me how a case of assault might be brought to the courts if someone served someone a cup of tea and the person made no mention of - or expressed no preferences for - the milk that accompanied  their cuppa in their private home?

And can you give some examples of people dying from having a small amount of soya milk in a single cup of tea?


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> So if you were using soy or nut based milk you have no problem running the risk of potentially killing someone from anaphylaxis because you can't be arsed letting people know.
> 
> Good luck with your defence if someone sues for assault or manslaughter.


This is a bit silly - it's manners, not actually a matter of life & death.


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

Nut allergies are very real I'm glad this thread has highlighted this risk, I'm definitely going to make sure I check with people from now on. Peanut milk is a thing, I never knew!


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2022)

killer b said:


> This is a bit silly - it's manners, not actually a matter of life & death.


Actually the poster was insisting that it IS a matter of life and death, with criminal cases of assault and manslaughter to follow.

Oh, and for the record, I don't use nut based milk for a variety of reasons. In fact no one was even talking about nut based milk.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Actually the poster was insisting that it IS a matter of life and death, with criminal cases of assault and manslaughter to follow.


I know, that's why I was calling them silly?


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 7, 2022)

Where can i find nut cheeses? Tescos don't have them and neither does the local quack shop (Holland and Barrett)


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

killer b said:


> This is a bit silly - it's manners, not actually a matter of life & death.


Clearly don't have a clue about anaphylaxis then. Even the tiniest crumb of peanut can cause life threatening anaphylaxis in people who are sensitive to it.

My sister is allergic to soy and has had her throat and tongue swell up due to the microscopic levels found in some tablets, fortunately it didn't require hospital treatment just large doses of antihistamine tablets. So if that small a quantity can have that effect what do you think the result would be from a mouthful?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> If you're a multinational business, absolutely. In private situations - like when someone offers you a cup of tea when you're visiting - I'd say the onus switches to the individual if they are hyper sensitive to what appears to be a rare allergy.
> 
> I certainly have no problem telling people I don;t want cow's milk in my tea, and that's not even going to make me ill.


This is so simple that I don't believe for one second that you don't get it. 

If you offer someone a cup of tea, you should tell them you're using oat milk not cow's milk. Not to do so is thoughtless. 

The fact that you have no problem telling people you don't want cow's milk is really neither here nor there. Well done you. Have a gold star. That has no bearing whatever on what you should tell others when making them a cup of tea.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Clearly don't have a clue about anaphylaxis then. Even the tiniest crumb of peanut can cause life threatening anaphylaxis in people who are sensitive to it.
> 
> My sister is allergic to soy and has had her throat and tongue swell up due to the microscopic levels found in some tablets, fortunately it didn't require hospital treatment just large doses of antihistamine tablets. So if that small a quantity can have that effect what do you think the result would be from a mouthful?


I do know loads about how serious peanut allergies can be as it happens, but we're talking about oats


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Where can i find nut cheeses? Tescos don't have them and neither does the local quack shop (Holland and Barrett)



The kind that tastes like actual cheese?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

killer b said:


> I do know loads about how serious peanut allergies can be as it happens, but we're talking about oats


As has already been pointed out oat milk can contain gluten. Gluten can be a trigger for IBS. One of the posters on here (can't remember their name) regularly posts about another several day stay in hospital because of a flare up.
Do you think it's acceptable to put someone in that position because you can't be bothered to mention it's oat milk?


----------



## furluxor (Sep 7, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Where can i find nut cheeses? Tescos don't have them and neither does the local quack shop (Holland and Barrett)



Seems like they're only available online and perhaps in some London-based vegan delis (guessing about the latter). We're talking about £4+ per 100g (plus delivery). I've been eyeing them but damn, that's expensive. 
It's weird, Americans have them in supermarkets but they somehow haven't made it to the UK, even though there is so much demand.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

furluxor said:


> Seems like they're only available online and perhaps in some London-based vegan delis (guessing about the latter). We're talking about £4+ per 100g (plus delivery). I've been eyeing them but damn, that's expensive.
> It's weird, Americans have them in supermarkets but they somehow haven't made it to the UK, even though there is so much demand.



Ooh, that’s a bit pricey.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> As has already been pointed out oat milk can contain gluten. Gluten can be a trigger for IBS. One of the posters on here (can't remember their name) regularly posts about another several day stay in hospital because of a flare up.
> Do you think it's acceptable to put someone in that position because you can't be bothered to mention it's oat milk?


I don't. But I also think shrill nonsense about manslaughter over it is daft.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

Yeah it’s all gotten a bit extra. 

My friend has anaphylactic allergy to dairy. He carries an epipen. 
I can’t give a cup of standard sweetened soya milk to one of my friends because the apple extract its sweetened with sets off her ibs. It’d be discomfort not deadly though. 

Quite curious how much of the gluten from oats makes it into the milk, so that’ll provide for the next time I go on a distraction quest. If I find anything definitive I’ll report back.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

killer b said:


> This is a bit silly - it's manners, not actually a matter of life & death.



It is silly and a bit tongue in cheek, but it’s also more than manners.

If a veg-head sneaks nut milk into someone’s food or drink without them knowing, thinking “huh huh, the silly carnist will never know”, it’s bang the fuck out of order.

It’s potentially far from inconsequential.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

furluxor said:


> Seems like they're only available online and perhaps in some London-based vegan delis (guessing about the latter). We're talking about £4+ per 100g (plus delivery). I've been eyeing them but damn, that's expensive.
> It's weird, Americans have them in supermarkets but they somehow haven't made it to the UK, even though there is so much demand.


Yeah it’s mega expensive. There’s a small chain of health food shops that have it round here, they mark things down where they’re near date so I have tried them. Nice but not amazing? I wouldn’t pay full price for them. One of those things it’d be cool to learn how to do yourself. If I had unlimited time, and maybe a better blender.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

If you knew someone was vegan and you went to their place for a cup of tea would you actually expect to be served cow milk? 

The entire conversation is epic level ridiculous.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 7, 2022)

Interesting post about oatly oat milk from a coffee shop that I visited a while back in Fort William.





__





						BLOG | The Wildcat
					






					www.wildcatcafe.co.uk
				




When I visited them I'd ordered a pot of tea and was waiting for my wife to join me when the tea came and I asked for some milk for mine. The waitress told me didn't do cows milk and offered me some sort of 'not-milk' so when the wife arrived I crossed the road and purchased a pint of cow juice from shop opposite. I had no idea it was a vegan cafe until they tried to thrust their alternative lifestyle into my roseylee.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

No one who eats or drinks anything from my house is being “sneaked” anything. They know I’m vegan so they’re not going to expect any death or dairy in their food or drink.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> If you knew someone was vegan and you went to their place for a cup of tea would you actually expect to be served cow milk?



That’s not what’s under discussion. What’s being discussed is vegans or veg-heads putting non-dairy milk into other people’s drinks without telling them. 

If you think that’s ok you’re an idiot.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Interesting post about oatly oat milk from a coffee shop that I visited a while back in Fort William.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Omg do you really take offence at getting oat milk for your cuppa when you _go to a vegan cafe_
That’s next level


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> No one who eats or drinks anything from my house is being “sneaked” anything. They know I’m vegan so they’re not going to expect any death or dairy in their food or drink.



Not everything’s about you. Read the other posts on this thread.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> That’s not what’s under discussion. What’s being discussed is vegans or veg-heads putting non-dairy milk into other people’s drinks without telling them.
> 
> If you think that’s ok you’re an idiot.


Actually it is what was being discussed. I believe editor mentioned serving cups of tea to guests at his house.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> If you knew someone was vegan and you went to their place for a cup of tea would you actually expect to be served cow milk?


No. But the context here has included 'workmen'. And boasting that people didn't notice.


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> If you knew someone was vegan and you went to their place for a cup of tea would you actually expect to be served cow milk?
> 
> The entire conversation is epic level ridiculous.


If I went to a vegetarian's place for a cup of tea I'd expect dairy milk.  Or even a carnist's house that for whatever reason drank plant milk but just didn't think to mention if it was a nut milk they were using. Anyone could make that mistake, host just not realising about allergies in a splash of milk which you'd think is quite innocuous. Better to just tell people, it's not that big of a faff.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Not everything’s about you. Read the other posts on this thread.


Oh righto. Everyone can post about their personal experience but I’m not to? Ok sure. Jog on.


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Actually it is what was being discussed. I believe editor mentioned serving cups of tea to guests at his house.


The discussion expanded to plant milk, discussions expand sometimes, this time usefully I think.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> The discussion expanded to plant milk, discussions expand sometimes, this time usefully I think.


Expanding into some alternate dimension where rabid vegans are going around randomly sneaking non dairy milk into random strangers’ food/drink is bizarre strawman extrapolation tho


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Oh righto. Everyone can post about their personal experience but I’m not to? Ok sure. Jog on.



Yep, you’re an idiot. 

Are you reading anything other than what you post yourself?


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Expanding into some alternate dimension where rabid vegans are going around randomly sneaking non dairy milk into random strangers’ food/drink is bizarre strawman extrapolation tho


That's not what happened though.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> If I went to a vegetarian's place for a cup of tea I'd expect dairy milk.  Or even a carnist's house that for whatever reason drank plant milk but just didn't think to mention if it was a nut milk they were using. Anyone could make that mistake, host just not realising about allergies in a splash of milk which you'd think is quite innocuous. Better to just tell people, it's not that big of a faff.


All seems like stating the blindingly obvious to me, except with the usual level of madly pro-carnist shitposting that any thread mentioning veganism attracts.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Omg do you really take offence at getting oat milk for you cuppa when you _go to a vegan cafe_
> That’s next level



Where did I take offence nobjob?. I politely declined ("Nae Bovva") and made my own arrangements.

If you read what I'd written you will see I had no idea it was a vegan gaff I just sat at a table and ordered some tea. It just looked like a nice cafe to me.

FTR I've had tea with oat spunk and almond jizz in and it doesn't taste right to me. It's my personal choice


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Omg do you really take offence at getting oat milk for your cuppa when you _go to a vegan cafe_
> That’s next level


Did you read the link btw, that was my point of posting. I'm on their mailing list and read it with interest. I recall some oatly issues with oat milk company shenanigans


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> All seems like stating the blindingly obvious to me, except with the usual level of madly pro-carnist shitposting that any thread mentioning veganism attracts.


I'm not a "madly pro-carnist" person and I didn't "shitpost" about the allergen dangers of nut milk.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Expanding into some alternate dimension where rabid vegans are going around randomly sneaking non dairy milk into random strangers’ food/drink is bizarre strawman extrapolation tho


People posting that they've given workmen (sic) non-dairy milk and that the people in question didn't notice is the context here. Boasting about something that in reality is a bit thoughtless and rude. I suggest you reread the thread.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 7, 2022)

Re: cows/goats milk not being "meant" for humans. Animals are "meant" to consume whatever they can successfully digest and derive nutrition from, usually by evolutionary processes. You might reasonably argue that an anteater was "meant" to eat ants because it has become adapted to do so through evolution.

If you are saying that humans are not "meant" to eat dairy because the cow/goat didn't intend you to, then you presumably don't eat anything apart from fruit. Seeds (grains, beans etc) were "meant" to grow into new plants. Root veg was "meant" to store nutrients to help the plant grow next year, leaf veg was "meant" to provide the plant nutrients through photosynthesis.

If you are not lactose intolerant then you are specifically evolutionarily adapted to digest lactose, indeed, it's one of the most recent examples of human evolution. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128117200000015


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

not sure about high street as some can be quite pricey
Rosie's or Tyne seem to be good/rated
e2a Products Archive - Raw Food Rosie's








						Tyne Chease Ltd - Artisan vegan cheese handmade in the North East of England
					

At Tyne Chease Ltd, all our artisan vegan cheeses are handmade by our dedicated team in Stocksfield, UK. Shop now!




					www.tynechease.com
				




yes they're pricey before the usual twunts weigh in with that


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> All seems like stating the blindingly obvious to me, except with the usual level of madly pro-carnist shitposting that any thread mentioning veganism attracts.


Bit oversensitive me thinks. No-one is shit-posting. Calm down dear.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Re: cows/goats milk not being "meant" for humans. Animals are "meant" to consume whatever they can successfully digest and derive nutrition from, usually by evolutionary processes. You might reasonably argue that an anteater was "meant" to eat ants because it has become adapted to do so through evolution.
> 
> If you are saying that humans are not "meant" to eat dairy because the cow/goat didn't intend you to, then you presumably don't eat anything apart from fruit. Seeds (grains, beans etc) were "meant" to grow into new plants. Root veg was "meant" to store nutrients to help the plant grow next year, leaf veg was "meant" to provide the plant nutrients through photosynthesis.
> 
> ...


Being the expert don't you know how much hormones and chemicals and pus and blood are in cow's milk?? 
Are those things in veg too??


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> not sure about high street as some can be quite pricey
> Rosie's or Tyne seem to be good/rated


did you mean to quote someone else?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. But the context here has included 'workmen'. And boasting that people didn't notice.



Ta da!


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 7, 2022)

8ball said:


> The kind that tastes like actual cheese?


The kind that tastes nice. I like nuts and I like cheese.



furluxor said:


> Seems like they're only available online and perhaps in some London-based vegan delis (guessing about the latter). We're talking about £4+ per 100g (plus delivery). I've been eyeing them but damn, that's expensive.
> It's weird, Americans have them in supermarkets but they somehow haven't made it to the UK, even though there is so much demand.


That's not going to be doable for me. I bought some almond butter which I guess is just a fancy way of saying almond paste 

It's quite nice and certainly better than that nutella shit I can't eat anyway. So I have that on my flax muffin instead of actual cheese right now.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

killer b said:


> did you mean to quote someone else?


yes  apologies


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Being the expert don't you know how much hormones and chemicals and pus and blood are in cow's milk??
> Are those things in veg too??


You do understand that cell counts have to be taken from milk before it enters the supply chain, don't you?

Either way, it is, in this instance milk that non lactose intolerant humans have evolved to digest, presumably containing far higher cell counts than in modern times.

Of course veg are covered in bacteria, they came out of soil fertilised with shite, quick wash, they'll be fine.
And yes, milk, like everything else on the planet consists of chemicals.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 7, 2022)

Also, seems Haarlem hasn't banned the advertising of meat at all, just meat that doesn't meet the Dutch "biological" standards, which apparently are something like:
 "Biological feed is produced without the use of chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, or genetic modification. A biological product can have no artificial additives."

Apologies if slightly inaccurate, Google translate.

Haarlem verbiedt reclames voor vlees in openbare ruimte


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> not sure about high street as some can be quite pricey
> Rosie's or Tyne seem to be good/rated
> e2a Products Archive - Raw Food Rosie's
> 
> ...


I bought some vegetarian hard cheese last week but we haven’t run out of our usual parmesan yet. I will report back on how good it is, I expect it to be fine.

Not tried any plant based cheese yet. I will do, we now use Oatly for plant based Greek yoghurt, crème fraiche, custard etc … we’re big fans of oat based products plus I don’t get on with dairy.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> I'm not a "madly pro-carnist" person and I didn't "shitpost" about the allergen dangers of nut milk.


Didn’t mean you ftr. This thread is full of it though.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> You do understand that cell counts have to be taken from milk before it enters the supply chain, don't you?
> 
> Either way, it is, in this instance milk that non lactose intolerant humans have evolved to digest, presumably containing far higher cell counts than in modern times.
> 
> ...


The fact that cell counts are needed for milk was one of the reasons I stopped drinking it. There’s an allowable threshold for blood and pus because the cows have such constant issues with mastitis that all milk is likely to contain some. So it’s gross as well as evidencing how cruel the industrial process of mass producing milk is.


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Didn’t mean you ftr. This thread is full of it though.


I haven’t read the whole thread but when I joined it I was surprised to see some allergen assumptions arising and I’m not going to point at anyone but myself: I didnt know about eg peanut milk in the context of a very wide term “plant milk” and the thread has made me reconsider allergens again, I think it’s been useful. I’m also reminded that my partner was a vegan when I first met him and he came off his vegan diet … very interesting that it was dairy products that made him unwell (a pizza with cheese) rather than a steak.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> The kind that tastes nice. I like nuts and I like cheese.



I also like both nuts and cheese.

I’ve had cashew “cheese” that was quite nice, but it was a long way off being actual cheese.  Went well on chips, though.

These aren’t cheap but some of it looks interesting:









						Artisan Vegan Cheese · Dairy Free · I AM NUT OK
					

Try the best vegan and dairy free cheeses your taste buds will ever meet. 100% Plant Based & Handmade in London.




					www.iamnutok.com


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> The fact that cell counts are needed for milk was one of the reasons I stopped drinking it. There’s an allowable threshold for blood and pus because the cows have such constant issues with mastitis that all milk is likely to contain some. So it’s gross as well as evidencing how cruel the industrial process of mass producing milk is.



It was always going to contain some, it's a secretion. Human milk contains SCs, all mammals can get mastitis during lactation, including humans.

So yes, anywhere that animals lactate will have to manage mastitis, including post natal health care in humans.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> No one who eats or drinks anything from my house is being “sneaked” anything. They know I’m vegan so they’re not going to expect any death or dairy in their food or drink.


Do you advertise your vegan to builders you have in?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Do you advertise your vegan to builders you have in?



You’re suspecting some variant of stealth veganism has emerged? 

(I don’t think editor is vegan as it happens)


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Being the expert don't you know how much hormones and chemicals and pus and blood are in cow's milk??
> Are those things in veg too??


Herbicides, insecticides etc?


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Herbicides, insecticides etc?


Since veg growers round here seem to be the most prolific users of broiler muck, I imagine that might be of more concern.


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

I get proper ick/ugh about not washing veg, would be grateful if anyone could shed any light on whether veg should be washed.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> I get proper ick/ugh about not washing veg, would be grateful if anyone could shed any light on whether veg should be washed.



Back before people washed their veg, people could forego meat without needing B12 supplements.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Do you advertise your vegan to builders you have in?


Been a long time since I had any builders round. I believe the last time was 10 years ago, they were ripping the entire kitchen out so no one was getting tea from my place that week.

I imagine I’d check what they wanted though, I usually have a lot of herbal teas plus variations on coffee black tea & sugar or sweetener & whatever plant milk I’ve got open there might be a different sort in the cupboard. (I might be too skint to employ builders but I like variety in hot drinks.) So many variations that yes they’d get a bunch of questions before they got a mug of something.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> I get proper ick/ugh about not washing veg, would be grateful if anyone could shed any light on whether veg should be washed.


Wash and if root veg, scrub. 

Hopefully cooking will do the rest.

Salads are usually chlorine washed so you don't need to worry about them.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

8ball said:


> You’re suspecting some variant of stealth veganism has emerged?
> 
> (I don’t think editor is vegan as it happens)


A new front of activism, get a job undercover in a pizza place and sneak soya products onto the meat feast toppings. The meat and dairy industrial complex will crumble within months.

I think the Hare Krishna’s do something weird with their food as it goes. They’re not just being generous when they take those huge pots of rice and dal and feed the masses. It’s blessed or something so by getting people to eat it they’re getting them to ingest their religion. Or something. If anyone knows what’s at the bottom of this half remembered vignette, do tell.


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

8ball said:


> Back before people washed their veg, people could forego meat without needing B12 supplements.


Which veg have B12 that can be washed away? As I said Button was a vegan so is quite interested in the whole B12 issue. And I want to know what pesticides can be washed away which was the point of my own post.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> A new front of activism, get a job undercover in a pizza place and sneak soya products onto the meat feast toppings. The meat and dairy industrial complex will crumble within months.
> 
> I think the Hare Krishna’s do something weird with their food as it goes. They’re not just being generous when they take those huge pots of rice and dal and feed the masses. It’s blessed or something so by getting people to eat it they’re getting them to ingest their religion. Or something. If anyone knows what’s at the bottom of this half remembered vignette, do tell.



If you go to the cheap pizza places you’ll often end up with fake cheese anyway.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It was always going to contain some, it's a secretion. Human milk contains SCs, all mammals can get mastitis during lactation, including humans.
> 
> So yes, anywhere that animals lactate will have to manage mastitis, including post natal health care in humans.


Yes, I do know people who had babies and breast fed them. Mastitis was excruciatingly painful for every one of them. So when we forcibly impregnate cows so as to extract their milk we make them go through pain on pain on pain.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> Which veg have B12 that can be washed away?



The veg doesn’t.  It is in soil bacteria that wind up getting ingested with the unwashed veg.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> Which veg have B12 that can be washed away? As I said Button was a vegan so is quite interested in the whole B12 issue. And I want to know what pesticides can be washed away which was the point of my own post.


I’ve been told that if you can afford to get organic for some veg but not all to prioritise root veg as it’s harder to get the pesticides out. 

Previously we didn’t need mineral supplements because we got bits from soil on vegetables, but not only is it all washed clean because of pesticides etc, I think the soil quality is degraded now.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Herbicides, insecticides etc?


blood? puss?


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Wash and if root veg, scrub.
> 
> Hopefully cooking will do the rest.
> 
> Salads are usually chlorine washed so you don't need to worry about them.


Thanks so much, appreciated.


----------



## souljacker (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> blood? puss?


It's only dead blood cells and bacteria. It's not going to kill you.


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> I’ve been told that if you can afford to get organic for some veg but not all to prioritise root veg as it’s harder to get the pesticides out.
> 
> Previously we didn’t need mineral supplements because we got bits from soil on vegetables, but not only is it all washed clean because of pesticides etc, I think the soil quality is degraded now.


Soil quality issue is huge. Spinach when  I was a kid (60s/70s) tasted properly of iron, nowadays doesn’t taste as  metallic.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2022)

souljacker said:


> It's only dead blood cells and bacteria. It's not going to kill you.



It’s whataboutery in its purest form. 

Why would evil carnists be any more concerned about harmless levels of blood and puss in milk, than veg-heads are about harmless levels of shit and insecticides on their carrots?


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> It’s whataboutery in its purest form.
> 
> Why would evil carnists be any more concerned about harmless levels of blood and puss in milk, than veg-heads are about harmless levels of shit and insecticides on their carrots?


It’s pus in milk, and puss in boots


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

souljacker said:


> It's only dead blood cells and bacteria. It's not going to kill you.


mmmm, delicious


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 7, 2022)

cesare said:


> I get proper ick/ugh about not washing veg, would be grateful if anyone could shed any light on whether veg should be washed.


Oh god I never wash owt. Should I?


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 7, 2022)

souljacker said:


> It's only dead blood cells and bacteria. It's not going to kill you.


People pay good money for blood pudding


----------



## souljacker (Sep 7, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> People pay good money for blood pudding


Mmmm.... Delicious


----------



## furluxor (Sep 7, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> That's not going to be doable for me. I bought some almond butter which I guess is just a fancy way of saying almond paste
> 
> It's quite nice and certainly better than that nutella shit I can't eat anyway. So I have that on my flax muffin instead of actual cheese right now.



I just call it 'nutter'  

I don't know what your story is and whether you're vegan or have been such for long but eventually I found that lost interest in cheese altogether. But we badly need a master list of vegan things to put on toast that don't require prep/cooking.
The best 'cheese' I've had was something my partner and I made for Christmas out of walnuts, miso, nutritional yeast and some other stuff. It wasn't too laboursome, cut neatly into rounds and even omnivores thought it was the dog's bollocks.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 7, 2022)

I'm am unconcerned about bacteria from soil or manure on my veg, just like I am unconcerned about acceptable somatic cell counts in milk. 

There are vast numbers of bacteria around us and trillions live inside us. In fact there's some evidence that early exposure to some of these help us build up immunity - for example children who are around animals (including pets) tend to have more resilient immune systems.

As long as you take sensible precautions, you're minimising the risk.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> blood? puss?


Do you think a bit of blood is going to put off meat eaters?
What do you think that red stuff that comes out of raw meat is? Strawberry jam?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 7, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Do you think a bit of blood is going to put off meat eaters?
> What do you think that red stuff that comes out of raw meat is? Strawberry jam?


Do you think everyone who drinks cow's milk is a red meat eater? <pathetic smiley here>
Do you want to keep going and going?


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 7, 2022)

furluxor said:


> I just call it 'nutter'
> 
> I don't know what your story is and whether you're vegan or have been such for long but eventually I found that lost interest in cheese altogether. But we badly need a master list of vegan things to put on toast that don't require prep/cooking.
> The best 'cheese' I've had was something my partner and I made for Christmas out of walnuts, miso, nutritional yeast and some other stuff. It wasn't too laboursome, cut neatly into rounds and even omnivores thought it was the dog's bollocks.


I'm not a vegan but i am willing to re examine my animal product intake. So i'm trying to cut back on dairy and red meat especially. I still want to eat fish however. Besides any improvements that can save money is always good. I do feel better on animal food, can't lie. Maybe I just don't eat enough of anything else. But I'm not a carnivore and find those people (most of them have revealed themselves to be utter cranks during covid) awful


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 7, 2022)

8ball said:


> I also like both nuts and cheese.
> 
> I’ve had cashew “cheese” that was quite nice, but it was a long way off being actual cheese.  Went well on chips, though.
> 
> ...


nuts and cheese go well togther, nuts can be a bit dry alone. I usually have walnuts with my flax muffin or omellette.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Do you think everyone who drinks cow's milk is a red meat eater? <pathetic smiley here>
> Do you want to keep going and going?


Who exactly are these cow milk drinkers that don't eat red meat?

You do realise that chicken and even fish have blood in them don't you?

If these people are that bothered about a tiny bit of blood in their milk perhaps they should go fully animal product free.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 7, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Do you think everyone who drinks cow's milk is a red meat eater? <pathetic smiley here>
> Do you want to keep going and going?


As ever, though, yours is a purely emotional reaction. You have a disgust response to the idea of blood or puss or whatever in your food and you post that reaction up as if it were somehow more significant than just your own personal sense of disgust. Editor does the same thing when he bangs on about sinews and whatever when describing meat. 

I'm not having a go at you for having that disgust reaction. But you should recognise it for what it is. Other people aren't evil or wrong if they don't share it.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 7, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> Didn’t mean you ftr. This thread is full of it though.


You're the worst one on this thread for over reactionary behaviour by my reckoning so far, The usual self-righteous finger pointing behaviour from any one who doesn't agree with your mantra. One of the reasons I never engage with these threads to be honest.  You responded in kind to that poster at least own your words back peddler


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 8, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> You're the worst one on this thread for over reactionary behaviour by my reckoning so far, The usual self-righteous finger pointing behaviour from any one who doesn't agree with your mantra. One of the reasons I never engage with these threads to be honest.  You responded in kind to that poster at least own your words back peddler


If you reckon I’m in the same league as editor I’ll take that as a medal


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Who exactly are these cow milk drinkers that don't eat red meat?
> 
> You do realise that chicken and even fish have blood in them don't you?
> 
> If these people are that bothered about a tiny bit of blood in their milk perhaps they should go fully animal product free.


You’ve heard of vegetarians right? 
So widespread you’ll find labels on restaurant menus and in supermarkets marking products which have dairy but not meat in them?


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 8, 2022)

souljacker said:


> It's only dead blood cells and bacteria. It's not going to kill you.


As I explained above it’s not even just the fact that there’s blood and pus in milk, it’s the fact that milk needs to be screened for the levels & if there weren’t levels set for it to be marketable a lot more of it would go to waste. It’s incredible to me how some people can learn the background information and still be fine with consuming this stuff. 

Not that it’s possible to educate people about this when they’re so defensive anyway, if any of us started listing all the repulsive cruel things which are part and parcel of the meat and dairy industries there’d just be a torrent of abuse and ridicule by response. Because admitting you care about it is to be mocked, and sharing the information is sanctimonious. Or something. The psychology of it would be intriguing if it wasn’t so boringly familiar.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 8, 2022)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> As I explained above it’s not even just the fact that there’s blood and pus in milk, it’s the fact that milk needs to be screened for the levels & if there weren’t levels set for it to be marketable a lot more of it would go to waste. It’s incredible to me how some people can learn the background information and still be fine with consuming this stuff.
> 
> Not that it’s possible to “educate” people about this when they’re so defensive anyway, if any of us started listing all the repulsive cruel things which are part and parcel of the meat and dairy industries there’d just be a torrent of abuse and ridicule by response. Because admitting you care about it is to be mocked, and sharing the information is sanctimonious. Or something. The psychology of it would be intriguing if it wasn’t so boringly familiar.



See post #1268. This thread can just be done by post referencing really.

The arrogance of some vegetabalists who think they’re the only people who know what’s in milk or meat production, and were put on Earth to educate everyone else, is astounding.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 8, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> See post #1268. This thread can just be done by post referencing really.
> 
> The arrogance of some vegetabalists who think they’re the only people who know what’s in milk or meat production, and were put on Earth to educate everyone else, is astounding.


I'd know nothing about it if it wasn't for a bloke on the Internet posting "plant based news" articles...... 

I've been trying to correct misconceptions throughout the thread (I guess some have seen it as supporting bad practice), from the bizarre "plants don't need fertilising" to trying to explain that broiler companies are incredibly profit hungry and therefore whilst they may cut corners around their manure storage and thus some might leach into waterways, they definitely don't dump it because its a saleable product that they sell for fertiliser.

I've literally just watched tons of the stuff being incorporated after winter wheat in the field behind my house. It's weird when "Internet experts" are telling you that something you are watching and have seen for years "doesn't happen".


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2022)

The dangers of vegetables from the soil:

Anthrax
Clostridium Botulinum (botulism)
Salmonella
E. coli
Listeria
B. cereus
Norovirus 

They are extensively treated with chemicals, are soaked in animal excreta and contain a dizzying array of toxins they have evolved to protect themselves.

Please don't eat vegetables, grains or fruit; they are vile, vile sinks of disease and horror.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Do you think a bit of blood is going to put off meat eaters?
> What do you think that red stuff that comes out of raw meat is? Strawberry jam?



That would be myoglobin.


----------



## furluxor (Sep 8, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I'm not a vegan but i am willing to re examine my animal product intake. So i'm trying to cut back on dairy and red meat especially. I still want to eat fish however. Besides any improvements that can save money is always good. I do feel better on animal food, can't lie. Maybe I just don't eat enough of anything else. But I'm not a carnivore and find those people (most of them have revealed themselves to be utter cranks during covid) awful



Good on you! My partner's the same, cutting down here and there, except for fish. I know it can be a struggle, balancing without going fully 0% or 100%, but flexitarians are vital in changing the food industry and, by extension, the world.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2022)

Cid said:


> The dangers of vegetables from the soil:
> 
> Anthrax
> Clostridium Botulinum (botulism)
> ...



Makes blood and pus sound relatively appealing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> See post #1268. This thread can just be done by post referencing really.
> 
> The arrogance of some vegetabalists who think they’re the only people who know what’s in milk or meat production, and were put on Earth to educate everyone else, is astounding.


If we know what goes on and still eat meat/drink milk, we must be evil monsters. Or we're really stupid or we're deep in denial. Or we're some combination of all three. 

There's a strong whiff of moral superiority. Omnivores should respect the dietary decisions and principles of vegans/veggies, but this respect isn't reciprocated, and why should it be?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 8, 2022)

l'Otters said:


> You’ve heard of vegetarians right?
> So widespread you’ll find labels on restaurant menus and in supermarkets marking products which have dairy but not meat in them?


The handful of vegetarians I know don't eat meat at all. Isn't that the point of vegetarianism?

If you are vegetarian because of the cruelty to animals then I don't see why you would want to drink milk anyway considering half the calves are slaughtered to provide the milk in the first place.


----------



## Poot (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> *The handful of vegetarians I know don't eat meat at all. Isn't that the point of vegetarianism?*
> 
> If you are vegetarian because of the cruelty to animals then I don't see why you would want to drink milk anyway considering half the calves are slaughtered to provide the milk in the first place.


Yes. Your argument was that no one would drink milk but not eat meat. It was pointed out that that's exactly what a vegetarian does.


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 8, 2022)

furluxor said:


> Good on you! My partner's the same, cutting down here and there, except for fish. I know it can be a struggle, balancing without going fully 0% or 100%, but flexitarians are vital in changing the food industry and, by extension, the world.


Thanks,

it is hard finding good substitudes. I've no idea if it's healthy to eat tofu all the time, though I don't believe in all that soy boy crap. Just a toxic macho meme the carnivore clowns have created. Not eating wheat rules out quite a lot though. I found Tempeh in tesco but I wouldn't call it super cheap and unfortunately while there is more plant based stuff on sale than ever before, most of what's on the shelves is the vegan equivalent of ready meals and junk food (IMVHO)


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 8, 2022)

Poot said:


> Yes. Your argument was that no one would drink milk but not eat meat. It was pointed out that that's exactly what a vegetarian does.


So vegetarians are happy eating chicken and fish then?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> So vegetarians are happy eating chicken and fish then?



I’m not sure who’s the most confused at this point.


----------



## Poot (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> So vegetarians are happy eating chicken and fish then?


Maybe go back and read what you wrote again. You've lost the thread of what you're arguing about.


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2022)

Interesting - end encouraging - stats here. Great that so many young people are giving up on meat. 

Currently, 14% of adults in the UK (7.2 million) are following a meat-free diet.
A further 8.8 million Brits plan to go meat-free in 2022 (the highest figure in 4 years).
This means that the UK could have a total of 16 million meat-free citizens at the beginning of 2023.
Just 2% of those who said they would give up meat in 2021 actually did so.
The most popular meat-free diet is vegetarianism with 3.3 million followers.
Younger generations are significantly more likely to follow a meat-free diet, with gen Z (aged 18 to 23) being the most likely to avoid meat already (25%) and plan on giving it up (30%) in 2022.




*How many people in the UK are vegetarian, vegan or pescatarian in 2022? *

According to our survey, 86% of the population currently eat meat in their diets.
This means that around 7.2 million British adults (14%) currently follow a meat-free diet.

*How many vegetarians are there in the UK? *

With around 3.3 million people in the UK (6%), the vegetarian diet remains the most common of the non-meat diets.

*How many pescatarians are there in the UK? *

The next most popular meat-free diet at the moment is the pescatarian diet, with around 2.4 million Brits (5%) opting for this diet. How many vegans are there in the UK?

Lastly, there are around 1.6 million people in the UK who are currently vegan (3%), a number which is growing rapidly.

*How many people plan to give up meat in 2022? *

Brits are once again optimistic about cutting meat out of their diets in 2022. 8.8 million of us plan to become vegetarian, vegan or pescatarian over the next 12 months – the highest figure recorded in the 4 years that we’ve been running this research.

While our previous research suggests it is very unlikely that everyone will stick to these intentions, if they did, the UK would have a total of 16 million meat-free citizens at the beginning of 2023.
*
Which generation eats the least meat? *

There is a clear age divide when it comes to views on eating meat. Our studies show that those aged 18 to 23 (generation Z) are currently the most meat-free generation.

A quarter (25%) of generation Z said that they currently go without meat by following a pescatarian, vegetarian or vegan diet. 

This is a slight increase from last year’s most meat-free generation, millennials (24-42), of which 20% had adopted either a pescatarian, vegetarian or vegan diet. 

Millennials are not far behind this survey – currently 18% follow a meat-free diet and they could be joined by an additional 27% throughout 2022. 9.6% are already following a different type of diet outside the main 3 meat-free diets. Just 1 in 10 (11%) of the silent generation (aged 74+) avoid meat and only 5% plan to do so in 2022.

Source: How many vegetarians and vegans are in the UK?


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> If you are vegetarian because of the cruelty to animals then I don't see why you would want to drink milk anyway considering half the calves are slaughtered to provide the milk in the first place.


Yes, I didn’t know about how interlinked the industries are nor how hideously cruel dairy is. I was vegetarian for about 10 years before learning, and changed what I eat once I knew.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Thanks,
> 
> it is hard finding good substitudes. I've no idea if it's healthy to eat tofu all the time, though I don't believe in all that soy boy crap. Just a toxic macho meme the carnivore clowns have created. Not eating wheat rules out quite a lot though. I found Tempeh in tesco but I wouldn't call it super cheap and unfortunately while there is more plant based stuff on sale than ever before, most of what's on the shelves is the vegan equivalent of ready meals and junk food (IMVHO)



It's probably fine, I mean I'm not sure a mono anything diet is a great idea, but you don't actually have to eat it all the time of course. There are a lot of things that you can do with other protein sources... Chickpeas to hummus, falafel etc. Sri Lankan cuisine has some good curries with cashews (although they're ethically terrible). Nut pastes/butters in general can be used in various things; curry bases, dipping sauces (e.g satay or muhammara), smoothies etc. You can also obviously just massively cut down meat consumption and, e.g, break down a chicken per month or something. Personally think fish is one of the least ethical things you can eat (depending on source), I've never quite got why people seem to think it's an intermediate ethical step.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2022)

Poot said:


> Maybe go back and read what you wrote again. You've lost the thread of what you're arguing about.



It’s not hard. A certain poster referred to consumers of RED meat. That specifically excludes chicken and fish. WouldBe responded to a sloppy question.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2022)

This 'fish isn't meat' thing is a bit rubbish. It's totally arbitrary, and imo unjustified, to exclude creatures that live in the sea from the 'meat' umbrella.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This 'fish isn't meat' thing is a bit rubbish. It's totally arbitrary, and imo unjustified, to exclude creatures that live in the sea from the 'meat' umbrella.


And who die by being crushed to death on the deck of a boat, usually.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This 'fish isn't meat' thing is a bit rubbish. It's totally arbitrary, and imo unjustified, to exclude creatures that live in the sea from the 'meat' umbrella.



And potentially devastating in terms of environmental impacts. There is so much we don't know about ocean ecosystems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2022)

Cid said:


> It's probably fine, I mean I'm not sure a mono anything diet is a great idea, but you don't actually have to eat it all the time of course. There are a lot of things that you can do with other protein sources... Chickpeas to hummus, falafel etc. Sri Lankan cuisine has some good curries with cashews (although they're ethically terrible). Nut pastes/butters in general can be used in various things; curry bases, dipping sauces (e.g satay or muhammara), smoothies etc. You can also obviously just massively cut down meat consumption and, e.g, break down a chicken per month or something. Personally think fish is one of the least ethical things you can eat (depending on source), I've never quite got why people seem to think it's an intermediate ethical step.


Yes, the ethics vary massively on the source, though. Rope-farmed mussels and oysters are really ethical things to eat from an environmental pov (and it's hard to make the case that mussels suffer). Mussel farms have been proposed as a way of reversing the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. 

https://www.submariner-network.eu/i...as_environmental_service_in_Baltic_Proper.pdf

It would be good to have a more nuanced discussion regarding the ethics of farming and food production. It's nowhere near as simple as meat (I include fish in this term) bad, plants good.


----------



## furluxor (Sep 8, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Thanks,
> 
> it is hard finding good substitudes. I've no idea if it's healthy to eat tofu all the time, though I don't believe in all that soy boy crap. Just a toxic macho meme the carnivore clowns have created. Not eating wheat rules out quite a lot though. I found Tempeh in tesco but I wouldn't call it super cheap and unfortunately while there is more plant based stuff on sale than ever before, most of what's on the shelves is the vegan equivalent of ready meals and junk food (IMVHO)



From what I recall when I last did some digging, tofu is totally fine. As in, it should obviously form part of a varied diet (I wouldn't subsist only on soy) but the horror stories don't seem to have any  scientific basis behind them. I'm also not keen on the ultra-processed vegan food but you can get more affordable tempeh in Asian stores. One near my home sells it for £2 for 1kg and it's made in the UK. Look in the freezer aisle.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, the ethics vary massively on the source, though. Rope-farmed mussels and oysters are really ethical things to eat from an environmental pov (and it's hard to make the case that mussels suffer). Mussel farms have been proposed as a way of reversing the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.
> 
> https://www.submariner-network.eu/i...as_environmental_service_in_Baltic_Proper.pdf
> 
> It would be good to have a more nuanced discussion regarding the ethics of farming and food production. It's nowhere near as simple as meat (I include fish in this term) bad, plants good.



Yeah absolutely. I think we've all repeated multiple times that much of what people are talking about is just capitalism. The likely solution is more labour intensive farming methods that are appropriate to whatever microclimate/soil/water condition etc they're used in...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2022)

Cid said:


> Yeah absolutely. I think we've all repeated multiple times that much of what people are talking about is just capitalism. The likely solution is more labour intensive farming methods that are appropriate to whatever microclimate/soil/water condition etc they're used in...


Yep. Mixed farming, not monoculture, and rolling out far more _intercropping_, which is much more labour intensive, but it's not like there is a shortage of people in the world to do the work. 

I'd love to see a situation where it's normal for people to spend a few days a month working on their local farm. Good for those of us with computer-based jobs to connect with food production, good for the planet to develop a network of smaller, ethically run farms.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, the ethics vary massively on the source, though. Rope-farmed mussels and oysters are really ethical things to eat from an environmental pov (and it's hard to make the case that mussels suffer). Mussel farms have been proposed as a way of reversing the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.
> 
> https://www.submariner-network.eu/i...as_environmental_service_in_Baltic_Proper.pdf
> 
> It would be good to have a more nuanced discussion regarding the ethics of farming and food production. It's nowhere near as simple as meat (I include fish in this term) bad, plants good.


It's been tried. You can try again but you know what will happen.


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 8, 2022)

Cid said:


> It's probably fine, I mean I'm not sure a mono anything diet is a great idea, but you don't actually have to eat it all the time of course. There are a lot of things that you can do with other protein sources... Chickpeas to hummus, falafel etc. Sri Lankan cuisine has some good curries with cashews (although they're ethically terrible). Nut pastes/butters in general can be used in various things; curry bases, dipping sauces (e.g satay or muhammara), smoothies etc. You can also obviously just massively cut down meat consumption and, e.g, break down a chicken per month or something. Personally think fish is one of the least ethical things you can eat (depending on source), I've never quite got why people seem to think it's an intermediate ethical step.


I'm not saying fish is more ethical, I prefer it from a health perspective. My preference would be a more medieterranean style diet.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2022)

Following on from yesterday's spat. 








						Woman died after eating ‘vegan’ Pret a Manger wrap, inquest told
					

Celia Marsh, 42, from Wiltshire, who had cow’s milk allergy, suffered fatal reaction after eating Pret sandwich




					www.theguardian.com
				





> A woman with a severe allergy to cow’s milk who suffered a fatal reaction after eating a Pret a Manger wrap initially thought she was being “silly” when she began to struggle with her breathing during a family shopping trip because the sandwich label had stated it was “vegan”, her husband told her inquest.


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 8, 2022)

furluxor said:


> From what I recall when I last did some digging, tofu is totally fine. As in, it should obviously form part of a varied diet (I wouldn't subsist only on soy) but the horror stories don't seem to have any  scientific basis behind them. I'm also not keen on the ultra-processed vegan food but you can get more affordable tempeh in Asian stores. One near my home sells it for £2 for 1kg and it's made in the UK. Look in the freezer aisle.


That would be much better. Tesco has it for £2.75 for under a third of that.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 8, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Following on from yesterday's spat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope they are dealt with harshly

As should militant vegans with their nut milk trickery


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2022)

Cid said:


> Personally think fish is one of the least ethical things you can eat (depending on source), I've never quite got why people seem to think it's an intermediate ethical step.



Not furry and cute.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2022)

editor said:


> Interesting - end encouraging - stats here. Great that so many young people are giving up on meat.
> 
> Currently, 14% of adults in the UK (7.2 million) are following a meat-free diet.
> A further 8.8 million Brits plan to go meat-free in 2022 (the highest figure in 4 years).
> ...



What were your feelings about the sample size and representativeness of survey locations?


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Following on from yesterday's spat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except it doesn't really match any of the pertinent details in any meaningful way.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 8, 2022)

8ball said:


> What were your feelings about the sample size and representativeness of survey locations?


/You can find a lot of criticism of Censuswide's methodology


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 8, 2022)

Poot said:


> Maybe go back and read what you wrote again. You've lost the thread of what you're arguing about.


The argument was about  who drink cows milk but won't eat red meat.

Chicken has always been classed as white meat and fish is fish.

As I understand it you get:-
Carnists
Ovo-lacto ists
Piscatarians
Vegetarians
Fruitarians
Vegans
I don't see where these milk drinking non red meat eating people fit in the scheme of things.

It's no wonder it's confusing when even the vegetarians don't seem to agree on what vegetarianism is.


----------



## furluxor (Sep 8, 2022)

furluxor said:


> One near my home sells it for £2 for 1kg



Karl Masks and anyone else who were reading - soz, just checked, it's not as good as a deal as I thought - £1.70 for 400g.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2022)

furluxor said:


> Karl Masks and anyone else who were reading - soz, just checked, it's not as good as a deal as I thought - £1.70 for 400g.



Inflation, or just misremembering?


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2022)

editor said:


> Except it doesn't really match any of the pertinent details in any meaningful way.


Whatever.


----------



## furluxor (Sep 8, 2022)

8ball said:


> Inflation, or just misremembering?



Ha, afraid it's just my crappy memory. I mean, they look like big slabs!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2022)

8ball said:


> What were your feelings about the sample size and representativeness of survey locations?


I'd also doubt the honesty of some of the answers tbh. My experience especially of people who describe themselves as 'pescatarian' is that they often don't stick even to that rather modest dietary restriction. It's more of an aspiration. As for 'I'm going to give up meat next year', the report itself admits that this is a virtually worthless promise. Bit like 'I'm going to give up smoking soon'. (Also the timing of the survey matters there. It was done in December. Giving up meat for New Year is a common NY resolution, and we know how effective NY resolutions are.)


----------



## Poot (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> The argument was about  who drink cows milk but won't eat red meat.
> 
> Chicken has always been classed as white meat and fish is fish.
> 
> ...


You know, it's okay to cut down on whatever you want and not call yourself anything, right? You seem to have this idea that 'those people over there are different to me and have different labels.' Give up milk, give up meat, or don't, call yourself whatever you want. Who gives a shit? It's only important if someone's cooking you dinner.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> The argument was about  who drink cows milk but won't eat red meat.
> 
> Chicken has always been classed as white meat and fish is fish.
> 
> ...



I'm a proud ovo-lacto-pollo-pesco-carno vegetarian, thank you very much.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 8, 2022)

Poot said:


> You know, it's okay to cut down on whatever you want and not call yourself anything, right? You seem to have this idea that 'those people over there are different to me and have different labels.' Give up milk, give up meat, or don't, call yourself whatever you want. Who gives a shit? *It's only important if someone's cooking you dinner.*


Or sticking potentially dangerous substances in your tea.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2022)

Seems like “fungo” should be in there, really, but it seems to come under “vegetarian”..


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Or sticking potentially dangerous substances in your tea.



But it’s ok to play silly tricks like that on carnists. If someone posted about feeding a vegan a risotto that was secretly made with chicken stock that they didn’t notice and even said was nice, they’d be roundly, and rightly, pilloried.


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Or sticking potentially dangerous substances in your tea.


So you_ do have_ evidence of people dying as a result of them drinking a slosh of oat milk in their tea when they've visited someone's house (and not telling their host about their extreme allergic reactions)?

Great. Let's see it. And all the assault/manslaughter charges arising from such heinous crimes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2022)

editor said:


> So you_ do have_ evidence of people dying as a result of them drinking a slosh of oat milk in their tea when they've visited someone's house?
> 
> Great. Let's see it. And all the assault/manslaughter charges arising from this heinous crime.


Give it a rest. You got caught out admitting to doing something that's actually a bit thoughtless. Own it.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 8, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> But it’s ok to play silly tricks like that on carnists. If someone posted about feeding a vegan a risotto that was secretly made with chicken stock ‘but they didn’t notice and even said it was nice’, they’d be roundly, and rightly, pilloried.











						Parent reveals she feeds vegan friend's daughter meat in secret
					

An anonymous woman, believed to be from the US, took to Reddit where she revealed that she feeds her vegan friend's daughter meat in secret.



					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Pilloried


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> But it’s ok to play silly tricks like that on carnists. If someone posted about feeding a vegan a risotto that was secretly made with chicken stock ‘but they didn’t notice and even said it was nice’, they’d be roundly, and rightly, pilloried.


I was talking to the new bloke at work a couple of days ago and he said that his gran had oncr made veggie soup as his veggie cousins were visiting. They thoroughly enjoyed it. When they left his mum asked what was in it. Chicken stock. The gran took a while to understand why it was wrong.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2022)

Sorry, if I've kicked this off again just thought as people were worried about allergies including cow's milk allergies they may have been interested.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Give it a rest. You got caught out admitting to doing something that's actually a bit thoughtless. Own it.


I wonder if giving a veggie cows milk with a punch of cyanide so it tastes like almond milk would be acceptable.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 8, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> It's been tried. You can try again but you know what will happen.


There is some sensible discussion found around and about - try the food shortages thread. 

I have tried to keep a lot of my posts so that anyone just reading and not wanting to participate could understand some of the challenges facing agriculture and food production. 

I am happy to have sensible discussions around it, they are far less tiring.


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> I was talking to the new bloke at work a couple of days ago and he said that his gran had oncr made veggie soup as his veggie cousins were visiting. They thoroughly enjoyed it. When they left his mum asked what was in it. Chicken stock. The gran took a while to understand why it was wrong.


Still quite common if you're a veggie/vegan. That's why I always check with the person who's made it.


----------



## cesare (Sep 8, 2022)

editor said:


> Still quite common if you're a veggie/vegan. That's why I always check with the person who's made it.


I've always tried to be careful re vegetarian food and obvious things ( or what I would think of as obvious anyway) but I've learned a lot from Urban over the years. And especially urban has taught me about veganism and aspects that I'd never thought of before and have incorporated eg swapping maple syrup for honey.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd also doubt the honesty of some of the answers tbh. My experience especially of people who describe themselves as 'pescatarian' is that they often don't stick even to that rather modest dietary restriction. It's more of an aspiration. As for 'I'm going to give up meat next year', the report itself admits that this is a virtually worthless promise. Bit like 'I'm going to give up smoking soon'. (Also the timing of the survey matters there. It was done in December. Giving up meat for New Year is a common NY resolution, and we know how effective NY resolutions are.)



At least they put the blatantly contradictory bits next to each other.


"This means that the UK could will probably have a total of 16 million 8.976 million meat-free reduced meat citizens at the beginning of 2023."


----------



## bcuster (Sep 8, 2022)

Retailers pull lobster from menus after 'red list' warning
					

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Some retailers are taking lobster off the menu after an assessment from an influential conservation group that the seafood poses too much of a risk to rare whales and should be avoided.




					apnews.com


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 16, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Why the fuck would you think it necessary to mention it for a cup of tea? Gluten isn't usually found in tea unless it's added by an inconsiderate wanker.
> 
> Perhaps in editor world people need to ask for gluten / nut free water as well.


This is what happens when you don't tell the truth about your milk!









						Inquest hears supplier unaware Pret ‘vegan’ wrap contained milk
					

Case continues into 2017 death in Bath of Celia Marsh, who had a severe allergy to cow’s milk




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## furluxor (Sep 16, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> I was talking to the new bloke at work a couple of days ago and he said that his gran had oncr made veggie soup as his veggie cousins were visiting. They thoroughly enjoyed it. When they left his mum asked what was in it. Chicken stock. The gran took a while to understand why it was wrong.



Yup, I had this experience, luckily I caught it early. Walked up to the pot on the stove and there was a massive meat slab simmering in it. Apparently, it was 'only for the flavour'. Maybe it was granny's genuine blind spot but by that time I'd had enough of relatives literally waving meat in front of my face or, alternatively, being dismissive of my choices ('you'll be on meat this time next Christmas, hahaha'). Those early days were grim.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2022)

furluxor said:


> Yup, I had this experience, luckily I caught it early. Walked up to the pot on the stove and there was a massive meat slab simmering in it. Apparently, it was 'only for the flavour'. Maybe it was granny's genuine blind spot but by that time I'd had enough of relatives literally waving meat in front of my face or, alternatively, being dismissive of my choices ('you'll be on meat this time next Christmas, hahaha'). Those early days were grim.


I was on tour in Portugal a few years back and this restaurant assured me that their soup was vegetarian. Except I could see the animal fat floating on the top amd smell its beefiness. 

"But that's just flavouring" they countered!


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 16, 2022)

I once had mushroom soup in the Czech Republic. Completely vegetarian other than the ham at the bottom of the bowl.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 16, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> I wonder if giving a veggie cows milk with a punch of cyanide so it tastes like almond milk would be acceptable.


You actually typed that out and pressed "post reply"  

You know they won't give up editor, they think they've got a gotcha so a point to them


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> You actually typed that out and pressed "post reply"
> 
> You know they won't give up editor, they think they've got a gotcha so a point to them


They'll be on the wrong side of history and deep down they probably know it,

Happily there's far more enlightened people who know the terrible damage that the meat and dairy industry is causing:



> Irish Doctors for the Environment have slammed Bord Bia’s €8 million meat and dairy trade mission to Asia.
> 
> The Irish food board launched campaigns to sell dairy, beef and lamb to countries including Japan, Singapore and Vietnam on a ministerial-led tour earlier this month.
> 
> ...











						Bord Bia's €8m meat & dairy trade mission to Asia slammed by health experts
					

The charity warns Ireland does not have a secure food system and should grow more sustainable plant produce




					www.irishmirror.ie


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 16, 2022)

editor said:


> They'll be on the wrong side of history and deep down they probably know it,
> 
> Happily there's far more enlightened people who know the terrible damage that the meat and dairy industry is causing:


----------



## 8ball (Sep 16, 2022)

editor said:


> They'll be on the wrong side of history and deep down they probably know it.



#ed


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 16, 2022)

WouldBe said:


>


The "right" side of history being one of those who welcomes massive industrial (apparently now some state sponsored) highly processed food manufacturers to supply most of our protien intake, giving the state/huge industry almost total control of our food supply, whilst forcing farmers off the land for greenwashing purposes, apparently.

It's a capitalists wet dream.

Luckily, the amount of vegans remains at less than 2% of the population, and shares in "meatless meat" companies continue to fall as nobody buys their product.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It's a capitalists wet dream.



It’s no secret that history is written by the winning side tbf.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 16, 2022)

"luckily" said like a good shill


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> "luckily" said like a good shill


In your fantasy world where academics get paid mega bucks presumably.

You never did tell us all what you do for a living and yet you feel comfortable criticising academics...


----------



## ddraig (Sep 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> In your fantasy world where academics get paid mega bucks presumably.
> 
> You never did tell us all what you do for a living and yet you feel comfortable criticising academics...


What the fuck relevance is what I do?
Keep on fighting the industry fight, maybe you'll get a few pennies more


----------



## Karl Masks (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> What the fuck relevance is what I do?
> Keep on fighting the industry fight, maybe you'll get a few pennies more


This is the kind of argument covid deniers make. It's very poor


----------



## ddraig (Sep 16, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> This is the kind of argument covid deniers make. It's very poor


shut up awesome, you don't even _have _an argument


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> shut up awesome, you don't even _have _an argument


I haven't seen anyone in this thread posting up any details of their qualifications or links to their peer reviewed academic research papers, but I've sure heard a lot of full on Covid/Climate Change-style denial and instant dismissal of research from experts who are presumably infinitely more qualified them.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 16, 2022)

Staggering.
No links to peer reviewed papers?

Fuuuuuuck. 

Also, I've quite literally explained what I do. I'm hardly going to put up personal details like my name or who I work for on an Internet forum, both of which would be on any papers I've written.
I've known of very few academics who teach on undergraduate degrees who don't at least have a relevant masters, usually a PhD/DPhil so you can assume at the very least I have a relevant masters.

I have, however linked a massive breadth of peer reviewed papers, links to discussions by other more well known scientists etc etc

This is like classic evangelism, maybe this stuff really is a religion.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> What the fuck relevance is what I do?
> Keep on fighting the industry fight, maybe you'll get a few pennies more


Because, in your opinion having an opinion based on your life experience and having read reams of scientific publications on the subject at hand makes me a "shill" because I'm employed by a university.

So, what you do is clearly of relevance, because you've attacked what I do - presumably you have a job and by your logic are a "shill" for whoever you work for.


Also, it's incredibly rich for you to say someone has "no argument", because you've failed to make any arguments in this thread and have instead mostly sniped childishly and relied on ad hominem attacks.

How many publications have you written?
How much food have you produced in your life?

If the answer is "none" what the fuck makes you think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

You are the Matt "the hamster" Hammond to other posters "Clarkson".


----------



## ddraig (Sep 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Because, in your opinion having an opinion based on your life experience and having read reams of scientific publications on the subject at hand makes me a "shill" because I'm employed by a university.
> 
> So, what you do is clearly of relevance, because you've attacked what I do - presumably you have a job and by your logic are a "shill" for whoever you work for.
> 
> ...


See, I don't claim to be anything special or see what I do or don't do work wise as any relevance
Karl Masks has no argument, not you, you have lots clearly
What have writing books and producing food got to do with a post-meat future?, that is of course a long way off

Your last line is very telling and yes a few of you in the glee gang do reach the depths of clarkson bants and bluster, a lot of people think he's a right cunt you know!


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> See, I don't claim to be anything special or see what I do or don't do work wise as any relevance
> Karl Masks has no argument, not you, you have lots clearly
> What have writing books and producing food got to do with a post-meat future?, that is of course a long way off
> 
> Your last line is very telling and yes a few of you in the glee gang do reach the depths of clarkson bants and bluster, a lot of people think he's a right cunt you know!


It was about you.  

You know, the way that others, from a lack of knowledge, backed up with unwarranted confidence in their opinions (Clarkson) make points and you just kinda pop up and snark, like Matt Hammond.

What have producing food and reading and writing peer reviewed science about that subject got to do with food production? Is that what you are asking?

I farmed for nigh on 20 years and now I'm am academic in the agricultural sciences, which means also engaging quite heavily with ecology.......What would I know about producing food, eh?


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> See, I don't claim to be anything special or see what I do or don't do work wise as any relevance
> Karl Masks has no argument, not you, you have lots clearly
> What have writing books and producing food got to do with a post-meat future?, that is of course a long way off
> 
> Your last line is very telling and yes a few of you in the glee gang do reach the depths of clarkson bants and bluster, a lot of people think he's a right cunt you know!


You do realise that you were being compared to Clarkson don’t you? Or maybe not…


----------



## ddraig (Sep 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It was about you.
> 
> You know, the way that others, from a lack of knowledge, backed up with unwarranted confidence in their opinions (Clarkson) make points and you just kinda pop up and snark, like Matt Hammond.
> 
> ...


I didn't say you didn't know anything about producing food willy waver

Why do you waste so much of your time and learned expertise giving out your professional opinion for free trying to refute "less than 2% of the population"??


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> I didn't say you didn't know anything about producing food willy waver
> 
> Why do you waste so much of your time and learned expertise giving out your professional opinion for free trying to refute "less than 2% of the population"??


Because I'm a) passionate about food and food production - I urged people over and over again on the "other" meat thread to actually visit farms (crops and livestock). I worry (rightly, I think) that because agriculture employs about 1% of the population that people have no idea where their food comes from and this leaves them open to manipulation by the food processors and the supermarkets
And b)
It's my remit - I'm on a teaching and learning contract and I'm more aligned to knowledge exchange than research, so I read vast swathes of research and aim to disseminate them not only to students but industry and the public through things like open farm Sunday and outreach etc


Although, to add - I do get both "meat" threads mixed up because they've ended up in broadly similar places. I've really nothing against people choosing not to eat meat, eat what you like as far as I'm concerned - I'm more concerned with grappling with the issues that food production faces, ie moving away from relying on synthetic fertiliser produced from fossil fuels. This is going to need manure, which will necessitate some livestock production. Or; as George Monbiot has postulated (terrifyingly, in my opinion) that we rely on synthetic food production by industry, and possibly only eat veg alongside that.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> I didn't say you didn't know anything about producing food willy waver
> 
> Why do you waste so much of your time and learned expertise giving out your professional opinion for free trying to refute "less than 2% of the population"??


I think it's magnificent seeing the huge growth in people enjoying vegetarian/vegan diets - and the equally huge growth in flexitarians where people are choosing to eat less meat every week. 



> According to the Guardian, a record 500,000 people, of whom 125,000 were based in the UK, took the 2021 Veganuary pledge to eat only plant-based food in January. That figure was up by 100,000 from January 2020, and double the number of people who signed up for Veganuary in 2019. By the end of January 2022, the movement expects to surpass 2 million participants. A poll of 2079 UK adults by YouGov showed that around 4% were hoping to give Veganuary a go in 2022, suggesting that a total of 2.7 million people would join this year.
> 
> In recent years, however, it’s not just individuals who are getting into the vegan spirit. The beginning of 2021 saw major supermarket brands and other businesses doing even more to cater to the growing number of Brits who have turned their back on animal products. This January, companies like Harrods, Superdrug and Volkswagen UK have joined the Veganuary “workplace challenge” to show their support for a plant-based lifestyle.
> 
> Pre-2020 the food industry was already shifting more towards plant-based options: in 2019 roughly one quarter of food products introduced in the UK was vegan, as opposed to one in six in 2018.





> Research on plant-based meat alternatives conducted by investment bank UBS in 2019 indicated rising interest in vegan lifestyle choices. Veganuary was introduced in 2014, and since then it has grown in leaps and bounds. From 2014 to 2019, UK’s vegan community swelled to four times its original size. The increased interest in plant-free living is also in keeping with some of what are predicted to be the biggest vegan food trends in 2022.
> 
> UBS’ research found that the number of people who tried plant-based meat alternatives increased from 48% to 53% between March and November the previous year. Of those who tried plant-based alternatives, approximately half said that they would continue to eat them at least once a week.











						Veganism Statistics 2022 – How Many Vegans Are There in the UK?
					

How many Brits have switched to a plant-based diet this year? We take a look at the incredible growth of the number of vegans in the UK.




					trulyexperiences.com


----------



## 8ball (Sep 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> You are the Matt "the hamster" Hammond to other posters "Clarkson".



i) Richard Hammond
ii) This is unfair to Richard Hammond imo


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 16, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Why do you waste so much of your time and learned expertise giving out your professional opinion for free trying to refute "less than 2% of the population"??


Because some of that 2% are completely ignorant.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 18, 2022)

ddraig said:


> You actually typed that out and pressed "post reply"


You do know what causes almonds to smell of almonds don't you?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> You do know what causes almonds to smell of almonds don't you?



I don’t think it would make milk much like almond milk though.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 18, 2022)

8ball said:


> I don’t think it would make milk much like almond milk though.


It would make it smell of almonds though and the small amount in tea or coffee I doubt you could tell the difference.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> It would make it smell of almonds though…



For a very short time.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 18, 2022)

8ball said:


> For a very short time.


That would depend on how much of a pinch you put in.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 20, 2022)

Should’ve just had a bacon sarnie

Beyond Meat vegan food chief operating officer Doug Ramsey charged with battery after allegedly biting man's nose

Beyond Meat vegan food chief operating officer Doug Ramsey charged with battery after allegedly biting man's nose


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 20, 2022)

Tbf it was his old boss the red nosed cunt.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 20, 2022)

Do you think you'll ever grow up DaphneM ?


----------



## bcuster (Sep 25, 2022)




----------



## butcher (Sep 25, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Staggering.
> No links to peer reviewed papers?
> 
> Fuuuuuuck.
> ...


That is because Ed has you on ignore, the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la lalala" when presented with an argument you don't like


----------



## ddraig (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> That is because Ed has you on ignore, the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la lalala" when presented with an argument you don't like


Or totally fed up with bullshit and attacks, most other sites you'd be fucked off long ago i'm sure you'd agree
But don't let that get in the way of having another dig/swipe etc


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Should’ve just had a bacon sarnie



He's not a vegan, he's worked at Beyond Meat for 10 months after a 30 year stint at Tyson Foods, the world's second-largest "processor" and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork.



			https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-ramsey-b620a4a


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> He's not a vegan, he's worked at Beyond Meat for 10 months after a 30 year stint at Tyson Foods, the world's second-largest "processor" and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-ramsey-b620a4a


vegan or not a bacon sarnie would be preferable to eating somebody's face


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> vegan or not a bacon sarnie would be preferable to eating somebody's face



Hard disagree, the pig corpse sandwich causes significantly more abuse and suffering.


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Hard disagree, the pig corpse sandwich causes significantly more abuse and suffering.


here, i fear we differ


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> He's not a vegan, he's worked at Beyond Meat for 10 months after a 30 year stint at Tyson Foods, the world's second-largest "processor" and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-ramsey-b620a4a


Previously at McDonald's to provide some context to my previous comment.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> here, i fear we differ



Probably because you're wilfully ignorant about the scale of torture and suffering that goes into the average pork "product". It's much, much worse than a bitten nose.


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Or totally fed up with bullshit and attacks, most other sites you'd be fucked off long ago i'm sure you'd agree
> But don't let that get in the way of having another dig/swipe etc



 I am just finding out how this ignore business works so I don't have to put up with "bullshit and attacks" and digs/swipes too 🙂

I rarely visit this thread as I find the willful ignorance and rejection of actual research in peer reviewed journals frustrating, but don't let that stop you having a good old swear while you are polishing your junior sheriffs badge.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> I am just finding out how this ignore business works so I don't have to put up with "bullshit and attacks" and digs/swipes too 🙂
> 
> I rarely visit this thread as I find the willful ignorance and rejection of actual research in peer reviewed journals frustrating, but don't let that stop you having a good old swear while you are polishing your junior sheriffs badge.



It's your side that's always frothing about Poore and Nemecek - the largest meta-analysis of food systems to date.


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's your side that's always frothing about Poore and Nemecek - the largest meta-analysis of food systems to date.


which has often been questioned and whose conclusions " support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers."  It does not propose mass vegetarianism.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> which has often been questioned and whose conclusions " support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers."  It does not propose mass vegetarianism.



The sentence before that is "the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change." btw didn't you share an article whose authors were funded by a US beef industry check off program?


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The sentence before that is "the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change." btw didn't you share an article whose authors were funded by a US beef industry check off program?


Yes,a poor chioce by me.  However, others have shared opinion articles from the Vegan Times or some such and been castigated as well.

If you are genuinely interested in the limits of Poore and Nemecek, google Poore and Nemecek debunked.  You may not agree with the opinions but the articles such as Let’s discuss Joseph Poore and Nemecek’s study as it is regularly referenced. — Farmers Against Misinformation  do point out its limits and short comings.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> Yes,a poor chioce by me.  However, others have shared opinion articles from the Vegan Times or some such and been castigated as well.
> 
> If you are genuinely interested in the limits of Poore and Nemecek, google Poore and Nemecek debunked.  You may not agree with the opinions but the articles such as Let’s discuss Joseph Poore and Nemecek’s study as it is regularly referenced. — Farmers Against Misinformation  do point out its limits and short comings.



I mean, it would be very easy to take that source apart, but honestly don't you think you need a better source than a blog post after castigating "willful ignorance and rejection of actual research in peer reviewed journals"?


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I mean, it would be very easy to take that source apart, but honestly don't you think you need a better source than a blog post after castigating "willful ignorance and rejection of actual research in peer reviewed journals"?


But I am not refuting or rejecting  Poore and Nemeceks paper just the skewed interpretations and the extrapolations taken therefrom, there is a difference.

I do have a problem with quotes from the Gruaniad and 'Nut Muncher Weekly' being used as any sort of cogent argument,  but then again I willfully ignore these threads generally they devolve to the same old tropes.

Anyway, I have sausages to make....


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> Anyway, I have sausages to make....



What type are you making?


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Generally have three standards, a pork, white pepper, ginger and mace breakfast banger, a pork, white pepper, ginger, mace and sage herby banger, and a coarse ground fennel, chilli and garlic Italian style.  
All handmade, our own spice mix, using free range Blythburgh pork Home - Blythburgh Free Range Pork


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Probably because you're wilfully ignorant about the scale of torture and suffering that goes into the average pork "product". It's much, much worse than a bitten nose.


nose - doesn't sound delicious


butcher said:


> Generally have three standards, a pork, white pepper, ginger and mace breakfast banger, a pork, white pepper, ginger, mace and sage herby banger, and a coarse ground fennel, chilli and garlic Italian style.
> All handmade, our own spice mix, using free range Blythburgh pork Home - Blythburgh Free Range Pork


sausages - sounds delicious


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> Generally have three standards, a pork, white pepper, ginger and mace breakfast banger, a pork, white pepper, ginger, mace and sage herby banger, and a coarse ground fennel, chilli and garlic Italian style.
> All handmade, our own spice mix, using free range Blythburgh pork Home - Blythburgh Free Range Pork



Do you use fillers?


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> sausages - sounds delicious





Some I did earlier


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Do you use fillers?


Breadcrumb in the first two, nothing in the Italian.  I don't use rusk as I don't like it.
I also do bespoke bangers over 2kg in quantity, and have made everything from Lamb Merguez to Pork and Liquorice Allsort


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> View attachment 344528
> 
> 
> Some I did earlier



Is that fat in the middle ones?

Necessary, imo, for texture and juiciness.


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Is that fat in the middle ones?
> 
> Necessary, imo, for texture and juiciness.


Yes, that is the coarse ground Italian


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> nose - doesn't sound delicious
> 
> sausages - sounds delicious



More of an intestines than nose guy then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's your side that's always frothing about Poore and Nemecek - the largest meta-analysis of food systems to date.


The 'frothing' has mostly come from the fact that said study appears all over the place and certain posters (well, a certain poster) are in the habit of bombing threads with a multitude of links that actually all link back to Poore et al. 

And it's not just in the media that P&N are all over the place. According to google scholar, Poore & Nemecek has been cited more than 2,500 times. It's been cited twice as much as the most-cited article that cites it.  

Criticisms of Poore and Nemecek need to be taken seriously, I would think, as a hell of a lot rests on it. What's your take on the criticisms?


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> More of an intestines than nose guy then?


Yes but I draw the line at Andouillette, a colon stuffed with innards that tastes like it was still in use ....


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> Yes but I draw the line at Andouillette, a colon stuffed with innards that tastes like it was still in use ....



I’m pretty much a nose to tail eater but I can’t get past those either. Loads of Chinese intestine dishes are delicious as can be tripe when it’s done well but I’m pretty sure that andouillette is the French taking the piss.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> View attachment 344528
> 
> 
> Some I did earlier



Do you do online or by post? I wouldn’t mind trying your breakfast ones. If I like your attitude to seasoning and fillers (plenty of both) I’ll order some bespoke honey and lemon. I’m very hard to please with bangers and now that Biggles, and Simply, have gone, gooduns are very hard to come by. I always found Biggles too dry anyway.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 26, 2022)

I make my own boerwors. Have done for years. They're a great addition to a BBQ.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 26, 2022)

well done again, proving the dull depths


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 26, 2022)

ddraig said:


> well done again, proving the dull depths


Yes appologies. I actually saw the thread top of the forumn and looked in to see if there was any discussion about this.









						Revealed: world’s biggest meat firm appears to have avoided millions in UK tax
					

Exclusive: major supplier to brands including KFC and Nando’s used offshore companies allowing them to reduce UK tax payments, investigation suggests




					www.theguardian.com
				




I was surprised to find an interesting discussion about snorkers taking place and got carried away. I've always made my own sausages.


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Do you do online or by post? I wouldn’t mind trying your breakfast ones. If I like your attitude to seasoning and fillers (plenty of both) I’ll order some bespoke honey and lemon. I’m very hard to please with bangers and now that Biggles, and Simply, have gone, gooduns are very hard to come by. I always found Biggles too dry anyway.


Sorry but it is walk in only 

Next time I am in the smoke I will pm you and bring a sample if you like.

Honey and lemon though, would work well with preserved lemons.....


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Yes appologies. I actually saw the thread top of the forumn and looked in to see if there was any discussion about this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally I would not touch their crap.

No surprise the likes of Sainsburys use them.

Small is beautiful especially in the world of food.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Yes appologies. I actually saw the thread top of the forumn and looked in to see if there was any discussion about this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wasn't aimed at yoooo


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Yes appologies. I actually saw the thread top of the forumn and looked in to see if there was any discussion about this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn’t worry about it mate. No idea why anyone would consider this a vegan thread when it’s expressly about meat. I’m sure some might want to make it all about them though.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Do you do online


Don't be daft. How are you supposed to feed them into the router?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> View attachment 344528
> 
> 
> Some I did earlier


How could you be so cruel with them all packed tightly together and on top of each other? 

And the poor things are all bald.  It might make the veggies feel better if you are least gave them blankets.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 26, 2022)

ddraig said:


> wasn't aimed at yoooo


Yeah I know but the theme of the thread is a bit anti-meat so I suppose there's people on it who have invested more in the discussion who don't want people waving sausages in their face. I am actually quite passionate about sausages though and I'm actually quite passionate about the meat I eat



Spymaster said:


> I wouldn’t worry about it mate. No idea why anyone would consider this a vegan thread when it’s expressly about meat. I’m sure some might want to make it all about them though.



It's not really though is it. Even the OP poll sets out the theme of discussion and it delivers on it's intent. There's clearly no room for discussing meat in a positive light here.

A proper thread about meat would be good though but this clearly isn't a thread for that discussion.

I've always enjoyed butcher 's contributions on the subject over my years of posting on urban. I agree with much of what he says and I've been a considered purchaser of meat for over a decade now. 

I am very selective about where I will buy my meat because of the obvious issues in the industry.

Not sure if we visited him when you've been up here but my cousin and her husband are market butchers and he has evolved his buisness selling from very traditional fare when he statered in the 80's to priding himself on knowing the origins of every beast that gets cut on his block. The pair of them are very hard working and have both done it since they started as Saturday jobs in their teens. If I want something nice I generally go to him. I see the cut, chose my size, he can prepair things for me that you never see in the supermarket like tournedos fillets tied for cooking or a brisket untrimmed for smoking, beef rib etc. You know me, I like to cook for people so I don't want my main ingredient being anything other that the best for them.

There's a better market for it up north now too I think because there seems to be an appetite for more ability to source and sell between the farm and the butchers block. Plus there are a lot more conciencious customers who would rather pay for better meat than just hope what you get in vacume packs in a supermarket is going to taste ok. I honestly can't find pork chops on a supermarket shelf that I'd want to see in my skillet and don't get me started on the quality of bacon and chicken.

I spent 14 years and had two children to a vegatarian (Who ate fish as long as it didn't have eyes or a tail) and I was the one who did most of the cooking for the 4 of us. The eldest went vegan for a while and was always bringing home friends who had "Special dietry" requirements.   I've spent years not caring if what I had had meat in it but sausages are probably the one thing that I don't understand other people not wanting to eat


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> How could you be so cruel with them all packed tightly together and on top of each other?
> 
> And the poor things are all bald.  It might make the veggies feel better if you are least gave them blankets.


We only sell the bald ones, any butcher will tell you that we take home the stuff that has gone hairy


----------



## butcher (Sep 26, 2022)

I think that talking from the other end of the trade from the Supermarkets and Nandos of the world gives a bit of balance and shows that there are still people in the meat industry who are passionate about animal husbandry, welfare, provenance and treating customers and produce with respect .

I always appreciate that what I sell was once a living creature so I try to buy the best I can and treat it accordingly.


ETA this week a have a 15 year old ex-dairy British White rare breed side of beef that lived its whole life on a nature reserve on grass.

That has had a good long life and will be treated as something special by me and my customers


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 26, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Or totally fed up with bullshit and attacks, most other sites you'd be fucked off long ago i'm sure you'd agree
> But don't let that get in the way of having another dig/swipe etc


Bullshit being peer reviewed science, yeah?

Attacks? Is disagreement an attack now?


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 26, 2022)

butcher said:


> I think that talking from the other end of the trade from the Supermarkets and Nandos of the world gives a bit of balance and shows that there are still people in the meat industry who are passionate about animal husbandry, welfare, provenance and treating customers and produce with respect .
> 
> I always appreciate that what I sell was once a living creature so I try to buy the best I can and treat it accordingly.
> 
> ...


I think that's what's been lost mate through raging capitalism and the search to provide things cheap and plentiful. That never ends well.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Yes appologies. I actually saw the thread top of the forumn and looked in to see if there was any discussion about this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


JBS (one of the companies mentioned in that article) is big on developing synthetic plant based meat alternatives. 

For the millionth time: The meat "industry" (ie processors) and the plant based alternative industry are (mostly) the same people.


----------



## Skim (Sep 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> A proper thread about meat would be good though but this clearly isn't a thread for that discussion.


No, it clearly isn’t that thread. Hasn’t stopped some piss-poor trolling, though.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Should’ve just had a bacon sarnie
> 
> Beyond Meat vegan food chief operating officer Doug Ramsey charged with battery after allegedly biting man's nose
> 
> Beyond Meat vegan food chief operating officer Doug Ramsey charged with battery after allegedly biting man's noseView attachment 343737



Hope he was charged with a sustainably sourced rechargeable and recyclable battery.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 26, 2022)

Skim said:


> No, it clearly isn’t that thread. Hasn’t stopped some piss-poor trolling, though.


I think if you want to play fairly on that front the opening post was a tralalala-trolling.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 26, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> JBS (one of the companies mentioned in that article) is big on developing synthetic plant based meat alternatives.
> 
> For the millionth time: The meat "industry" (ie processors) and the plant based alternative industry are (mostly) the same people.


Yup and that's a conversation that a lot of vegans and vegatarians seem to find hard to swallow. Whatever you choose to eat, the thing that you shit out will definately be marketised by the same corporations eventually. They will dine out on your ethical choices as much as turkey twizlers.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Yup and that's a conversation that a lot of vegans and vegatarians seem to find hard to swallow. Whatever you choose to eat, the thing that you shit out will definately be marketised by the same corporations eventually. They will dine out on your ethical choices as much as turkey twizlers.


Thats the thing that I find baffling - it is possible to find small local producers of meat, although with more and more small abattoirs closing, its getting more difficult to produce.

It's never going to be possible to find a synthetic, processed meat substitute that hasn't been made by a massive industrial food processor because of economies of scale.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It's never going to be possible to find a synthetic, processed meat substitute that hasn't been made by a massive industrial food processor because of economies of scale.



I’m sceptical about literally saying “never”.  But otherwise fair point.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> That is because Ed has you on ignore, the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la lalala" when presented with an argument you don't like


Actually, the concept it's more like when someone comes up to you in a pub and talks the same blinkered bullshit non-stop that you decide to move to the next table.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> I do have a problem with quotes from the Gruaniad and 'Nut Muncher Weekly' being used as any sort of cogent argument,  but then again I willfully ignore these threads generally they devolve to the same old tropes.
> 
> Anyway, I have sausages to make....


Yet you don't seem to have a problem bigging up the Guardian when they're giving your upmarket produce "rave reviews".


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> Breadcrumb in the first two, nothing in the Italian.  I don't use rusk as I don't like it.
> I also do bespoke bangers over 2kg in quantity, and have made everything from Lamb Merguez to Pork and Liquorice Allsort


So you've turned a discussion about a non meat future into a showcase for your unaffordable meat products, complete with photos. Stay classy.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> I think that talking from the other end of the trade from the Supermarkets and Nandos of the world gives a bit of balance and shows that there are still people in the meat industry who are passionate about animal husbandry, welfare, provenance and treating customers and produce with respect .
> 
> I always appreciate that what I sell was once a living creature so I try to buy the best I can and treat it accordingly.
> 
> ...


Could you hazard a guess as to what percentage of animals eaten in Britain enjoy such a delightful, bucolic life before they're slaughtered?


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It's never going to be possible to find a synthetic, processed meat substitute that hasn't been made by a massive industrial food processor because of economies of scale.


What I will never understand is why, from vegans to carnivores, everybody can’t unify under the umbrella that meat substitute is poison.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 27, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> What I will never understand is why, from vegans to carnivores, everybody can’t unify under the umbrella that meat substitute is poison.



Because that's an idiotic view?


----------



## souljacker (Sep 27, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> JBS (one of the companies mentioned in that article) is big on developing synthetic plant based meat alternatives.
> 
> For the millionth time: The meat "industry" (ie processors) and the plant based alternative industry are (mostly) the same people.


So are ABP who have had a plant based division for at least ten years. They keep the businesses separate but you are still essentially buying vegan products from Associated Beef Products.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

editor said:


> So you've turned a discussion about a non meat future into a showcase for your unaffordable meat products, complete with photos. Stay classy.


Unaffordable eh?

So you know my pricing structure.

I was asked about sausages so supplied the information.

Eta: obviously I have managed to stay in this business for 17 years by seeing unaffordable products people don't want when they are shouting out for oh! So cheap meat substitute and imported fruit


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

editor said:


> Actually, the concept it's more like when someone comes up to you in a pub and talks the same blinkered bullshit non-stop that you decide to move to the next table.


Well we both know that feeling


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

editor said:


> Yet you don't seem to have a problem bigging up the Guardian when they're giving your upmarket produce "rave reviews".


Yes a subjective view about food.

Unlike a peer reviewed journal.

Sorry I have to explain this


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 27, 2022)

editor said:


> Could you hazard a guess as to what percentage of animals eaten in Britain enjoy such a delightful, bucolic life before they're slaughtered?


So you're saying that the world would be a better place if more people were like butcher and his customers? Not sure what the point of this post is otherwise. 

Problem with threads like this one and the ones you start is that the premises of the threads are highly questionable. But you appear only to be interested in a certain kind of discussion wrt farming._ When are evil meat-eaters going to stop destroying the planet?_


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you're saying that the world would be a better place if more people were like butcher and his customers? Not sure what the point of this post is otherwise.


That is some truly ridiculous argument you've just dreamt up. I'm just commenting on the reality that very, very, very few people buy - or can afford - such luxury meat.  

Such high-end production is statistically irrelevant.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> Unaffordable eh?
> 
> So you know my pricing structure.
> 
> ...


In your very own words:

"We are not cheap"


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Because that's an idiotic view?


I don’t mean tofu or tempeh or similar. I mean stuff like beyond meat and similar products made of things I wouldn’t put in my body.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 27, 2022)

We don't currently feed the planet in an affordable, sustainable, humane way. Changing that is the challenge, is it not? A discussion of how we might change it shouldn't presuppose the solution, particularly when, if you dig into it a little, it is clear that the problems are far from straightforward or uncontested. 

But hey ho, let's dig up something someone posted 13 years ago about how someone at the Guardian liked his sausages, evil hypocrite that he clearly is.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We don't currently feed the planet in an affordable, sustainable, humane way. Changing that is the challenge, is it not? A discussion of how we might change it shouldn't presuppose the solution, particularly when, if you dig into it a little, it is clear that the problems are far from straightforward or uncontested.


That would be a sensible debate. Urban75 is not for that. It’s for making your argument from a hidebound position that is in no way going to change.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

editor said:


> In your very own words:
> 
> "We are not cheap"



Well there is a difference between cheap and good value. 

Obviously I won't be suitable for everyone's pockets, but the little old ladies who want 100g of mince can shop with me and avoid wasting what they don't want.

Some on lower incomes actually enjoy treating themselves to decent meat and often my prices are close to supermarket ones.

Perhaps you think the less well off should not enjoy a good quality of meat if even once a week.

I know it is probably hard to imagine from your Brixton penthouse, but I do get a varied cross section of social demographics in my shop.

If we are looking at prices why not question the cost of Meat substitute for poor families.

 Faux meat is essentially a middle class food in this country.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

editor said:


> That is some truly ridiculous argument you've just dreamt up. I'm just commenting on the reality that very, very, very few people buy - or can afford - such luxury meat.
> 
> Such high-end production is statistically irrelevant.


Do you do consultancy work=======? Only you seem to know more about my customer base than I do, I wonder how I have managed all these years.....


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

On topic with the original question, it looks like a plant based future will still be pretty meaty









						Most plant-based meat alternative buyers also buy meat: an analysis of household demographics, habit formation, and buying behavior among meat alternative buyers - Scientific Reports
					

The promise of novel plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) to lessen the health and environmental impacts of meat consumption ultimately depend on market acceptance and the extent to which they displace meat in consumers’ diets. We use household scanner data to provide an in-depth analysis of...




					www.nature.com


----------



## 8ball (Sep 27, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> I don’t mean tofu or tempeh or similar. I mean stuff like beyond meat and similar products made of things I wouldn’t put in my body.



Soy protein good, pea protein bad.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

If we are ln about meat and the class struggle here is a nice piece from the vegan review on why veganism is viewed as classest,









						Why veganism can be associated with classism
					

Veganism can often be classist, as low-income families struggle to afford specialty foods and keep up with this evergrowing movement.




					theveganreview.com


----------



## bcuster (Sep 27, 2022)




----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

And finally, the bloke who raises my beef is a one man band council Tennant farmer who deals with me because I pay him a fair price and he likes the fact that local people enjoy his produce.

What a pair of bastards we are eh?


----------



## bcuster (Sep 27, 2022)

no one said that here...


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

8ball said:


> Soy protein good, pea protein bad.


More like:
Ingredients in tofu (minimal processing): Soya beans and a coagulant of some sort
Ingredients in Beyond Meat (ultra-processed): Water, Pea protein isolate, Expeller-pressed canola oil, Refined coconut oil, Cellulose from bamboo, Methylcellulose, Potato starch, "Natural flavor", Maltodextrin, Yeast extract, Salt, Sunflower oil, Vegetable glycerin, Dried yeast, Gum arabic, Citrus extract, Ascorbic acid, Beet juice extract, Acetic acid, Succinic acid, Modified food starch, Annatto

Somebody who eats a vegan or vegetarian diet for health reasons and uses a meat substitute such as Beyond Burger or Richmond meat free sausage or similar has already lost the argument.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> If we are ln about meat and the class struggle here is a nice piece from the vegan review on why veganism is viewed as classest,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Veganism has always been a middle class/tory thing. They're the most likely to be able to afford it. It also explains the attitudes of the most vocal ones.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

Ingredients in a beef burger (no processing): beef.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

bcuster said:


> no one said that here...


Well you are right and it was a knee jerk reaction. 

I do get a bit twitchy on the assumption that good quality meat is the preserve of the wealthy in the UK.

I have a nice bunch of customers and my business is between a big council estate and a well heeled area.  We get about 70/30 from the council estate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 27, 2022)

It's quite possible to eat a healthy vegan diet on a budget, as it is possible to eat a healthy omnivore diet on a budget while avoiding the worst-welfare meats. 

But it takes effort. It takes time, motivation and a degree of knowledge. 

These threads always go round in circles, but berating people for feeding themselves and their their kids with cheap meat when they have precious little money or time and often limited access to alternatives really misses the point about the ways in which societies need to change their living habits.  

It normally comes down to little more than 'I'm better than you cos I'm vegan'. It's an unpleasant and politically useless attitude.


----------



## bcuster (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> Well you are right and it was a knee jerk reaction.
> 
> I do get a bit twitchy on the assumption that good quality meat is the preserve of the wealthy in the UK.
> 
> I have a nice bunch of customers and my business is between a big council estate and a well heeled area.  We get about 70/30 from the council estate.


there is a happy medium we can agree on somewhere in this issue


----------



## bcuster (Sep 27, 2022)

I knew a Native American fellow who made and sold his own buffalo jerky. One of his customers was the US Army. I spoke to him once and expressed my concerns about killing bison for food. He told me that he only used old bulls that had been ousted by younger males and rejected by the herd for this purpose. He told me that they were sad & lonely, and to his mind, ready for the slaughter...

Perhaps considerations like this can be be taken into account when large commercial meat farms select animals for slaughter...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 27, 2022)

bcuster said:


> I knew a Native American fellow who made and sold his own buffalo jerky. One of his customers was the US Army. I spoke to him once and expressed my concerns about killing bison for food. He told me that he only used old bulls that had been ousted by younger males and rejected by the herd for this purpose. He told me that they were sad & lonely, and to his mind, ready for the slaughter...



Sounds like proper bollocks to me.


----------



## bcuster (Sep 27, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Sounds like proper bollocks to me.


do you think he lied to me?


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Sounds like proper bollocks to me.


You mean shitting bull?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 27, 2022)

bcuster said:


> do you think he lied to me?



Almost certainly


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

bcuster said:


> I knew a Native American fellow who made and sold his own buffalo jerky. One of his customers was the US Army. I spoke to him once and expressed my concerns about killing bison for food. He told me that he only used old bulls that had been ousted by younger males and rejected by the herd for this purpose. He told me that they were sad & lonely, and to his mind, ready for the slaughter...
> 
> Perhaps considerations like this can be be taken into account when large commercial meat farms select animals for slaughter...


You see a bit of this now where dairy cows are slaughtered for human meat consumption at the end of their life.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> You see a bit of this now where dairy cows are slaughtered for human meat consumption at the end of their life.


Getting one this Thursday


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 27, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> You see a bit of this now where dairy cows are slaughtered for human meat consumption at the end of their life.


Not quite. Dairy cows are killed at the end of their economically productive time - normally around six years. Same with sheep kept to breed/produce wool. 

Farming isn't sentimental. Animals raised for meat are fattened and killed on a timetable. Animals raised for other things are killed once they stop producing those other things. It's nothing to do with their potential lifespan if left alone.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not quite. Dairy cows are killed at the end of their economically productive time - normally around six years. Same with sheep kept to breed/produce wool.
> 
> Farming isn't sentimental. Animals raised for meat are fattened and killed on a timetable. Animals raised for other things are killed once they stop producing those other things. It's nothing to do with their potential lifespan if left alone.


Well this one was born in 2007


----------



## bcuster (Sep 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not quite. Dairy cows are killed at the end of their economically productive time - normally around six years. Same with sheep kept to breed/produce wool.
> 
> Farming isn't sentimental. Animals raised for meat are fattened and killed on a timetable. Animals raised for other things are killed once they stop producing those other things. It's nothing to do with their potential lifespan if left alone.


Why would an adult sheep ever be 'killed"? Does anyone eat "sheepmeat"?  yes, I've heard of mutton.

However, i've NEVER seen it in a US supermarket., nor do i know anyone who's eaten it...

My understanding is that it is not very good to eat.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Why would an adult sheep ever be 'killed"? Does anyone eat "sheepmeat"?  yes, I've heard of mutton.
> 
> However, i've NEVER seen it in a US supermarket., nor do i know anyone who's eaten it...


Hoggets and  mutton etc all have a market.

Personally I prefer hogget


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> Do you do consultancy work=======? Only you seem to know more about my customer base than I do, I wonder how I have managed all these years.....


Don't be a twat and publish my real name, FFS.


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

editor said:


> Don't be a twat and publish my real name, FFS.


Sorry I assumed that it was common knowledge  my sincere apologies.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not quite. Dairy cows are killed at the end of their economically productive time - normally around six years. Same with sheep kept to breed/produce wool.
> 
> Farming isn't sentimental. Animals raised for meat are fattened and killed on a timetable. Animals raised for other things are killed once they stop producing those other things. It's nothing to do with their potential lifespan if left alone.


Agreed - it’s what I meant. At the end of their usefulness for milk production. But better than being slaughtered and not eaten.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Why would an adult sheep ever be 'killed"? Does anyone eat "sheepmeat"?  yes, I've heard of mutton.
> 
> However, i've NEVER seen it in a US supermarket., nor do i know anyone who's eaten it...
> 
> My understanding is that it is not very good to eat.


Mutton was popular in Ireland when I was growing up. I suppose it is still available but you’d need to go to butcher and order it. 

I think It’s beautiful stuff. It’s strong tasting no doubt. People seemed to have shirked away from strong tasting meat and offal in the last few decades. Seems to be making a comeback lately but that’s just my observation.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> Well there is a difference between cheap and good value.
> 
> Obviously I won't be suitable for everyone's pockets, but the little *old ladies who want 100g of mince can shop with me and avoid wasting what they don't want.*
> 
> ...



Yup that's a significant part of my cousins buisness. The older generation who rebuff supermarket meat on a number of points.

Some people don't want large packs of meat but also there are a number of his customers who prefer the taste and flavour of his meat over supermarket meat. A lot of them just like shopping in the market and apart from the ones that have been yuppified recently most of the markets around these parts are frequented by local WC folk. My old dear is the same and this is partly where I get it from. I think this is something that is often missed in this discussion. Not everyone who eats meat gets their meat from the supermarket shelves. Loads of folk go to the local butchers, at least they do up here.  

It's a bit daft to think that people making informed choices about where they buy their meat are either posh, loaded or thinking it gives them higher status for doing it. That's just plain daft.

It's about an informed personal choice. I know a number of my mates who eat better quality meat in smaller quantaties to ofset any price difference but on the whole I don't find butchers meat any more expensive than supermarkets. I got to a halal gaff on one of the old high streets in Chester for goat and mutton and I pay no more there than I would for a lamb cut in a supermarket. 

Anyway I reiterate, a discussion on that would probably be better off this thread.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 27, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> Mutton was popular in Ireland when I was growing up. I suppose it is still available but you’d need to go to butcher and order it.
> 
> I think It’s beautiful stuff. It’s strong tasting no doubt. People seemed to have shirked away from strong tasting meat and offal in the last few decades. Seems to be making a comeback lately but that’s just my observation.


Great minds ^^^

I love mutton in a curry.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 27, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> More like:
> Ingredients in tofu (minimal processing): Soya beans and a coagulant of some sort
> Ingredients in Beyond Meat (ultra-processed): Water, Pea protein isolate, Expeller-pressed canola oil, Refined coconut oil, Cellulose from bamboo, Methylcellulose, Potato starch, "Natural flavor", Maltodextrin, Yeast extract, Salt, Sunflower oil, Vegetable glycerin, Dried yeast, Gum arabic, Citrus extract, Ascorbic acid, Beet juice extract, Acetic acid, Succinic acid, Modified food starch, Annatto
> 
> Somebody who eats a vegan or vegetarian diet for health reasons and uses a meat substitute such as Beyond Burger or Richmond meat free sausage or similar has already lost the argument.



Hang on, which of these ingredients do you take issue with?
If it is simply that there are a lot of them, I don't think you understand why there are issues with ultra-processed foods.

Especially if you are happy to ingest heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

8ball said:


> Hang on, which of these ingredients do you take issue with?
> If it is simply that there are a lot of them, I don't think you understand why there are issues with ultra-processed foods.
> 
> Especially if you are happy to ingest heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.


2 problems - the ultra processed nature of it in general and the health problems this causes and the refined oils in particular of which there are no less than 3. 

“Especially if you are happy to ingest heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.” 

Makes you come across like a twat tbh


----------



## 8ball (Sep 27, 2022)

Mr Retro said:


> 2 problems - the ultra processed nature of it in general and the health problems this causes and the refined oils in particular of which there are no less than 3.
> 
> “Especially if you are happy to ingest heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.”
> 
> Makes you come across like a twat tbh



Last part makes it hard to estimate quite how dim you are.
The refined oils thing would be a reasonable point. 

If you weren't talking about FUCKING BURGERS!!


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 27, 2022)

souljacker said:


> So are ABP who have had a plant based division for at least ten years. They keep the businesses separate but you are still essentially buying vegan products from Associated Beef Products.


I know, as does Cargill.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 27, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Why would an adult sheep ever be 'killed"? Does anyone eat "sheepmeat"?  yes, I've heard of mutton.
> 
> However, i've NEVER seen it in a US supermarket., nor do i know anyone who's eaten it...
> 
> My understanding is that it is not very good to eat.


Yes they do.

The market for cull ewes is very buoyant. 
Colloquially known as "kebab ewes" which may give you a clue how mutton is consumed these days- mince.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 27, 2022)

8ball said:


> Last part makes it hard to estimate quite how dim you are.
> The refined oils thing would be a reasonable point.
> 
> If you weren't talking about FUCKING BURGERS!!


Mate I’ve forgotten more about food science and nutrition than you’ll ever know. But crack on showing people how intelligent you are. It’s really impressive.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 27, 2022)

8ball said:


> Last part makes it hard to estimate quite how dim you are.
> The refined oils thing would be a reasonable point.
> 
> If you weren't talking about FUCKING BURGERS!!


The burger I make has two ingredients:

Beef, pepper.

I know which I'd rather eat.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 27, 2022)

8ball said:


> Especially if you are happy to ingest heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.


Which ones in particular?


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> The burger I make has two ingredients:
> 
> Beef, pepper.
> 
> I know which I'd rather eat.


May I suggest some salt and 1% tapioca flour


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> May I suggest some salt and 1% tapioca flour


I've tended to salt it after for some reason, will give the flour a whirl though.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Great minds ^^^
> 
> I love mutton in a curry.


It’s great slow cooked as well


----------



## butcher (Sep 27, 2022)

Anyone got a good homemade veg burger recipe?

I used to love a mushroom bhaji 'burger'


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> Anyone got a good homemade veg burger recipe?
> 
> I used to love a mushroom bhaji 'burger'


I like to cook a big, flat field mushroom, season is just finishing (at least for the wild ones) gently in some garlic butter (oil will be fine). Lovely in bread etc


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 27, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> It’s great slow cooked as well


Absolutely. Loads of herbs, shallots and preserved lemons.and chilli 🌶


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 27, 2022)

butcher said:


> Anyone got a good homemade veg burger recipe?
> 
> I used to love a mushroom bhaji 'burger'


Black bean burgers go down well with the veggies in our family. Pretty sure its a nigel slater recipe. Will look tomorrow


----------



## 8ball (Sep 27, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Which ones in particular?



Name your favourite.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 27, 2022)

8ball said:


> Name your favourite.


Niacin and thiamine are both heterocyclic amines which are quite useful.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 28, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Niacin and thiamine are both heterocyclic amines which are quite useful.



Ooh, that’s quite impressive tbf, even given
quite a few hours.

My apologies - dumbness ratio recalibrated. 

So which of the chemicals in the beyond burger are known carcinogens at the amounts used?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 28, 2022)

8ball said:


> So which of the chemicals in the beyond burger are known carcinogens at the amounts used?


No idea. Just pointing out some heterocyclic amines are useful.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 28, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> No idea. Just pointing out some heterocyclic amines are useful.



Fair point.  Though some are less useful and far more harmful.

I don’t dispute that they are delicious, though.

And I do think there is nothing to suggest that things like Beyond Burger are harmful to anyone if eaten as an occasional treat.  The fact that those ingredients come with names reminiscent of school chemistry classes doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with them.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

Meanwhile, away from the bucolic scenes of happy cows basking in the fields and enjoying a long and happy life, here's what's going on in the food world most people occupy:



> Research has shown that fast-growing chickens, which reach their kill weight in just 35 days, can have higher levels of mortality, lameness and muscle disease than slower-growing breeds.
> 
> Analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Guardian found that more than 39m broilers, chickens bred for meat, the vast majority of which are fast-growing breeds, were rejected because of diseases and defects at slaughterhouses in England and Wales over a three-year period – approximately 35,000 every day.











						UK government faces court challenge over ‘Frankenchickens’
					

Hearing granted for Humane League, which says use of fast-growing chickens breaches welfare rules




					www.theguardian.com
				




And for those who think the Guardian is full of lies (unless they're delivering glowing reviews on their own products) you can read the same story in the Grocery Gazette:









						Animal welfare charity takes UK government to court over 'Frankenchickens'
					

The Humane League is taking the UK government to court over the continued breeding of 'Frankenchickens', which suffer serious health conditions.




					www.grocerygazette.co.uk


----------



## butcher (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> Meanwhile, away from the bucolic scenes of happy cows basking in the fields and enjoying a long and happy life, here's what's going on in the food world most people occupy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good to hear Phil Oakey and the gang are still busy.

As you know I never said the Guardian is full of lies at all.


FYI I https://fossemeadows.com/ and even some people on a restricted budget choose them.


Can you not understand that I would rather people bought better welfare meat even if less frequently, and supported small local businesses in doing so. I have been pretty consistent in stating this.


You will find that most small indy butchers (as well as other food businesses) dislike the mode if food production of big supermarkets too.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

butcher said:


> Can you not understand that I would rather people bought better welfare meat even if less frequently, and supported small local businesses in doing so. I have been pretty consistent in stating this.


Me too, funnily enough. But the vast majority of people don't and _never will_ unless there's a huge shift in their buying habits.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> Me too, funnily enough. But the vast majority of people don't and _never will_ unless there's a huge shift in their buying habits.


This is where this debate always fails, though. The idea that it is _the_ _individual consumer_ that drives systemic change. I can't think of any other political question that is so consistently treated in this way on here.

To take just one example, feedlot beef farming was virtually non-existent in the UK up until very recently. It's been sliding in under the radar, and countering that requires political action. For starters, it requires making people aware that it's happening - many are not - but it also requires putting political pressure to reverse the trend. That's a call for collective action, not just individual consumers making better choices.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is where this debate always fails, though. The idea that it is _the_ _individual consumer_ that drives systemic change. I can't think of any other political question that is so consistently treated in this way on here.
> 
> To take just one example, feedlot beef farming was virtually non-existent in the UK up until very recently. It's been sliding in under the radar, and countering that requires political action. For starters, it requires making people aware that it's happening - many are not - but it also requires putting political pressure to reverse the trend. That's a call for collective action, not just individual consumers making better choices.


If it's not the buying preferences of individuals that are driving change, could you explain why the vegan/veggie section of my supermarket is now four times larger than a few years ago? And why the beef industry is now employing propaganda PR methods, like the tobacco industry before it?

Asking people to eat less meat is like asking people to drive less. They don't want to because they like it, and aren't that bothered about their own individual contribution to climate change. Some even like to double down on their appetite for meat and deride and belittle those  choosing vegan diets, or completely dismiss* the huge amount of research that shows the damage that the meat industry inflicts on the planet, and its hideously inhumane production methods. 

*see this thread for multiple examples


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> If it's not the buying preferences of individuals that are driving change, could you explain why the vegan/veggie section of my supermarket is now four times larger than a few years ago? And why the beef industry is now employing propaganda PR methods, like the tobacco industry before it?


The expansion of feedlot farming has occurred within that very same time frame.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The expansion of feedlot farming has occurred within that very same time frame.


I'm not sure what your point is. People who eat chicken rarely give a flying fuck about how their freaky-deeky meat reached their plate so long as it's finger-lickin' good, so why are they going to care when they're told about shitty beef production methods? 

And how would you propose getting those people interested enough to consider not buying the stuff?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> And how would you propose getting those people interested enough to consider not buying the stuff?


You don't necessarily. You make sure the stuff doesn't make it to the shelves in the first place. Hence the collective political action side of things.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2022)

Interesting piece here. We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

Global meat consumption is at it's highest level *ever *and rising. 

As LBJ has been saying on these threads for years, the solution is not the bonkers one spouted here by the nutty veghead brigade (tell people to stop eating it) but to move to lower impact methods of meat production.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't necessarily. You make sure the stuff doesn't make it to the shelves in the first place. Hence the collective political action side of things.


So please share your ideas how this 'collective political action' might come about?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's quite possible to eat a healthy vegan diet on a budget, as it is possible to eat a healthy omnivore diet on a budget while avoiding the worst-welfare meats.
> 
> But it takes effort. It takes time, motivation and a degree of knowledge.
> 
> ...


It must have gone round again because here you are spouting the bit in bold again again, who here has said this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> So please share your ideas how this 'collective political action' might come about?


Compassion in World Farming are worth looking at. They've had a number of specific legislative successes over the years. Brexit was a fucker for them as many of their successes pre-2016 came at the level of EU legislation. I don't entirely agree with their approach, but we don't live in a perfect world and they're a net force for good imo and worth supporting. While most of their individual activists are vegans, they don't come at this from a pov that meat producers are necessarily evil. They try to work with meat producers to improve things - specifically to end factory farming practices, which is their main reason for being.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Compassion in World Farming are worth looking at. They've had a number of specific legislative successes over the years. Brexit was a fucker for them as many of their successes pre-2016 came at the level of EU legislation. I don't entirely agree with their approach, but we don't live in a perfect world and they're a net force for good imo and worth supporting. While most of their individual activists are vegans, they don't come at this from a pov that meat producers are necessarily evil. They try to work with meat producers to improve things - specifically to end factory farming practices, which is their main reason for being.


I believe I've cited them several times in this thread but I can't see how they're going to make the slightest difference to the meat industry - and not to many posters here if there's vegans involved.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> While most of their individual activists are vegans, they don't come at this from a pov that meat producers are necessarily evil. They try to work with meat producers to improve things - specifically to end factory farming practices, which is their main reason for being.



There are many sensible, well informed vegheads, who actually care about animal welfare and seek to improve things rather than moralising and berating others over their lifestyle choices. They just don't post on these threads.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> I believe I've cited them several times in this thread but I can't see how they're going to make the slightest difference to the meat industry - and not to many posters here if there's vegans involved.


They already have made a difference. More of a difference than vegans are going to make by congratulating themselves for being vegan. 

Enough of a difference? Of course not.


----------



## Funky_monks (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is where this debate always fails, though. The idea that it is _the_ _individual consumer_ that drives systemic change. I can't think of any other political question that is so consistently treated in this way on here.
> 
> To take just one example, feedlot beef farming was virtually non-existent in the UK up until very recently. It's been sliding in under the radar, and countering that requires political action. For starters, it requires making people aware that it's happening - many are not - but it also requires putting political pressure to reverse the trend. That's a call for collective action, not just individual consumers making better choices.


It's been around for yonks on a small scale, used to be known as "barley beef", but became a bit unpopular (can't quite remember why). As long as the animals are well looked after and have enough space, cattle are often housed in the winter anyway - I would say most ground in the UK is a bit wet to be outwintering cattle although more farmers seem to be trying it successfully.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They already have made a difference. More of a difference than vegans are going to make by congratulating themselves for being vegan.


Sorry, where has this been happening?

And I thought you literally just said that most of Compassion in World Farming's activists were vegan?


----------



## butcher (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> Sorry, where has this been happening?
> 
> And I thought you literally just said that most of Compassion in World Farming's activists were vegan?



This paragraph answers you:

"While most of their individual activists are vegans, they don't come at this from a pov that meat producers are necessarily evil. They try to work with meat producers to improve things - specifically to end factory farming practices, which is their main reason for being."


ie working with people of opposing views for a mutually agreeable positive change rather than a 'wholefoodier than thou' attitude


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

butcher said:


> This paragraph answers you:
> 
> "While most of their individual activists are vegans, they don't come at this from a pov that meat producers are necessarily evil. They try to work with meat producers to improve things - specifically to end factory farming practices, which is their main reason for being."
> 
> ...


So what percentage of vegans are  all busy  'congratulating themselves for being vegan,' then? And what percentage go around with a  'wholefoodier than thou'  attitude?

These belittling shitty little putdowns on people just because they don't choose to have the same diet as meat eaters are really fucking tiresome.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 28, 2022)

editor said:


> So what percentage of vegans are  all busy  'congratulating themselves for being vegan,' then? And what percentage go around with a  'wholefoodier than thou'  attitude?
> 
> These belittling shitty little putdowns on people just because they don't choose to have the same diet as meat eaters are really fucking tiresome.


wtf? 

You have zero self-awareness. You're the one who dug out a 13-year-old post to make a shitty little putdown on someone who is trying to make what he considers an ethical living in the meat industry. The way you post on these threads is really fucking tiresome. And yes, you reek of smug moral superiority when you make these shitty putdowns or when you attempt to describe meat and meat-eating as a barbaric activity. And let's not forget how you boasted about tricking people into drinking non-dairy milk. You're the one with no respect for people who don't choose your diet.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtf?
> 
> You have zero self-awareness. You're the one who dug out a 13-year-old post to make a shitty little putdown on someone who is trying to make what he considers an ethical living in the meat industry. The way you post on these threads is really fucking tiresome. And yes, you reek of smug moral superiority when you make these shitty putdowns or when you attempt to describe meat and meat-eating as a barbaric activity. And let's not forget how you boasted about tricking people into drinking non-dairy milk. You're the one with no respect for people who don't choose your diet.


Mate. You've lost it completely.

Oh, and I've never called meat or meat eating 'barbaric.' You've made that up.

What I actually said was "I want to see _barbaric_ industrial meat production ended."


----------



## ddraig (Sep 28, 2022)

LBJ will soon slink off for a while after being asked questions they won't or can't answer like backing up claims made in posts, again again and so the thread rolls around and around


----------



## cesare (Sep 28, 2022)

We've had suggestions for premium meat so for balance I'd like to make a nuts recommendation.

Highly recommend: Potash Farm | Kentish Cobnuts | Walnuts | Almonds | Chestnuts | Pecan Nuts


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2022)

cesare said:


> We've had suggestions for premium meat so for balance I'd like to make a nuts recommendation.
> 
> Highly recommend: Potash Farm | Kentish Cobnuts | Walnuts | Almonds | Chestnuts | Pecan Nuts



Cheers for that. I've just pre-ordered some "wet" walnuts, which I had no idea were a thing.


----------



## JimW (Sep 28, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers for that. I've just pre-ordered some "wet" walnuts, which I had no idea were a thing.


Really different fresh, I'd not had them til I worked somewhere had walnut groves.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 28, 2022)

cesare said:


> We've had suggestions for premium meat so for balance I'd like to make a nuts recommendation.
> 
> Highly recommend: Potash Farm | Kentish Cobnuts | Walnuts | Almonds | Chestnuts | Pecan Nuts



Thread wasn’t short of nuts up to this point.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 28, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers for that. I've just pre-ordered some "wet" walnuts, which I had no idea were a thing.





JimW said:


> Really different fresh, I'd not had them til I worked somewhere had walnut groves.



<hand hovers over “buy” button…>


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers for that. I've just pre-ordered some "wet" walnuts, which I had no idea were a thing.


You can't have  christmas without pickled walnuts in our house.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2022)

8ball said:


> <hand hovers over “buy” button…>


We've got fresh walnuts but most of them need digging up after the grey squirrels have buried them. That's why a lot if walnut tree owners have air rifles.


----------



## bcuster (Sep 28, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> You can't have  christmas without pickled walnuts in our house.


Never heard of that. are they sweet? salty? sour? tangy? garlicky?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 28, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Never heard of that. are they sweet? salty? sour? tangy? garlicky?


Pickled walnuts are an explosion of vinegary nutty goodness in your mouth. They're fantastic.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Never heard of that. are they sweet? salty? sour? tangy? garlicky?


What LBJ said. I think he summed them up very well.

They have to be consumed with a cheese and criggy cake picnic on a winter walk. Maybe a turkey sarnie as well.

They look like Ork droppings but I swear once you've been introduced to them there is a strange addictive calling that ensures you are hooked for life. I have my wife to blame for this barbaric eating habit. 









						Pickled Walnuts Recipe - How to Make Pickled Walnuts | Hank Shaw
					

A recipe and instructions on how to pickled walnuts (black walnuts or English walnuts) at home. This is an old British recipe.




					honest-food.net


----------



## 8ball (Sep 28, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> We've got fresh walnuts but most of them need digging up after the grey squirrels have buried them. That's why a lot if walnut tree owners have air rifles.



You must have been digging up a hell of a lot of walnuts for them all to buy air rifles.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> There are many sensible, well informed vegheads, who actually care about animal welfare and seek to improve things rather than moralising and berating others over their lifestyle choices. They just don't post on these threads.


It's the old, getting on the inside to make sure the windows are cleaned properly innit. No point being on the outside washing away and telling someone how dirteh they are on the inside if you know they wont do anything aout it, you may as well stop shouting at them through the glass and help them clean them from the inside. 

Old Scouse proverb #375


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2022)

8ball said:


> You must have been digging up a hell of a lot of walnuts for them all to buy air rifles.


No and please dont gest about this, it's a very personal war. 

They started it. The furry little cunts.

One jar of home made 'Vegan' pickled walnuts was all I wanted but no, they had to take them all.

Not next Chrismas, oh no.


----------



## bcuster (Sep 28, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> What LBJ said. I think he summed them up very well.
> 
> They have to be consumed with a cheese and criggy cake picnic on a winter walk. Maybe a turkey sarnie as well.
> 
> ...


I wonder where one would find unripened walnuts...


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2022)

bcuster said:


> I wonder where one would find unripened walnuts...


Bit late now. The site that cesare put up sells them from July. I've had some from them a few years ago and they're nice.

Most supermarkets have pickled walnuts though, especially this time of year.


----------



## cesare (Sep 28, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Bit late now. The site that cesare put up sells them from July. I've had some from them a few years ago and they're nice.
> 
> Most supermarkets have pickled walnuts though, especially this time of year.


I think they're at the "wet" stage now. Green and delicious.


----------



## butcher (Sep 28, 2022)

cesare said:


> We've had suggestions for premium meat so for balance I'd like to make a nuts recommendation.
> 
> Highly recommend: Potash Farm | Kentish Cobnuts | Walnuts | Almonds | Chestnuts | Pecan Nuts


The greengrocer opposite my shop sells both kentish cobnuts and wet walnuts   What a life!


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 28, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> No and please dont gest about this, it's a very personal war.
> 
> They started it. The furry little cunts.
> 
> ...


Walnut and squirrel stew.


----------



## cesare (Sep 28, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> We've got fresh walnuts but most of them need digging up after the grey squirrels have buried them. That's why a lot if walnut tree owners have air rifles.


the button has a walnut tree at the bottom of his tower block. The hordes of squirrels are in there at the earliest opportunity. You can hear the munching as you walk past   and the little bastards throw bits of shell at you if you get too near


----------



## Saunders (Sep 29, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Never heard of that. are they sweet? salty? sour? tangy? garlicky?


They are utterly disgusting and have a shuddersome texture.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2022)

Talking of walnuts — the Greeks also make a really sweet preserved walnut dish









						Glyko Karydaki (Green Walnuts Preserve)
					

Glyko Karydaki, is a Greek fruit preserve of small (or young) walnuts and it is one of the best Greek traditional spoon sweets.




					www.kopiaste.org
				




I can’t even begin to tell you how nice this is, if you have a sweet tooth. My grandmother’s sisters in Cyprus used to make these from locally picked walnuts in their village and when I’d visit as a kid, it was all I could think about from the moment I knew we were going.

(I realise now that it takes an _insane_ amount of time to make a jar of these but such was life in the mountains of Cyprus.)


----------



## DaphneM (Sep 29, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> We've got fresh walnuts but most of them need digging up after the grey squirrels have buried them. That's why a lot if walnut tree owners have air rifles.


maybe combine the two?









						Sage Black Pepper Walnut Squirrel Recipe
					

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.




					www.backcountryhunters.org


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers for that. I've just pre-ordered some "wet" walnuts, which I had no idea were a thing.



My wet walnuts arrived today. They're nice but extremely mild and creamy. The main difference seems to be that unlike normal walnuts, you can open these by just squeezing them in your hands.


----------



## cesare (Oct 15, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> My wet walnuts arrived today. They're nice but extremely mild and creamy. The main difference seems to be that unlike normal walnuts, you can open these by just squeezing them in your hands.


Button has a special technique for opening a normal walnut in his hands


----------



## Funky_monks (Oct 15, 2022)

This thread being bumped reminded me of this report by the Environment Agency on the Wye catchment which finds very weak correlation between poultry units and phosphate levels in the Wye,  which I believe was discussed earlier. This is because, as I said - the units sell the manure as a product, they don't just dump it in the river (why would they, its worth money?), although some might leech from storage (where they do store it as opposed to having it carted away as it comes out of the shed, which is much better for biosecurity). The main agricultural contributors are from fertiliser (manure and synthetic) on crop land. I live in the area and loads of spuds are grown, which is a big contributor through soil loss because it will be ploughed/ridged. 

They suggest returning the area to permanent pasture as a way to combat this. Guess what permanent pasture is used for?   

I'm sure some people will be along to make up some guff about the EA being biased towards farmers in a minute.......

https://consult.environment-agency....upporting_documents/Wye_Report_Q1_2022_23.pdf


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 15, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Guess what permanent pasture is used for?


Solar panels?


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 15, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Solar panels?


Plenty of room around and under them for grazing. 
Just not goats, they may eat the cables.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 15, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> This thread being bumped reminded me of this report by the Environment Agency on the Wye catchment which finds very weak correlation between poultry units and phosphate levels in the Wye,  which I believe was discussed earlier. This is because, as I said - the units sell the manure as a product, they don't just dump it in the river (why would they, its worth money?), although some might leech from storage (where they do store it as opposed to having it carted away as it comes out of the shed, which is much better for biosecurity). The main agricultural contributors are from fertiliser (manure and synthetic) on crop land. I live in the area and loads of spuds are grown, which is a big contributor through soil loss because it will be ploughed/ridged.
> 
> They suggest returning the area to permanent pasture as a way to combat this. Guess what permanent pasture is used for?
> 
> ...


There's a fair bit of research done on the Wye and the Usk from a fish stocks POV. I'm a member of the foundation as a result of fishing the Wye about 8 years ago. It's one of the only subscriptions I just let run because every time I think about cancelling it I remember one of the best days fishing I ever had. 









						The Wye and Usk Foundation
					

An environmental charity that restores and protects the ecology and fisheries of the rivers Wye and Usk.




					www.wyeuskfoundation.org


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 16, 2022)

Mean while animal activists are crying over spilt milk...








						Animal Rebellion protestors pour milk on floor in stores across country | ITV News
					

Footage shows several protesters pouring milk from the shelves in the Norwich Marks and Spencer in front of horrified shoppers. | ITV News Anglia




					www.itv.com


----------



## DaphneM (Oct 16, 2022)

more info on highly processed food









						Fast food fever: how ultra-processed meals are unhealthier than you think
					

UPFs form 50% of Britons’ calorie intake. Now food scientists are learning more about what makes them so damaging




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## MrCurry (Oct 16, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> more info on highly processed food
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But is it the UPF (processed foods) which cause the health hazard, or is there a more incidental association such as people who eat a lot of UPF also do other things which cause harm to their health?

I’m thinking of an example a teacher once gave my class of research which established a firm connection between the number of shells shot on Salisbury plains and the amount of ice cream sold at the seaside. Of course it wasn’t one causing the other, but simply that both were influenced by third factor (how sunny it was).

Maybe people who mostly choose processed foods are also not venturing far enough from their sofa and dying early through lack of exercise and other health-affecting behavioural factors?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> But is it the UPF (processed foods) which cause the health hazard, or is there a more incidental association such as people who eat a lot of UPF also do other things which cause harm to their health?
> 
> I’m thinking of an example a teacher once gave my class of research which established a firm connection between the number of shells shot on Salisbury plains and the amount of ice cream sold at the seaside. Of course it wasn’t one causing the other, but simply that both were influenced by third factor (how sunny it was).
> 
> Maybe people who mostly choose processed foods are also not venturing far enough from their sofa and dying early through lack of exercise and other health-affecting behavioural factors?


The article doesn't link directly to the studies it mentions but I would be surprised if they hadn't factored that in. Tim Spector, who is quoted in the article, does research with twins to explore how different people digest their food. 

This is a link to a review of his latest book.

Spoon-Fed by Tim Spector review – food myths busted


----------



## Serene (Oct 16, 2022)

I never eat anything that has had a body. Eeew. I personally find it incredible that animals are put through such cruelty.


----------



## Cid (Oct 16, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The article doesn't link directly to the studies it mentions but I would be surprised if they hadn't factored that in. Tim Spector, who is quoted in the article, does research with twins to explore how different people digest their food.
> 
> This is a link to a review of his latest book.
> 
> Spoon-Fed by Tim Spector review – food myths busted



I'm not sure how much I trust Spector... there's a bit of the crank to him. It's a complicated one, and I'd have to follow a rabbit hole I went down a few months ago to properly unpick exactly why I think that. Too much confidence. And claims to want broadly improved nutrition, then makes an app that requires a test (£259.98) and a steeeep monthly subscription (£24.99pcm for 12 months, £60 if you just want to give it a go for 1 month).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2022)

Cid said:


> I'm not sure how much I trust Spector... there's a bit of the crank to him. It's a complicated one, and I'd have to follow a rabbit hole I went down a few months ago to properly unpick exactly why I think that. Too much confidence. And claims to want broadly improved nutrition, then makes an app that requires a test (£259.98) and a steeeep monthly subscription (£24.99pcm for 12 months, £60 if you just want to give it a go for 1 month).


Didn't know that about the app. I know what you mean about him. During covid, he tended to state things with too much confidence.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 16, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And yes, you reek of smug moral superiority when you make these shitty putdowns or when you attempt to describe meat and meat-eating as a barbaric activity.



It just obviously is though. Wake the fuck up and smell the oat milk latte. Gassing pigs and slitting their throats so you can consume their corpses is just obviously barbaric. I recon in 20-30 years time, when no-slaughter meat wins out, everyone will acknowledge this is obvious.


----------



## bcuster (Oct 17, 2022)

Teens are dumping milk on store floors to protest the ‘destructive’ dairy industry
					

The latest environmentalist trend is here: pouring out milk in grocery stores.




					nypost.com


----------



## 8ball (Oct 17, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Teens are dumping milk on store floors to protest the ‘destructive’ dairy industry
> 
> 
> The latest environmentalist trend is here: pouring out milk in grocery stores.
> ...



I wonder how many McD’s milkshakes were consumed by teens on the same day.


----------



## bcuster (Oct 17, 2022)

I don't think dumping milk on supermarket floors is the answer to the problem of animal cruelty


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 18, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Teens are dumping milk on store floors to protest the ‘destructive’ dairy industry
> 
> 
> The latest environmentalist trend is here: pouring out milk in grocery stores.
> ...


See post 1,530


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 14, 2022)

Saw this on Twitter looked interesting


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2022)

skyscraper101 said:


> Saw this on Twitter looked interesting



Source: Poore and Nemecek, 2018.

How many times can the same one paper be recycled over and over.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2022)

This seems a timely article:



> *How the Meat Industry Undermines Effective Climate Policy*
> Borrowing a page from the fossil fuel industry’s playbook, meat’s “merchants of doubt” are funding questionable research and lobbying to keep meat reduction off the table.
> 
> 
> For years, meat producers have worked furiously behind the scenes to keep meat reduction out of discussions on climate policy. The first draft of the 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on climate change mitigation recommended shifting to plant-based diets and agricultural systems. Delegates dispatched by then-Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro—who presided over a mass burning of the Amazon rain forest, in part by beef producers—helped get that phrase removed. The IPCC flinching in the face of lobbying allowed the same ambivalence toward agriculture to carry over into that year’s Conference of the Parties for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was focused on establishing a framework to reduce methane emissions: Despite the fact that animal agriculture emits a third of global methane and that it is impossible to meet emissions targets without addressing the food sector, the question of the industry’s contribution to anthropogenic climate change was conspicuously left off the policy menu—even though food options offered to conference attendees were paired with a carbon calculator.











						How the Meat Industry Undermines Effective Climate Policy
					

Borrowing a page from the fossil fuel industry’s playbook, meat’s “merchants of doubt” are funding questionable research and lobbying to keep meat reduction off the table.




					newrepublic.com


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2022)

And...



> “As long as meat consumption continues to rise globally, both climate change, from deforestation and methane, and pandemics will likely continue to rise,” says Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies and the author of the analysis, which reviews more than 100 articles studying the effects of intensifying animal agriculture on the environment and on zoonotic diseases—infectious diseases that come from animals.
> 
> As the climate warms, researchers have concluded that countries will need to produce more food, and more efficiently, than ever before. To address these current and future needs, the agriculture industry has adopted “intensification” practices: adding more “inputs,” such as machinery, hormones, and antibiotics, while increasing production.





			Intensified Meat Production in Response to Climate Change Would Bring Short-Term Rewards, Long-Term Risks


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2022)

The filthy meat industry in action, putting profits over the health of the planet



> This week, the _New York Times_ published findings from Unearthed, the investigative arm of Greenpeace U.K., regarding the funding of The CLEAR Center, a major research center for environmentalism and sustainability. The center is located at the University of California, Davis and headed by Dr. Frank Mitloehner. According to the report, it receives the majority of its funding from organizations directly connected to the agriculture industry.
> 
> Worse, CLEAR was conceived by a trade group — IFeeder, the nonprofit extension of the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA). IFeeder is "a livestock industry group that represents major agricultural companies like Cargill and Tyson," according to the _Times_. In addition to members of the AFIA, its advisory board has included Cargill and the North American Meat Institute, two more groups that represent the meat industry's interests.
> 
> The _Times_ article, as well as several environmental researchers quoted within it, point out that CLEAR's research can't possibly be free from bias given the industry that backs it.











						Big Meat is borrowing tactics from Big Oil
					

The meat industry is using astroturfed research to obfuscate the effect of meat on the planet. Why are we still letting them?




					www.salon.com


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2022)

Mine and Paulo's mate Vandana Shiva taking un the ultra processed vegan food nutters:


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2022)

I find the constant attempt to portray "the meat industry" by some posters on here (and certain neoliberal news outlets) as a massive corporations only on here quite interesting - it's incredibly colonialist in nature.

Most food is still produced by subsistence farms, globally - which will include meat.

"The meat industry" is incredibly diverse from Cargills, who are the biggest company on the planet (and keenly developing synthetic meat substitutes), to tiny farms.
Indeed, even in Europe there are attempts to maintain small farms - the French have extensive rules on land buying that effectively keep lots of farms small, it just so happens that the UK has an average farm size greater than elsewhere in Europe.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2022)

A stab of reality for those serial fantasists  who think most animals live on fluffy cuddly little farms with friendly farmers tootling long on bright red tractors



> An estimated 99 percent of farmed animal in the US are living on factory farms at present, according to an analysis from the Sentience Institute (SI).
> 
> Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms.
> 
> ...











						99% Of US Farmed Animals Live On Factory Farms, Study Says
					

While 75 percent of US adults believe they usually buy 'humane products', only one percent of farmed animals are raised on non-factory farms




					plantbasednews.org
				




Data source US Factory Farming Estimates

And in the UK:









						UK has more than 1,000 livestock mega-farms, investigation reveals
					

Newly published figures show for first time how US-style factory farms have spread across British countryside




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 14, 2022)

Every single one of those two "search and dump" sources has already been posted (some more than once) on this thread.

Bloody evangelism....


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 15, 2022)

O


Funky_monks said:


> Mine and Paulo's mate Vandana Shiva taking un the ultra processed vegan food nutters:


IIRC hasn't Shiva become somewhat controversial on recent years? I remember some good work of hers on monocultures and the spread of GM food way back when. She was very critical of the green revolution and her claims about farmer suicides have come under a lot of scrutiny for a dodgy use of statistics.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 15, 2022)

editor said:


> A stab of reality for those serial fantasists  who think most animals live on fluffy cuddly little farms with friendly farmers tootling long on bright red tractors


I know someone who farms sheep. Their fields are very fluffy and cuddly. Perhaps they have dark secrets I'm not privvy to with monstrous fifty foot chickens. HOwever I'm not sure who you're referring to, since I don't think anyone here has said there aren't problems with capitalist industrial farming. Your solution is Linda McCartney pie in the sky


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 15, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Mine and Paulo's mate Vandana Shiva taking un the ultra processed vegan food nutters:
> View attachment 351524View attachment 351525



Shiva has lost the plot.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I know someone who farms sheep. Their fields are very fluffy and cuddly. Perhaps they have dark secrets I'm not privvy to with monstrous fifty foot chickens. HOwever I'm not sure who you're referring to, since I don't think anyone here has said there aren't problems with capitalist industrial farming. Your solution is Linda McCartney pie in the sky


Exactly what solution have I been proposing?


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 15, 2022)

editor said:


> Exactly what solution have I been proposing?


I'm assuing you, being vegan, would like us all to stop eating and buying meat. 

If that isn't the case I'm happy for you to correct me


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I'm assuing you, being vegan, would like us all to stop eating and buying meat.
> 
> If that isn't the case I'm happy for you to correct me


Try reading what I've consistently stated throughout this thread before opening your big, ignorant trap again.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 15, 2022)

editor said:


> Try reading what I've consistently stated throughout this thread before opening your big, ignorant trap again.


Opportunity given to share...rejected in favour of hyperbole.

Are you not a vegan? Or are you just someone who coincidentally repudiates animal products while campaigning that animal agriculture is immoral and environmentally toxic? 

One is a spectacular impersonation of t'other


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> O
> 
> IIRC hasn't Shiva become somewhat controversial on recent years? I remember some good work of hers on monocultures and the spread of GM food way back when. She was very critical of the green revolution and her claims about farmer suicides have come under a lot of scrutiny for a dodgy use of statistics.



Yep. A huge swathe of scientists and experts - including a Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine - have condemned her "tendency to nonsense":









						Letter regarding Dr Vandana Shiva's anti-scientific and unethical stances
					

As Dr. Vandana Shiva has been invited to University of Missouri-Kansas City a group of scholars has penned a letter to C. Mauli Agrawal, chancellor of the university in order to remind “her anti-scientific and unethical stances”. Here is the letter and beneath, the UMKC’s response. This...




					www.europeanscientist.com
				












						Seeds of Doubt
					

Michael Specter on Vandana Shiva, an activist who accuses biotechnology companies such as Monsanto of imposing “food totalitarianism.” Others believe that G.M.O.s are the key to solving world hunger.




					www.newyorker.com


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Opportunity given to share...rejected in favour of hyperbole.
> 
> Are you not a vegan? Or are you just someone who coincidentally repudiates animal products while campaigning that animal agriculture is immoral and environmentally toxic?
> 
> One is a spectacular impersonation of t'other



 If you're too lazy to read what I've written or use the search function, maybe you should keep your ignorant observations to yourself. I've stated my position very clearly on multiple occasions.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 15, 2022)

editor said:


> Read the fucking thread or shut the fuck up, idiot. I've consistently stated my position.


Good luck with that


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> O
> 
> IIRC hasn't Shiva become somewhat controversial on recent years? I remember some good work of hers on monocultures and the spread of GM food way back when. She was very critical of the green revolution and her claims about farmer suicides have come under a lot of scrutiny for a dodgy use of statistics.


If by "controversial" you mean being supportive of regen ag, I suppose.

She's incredibly well respected in her field though.

The Dublin declaration is up to 470 sigs, whereas you'll find one or two names within the scientific community who advocate the massive processed "Monbiot" solution.

But don't let the willingness of hundreds of scientists to put their names to something detract from the _massive concensus  _apparently opposed wholesale to meat production.


Interesting to see vegan type posters on here now cosying up to the GMO lobby and Monsanto....

Also, really  interesting to see (if it is the article I'm thinking of), a repub of the 2014 New York Times article criticising Shiva, which she responded to at the time.
Ever since she sued Monsanto in 1999 for its illegal Bt cotton trials in India, she's received death threats and a  concerted PR assault on her on behalf of the biotech industry.

So much solidarity on a left wing board for a woman scientist of coulor being targeted by corporates.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Shiva has lost the plot.


She's always been anti GMO and industrial food production.

How many Mirodi prizes have you won?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 15, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> She's always been anti GMO and industrial food production.
> 
> How many Mirodi prizes have you won?



She’s also deeply unhinged.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 15, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> She’s also deeply unhinged.



I mean, she's been subjected to a fuckton of abuse over her career and hasn't stopped challenging GMO and colonialist attitudes in globalist ag - you think she shouldn't be allowed the occasional outburst?

Her view is "the rape of the Earth and rape of women are intimately linked, both metaphorically in shaping worldviews and materially in shaping women's everyday lives."

What is your issue with that view? Put it into more than one sentence, please.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> If by "controversial" you mean being supportive of regen ag, I suppose.
> 
> She's incredibly well respected in her field though.
> 
> ...


By controversial I mainly meant the farmer suicides thing. I'd read that the number had been misrepresented and something ridiculous like all the suicides in a state had been attributed to the issues around GM and debt. 
She should not be subject to death threats. 

As for the rest of your post go fuck yourself. I will not be asking for your expert opinion again.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I mean, she's been subjected to a fuckton of abuse over her career and hasn't stopped challenging GMO and colonialist attitudes in globalist ag - you think she shouldn't be allowed the occasional outburst?
> 
> Her view is "the rape of the Earth and rape of women are intimately linked, both metaphorically in shaping worldviews and materially in shaping women's everyday lives."
> 
> What is your issue with that view? Put it into more than one sentence, please.



There are pros and cons to the us of GM crops and there's a discussion to be about how they are, can and should be used, but comparing farmers who plant them to rapists is offensive and absurd.

On the other hand, "livestock" farming involves the widespread interference with the sexual organs and sexual reproductivity of animals and practices like electro-ejaculation and forced artificial insemination. If any farming should be compared to sexual violence its the animal agriculture that you and Shiva are cheerleaders for.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> By controversial I mainly meant the farmer suicides thing. I'd read that the number had been misrepresented and something ridiculous like all the suicides in a state had been attributed to the issues around GM and debt.
> She should not be subject to death threats.
> 
> As for the rest of your post go fuck yourself. I will not be asking for your expert opinion again.


It wasn't a response to your post, it was a response to the people saying that there's a massive consensus amongst the scientific community that all livestock farming is bad and then the constant attacks by people on here and elsewhere - not you. Sorry if you got the impression it was a dig.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It wasn't a response to your post, it was a response to the people saying that there's a massive consensus amongst the scientific community that all livestock farming is bad and then the constant attacks by people on here and elsewhere - not you. Sorry if you got the impression it was a dig.


Ok thank you for the apology.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> There are pros and cons to the us of GM crops and there's a discussion to be about how they are, can and should be used, but comparing farmers who plant them to rapists is offensive and absurd.
> 
> On the other hand, "livestock" farming involves the widespread interference with the sexual organs and sexual reproductivity of animals and practices like electro-ejaculation and forced artificial insemination. If any farming should be compared to sexual violence its the animal agriculture that you and Shiva are cheerleaders for.


Well, thanks for clearing up what women should and shouldn't feel is analogous to rape.

I know plenty women who work in animal ag and AI (inc semen collection) who don't think its akin to rape. They, unlike you have seen animal breeding, both natural service and AI and come to  that decision. FWIW, never seen electro stim used in either cattle or pigs for semen collection, not sure its even allowed in the UK.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Well, thanks for clearing up what women should and shouldn't feel is analogous to rape.
> 
> I know plenty women who work in animal ag and AI (inc semen collection) who don't think its akin to rape. They, unlike you have seen animal breeding, both natural service and AI and come to  that decision. FWIW, never seen electro stim used in either cattle or pigs for semen collection, not sure its even allowed in the UK.



Great, so in your (and Shiva's) pseudo-ecofeminist universe planting a crop is rape but forcibly constraining a female mammal, anally fisting her and injecting semen into her vagina so you can forcibly impregnate her, kidnap and murder her kids and subject her to lifetime of reproductive slavery is fine because some women do it. Further proof that animal ag apologists are morally bankrupt.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Great, so in your (and Shiva's) pseudo-ecofeminist universe planting a crop is rape but forcibly constraining a female mammal, anally fisting her and injecting semen into her vagina so you can forcibly impregnate her, kidnap and murder her kids and subject her to lifetime of reproductive slavery is fine because some women do it. Further proof that animal ag apologists are morally bankrupt.



No that just proves you don't understand cattle or what standing heat is.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> No that just proves you don't understand cattle or what standing heat is.



Totally irrelevant


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Totally irrelevant


Well, it is if you want to deliberately misunderstand how AI works to fuel your own political worldview, yes.

Ps, you don't have to restrain a cow to AI her, they stand there - hence "standing heat", lots of farmers don't. It is, however, best practice to put her in the crush.

I suspect you've not seen cattle or sheep mating naturally - they are much more likely to get injured doing that, not that I disapprove of it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Well, it is if you want to deliberately misunderstand how AI works to fuel your own political worldview, yes.
> 
> Ps, you don't have to restrain a cow to AI her, they stand there - hence "standing heat", lots of farmers don't. It is, however, best practice to put her in the crush.



"The chance of AI success is greatly increased when the cow is relaxed; it should stand on a level surface with plenty of grip. *The cow should also be appropriately restrained*."









						8-step guide to artificially inseminating a dairy cow - Farmers Weekly
					

DIY artificial insemination is a popular option on many dairy farms, but the results can be variable. Successful pregnancies depend on inseminating the




					www.fwi.co.uk
				




You have not disproved anything I said.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "The chance of AI success is greatly increased when the cow is relaxed; it should stand on a level surface with plenty of grip. *The cow should also be appropriately restrained*."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I said its best practice to put her in the crush - you don't have to though, they will just stand there.

Point is, however that you appear to have decided you are going to mansplain how a lot of women who actually work with animals should perceive rape.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I said its best practice to put her in the crush - you don't have to though, they will just stand there.
> 
> Point is, however that you appear to have decided you are going to mansplain how a lot of women who actually work with animals should perceive rape.



Your shallow identity politics don't do shit for me squire. Its dumb shit dude. "I have found a woman who agrees with me - I win!" - get a life.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

This is the world we want - and will get! Get rid of the animal abusers and throat slitters _entirely_ and replace them with precision fermentation. What could be better?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is the world we want - and will get! Get rid of the animal abusers and throat slitters _entirely_ and replace them with precision fermentation. What could be better?



Yes, highly processed foods have never been linked to poor human health outcomes, have they? 

And, of course, the massive food processing companies that own the factories are likely to be incredibly benevolent too, with their almost total control of the food supply chain.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Your shallow identity politics don't do shit for me squire. Its dumb shit dude. "I have found a woman who agrees with me - I win!" - get a life.


A woman?
50% of my students are women.

But please, continue to tell women how to think.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Yes, highly processed foods have never been linked to poor human health outcomes, have they?
> 
> And, of course, the massive food processing companies that own the factories are likely to be incredibly benevolent too, with their almost total control of the food supply chain.



Bring it on!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2022)

I've read a few things by Monbiot about those ideas and it still looks very hand-wavy in places. The question 'how does it scale?' isn't some side issue. It's key. 

I can't knock the ambition, though. He's not just going after the green revolution or the industrial revolution. He's going after farming as it's been done since the end of the last ice age.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> A woman?
> 50% of my students are women.
> 
> But please, continue to tell women how to think.



At an agricultural college? Yeah what a representative cross section of the public to think about farming ethics.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> At an agricultural college? Yeah what a representative cross section of the public to think about farming ethics.


University - also, just checked and the livestock specific modules much higher than that, they seem to be less interested in cropping for whatever reason.

Also, they are much better placed to have an opinion because they've actually done it.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Bring it on!


Such a weird position for someone on the left. 
Farmers may be annoying, but they are nebulous and almost all SMEs.

You'd be granting the likes of Cargill almost total control of all food.

That ought to terrify you.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Also, they are much better placed to have an opinion because they've actually done it.



Do you realise how fucking stupid that is? I'll give you a hint - try applying that 'logic' to any other ethically-contested practice and see how idiotic it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2022)

This is a good article about the unanswered questions about precision fermentation. There is lots to unpack.

What Consumers Should Ask About Precision Fermentation

Here are a few of the questions.



> What is in the cell culture medium and what is it derived from? The microorganisms need to eat if they are to grow and produce sellable commodities, like any type of livestock. Is the nutrient bath derived from corn or soy, typically genetically modified to withstand high dosages of herbicides? Are there supply chains in place to provide such nutrient media at scale? What is the caloric conversion and nutrient uptake efficiency of the microbes compared to animal livestock. How much farmland acreage would be impacted? What will be the input costs besides feedstock and how will that impact consumer prices?
> 
> How much waste material is produced by such microorganisms relative to sellable product? This includes metabolic wastes, as well as the leftover steep once the spent microbes and consumable material have been filtered out. How will such wastes be disposed of and who is ultimately responsible for it?
> 
> ...



It's quite a dystopian vision in many ways. Bland food of questionable nutritional value whose production is controlled by a small group of capitalists, and whose environmental costs are yet to be explained. Monbiot's being disingenuous to present this as a ready-made solution and he appears to be talking exclusively to the rich global North.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a good article about the unanswered questions about precision fermentation. There is lots to unpack.
> 
> What Consumers Should Ask About Precision Fermentation
> 
> ...


It's fucking terrifying for so many reasons.

I'd much rather see food production in more hands, not fewer.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Do you realise how fucking stupid that is? I'll give you a hint - try applying that 'logic' to any other ethically-contested practice and see how idiotic it is.


That people with experience have better undstanding of a practice that most people have never even seen?

Ok then


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> That people with experience have better undstanding of a practice that most people have never even seen?
> 
> Ok then



You've made many mistakes here. First, not experiencing something first hand doesn't mean that not witnessed it - I have witnessed footage of AI for example. And even if somebody hasn't witnessed a practice, they can still read about it and form assessments about it. I've never witnessed a murder - and I hope you haven't either - but we can still make moral assessments about murder.

But your idiocy runs deeper. You seem unable to grasp the incredibly simple point that people who participate in a practice might not always be in the best position to ethically evaluate it. Clear example - do you think a serial murderer is in a better position to understand murder than you because they've committed a bunch of murders and you haven't?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You've made many mistakes here. First, not experiencing something first hand doesn't mean that not witnessed it - I have witnessed footage of AI for example. And even if somebody hasn't witnessed a practice, they can still read about it and form assessments about it. I've never witnessed a murder - and I hope you haven't either - but we can still make moral assessments about murder.
> 
> But your idiocy runs deeper. You seem unable to grasp the incredibly simple point that people who participate in a practice might not always be in the best position to ethically evaluate it. Clear example - do you think a serial murderer is in a better position to understand murder than you because they've committed a bunch of murders and you haven't?



So you think that women involved with AI can't possibly evaluate it because they suddenly take leave of their senses and all rationality when doing it?
Funny, they often seem to be better at assisting births precisely because they have empathy. 

Also, we are not talking about a practice that is morally contested by more than a couple of percent of the population. 

Here's a video of AI that I use as an example of poor practice, mostly for hygiene reasons, but it does illustrate standing heat rather well (and no, one should not kiss the cow after one AIs it)


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> (and no, one should not kiss the cow after one AIs it)



Cigarette and a cuddle it is, then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You've made many mistakes here. First, not experiencing something first hand doesn't mean that not witnessed it - I have witnessed footage of AI for example. And even if somebody hasn't witnessed a practice, they can still read about it and form assessments about it. I've never witnessed a murder - and I hope you haven't either - but we can still make moral assessments about murder.
> 
> But your idiocy runs deeper. You seem unable to grasp the incredibly simple point that people who participate in a practice might not always be in the best position to ethically evaluate it. Clear example - do you think a serial murderer is in a better position to understand murder than you because they've committed a bunch of murders and you haven't?


The act of AI doesn't cause the cows much distress, does it? Bit of discomfort, perhaps, and maybe not even that.

There are plenty of practices to object to in livestock farming. This isn't one of them.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

8ball said:


> Cigarette and a cuddle it is, then.


Youd have to light it for her, but then, I suppose that is the gentlemanly thing to do.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> ... forcibly constraining a female mammal, anally fisting her and injecting semen into her vagina so you can forcibly impregnate her, kidnap and murder her kids and subject her to lifetime of reproductive slavery ...



Thoughtful and balanced as always, Jeff


----------



## Riklet (Nov 16, 2022)

Wait where was the anal fisting??

For me lots of livestock stuff is pretty grim. But a lot of stuff with food production is pretty grim if you watch videos of it.  Cant deny we need to focus less on animal farming overall in the UK tho....


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Riklet said:


> Wait where was the anal fisting??
> 
> For me lots of livestock stuff is pretty grim. But a lot of stuff with food production is pretty grim if you watch videos of it.


He will put his hand up the cows bum to find the cervix by pressing down - he then knows where to place the AI rod (vaginally) to inseminate correctly.

I'm sure if the cow objected to him putting his hand up her bum, shed have moved (which was kind of the point of me posting the video). It'd be hard forcibly impregnating a creature weighing a ton if it didn't want to be.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is the world we want - and will get! Get rid of the animal abusers and throat slitters _entirely_ and replace them with precision fermentation. What could be better?



In your dreams.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Great, so in your (and Shiva's) pseudo-ecofeminist universe planting a crop is rape but forcibly constraining a female mammal, anally fisting her and injecting semen into her vagina so you can forcibly impregnate her, kidnap and murder her kids and subject her to lifetime of reproductive slavery is fine because some women do it. Further proof that animal ag apologists are morally bankrupt.


Just shows how clueless some people are. Your problem is you are anthropomorthising the animals. The objective of most living things is to reproduce. You must have heard that rabbits breed like er rabbits? 

When a female dog is in heat it will quite happily let all other dogs shag it. Why do you think it would be different for cows, sheep, pigs or any other farm animal?

As an anus is as stretchy as a vagina why do you think that a hand up a cows arse, that is way smaller than a calf, would be any problem for a cow?

And why would an AI device that is a lot smaller still be a problem in a cows vagina?

Some people really need to learn a lot more about animals.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Just shows how clueless some people are. Your problem is you are anthropomorthising the animals. The objective of most living things is to reproduce. You must have heard that rabbits breed like er rabbits?
> 
> When a female dog is in heat it will quite happily let all other dogs shag it. Why do you think it would be different for cows, sheep, pigs or any other farm animal?
> 
> ...



Exactly, animals that aren't in heat don't stand still to allow themselves to be mounted.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 16, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Just shows how clueless some people are. Your problem is you are anthropomorthising the animals. The objective of most living things is to reproduce. You must have heard that rabbits breed like er rabbits?
> 
> When a female dog is in heat it will quite happily let all other dogs shag it. Why do you think it would be different for cows, sheep, pigs or any other farm animal?
> 
> ...


So what object smaller than a baby would you like up your stretchy anus tonight?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2022)

Is an anus as stretchy as a vagina?

Asking for a friend…


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

Given that it's only cows that are AI'd like that (pigs is a different technique, the catheter "locks" into the sow's cervix by twisting because the tip is corkscrew shaped like a boars penis) and sheep are not routinely AI'd, I'd say the anus doesn't stretch very much because it's reasonably easy to get your arm in there and the cow shows no sign of discomfort.
Cows are quite capable of kicking you if they want to.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Given that it's only cows that are AI'd like that (pigs is a different technique, the catheter "locks" into the sow's cervix by twisting because the tip is corkscrew shaped like a boars penis) and sheep are not routinely AI'd, I'd say the anus doesn't stretch very much because it's reasonably easy to get your arm in there and the cow shows no sign of discomfort.
> Cows are quite capable of kicking you if they want to.



I guess that corkscrew business means a lot of gyration.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 16, 2022)

8ball said:


> I guess that corkscrew business means a lot of gyration.


They can spin the tip, yes - I used to work on a boar stud where semen is collected for AI.

It's done by hand, incidentally (the collection).


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 17, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> So what object smaller than a baby would you like up your stretchy anus tonight?


Being gay I can think of lots.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

Yet more evidence stacks up of the damage caused to the environment by the meat and dairy industry:



> The combined methane emissions of 15 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies are higher than those of several of the world’s largest countries, including Russia, Canada and Australia, according to a new study.
> 
> The analysis from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and Changing Markets Foundation found that emissions by the companies – five meat and 10 dairy corporations – equate to more than 80% of the European Union’s entire methane footprint and account for 11.1% of the world’s livestock-related methane emissions.





> Methane, expelled by cows and their manure, is far more potent than carbon dioxide, trapping heat 80 times more effectively and emissions are accelerating rapidly, according to the UN.











						Methane emissions from 15 meat and dairy companies rival those of the EU
					

Combined emissions from 15 companies equate to more than 80% of EU’s entire methane footprint, study finds




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2022)

Methane emitting animals in "emitting methane" shocker.

If we stopped farming cattle and sheep tomorrow, ruminants would still exist.

Indeed, rewilding projects are starting to bring in bison to balance ecosystems - guess what? These are also ruminants.
Wherever you have grasslands and woodlands you are going to have ruminants.
Some ruminants:
Cows
Sheep
Goats
Deer
Bison
Moose
Elk
Buffalo
Giraffes
Camelids are pseudo ruminants, so will still emit methane.

The methane issue is far more complex than that.
Here's an article that talks about the complexities of methane - Methane facts and information

Those articles are very interestingly worded - yes, the cattle companies emit more methane, but almost worded to suggest they emit more overall - enteric methane makes up a small amount of overall GHG emissions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

The key measure is the change from before, isn't it? So the problem with burning fossil fuels is that you're releasing new CO2 into the atmosphere, carbon that's been locked away for millions of years, rather than just cycling current carbon as you do when, eg, growing then burning trees.

It is clearly significant that methane levels have gone up so much in the last couple of hundred years, and there's little doubt that we're responsible for most if not all of that increase. But the various contributors may not all be equal in terms of new emissions.

One figure I'd want to know is what proportion of the 40% of human-activity-related methane emission that is attributed to livestock is actually new emission rather than replacing the ruminants that came before. Similarly, how much of the paddy field emission is 'new'? And finally, of course, emissions from oil and gas drilling may only make up 20% of the human-related budget but presumably all of that is 'new'.

What level of emission reduction by humans would take us back to where we were at different points in the past? And which bits of current emissions are easiest to mitigate? Clearly mitigating the effects of rice and meat is hard without changing the demand for rice and meat, but mitigating that 20% from fossil fuel drilling should be the easy bit - it's something we need to stop doing anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

To add to the above, there also needs to be a sensible discussion about which bits of ruminant farming it is realistic to demand to be changed. US-style intensive feedlot farming is an easy target, while at the other extreme would be the Maasai in East Africa - I would hope nobody would be so crass as to suggest that they are part of the problem.

In between those two extremes would be somewhere like India, which is the world's biggest producer and consumer of dairy. In the case of India, one of the reasons so much dairy is consumed is that hundreds of millions of people there are lacto-vegetarians. Again, considered against a broader background, it's not obvious that the lacto-vegetarians of India should be held responsible for global warming and ordered to change their ways, ways that in many cases are rooted in thousands of years of tradition. (In many parts of India, as in East Africa and Europe, there is a very high incidence of the gene for lifelong lactose-tolerance - it's been selected independently wherever dairy consumption has become a part of the culture.)

This is the weakest point of the the simplistic solutions of the likes of Monbiot. They fail to consider the world as it actually is and the cultures and ways of life of the people in it. People like Monbiot must sound like voices from an alien planet to a Maasai cow herder or an Indian dairy farmer.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One figure I'd want to know is what proportion of the 40% of human-activity-related methane emission that is attributed to livestock is actually new emission rather than replacing the ruminants that came before. Similarly, how much of the paddy field emission is 'new'? And finally, of course, emissions from oil and gas drilling may only make up 20% of the human-related budget but presumably all of that is 'new'.



Well, quite - they estimate that 40 million bison in the USA alone were killed in the 19th century, so much so that it caused a mini ice age. 
Add to that the decline of the European bison, buffaloes Giraffes etc on the African savannah. 

Ruminants, grasslands and rumination have been on the earth for millions of years. 
Farming less ruminants would only be significant if they were not then replaced by wild ruminants, and we have no idea what the impact on grassland ecosystems would be.

It's a good way to distract ourselves from fossil fuels though I guess.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the weakest point of the the simplistic solutions of the likes of Monbiot. They fail to consider the world as it actually is and the cultures and ways of life of the people in it. People like Monbiot must sound like voices from an alien planet to a Maasai cow herder or an Indian dairy farmer


It's colonialism - imagined wildernesses by urban, wealthy northern Europeans/North Americans, completely ignoring rural populations, rendering them "unnatural" in their native landscape.

The intellectual groundwork is being laid here too, for a new Highland clearances for massive "carbon offset" tree planting excercises.
Once a year I lose myself in the Hebrides to walk and think – before going back to the life I love

Look at the language here - how many times the author only considers himself and how the inhabitants of the Western Isles are completely airbrushed from the landscape. Reading it, you'd think nobody lived there.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 17, 2022)

editor said:


> Yet more evidence stacks up of the damage caused to the environment by the meat and dairy industry:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem with this is that it doesn't really tell us anything. 

It sounds shocking: some corporate titans emit more than some countries. But what does that actually mean in real terms?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It's a good way to distract ourselves from fossil fuels though I guess.


This is my concern. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is the major issue here. It is more important than everything else put together, but you wouldn't guess that sometimes. Fundamentally, this is the 'new' greenhouse gas contribution that has driven the changes in the planet's climate.

Using the US as the exemplar of how the rich world needs to change its ways, their own government's figures make it crystal clear what the problem is.

Where greenhouse gases come from - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Without wishing to sound like I'm in denial about methane, it is clear that there is an additional agenda among many who are currently jumping on it as a major problem. Overwhelmingly, these are people who want to see livestock farming ended for other reasons. I'd rather they were honest about that and stuck to the real reason they want it ended, which has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> The problem with this is that it doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> It sounds shocking: some corporate titans emit more than some countries. But what does that actually mean in real terms?


It means people should eat fewer meat and dairy products and factory farming should be ended.

You did read the article, yes?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It's colonialism - imagined wildernesses by urban, wealthy northern Europeans/North Americans, completely ignoring rural populations, rendering them "unnatural" in their native landscape.
> 
> The intellectual groundwork is being laid here too, for a new Highland clearances for massive "carbon offset" tree planting excercises.
> Once a year I lose myself in the Hebrides to walk and think – before going back to the life I love
> ...


tbf I don't have such a problem with city-types talking like that. Living in a city, I also appreciate the idea of 'getting away'. When I was a kid, I used to take myself away to places where I couldn't see any person or building. Of course I was still inside a landscape shaped by human activity, but I had a need to feel that I was away from it somehow. 

But yes, in doing that we need to acknowledge what we're doing, that it's a romantic and largely false idea, and that we city-types are not the whole world.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

editor said:


> It means people should eat fewer meat and dairy products and factory farming should be ended.
> 
> You did read the article, yes?


Which people?


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which people?


As many people as practically possible.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 17, 2022)

"how dare you dictate to struggling families with no access to fresh fruit and veg" again again


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 17, 2022)

editor said:


> It means people should eat fewer meat and dairy products and factory farming should be ended.
> 
> You did read the article, yes?


Yes it provided no information.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

editor said:


> As many people as practically possible.


Indian lacto-vegetarians not so much, then. Dairy is a very important part of their diet, not to mention their culture. 

I agree strongly with Funky Monks on this particular point - any one-size-fits-all pronouncement is going to sound an awful lot like neocolonialism. Cos that's what it is. And worse than that, it is a list of demands on those who are not the problem from those who are the problem. Why the fuck should poor Indians change their diets because the rich world has failed to address its addiction to fossil fuels?


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

ddraig said:


> "how dare you dictate to struggling families with no access to fresh fruit and veg" again again


Meanwhile: Lambeth Council launches pilot project offering fruit and vegetables on prescription to residents


----------



## ddraig (Nov 17, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Yes it provided no information.


All you want is things to pick holes in to justify not doing anything different


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Indian lacto-vegetarians not so much, then. Dairy is a very important part of their diet, not to mention their culture.
> 
> I agree strongly with Funky Monks on this particular point - any one-size-fits-all pronouncement is going to sound an awful lot like neocolonialism. Cos that's what it is. And worse than that, it is a list of demands on those who are not the problem from those who are the problem. Why the fuck should poor Indians change their diets because the rich world has failed to address its addiction to fossil fuels?


Do you really not understand what "as many people as *practically possible*" means?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 17, 2022)

Ah!! 
A variation on the "how dare you" post, brilliant


----------



## ddraig (Nov 17, 2022)

editor said:


> Do you really not understand what "as many people as *practically possible*" means?


Course they do just willfully ignoring and need something, any little thing to keep up the attack


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

editor said:


> Do you really not understand what "as many people as *practically possible*" means?


In that case, I look forward to seeing your next stream of links on the subject making proper differentiation between the people you think need to change and the people you don't think need to change. Up to now, none of your links and streams of figures has made that distinction.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In that case, I look forward to seeing your next stream of links on the subject making proper differentiation between the people you think need to change and the people you don't think need to change. Up to now, none of your links and streams of figures has made that distinction.



Is this extreme whataboutery really the best you can come up with?

But do you think the planet need to consume less meat and dairy YES/NO?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

editor said:


> Is this extreme whataboutery really the best you can come up with?
> 
> But do you think the planet need to consume less meat and dairy YES/NO?


'The planet' needs to stop extracting fossil fuels from under the ground and burning them. That's the overwhelming issue here as a cursory glance of the US emissions tables will tell you.

When it comes to food, it doesn't make sense to talk about 'the planet' in the same way. It's far more complicated. We in the rich world very certainly need to change our ways to more sustainable methods. How much meat and dairy can be involved in that is a question to be considered in the whole not in isolation because farming systems are interlinked. Destructive factory farming methods and monocultures (which includes more than just meat and dairy) need to be ended, for sure.

As I've said to you many times on these threads, the big question 'how should we farm' is imo an interesting and complex one. Far more localism will be a part of that, and far more mixed farming, intercropping, etc. Certain aspects of meat farming could even need to be expanded in such a holistic approach, such as mussel or oyster farming.

But you crack on and post yet another rehashing of figures taken from Poore and Nemecek if that's what makes you happy.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2022)

As usual, Funky Monks and LBJ the only 2 posters worth reading for the last 2 pages.

All piss, wind, and snide stealth likes otherwise.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> The problem with this is that it doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> It sounds shocking: some corporate titans emit more than some countries. But what does that actually mean in real terms?


Emit more _methane _only. Methane itself makes up a very small part of total GHG emissions.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'The planet' needs to stop extracting fossil fuels from under the ground and burning them. That's the overwhelming issue here as a cursory glance of the US emissions tables will tell you.
> 
> When it comes to food, it doesn't make sense to talk about 'the planet' in the same way. It's far more complicated. We in the rich world very certainly need to change our ways to more sustainable methods. How much meat and dairy can be involved in that is a question to be considered in the whole not in isolation because farming systems are interlinked. Destructive factory farming methods and monocultures (which includes more than just meat and dairy) need to be ended, for sure.
> 
> ...


It was a simple yes/no question, not an invite for you to indulge in yet more evasive whataboutery.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'The planet' needs to stop extracting fossil fuels from under the ground and burning them. That's the overwhelming issue here as a cursory glance of the US emissions tables will tell you.
> 
> When it comes to food, it doesn't make sense to talk about 'the planet' in the same way. It's far more complicated. We in the rich world very certainly need to change our ways to more sustainable methods. How much meat and dairy can be involved in that is a question to be considered in the whole not in isolation because farming systems are interlinked. Destructive factory farming methods and monocultures (which includes more than just meat and dairy) need to be ended, for sure.
> 
> ...



Excellent answer. Only a fool would answer yes or no to a totally loaded and uneducated question.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *'The planet' needs to stop extracting fossil fuels *from under the ground and burning them. That's the overwhelming issue here as a cursory glance of the US emissions tables will tell you.
> 
> When it comes to food, it doesn't make sense to talk about 'the planet' in the same way. It's far more complicated. We in the rich world very certainly need to change our ways to more sustainable methods. How much meat and dairy can be involved in that is a question to be considered in the whole not in isolation because farming systems are interlinked. Destructive factory farming methods and monocultures (which includes more than just meat and dairy) need to be ended, for sure.
> 
> ...



What about the taxi driver in Khartoum trying to earn a meagre living to support their family. That you - a westerner - are demanding that a poor African should give up his livelihood when the vast majority of C02 emissions are from the industrialised West demonstrates a neo-colonial attitude. This is why I will continue supporting BP, Shell and Esso, because, unlike some, I'm opposed to capitalism and imperialism.

See what your cheep parlour tricks to avoid confronting the ethical and environmental impact of the meat industry sound like?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> What about the taxi driver in Khartoum trying to earn a meagre living to support their family. That you - a westerner - are demanding that a poor African should give up his livelihood when the vast majority of C02 emissions are from the industrialised West demonstrates a neo-colonial attitude. This is why I will continue supporting BP, Shell and Esso, because, unlike some, I'm opposed to capitalism and imperialism.
> 
> See what your cheep parlour tricks to avoid confronting the ethical and environmental impact of the meat industry sound like?


That's an easy one. Said taxi driver will eventually have to switch to an alternative because the oil will no longer be extracted to make the petrol to power his taxi. He's a very long way down the list of those who need to change their ways, but he is on that list. However, lots of other things need to happen first. In particular, we will need to use fossil fuels as energy in order to build the infrastructure to replace them. I'm not proposing ending oil overnight - that can't be done and shouldn't be done.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's an easy one. Said taxi driver will eventually have to switch to an alternative because the oil will no longer be extracted to make the petrol to power his taxi. He's a very long way down the list of those who need to change their ways, but he is on that list. However, lots of other things need to happen first. In particular, we will need to use fossil fuels as energy in order to build the infrastructure to replace them. I'm not proposing ending oil overnight - that can't be done and shouldn't be done.



And you think anyone here thinks all meat can be banned over night? You don't think your Maasai cow herder is low down the list of concerns for people like me who want the total eradication of the meat industry?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And you think anyone here thinks all meat can be banned over night? You don't think your Maasai cow herder is low down the list of concerns for people like me who want the total eradication of the meat industry?


They're on your list, though, no? As are Indian dairy farmers.

It is neocolonialism for them to even appear on your list in a way that is not true of the Khartoum taxi driver. The taxi driver is embedded in the world fossil fuel system - that's how his car gets made and his petrol gets to the petrol station. As said world system changes, so he will have to change with it. That's a very different case from insisting that people abandon a way of life they have followed for thousands of years.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're on your list, though, no? As are Indian dairy farmers.



Only in the sense that tobacco growers in Malawi are on my list. I'd like to see an end to the tobacco industry. Would you?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're on your list, though, no? As are Indian dairy farmers.



Better example, I'd like to see the end to oil refinery workers, as you have already admitted you would. There is no difference between us other than our views on the meat industry. You are no less 'colonialist' than I am.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Excellent answer. Only a fool would answer yes or no to a totally loaded and uneducated question.


Asking a question that doesn't have a yes/no answer in that format is ridiculous.
Who should eat less meat?
What kind of meat?
What is the climate in that place?
What else grows there?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Asking a question that doesn't have a yes/no answer in that format is ridiculous.
> Who should eat less meat?
> What kind of meat?
> What is the climate in that place?
> What else grows there?



I think _almost _everyone realises that.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2022)

Some people need to reeducate themselves with the rules of mutual ignore.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 17, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Emit more _methane _only. Methane itself makes up a very small part of total GHG emissions.


it also leaves the atmosphere after a few years iirc


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2022)

After his "misogyny tour" on previous pages, I shall christen this one "The white Jeff's burden"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

The sad thing is that there's an interesting discussion to be had here. But arrogant fundamentalism of the Monbiot kind isn't it.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is my concern. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is the major issue here. It is more important than everything else put together, but you wouldn't guess that sometimes. Fundamentally, this is the 'new' greenhouse gas contribution that has driven the changes in the planet's climate.
> 
> Using the US as the exemplar of how the rich world needs to change its ways, their own government's figures make it crystal clear what the problem is.
> 
> ...


I think it's also been jumped on by some (not here) to divert attention from the fossil fuel issue. As I've mentioned before the first people I remember talking about it  were deniers during the An Inconvenient Truth hype. 

How accurate are figures for methane emissions these days? Is there still the issue of leakage not being taken into account?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The sad thing is that there's an interesting discussion to be had here.



Well, not literally _here_…


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 17, 2022)

Obviously not here


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Only in the sense that tobacco growers in Malawi are on my list. I'd like to see an end to the tobacco industry. Would you?


The Indian dairy industry is the biggest in the world. India accounts for nearly a quarter of the world's milk production. Nearly all of that production is for domestic use.

Some numbers on that

It's been growing rapidly over the last few years. That growth will probably slow as population growth slows. But it's not going anywhere. And India has a big job on its collective hands feeding nearly 1.5 billion people. However, any attempt to end dairy farming around the world that doesn't touch a place that does a quarter of it isn't going to get very far.

It's not just India, either. Pakistan is the world's fourth-largest dairy producer, 80% of it produced on a small scale by rural producers. Bangladesh is now more or less self-sufficient in both rice and milk (both methane-producers). That's pretty important for nutrition in poor countries in the Global South. And we're now up to about a third of the world's milk production in those three countries. I could go on...

Yet again, your counterexamples aren't much use here. Malawian tobacco growers aren't growing tobacco for their fellow Malawians. They're locked into a global tobacco industry.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 17, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And you think anyone here thinks all meat can be banned over night? You don't think your Maasai cow herder is low down the list of concerns for people like me who want the total eradication of the meat industry?


Whereas it's relatively simple to stop fossil fuel use by just turning the tap off you'll never stop meat eating. Poaching has been illegal for ages yet still goes on, it would just increase. So animals would still get slaughtered for food.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 18, 2022)

Stirling university students take bold stance against animal abuse and environmental devastation. Obviously the gammon press are pretending to furious about it, one wonders what the 'anti-colonial' animal ag apologists on U75 will think? 









						Stirling University Students' Union votes to go 100% vegan
					

Stirling University Students' Union aims to phase out meat and dairy products from outlets by 2025.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Stirling university students take bold stance against animal abuse and environmental devastation. Obviously the gammon press are pretending to furious about it, one wonders what the 'anti-colonial' animal ag apologists on U75 will think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great stuff and - I imagine - they won't be the only ones.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 18, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Stirling university students take bold stance against animal abuse and environmental devastation. Obviously the gammon press are pretending to furious about it, one wonders what the 'anti-colonial' animal ag apologists on U75 will think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would be interesting to see what the majority of the students think about that.


----------



## butcher (Nov 18, 2022)

I see that gormless twat Packham has jumped on the bandwagon.


Good luck to them.  I hope they enjoy their tofu, I am sure being vegan in small town Scotland will be a doddle.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 18, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Stirling university students take bold stance against animal abuse and environmental devastation. Obviously the gammon press are pretending to furious about it, one wonders what the 'anti-colonial' animal ag apologists on U75 will think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't really understand how colonialism (neo or otherwise) works, do you?

Its very little to do with the privileged students of Stirling SU. It may have something to do withe the food they serve though - avocados from south America, green beans from Kenya etc. 

Also, do you talk like that in real life? Is every conversation with you like talking to an article written in one of the tabloids?


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 18, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Would be interesting to see what the majority of the students think about that.


Well, if previous attempts at this at other universities are anything to go by, the student body get narked with the actions of the SU and they about face.

It's not coming in until 2025, so we'll see.

As other posters have said, good luck finding a local, sustainable vegan menu in Stirling.

I have no real issue with it though, we don't live in a Monbiot dystopia yet - most of that vegan food will need a farmer still, Id just prefer that they supported local ones and shorter supply chains.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Stirling university students take bold stance against animal abuse and environmental devastation. Obviously the gammon press are pretending to furious about it, one wonders what the 'anti-colonial' animal ag apologists on U75 will think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Odd way to introduce a subject. I take it you have nothing further to say about Indian dairy farming, then?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 18, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Odd way to introduce a subject. I take it you have nothing further to say about Indian dairy farming, then?



I think it sucks, but you probably could’ve guessed that already?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 18, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think it sucks, but you probably could’ve guessed that already?



Wouldn’t get much milk if it blew.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 19, 2022)

Another stake-in-the-heart for the (slaughter) steak industry!



> The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will allow a California company called Upside Foods to take living cells from chickens and then grow them in a controlled laboratory environment to produce a meat product that doesn’t involve the actual slaughter of any animals.











						US declares lab-grown meat safe to eat in ‘groundbreaking’ move
					

The government’s approval will open the market for a food praised for being more efficient and environmentally friendly




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 19, 2022)

‘Dangerously out-of-control cow’ tramples elderly man in Wales
					

Seriously injured victim airlifted to hospital after escaped animal went on rampage in Carmarthenshire village




					www.theguardian.com
				




The animals at the heart of the evil meat Empire Strike Back, _until the owner agrees for it to be used as target practice for the Police Fire Arms amateurs. _


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 20, 2022)

As long as they take care to only gore and trample meat-eaters I can think of no moral case against such acts of bovine vengeance. Not necessarily a great tactical move though, it'd surely be better to pick off the occasional isolated victim when there's no witnesses and then just go straight back to acting like a normal cow.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Another stake-in-the-heart for the (slaughter) steak industry!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you could do it with humans as well so we could have ethical cannibalism. Brilliant


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2022)

Looks like livestock could be creating even more greenhoiuse gas than the official figures:



> Cows, sheep, pigs and other livestock are responsible for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a peer-reviewed assessment led by researchers at the University of Illinois and published last year.





> And researchers fear the impact may be greater, after recent efforts to measure emissions at individual U.S. farms - by, say, flying a methane-detecting plane over them – showed them churning out much more than estimated.
> 
> "We seem to be wildly off. Virtually every time these ... measurements are conducted they disagree with (official data)," said Matthew Hayek, a researcher at New York University.











						Meat on the menu, not the agenda, at COP27 climate conference
					

On any morning at the COP27 climate conference, you can expect a gauntlet of anti-meat protesters wearing pig and cow costumes, holding banners decrying the carbon footprint of livestock, and chanting slogans like "Let's be vegan, let's be free."




					www.reuters.com
				




*Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods*









						Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods - Nature Food
					

The quantification of greenhouse gas emissions related to food production and consumption is still largely hindered by the availability of spatial data consistent across sectors. This study provides a detailed account of emissions from land-use change, farmland, livestock and activities beyond...




					www.nature.com


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 20, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> you could do it with humans as well so we could have ethical cannibalism. Brilliant



You think that would be worse than what we currently do? I wonder if you can articulate why in the form of an _argument_. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## philosophical (Nov 20, 2022)

Animals claiming agency.









						Tamworth Two - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 20, 2022)

philosophical said:


> Animals claiming agency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see they both ended up being euthanised


----------



## philosophical (Nov 21, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> I see they both ended up being euthanised


Sadly.
But they gave it a go, and I think their story might have created some vegans/vegetarians.
Two lives not lived in vain.


----------



## bcuster (Nov 22, 2022)

Glimpse of the post_meat future:









						Can you tax a cow’s burps? New Zealand will be the first to try.
					

In a nation with seven times more livestock than people, taxing farmers for herds’ greenhouse gas emissions is a controversial proposal.




					www.nationalgeographic.co.uk


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Glimpse of the post_meat future:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fantastic idea.



> So last month, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern unveiled a plan for New Zealand’s farmers to pay new taxes based on calculations of their herds’ emissions.
> 
> The money raised by the tax would be returned to the ag industry for research, technology, and incentive payments to farmers for their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases—by planting trees on their land, for example.


----------



## stavros (Nov 22, 2022)

Ireland have already tried it, albeit with sheep:


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 22, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> I see they both ended up being euthanised


In the olden days it would have been euthanasia by wolf.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 22, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> In the olden days it would have been euthanasia by wolf.


To be blunt, they would have eaten alive by wolf


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2022)

And here's the problem right here:

Britons generally unwilling to give up meat and dairy to save the climate​


> Giving up entirely on meat and dairy is regularly cited as one of the most significant environmentally-friendly changes an individual can make.
> 
> However, fewer than a quarter of Britons are willing to cut meat and dairy from their diet completely (16% are willing while an additional 8% say they are already doing so), while more than six in ten (62%) say they’re unwilling to do so.





> And nearly half of the public (45%) are unwilling to pay more for meat and dairy products, despite scientists saying food with a high carbon footprint – such as meat – should come with a heftier price tag. A quarter (25%) would be happy to take on the extra cost, however, while 6% say they already pay a premium.



Thank fuck for young people:











						Most people are worried about climate change – but what are they willing to do about it? | YouGov
					

Britons believe there’s still time to avoid the worst effects of climate change




					yougov.co.uk


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 22, 2022)

Article on BBC claims 10% of ghg's come from the fashion business so a good and easy way for everyone to save on ghg's would be to stop buying so many clothes.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 22, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Article on BBC claims 10% of ghg's come from the fashion business so a good and easy way for everyone to save on ghg's would be to stop buying so many clothes.



Def a factor (and maybe one for another thread tbf).  Not just the ghg’s either, but toxic chemicals, water use, unpleasant labour practices at both production and disposal end… it goes on…
Just the idea of “fashion” and buying clothes based on what some priesthood says is “in this season”.

All a bit shit.

I think we already have a thread on it somewhere.


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Article on BBC claims 10% of ghg's come from the fashion business so a good and easy way for everyone to save on ghg's would be to stop buying so many clothes.


Every little bit helps but this thread is about the horrendous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions created by animal based foods.

As the United Nations says: 



> The climate impact of food is measured in terms of greenhouse gas emissions intensity. The emissions intensity is expressed in kilograms of “carbon dioxide equivalents” – which includes not only CO2 but all greenhouse gases – per kilogram of food, per gram of protein or per calorie.
> 
> Animal-based foods, especially red meat, dairy, and farmed shrimp, are generally associated with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. This is because:
> 
> ...











						Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet | United Nations
					






					www.un.org


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


> Every little bit helps but this thread is about the horrendous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions created by animal based foods.


And at 10% fashion is almost as bad as meat and *everyone *can cut down on the amount of clothes they buy. Vegetarians can't cut down on the amount of meat they eat.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2022)

Round and round we go. More stuff after Poore and Nemecek 2018 - all been posted here before. 

I guess the plan is just spam the thread as much as possible with the same shit until people can't be arsed to reply. 

If I could really be arsed, Id rummage back and post the same posts in response to them as I did last time, but, I can't.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> And at 10% fashion is almost as bad as meat and *everyone *can cut down on the amount of clothes they buy. Vegetarians can't cut down on the amount of meat they eat.


As previously discussed, its a fuckload more complex than that anyway, but I guess people like very simple "just do this" solutions to very complex problems. 

All this with a background of food shortages.......


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> And at 10% fashion is almost as bad as meat and *everyone *can cut down on the amount of clothes they buy. Vegetarians can't cut down on the amount of meat they eat.


I've bought more clothes this year than the last 4 years combined I reckon. About 12 T shirts. 18 pants and a similar number of socks. Maybe 24 pairs. A pair of shorts two hoodies (+1 on a time share). Above numbers include presents etc. I also invested in some waterproof trainers today and some vans a couple of months ago. Is that a lot, a little or a middle? I've definitely gone nuts with shoes tbh. I used to get one maybe two pairs a year but got about 5 or 6 in the last two years including sandals and other stuff that gets trashed in water. I also have wellies bought in late 2018.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 23, 2022)

> Testing found evidence of antibiotic-resistant E.coli and Staphylococcus aureus in locations including Norfolk and the Wye Valley​
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Britons at risk as rivers 'awash' with antibiotic-resistant superbugs
					

Testing found evidence of antibiotic-resistant E.coli and Staphylococcus aureus in locations including Norfolk and the Wye Valley




					inews.co.uk
				




Apparently the use of antibiotics is going down but the UK has not banned preventative use like the EU.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> I've bought more clothes this year than the last 4 years combined I reckon. About 12 T shirts. 18 pants and a similar number of socks. Maybe 24 pairs. A pair of shorts two hoodies (+1 on a time share). Above numbers include presents etc. I also invested in some waterproof trainers today and some vans a couple of months ago. Is that a lot, a little or a middle? I've definitely gone nuts with shoes tbh. I used to get one maybe two pairs a year but got about 5 or 6 in the last two years including sandals and other stuff that gets trashed in water. I also have wellies bought in late 2018.



I think the problem with blaming fashion etc is best illustrated by Terry Pratchett's "boots" theory - 

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an _affordable_ pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that _good_ boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and _would still have wet feet"_

Although It is somewhat more complex. 
Ive just bought 4 pairs work trousers because my last lot were starting to get a bit threadbare etc, would I have still had to do that if I could afford more expensive trousers?
I have expensive shoes, Im still wearing t hem every day and I bought them in 2017 - they may need resoling at some point.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Britons at risk as rivers 'awash' with antibiotic-resistant superbugs
> 
> 
> Testing found evidence of antibiotic-resistant E.coli and Staphylococcus aureus in locations including Norfolk and the Wye Valley
> ...


You won't pass your farm assurance if you do (unless vet approved). You'd also need to consult with a vet - antibiotics are prescribed, you can't just buy them over the counter.

However, the good news is:
Antibiotic use has more than halved over the past 6 years
UK veterinary antibiotics sales more than halved over the past six years

But actually, much more critically where human health is concerned:
"........it is crucial to use them responsibly, and to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics, especially Highest Priority Critically Important Antibiotics (HP-CIAs) - which are vitally important for human medicine - in animals. This is the sixth consecutive year of declines, giving a total reduction of 79% since 2014, and they now account for only 0.5% of the total antibiotic sales in 2020"

Vets just won't give you them - I had a hell of a time trying to get Baytril for my dog a while back and she (obviously) wasn't going to enter the food chain.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 23, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I think the problem with blaming fashion etc is best illustrated by Terry Pratchett's "boots" theory -
> 
> "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an _affordable_ pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that _good_ boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and _would still have wet feet"_
> 
> ...


It's expensive being poor.

A lot of the problem though is fast fashion.  Shit that's bought, worn a couple of times and ditched. I don't think Pratchett's boots come into that.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 23, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> You won't pass your farm assurance if you do (unless vet approved). You'd also need to consult with a vet - antibiotics are prescribed, you can't just buy them over the counter.
> 
> However, the good news is:
> Antibiotic use has more than halved over the past 6 years
> ...


The article does talk about the reductions.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> The article does talk about the reductions.


It does, but I don't think it mentions that its specific classes of antibiotics that are the critically important ones for human health.

There are, of course other reasons to reduce antibiotic use for animal health, superbugs could have serious impacts on food production.

However, I think it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - antibiotics are incredibly useful things, just at the right dose at the right time. I've never used them in a preventative way, but I have used them to treat animals and I would consider it negligent if people didn't.

Edited to add - one of those is the Wye, which is full of human sewage, there nothing to say superbugs didn't come from that.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> And at 10% fashion is almost as bad as meat and *everyone *can cut down on the amount of clothes they buy. Vegetarians can't cut down on the amount of meat they eat.


It's literally _nowhere near_ as bad. 

But I don't  buy loads of clothes anyway.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Britons at risk as rivers 'awash' with antibiotic-resistant superbugs
> 
> 
> Testing found evidence of antibiotic-resistant E.coli and Staphylococcus aureus in locations including Norfolk and the Wye Valley
> ...



It's utterly appalling.



> British rivers are “awash” with antibiotic-resistant superbugs and drug residues linked to pollution from livestock farms, according to new research.
> 
> Testing commissioned by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) found evidence in locations including Norfolk and the idyllic Wye Valley of antibiotic-resistant E.coli and Staphylococcus aureus – two microbes blamed for rising human infections and deaths – in waterways near poultry and pig farms.
> 
> Genes indicating resistance to antibiotics were found downstream from so-called “factory farms” raising pigs and chickens as well as in waste from cattle farms, suggesting harder-to-treat microbes are entering the environment from farming locations.





> Data released on Monday showed there were nearly 150 daily severe antibiotic-resistant infections in England last year, with the UK Health Security Agency warning that resistance is emerging against even the newest antibiotics.
> 
> According to the World Health Organisation, some 1.27m people are already dying globally each year as a result of AMR, a figure that will rise to 10 million by 2050, unless action such as reducing antibiotic use is taken.
> 
> Campaigners have long raised concern that intensive livestock farming techniques, which place animals in close proximity to each other in conditions potentially allowing bacteria to thrive, are exacerbating the threat posed by AMR by encouraging use of antibiotics to both treat and prevent disease.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2022)

GHG Emissions from *all agriculture:* 14% (which includes cropping and land use change), *livestock and manure 5.8%. *
Fashion: 10%

Hmm.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 23, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I guess the plan is just spam the thread as much as possible with the same shit until people can't be arsed to reply.



Certainly seems to be your strategy.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 23, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It does, but I don't think it mentions that its specific classes of antibiotics that are the critically important ones for human health.
> 
> There are, of course other reasons to reduce antibiotic use for animal health, superbugs could have serious impacts on food production.
> 
> ...


Isn't critically important just one of the WHO categories though? I mean they are all important highlighted by the fact that the lowest category is important. The critically important are often those that are a last line of defence against bacteria that already have a high level of resistance.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

Here's another great idea:



> Wahaca introduced carbon labels to give customers clear information about their choices, she says. People feel "completely overwhelmed" by the extreme weather events they are witnessing around the world, such as the devastating floods in Pakistan, says Miers. "[Carbon labels] help them realise that they do actually have quite a lot of power at their fingertips.
> 
> "Food choices are political. If we begin to realise this and start voting with our mouths, then we have a lot of power as a consumer."





> Our food choices have a huge impact on the climate. Global food production is responsible for 35% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Within that figure, emissions from plant-based foods contribute 29%, while emissions from animal-based foods account for 57%. The remaining emissions come from the conversion of land used to grow crops such as cotton into fields for food crops. And while animal products contribute the majority of emissions, they provide only 20% of the world's calories.





> The restaurant chain partnered with Swedish startup Klimato, which calculates and communicates the climate impact of food, to develop the labelling system.
> 
> Dishes with a CO2e (or "CO2 equivalent") level of 0.6kg or lower, such as a sweet potato burrito (0.46kg), are labelled "low carbon". If they have a carbon footprint between 0.6kg and 1.6kg of CO2e, such as a grilled chicken club quesadilla, they are "medium-carbon". Any dishes with a higher footprint, such as a chargrilled steak burrito (3.04kg CO2e), are tagged "high-carbon".
> 
> The calculations cover the emissions of growing all the ingredients, as well as those generated transporting, storing and cooking them.



It seems to work too, with more people going for veggie/low emission meals:


> Study participants were presented with a menu in one of the following four formats: high-emission defaults with or without carbon labels, and low-emission defaults, with or without emissions information. Both these tweaks to the menu led to participants making lower-emission choices.
> 
> "The average reduction of CO2e emissions per dish was 500g for the default switches and 200g for the CO2 labels," says Seger.
> 
> When people were given menus with low-emission dishes, such as a coconut curry with tofu instead of beef, as the default, CO2e fell by almost one third. Simply labelling with carbon emissions led to CO2e decreasing by 13.5%.



No doubt some meat eaters will predictably whine away or try and discount this research. but I think it's a great idea. 









						The menu tweaks that lower diners' emissions
					

Beyond ingredients, seasonality and calorie content, some restaurants are now offering information on their food's carbon emissions – and it may help us make more sustainable choices.




					www.bbc.com


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

Here's the research 









						Changes to Menu Messaging Can Increase Sales of Climate-friendly Food
					

Food-production accounts for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, with animal-based foods contributing double the amount of emissions to plant-based foods. Shifting consumer demand away from animal-based foods toward more plant-based alternatives is critical for reducing food-related...




					www.wri.org


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 23, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Certainly seems to be your strategy.


I've not once reposted the same source, except perhaps when I've quoted myself to answer something I've previously answered.
It's been done ad infinitum by some posters


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2022)

I wouldn’t have any qualms with a decent labelling policy.  For starters, it would focus the minds of producers on creating efficiencies in production.

Would need to be careful to disincentivise them leaning on other externalities, obv.

Is something that could be done with clothing too.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 23, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Isn't critically important just one of the WHO categories though? I mean they are all important highlighted by the fact that the lowest category is important. The critically important are often those that are a last line of defence against bacteria that already have a high level of resistance.


Proper explanation here though as it goes on gets more US specific but still better than my shitty memory. The UK has its own list based on the criteria under local conditions.




> “Critically Important,” which includes two subcategories deemed “Highest Priority” and “High Priority.” An antimicrobial designated “Critically Important” must meet two criteria. The first is defined as “the sole, or one of limited available therapies, to treat serious bacterial infections in people” (Criterion 1). In addition, those infections must either “be transmitted to humans from nonhuman sources” or have the potential to “acquire resistance genes from nonhuman sources” (Criterion 2). Finer distinctions are made among the “Critically Important” antimicrobials, such as those with a “high frequency of use,” a “high proportion of use in patients with serious infections in health care settings,” or else those used “to treat infections in people for which there is evidence of transmission of resistant bacteria or resistance genes from nonhuman sources.” In turn, antimicrobials meeting any of these distinctions earn the designation “Highest Priority.”
> “Highly Important” antimicrobials meet either Criterion 1 or 2 listed above but not both.
> “Important” antimicrobials are any other products used in human medicine, meeting neither Criterion 1 nor 2.
> “Currently not used in humans” is a category that reappeared on the 2016 list for the first time since 2005 and is listed in Annex 2 of the 2016 CIA.






> The majority of antimicrobial classes on the WHO CIA list fall within the “Critically Important” category, with fewer classes in the “Highly Important” category, fewer still in the “Important,” and even fewer in the “Currently not used in humans” categories (Fig. (Fig.11).2 The Critically Important, Highly Important, and Important categories are also referred to as “Medically Important Antimicrobials.” The “Currently not used in humans” category is also referred to as “Non‐medically Important Antimicrobials.”





> In 2017, the WHO published four broad recommendations on the use of medically important antimicrobials in food animal production in order to maintain effectiveness of these antimicrobials in human medicine.3 To develop the basis for its recommendations, the WHO commissioned two independent systematic reviews, the first of which was published in _Lancet Planetary Health_ in 2017.1, 15 The review concluded that interventions aimed at reducing antibiotic use in food‐producing animals were associated with reduced antibiotic resistance in these animals, but there was less compelling evidence that these interventions also reduced antibiotic resistance in human populations.
> The first WHO recommendation calls for an “overall reduction in use of all classes of medically important antimicrobials in food‐producing animals.” Similarly, the second recommendation calls for the “complete restriction of use of all classes of medically important antimicrobials in food‐producing animals for growth promotion.” Those two recommendations were well received by experts in the food‐animal industry, particularly in the United States, where the FDA had already achieved a _de facto_ ban on the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion in 2017 through voluntary withdrawal of labels by drug sponsors.
> By contrast, Recommendation 3—which calls for the “complete restriction of use of all classes of medically important antimicrobials in food‐producing animals for prevention of infectious diseases that have not yet been clinically diagnosed”—has been rejected outright by many.16, 17 The main issue with this recommendation seems to be that there is no universally accepted definition of what is meant by prevention, as organizations each defines prevention in different ways and adds to the confusion. Nevertheless, on November 30, 2018, a major U.S. poultry producer committed to achieving the equivalent of the third WHO Guideline recommendation by March 2019 by removing its use of gentamicin and virginiamycin from its prevention protocols.18
> Recommendation 4 from the WHO, which is a two‐part recommendation, is widely viewed as highly controversial.16, 19, 20 Recommendation 4a states that antimicrobials classified by WHO as “critically important for human medicine (…) should not be used for control of the dissemination of a clinically diagnosed infectious disease identified within a group of food‐producing animals.” Recommendation 4b states that antimicrobials that are the “highest priority critically important for human medicine should not be used for treatment of food‐producing animals with a clinically diagnosed infectious disease.” These latter two recommendations (4a and 4b) are supported by the lowest quality of evidence (per GRADE criteria) and are not strongly made by WHO (in contrast to Recommendation 3)


----------



## Poot (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> And at 10% fashion is almost as bad as meat and *everyone *can cut down on the amount of clothes they buy. Vegetarians can't cut down on the amount of meat they eat.


Now we can all go on about how tedious people who don't buy fast fashion are. There they go, ramming it down our throats again, the people who rarely buy jeans. Bloody noclothesians. Makes you want to write in to a local paper's comments section on any article about reducing your fashion footprint and say, Look at me! I'm enjoying buying all this tat from Primark during my lunch hour! I'm not even going to wear it!

Those do-gooders can keep WELL away from my growing collection of colourful tank tops and hooded capes and my massive Saturday shopping addiction. Fucking noclothesians.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2022)

Poot said:


> Now we can all go on about how tedious people who don't buy fast fashion are. There they go, ramming it down our throats again, the people who rarely buy jeans. Bloody noclothesians. Makes you want to write in to a local paper's comments section on any article about reducing your fashion footprint and say, Look at me! I'm enjoying buying all this tat from Primark during my lunch hour! I'm not even going to wear it!
> 
> Those do-gooders can keep WELL away from my growing collection of colourful tank tops and hooded capes and my massive Saturday shopping addiction. Fucking noclothesians.



The poor nudists also get oppressed in public by the police. 

Still, they live a lot longer than the nofoodians.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> I've bought more clothes this year than the last 4 years combined I reckon. About 12 T shirts. 18 pants and a similar number of socks. Maybe 24 pairs. A pair of shorts two hoodies (+1 on a time share). Above numbers include presents etc. I also invested in some waterproof trainers today and some vans a couple of months ago. Is that a lot, a little or a middle?


That's enough to start a small clothes shop. 

I think I've bought 1 t-shirt and a pair of gloves this year. Most of my clothes shopping is done on eBay.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


> Here's another great idea:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





editor said:


> Here's the research
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1 if those claims 35% the other 25%. What is this? Pull a figure out your arse science? 

Iirc most of the links you've posted up claim the figure is only 15% hence my comparison with emissions from clothing.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> 1 if those claims 35% the other 25%. What is this? Pull a figure out your arse science?


Whatever you say, expert.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


> Whatever you say, expert.


You can't see that most of the links you keep posting come up with wildly different figures?

Or do you see something that agrees with your pov and just post it without checking it over?


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> You can't see that most of the links you keep posting come up with wildly different figures?
> 
> Or do you see something that agrees with your pov and just post it without checking it over?


That's because there is no way of finding out the precise exact numbers - something I underlined just  a few days ago in this post: 



> > Cows, sheep, pigs and other livestock are responsible for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a peer-reviewed assessment led by researchers at the University of Illinois and published last year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?
					

Stirling university students take bold stance against animal abuse and environmental devastation. Obviously the gammon press are pretending to furious about it, one wonders what the 'anti-colonial' animal ag apologists on U75 will think...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


> That's because there is no way of finding out the precise exact numbers - something I underlined just  a few days ago in this post:


If you were a scientist instead of an amateur there would be a way to work it out pretty accurately. In fact someone has already posted (jokingly) a way to do it.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> If you were a scientist instead of an amateur there would be a way to work it out pretty accurately. In fact someone has already posted (jokingly) a way to do it.


You should drop these a guys a line and tell them how wrong they all are.


> Cows, sheep, pigs and other livestock are responsible for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a peer-reviewed assessment led by researchers at the University of Illinois and published last year.
> 
> 
> And researchers fear the impact may be greater, after recent efforts to measure emissions at individual U.S. farms - by, say, flying a methane-detecting plane over them – showed them churning out much more than estimated.
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> 1 if those claims 35% the other 25%. What is this? Pull a figure out your arse science?



You just joined the thread, then?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


> You should drop these a guys a line and tell them how wrong they all are.


It's usual on scientific papers to include your qualifications. The only one on that that has anywhere near quals stated is a statistician.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

8ball said:


> You just joined the thread, then?


Unfortunately I've been on this thread since the start.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> It's usual on scientific papers to include your qualifications. The only one on that that has anywhere near quals stated is a statistician.



OI!!!


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> It's usual on scientific papers to include your qualifications. The only one on that that has anywhere near quals stated is a statistician.


You can look them all up yourself and. Its not hard.

Prateek Sharma,
Shijie Shu,
Tzu-Shun Lin,
Philippe Ciais,
Francesco N. Tubiello,
Pete Smith,
Nelson Campbell &
Atul K. Jain
Which parts of their research do you find too be inaccurate?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


> You can look them all up yourself and. Its not hard.
> 
> Prateek Sharma,
> Shijie Shu,
> ...


They just link back to the article in question.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


> You can look them all up yourself and. Its not hard.
> 
> Prateek Sharma,
> Shijie Shu,
> ...


Do you have the full article?


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Do you have the full article?


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 23, 2022)

editor said:


>


What?

I'minterested in reading the article. You've linked to the abstract but afaict the full thing is behind a paywall. Do you have it?


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 24, 2022)

This may be useful









						How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists
					

From vaccinations to climate change, getting science wrong has very real consequences. But journal articles, a primary way science is communicated in academia, are a different format to newspaper a…




					blogs.lse.ac.uk


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> What?
> 
> I'minterested in reading the article. You've linked to the abstract but afaict the full thing is behind a paywall. Do you have it?



I can't get access to it either, seems my institution is too tight to pay for nature - it looks like it is measuring estimated 2010 emissions using the now outdated CO2 equivalent method.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> This may be useful
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed, but you still need to see the article. I'm not able to read confidence intervals and hazard ratios etc, but an abstract alone isn't going to get into the details unfortunately.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> This may be useful
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the problem is that the journal articles are often cited in an agenda driven lay press article that misinterprets them in order to make good copy.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Indeed, but you still need to see the article. I'm not able to read confidence intervals and hazard ratios etc, but an abstract alone isn't going to get into the details unfortunately.


Absolutely, couldn’t agree more


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 24, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I think the problem is that the journal articles are often cited in an agenda driven lay press article that misinterprets them in order to make good copy.



Yes, I too have often thought, "Everyone has an agenda except me and everyone who agrees with me". A fascinating coincidence.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yes, I too have often thought, "Everyone has an agenda except me and everyone who agrees with me". A fascinating coincidence.


Do you think seeing the whole study is important, yes or no?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Do you think seeing the whole study is important, yes or no?


Here's the prepublication draft:



			https://www.fao.org/3/cb7033en/cb7033en.pdf
		


I hope you enjoy not reading it after pretending you wanted to.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 24, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Here's the prepublication draft:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting.  One of the authors is Founder and President of  Plantpure Communities Inc. 








						Officers and Board of Directors | PlantPure Communities
					

Bios for the PPC Board of Directors and Officers




					plantpurecommunities.org
				




Not terribly unbiased, perhaps.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yes, I too have often thought, "Everyone has an agenda except me and everyone who agrees with me". A fascinating coincidence.


Jeff, many of the publications posted have been in such esteemed organs of the press as "Plant Based News".

Looking for a balanced viewpoint on the ins and outs of sustainable livestock production is such places is like quoting the "Angling Times" in an argument about whether fishing is a worthwhile passtime.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Here's the prepublication draft:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The difference in GHG emissions for plant vs animal doesn't really seem all that vast.

Cow milk is less enivornmentally damaging (according to fig 3) than rice. Is there a plan to remove rice from the diet of vegans? 

Beef appears to be very problematic, but it is far from the only source of animal food, and fish isn't even on that list. Horse meat is even more environemntally harmful by comparison it seems. So there's a lot of places that clearly eat it while we in the west absolutely don't. How do people intend to address such cultural differences?

If you look at the total emissions from all food (iirc) (fig 4) you can see the problems are largely regional based. China, the US, Brazil and, to a lesser degree, the Indian subcontinent. Do they all eat large amounts of beef?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Interesting.  One of the authors is Founder and President of  Plantpure Communities Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could you give some examples of the clear bias in the study?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> The difference in GHG emissions for plant vs animal doesn't really seem all that vast.
> 
> Cow milk is less enivornmentally damaging (according to fig 3) than rice. Is there a plan to remove rice from the diet of vegans?



Why are you comparing rice with cow milk?


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> Why are you comparing rice with cow milk?


Because the article does. Fig 3 compares the top emitting foodstuffs from either category, plant/animal.

Also because the discussion is about the effect of GHG's. Nature doesn't care where those pollutants come from, just the effect. Presumably you'd still object to animal agriculture even if - _and i'm not saying this is so_ - it could be demonstrated plants agriculture was producing dangerous levels of emission


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I think the problem is that the journal articles are often cited in an agenda driven lay press article that misinterprets them in order to make good copy.



Certainly that's one of the problems.  You might enjoy _Bad Science_ by Ben Goldacre if you haven't already read it.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Because the article does. Fig 3 compares the top emitting foodstuffs from either category, plant/animal.
> 
> Also because the discussion is about the effect of GHG's. Nature doesn't care where those pollutants come from, just the effect. Presumably you'd still object to animal agriculture even if - _and i'm not saying this is so_ - it could be demonstrated plants agriculture was producing dangerous levels of emission


One of the charts posted up several times on these threads shows a range of emissions for each item measured. The low end of the range for Rice was considerably lower than the low end of cow's milk. The cow's milk range itself was  quite wide. The accompanying paper argued that mitigation could have a massive effect on emissions by encouraging the least damaging means of producing each food.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

I eat loads of rice.  Think I should switch to potatoes.

(until these mitigations come along, anyway)

Wonder what buffalo milk tastes like... (article could plausibly have been written by the Buffalo Marketing Board).


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> One of the charts posted up several times on these threads shows a range of emissions for each item measured. The low end of the range for Rice was considerably lower than the low end of cow's milk. The cow's milk range itself was  quite wide. The accompanying paper argued that mitigation could have a massive effect on emissions by encouraging the least damaging means of producing each food.


The problem is that we don't accurately know how much ruminants emit, and then whether it varies by climate/size/breed (most of the cow work has been done with holstiens iirc).
One of the major criticisms of Poore and Nemecek (2018) is that they took the most polluting systems (in the case of beef, American feed lots iirc) and applied those emissions to all cattle systems globally.

There is some disingenuous about nitrous oxide too - the major sources of it are dung and synthetic fertiliser, so wherever you get lots of animals, you are going to get nitrates, doesn't matter if they are farm animals or not. Similarly enteric methane - all ruminants emit it, it's a natural process. Unless you are going to try and eliminate ruminants, you won't eliminate it.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 24, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> The problem is that we don't accurately know how much ruminants emit, and then whether it varies by climate/size/breed (most of the cow work has been done with holstiens iirc).
> One of the major criticisms of Poore and Nemecek (2018) is that they took the most polluting systems (in the case of beef, American feed lots iirc) and applied those emissions to all cattle systems globally.
> 
> There is some disingenuous about nitrous oxide too - the major sources of it are dung and synthetic fertiliser, so wherever you get lots of animals, you are going to get nitrates, doesn't matter if they are farm animals or not. Similarly enteric methane - all ruminants emit it, it's a natural process. Unless you are going to try and eliminate ruminants, you won't eliminate it.


In the same way do we know what wild ruminants emit? You've quoted numbers of animals before to support your arguments but even if there were more ruminants in the past without knowing what they emit it's hard to know where we stand.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 24, 2022)

8ball said:


> I eat loads of rice.  Think I should switch to potatoes.


But are you comparing per kg. rates or per portion rates to conclude switching to potatoes is helpful?  A portion of rice would weigh 1/5 to 1/4 of a portion of potatoes, so maybe that makes a difference to the calculation?


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Cow milk is less enivornmentally damaging (according to fig 3) than rice. Is there a plan to remove rice from the diet of vegans?


That's rice pudding off the menu then.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> In the same way do we know what wild ruminants emit? You've quoted numbers of animals before to support your arguments but even if there were more ruminants in the past without knowing what they emit it's hard to know where we stand.


We don't accurately know what farmed ruminants emit - I don't think anyone has done any work on wild ruminants at all. The reason I mention Holstiens is that they are pretty big as far as cattle go (but smaller than a bison, Buffalo etc), it may be that smaller ruminants have smaller rumens, therefore less rumen flora, potentially emitting less per animal. We also know that diet has some effect (some feed additives seem to reduce it).


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> But are you comparing per kg. rates or per portion rates to conclude switching to potatoes is helpful?  A portion of rice would weigh 1/5 to 1/4 of a portion of potatoes, so maybe that makes a difference to the calculation?


And equally, potato production is terrible for soil loss.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> One of the charts posted up several times on these threads shows a range of emissions for each item measured. The low end of the range for Rice was considerably lower than the low end of cow's milk. The cow's milk range itself was  quite wide. The accompanying paper argued that mitigation could have a massive effect on emissions by encouraging the least damaging means of producing each food.


It's been discussed but industrial feed lots are not the only way to farm animals. None of the local farmers I see around here use such things. Obviously their flocks of sheep (mainly, some cattle, on grass) are smaller than the vast monoliths you see in big business. So if we have a holistiic approach that would make things better I think. However at worst, humans can live without eating one or two specific foods. If I never ate beef again it wouldn't be the end of the world


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> A portion of rice would weigh 1/5 to 1/4 of a portion of potatoes..



Not when I’m eating it, it doesn’t.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> And equally, potato production is terrible for soil loss.



Oh ffs! 

What’s ok then?  Carrots?  Wafer-thin ham?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> It's been discussed but industrial feed lots are not the only way to farm animals. None of the local farmers I see around here use such things. Obviously their flocks of sheep (mainly, some cattle, on grass) are smaller than the vast monoliths you see in big business. So if we have a holistiic approach that would make things better I think. However at worst, humans can live without eating one or two specific foods. If I never ate beef again it wouldn't be the end of the world


Some farmers are absolute fucking pigs









> The authority investigated after receiving complaints from the public about the welfare of his animals.
> Trading standards officers later visited his farm on numerous occasions and discovered he failed to follow any of the advice given and continued to keep animals in unclean conditions without sufficient access to clean bedding.
> The animals were forced to wade through deep mud to access mouldy food and dirty water and were kept in inadequately fenced fields with numerous hazards to their health.











						Farmer failed to care for animals for 'long period' - BBC News
					

Allen Hall, 53, was given a suspended sentence and banned from keeping livestock for 10 years.




					www.bbc.com
				


















						A brutal business: alleged beatings and abuse on UK pig farms | Harriet Grant
					

A Guardian investigation has uncovered claims of violence on a Lincolnshire farm, which the owners deny. But do working conditions in this intensive industry bring a risk of mistreatment of livestock?




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Farmers beat cows with spades in disturbing BBC Panorama episode
					

A BBC Panorama documentary exposes the distressing cruelty animals’ are suffering on a South Wales dairy farm.The documentary, A Cows Life, which aired on BBC One yesterday (February 14) saw reporters explore the “controversial” ways of the milk industry.In the documentary, a Welsh farm was...




					www.independent.co.uk
				












						Farmer jailed over cruelty that led to ‘UK’s biggest animal rescue mission’
					

More than 200 animals were found being kept in vile conditions, with some having to be put down after being left underfed and diseased




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> Some farmers are absolute fucking pigs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cruelty in farming is a reality and I don't think i've ever denied it, nor have I said it's acceptable. I would like to see that change. I'm sure we all would. But the sheep in my friend's field are not subject to conditions anything like what you have demonstrated.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> It's been discussed but industrial feed lots are not the only way to farm animals. None of the local farmers I see around here use such things. Obviously their flocks of sheep (mainly, some cattle, on grass) are smaller than the vast monoliths you see in big business. So if we have a holistiic approach that would make things better I think. However at worst, humans can live without eating one or two specific foods. If I never ate beef again it wouldn't be the end of the world


Most production in the UK isn't feed lot based.
Even most feed lots in the USA are used to finish animals born on a ranching system - it's only a specific part of the animals life. You can finish on grass, it just takes longer


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Cruelty in farming is a reality and I don't think i've ever denied it, nor have I said it's acceptable. I would like to see that change. I'm sure we all would. But the sheep in my friend's field are not subject to conditions anything like what you have demonstrated.


It's a goalpost moving that happens whenever some rational discussion starts happening.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Cruelty in farming is a reality and I don't think i've ever denied it, nor have I said it's acceptable. I would like to see that change. I'm sure we all would. But the sheep in my friend's field are not subject to conditions anything like what you have demonstrated.


The more people continue to eat meat, the more the cruelty will persist, either through the cruelty of a minority of traditional farmers or through the unspeakable, foul cruelty of factory farming, where the _vast majority_ of meat is produced.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

8ball said:


> Oh ffs!
> 
> What’s ok then?  Carrots?  Wafer-thin ham?


Well that's sort of the point. Nobody is saying not to eat spuds, we just need better ways of producing them. 

Its ridging and harvesting on sloping ground that's the problem. Perhaps cover cropping or smaller scale production in raised beds....


----------



## bcuster (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> Some farmers are absolute fucking pigs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this is the stuff that really gets to me. i can barely stand to look...  there must be a better way. this is not in keeping with the promise we made to these creatures when they were brought into the human family...


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

Small farms produce nearly 80% of the world's food - a third of food globally is produced on farms of under 2 hectares.

Smallholders produce one-third of the world’s food, less than half of what many headlines claim


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

bcuster said:


> this is the stuff that really gets to me. i can barely stand to look...  there must be a better way. this is not in keeping with the promise we made to these creatures when they were brought into the human family...


There's no shortage of propagandists and PR liars - like those scumbags employed by the tobacco industry in the 60s to tell everyone fags were good for you - who continue to try and sell the dream of rolling fields and happy animals frolicking around in spacious meadows.

The brutal fact is that, today, over 70% of farm animals in the UK are raised on factory farms.



> Where the vast majority of chickens and pigs raised for meat spend their entire lives indoors, with no green fields to explore. Even dairy cows are increasingly kept indoors for the whole year.
> Where animals are not free to roam or even free to engage in their natural behaviours. Pigs are kept trapped together in claustrophobic pens. Mother sows are prevented from turning around in restrictive farrowing systems, used to prevent the mother pig accidentally squashing her young. Thousands of broiler chickens must constantly compete with one another for even an A4 sized area of space.
> Where there is no fresh air, only huge ventilation fans fixed to the walls, constantly spinning in an effort to disperse the heat, smell and waste gas of so many animals trapped together.
> Where chicken farmers must wear biosecurity suits to protect against the spread of diseases and waste.
> Why are we not shown these truths in adverts, on packaging or food labels? Because the reality of factory farming is utterly abhorrent to most people.











						The myth of UK farming
					

Over 70% of farm animals in the UK are raised on factory farms.




					www.worldanimalprotection.org.uk
				












						UK has more than 1,000 livestock mega-farms, investigation reveals
					

Newly published figures show for first time how US-style factory farms have spread across British countryside




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

bcuster said:


> this is not in keeping with the promise we made to these creatures when they were brought into the human family...


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 24, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Similarly enteric methane - all ruminants emit it, it's a natural process. Unless you are going to try and eliminate ruminants, you won't eliminate it.


So do humans hence being able to light your farts.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> *Some* farmers are absolute fucking pigs.


*Some* being the important word. * Some* humans are genocidal maniacs, not everyone is.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> There's no shortage of propagandists and PR liars - like those scumbags employed by the tobacco industry in the 60s to tell everyone fags were good for you - who continue to try and sell the dream of rolling fields and happy animals frolicking around in spacious meadows.


You don't need PR for that. You just need to open your eyes in the countryside.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 24, 2022)

Comrade Bossman Monbiot in the Guardian again outlining how precision fermentation could save the earth and smash torture farming once and for all:



> Precision fermentation has the potential to do two astonishing things:





> 1. shrink to a remarkable degree the footprint of food production. One paper estimates that precision fermentation using methanol needs 1,700 times less land than the most efficient agricultural means of producing protein: soy grown in the US. This suggests it might use, respectively, 138,000 and 157,000 times less land than the least efficient means: beef and lamb production. Depending on the electricity source and recycling rates, it can also enable radical reductions in water use and greenhouse gas emissions. Because the process is contained, it avoids the spillover of waste and chemicals into the wider world caused by farming
> 
> 2. breaking the extreme dependency of many nations on food shipped from distant places. Nations in the Middle East, north Africa, the Horn of Africa and Central America do not possess sufficient fertile land or water to grow enough food of their own. In other places, especially parts of sub-Saharan Africa, a combination of soil degradation, population growth and dietary change cancels out any gains in yield. But all the nations most vulnerable to food insecurity are rich in something else: sunlight. This is the feedstock required to sustain food production based on hydrogen and methanol.











						Embrace what may be the most important green technology ever. It could save us all | George Monbiot
					

Never mind the yuck factor: precision fermentation could produce new staple foods, and end our reliance on farming, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot




					www.theguardian.com
				




What do we want? Precision fermentation!

When do we want it? Yesterday!


----------



## bcuster (Nov 24, 2022)

8ball said:


>


We promised humane treatment and freedom from cruel predators, disease and unnaturally short lives in return for utility and domesticity. We have broken our end of the bargain


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> You don't need PR for that. You just need to open your eyes in the countryside.


Do I really have to post up photos of huge windowless sheds and factory farms to show you the reality of where the majority of meat is produced in the UK?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> *Some* being the important word. * Some* humans are genocidal maniacs, not everyone is.


Oh, that's OK then


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

bcuster said:


> We promised humane treatment and freedom from cruel predators, disease and unnaturally short lives in return for utility and domesticity. We have broken our end of the bargain



When was this again?

I expect there was some dissension between signatories and those species assigned to the “pest” category.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 24, 2022)

Posting up articles about occasional cases of abuse in farming and then concluding from these that we shouldn't eat meat is the equivalent of posting up articles about abuse in the care/hospital system and concluding that we should eschew these things.

We need to eat.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Posting up articles about occasional cases of abuse in farming and then concluding from these that we shouldn't eat meat is the equivalent of posting up articles about abuse in the care/hospital system and concluding that we should eschew these things.
> 
> We need to eat.



Yeah, but if people didn’t eat meat farmers would have to be cruel to pest animals instead…

(am just filling in til ed and Jeff get back)


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Posting up articles about occasional cases of abuse in farming and then concluding from these that we shouldn't eat meat is the equivalent of posting up articles about abuse in the care/hospital system and concluding that we should eschew these things.
> 
> We need to eat.


We *have *to eat, but *don't need* to eat meat


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

ddraig said:


> We *have *to eat, but *don't need* to eat meat



I just did this bit.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> Do I really have to post up photos of huge windowless sheds and factory farms to show you the reality of where the majority of meat is produced in the UK?


Do we really need to post up hundreds of photos of sheep and cows roaming free again?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Do we really need to post up hundreds of photos of sheep and cows roaming free again?


Oh dear. Looks like you're trying to sidestep the chicken industry with that sudden shift in focus. 

But let's talk about chickens.  What percentage of those produced fore their flesh do you think roam free in spacious fields? When percentage live natural lives and lifespans?

Go on. Hazard a guess.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> When percentage live natural lives and lifespans?


If they lived a natural lifespan they wouldn't be fit to eat.

You do realise that some veg don't live a natural lifespan don't you? Carrots have a 2 year life cycle. A lot of other veg would be woody if you left them to the end of their lifespan.


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> You do realise that some veg don't live a natural lifespan don't you?


Oh dear, oh dear.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 25, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> If they lived a natural lifespan they wouldn't be fit to eat.
> 
> You do realise that some veg don't live a natural lifespan don't you? Carrots have a 2 year life cycle. A lot of other veg would be woody if you left them to the end of their lifespan.











						Plants 'scream' when being cut - Energy Live News
					

Researchers from Tel Aviv University, Israel, have suggested plants stressed by drought or physical damage may emit high-frequency distress noises




					www.energylivenews.com
				




No one wants to talk about screaming vegetables


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 25, 2022)

Cruelty to pets would be eliminated if we eliminated pets. 

Also, I'm pretty sure very few pets live "natural lives" in this country.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 25, 2022)

editor said:


> The more people continue to eat meat, the more the cruelty will persist, either through the cruelty of a minority of traditional farmers or through the unspeakable, foul cruelty of factory farming, where the _vast majority_ of meat is produced.


I don't believe cruelty is integral or unavoidable. It's a choice made by farmers/business owners largely inspired by the drive for profit. Meat production doesn't necessitate cruelty


----------



## ddraig (Nov 25, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Plants 'scream' when being cut - Energy Live News
> 
> 
> Researchers from Tel Aviv University, Israel, have suggested plants stressed by drought or physical damage may emit high-frequency distress noises
> ...


Do they look scared and bleed too? like the animals that were slaughtered for your plate?


----------



## hegley (Nov 25, 2022)

Not sure we're even vaguely close the a meat-free future. Regardless of whether you're a meat eater or not, this seems pretty horrific - I mean what could possibly go wrong?   :









						China’s 26-storey pig skyscraper ready to slaughter 1 million pigs a year
					

The world’s biggest single-building pig farm has opened in Hubei province, but critics say it will increase the risk of larger animal disease outbreaks




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Cruelty to pets would be eliminated if we eliminated pets.
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure very few pets live "natural lives" in this country.


The vast majority live very comfortable and long lives. And seeing as dogs and cats were domesticated hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it's an entirely natural life for them.

So what is your point here?


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2022)

hegley said:


> Not sure we're even vaguely close the a meat-free future. Regardless of whether you're a meat eater or not, this seems pretty horrific - I mean what could possibly go wrong?   :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's absolutely vile, but probably no worse than the vast chicken factories we have in the UK.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 25, 2022)

hegley said:


> Not sure we're even vaguely close the a meat-free future. Regardless of whether you're a meat eater or not, this seems pretty horrific - I mean what could possibly go wrong?   :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you had me at 26 storey pig skyscraper.

No big bad wolf is going to be able to blow that down!


----------



## 8ball (Nov 25, 2022)

editor said:


> And seeing as dogs and cats were domesticated* hundreds if not thousands of years ago*, it's an entirely natural life for them.



Science!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 25, 2022)

editor said:


> The vast majority live very comfortable and long lives. And seeing as dogs and cats were domesticated hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it's an entirely natural life for them.
> 
> So what is your point here?



If no cruelty is better than some cruelty and this is sufficient reason alone to delete all farm animals, then the same applies to pets, regardless of the exact proportion subject of cruelty.

Likewise if "dogs and cats were domesticated hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it's an entirely natural life for them" then "cows and sheep were domesticated hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it's an entirely natural life for them". So not sure why that reasoning works either 

I think what this boils down to is "I don't like the idea of humans eating animals, and my personal feelings on the matter trump anyone else's".


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If no cruelty is better than some cruelty and this is sufficient reason alone to delete all farm animals, then the same applies to pets, regardless of the exact proportion subject of cruelty.
> 
> Likewise if "dogs and cats were domesticated hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it's an entirely natural life for them" then "cows and sheep were domesticated hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it's an entirely natural life for them". So not sure why that reasoning works either


Who was calling to 'delete all farm animals'? And are you really equating the cruelty of factory farming with people's pets?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 25, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Do they look scared and bleed too? like the animals that were slaughtered for your plate?


Beetroot bleeds.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 25, 2022)

editor said:


> Who was calling to 'delete all farm animals'? And are you really equating the cruelty of factory farming with people's pets?


See this is your problem. With science you need to be precise and you and your 'evidence' is no where near precise. You post something and you get a reply to that point then you move the goalposts and claim you meant something else.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 25, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Beetroot bleeds.


pathetic post(s)


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> See this is your problem. With science you need to be precise and you and your 'evidence' is no where near precise. You post something and you get a reply to that point then you move the goalposts and claim you meant something else.


Once again. Who was calling to 'delete all farm animals'?


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 25, 2022)

editor said:


> Once again. Who was calling to 'delete all farm animals'?


would farms still keep animals? Presumably just to fertilise land and keep it all 'landy'. But that wouldn't be cheap and they wouldn't be making money from it without selling the meat or dairy or wool or whatever.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 25, 2022)

Is it too much to ask that we leave the genitals and sexual reproductive activities of other species the fuck alone? Animal farming is really fucking weird and shit (and completely pointless). A relic of more backward and barbarous times. In the 21st century its surely time to call time on this garbage institution.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 25, 2022)

The tools for eradicating the barbarism and backward idiocy of animal farming are here - when productive at scale, they will win!


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 25, 2022)

editor said:


> Once again. Who was calling to 'delete all farm animals'?


Where did I say that?
What does that have to do with what I posted?


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Where did I say that?
> What does that have to do with what I posted?


Apologies it was platinumsage speaking such nonsense


----------



## bcuster (Nov 25, 2022)




----------



## 8ball (Nov 25, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The tools for eradicating the barbarism and backward idiocy of animal farming are here - when productive at scale, they will win!




<advertorial>


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The tools for eradicating the barbarism and backward idiocy of animal farming are here - when productive at scale, they will win!



Surely it would be easier to just pop in to the butchers and get a fillet steak.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 26, 2022)

bcuster said:


>



continuing the myth that the only people who know what factory farms are capable of are vegans


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 26, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> Beetroot bleeds.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 26, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> would farms still keep animals? Presumably just to fertilise land and keep it all 'landy'. But that wouldn't be cheap and they wouldn't be making money from it without selling the meat or dairy or wool or whatever.


No one seems interested in a discussion around this so I've given up trying.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Surely it would be easier to just pop in to the butchers and get a fillet steak.



When the non-slaughter meats taste as good, are widely available and cheaper, it will be easier to get the non-slaughter versions.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Surely it would be easier to just pop in to the butchers and get a fillet steak.


Nah, some highly processed monstrosity produced by a massive corp in a factory is much preferable because communism or some equally badly thought out bollocks.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 26, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Nah, some highly processed monstrosity produced by a massive corp in a factory is much preferable because communism or some equally badly thought out bollocks.


oh dear OH DEAR!! 
mask slips


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

ddraig said:


> oh dear OH DEAR!!
> mask slips



Oh, this is going to be funny.


----------



## editor (Nov 26, 2022)

It's all going a bit right wing... :/


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 26, 2022)

ddraig said:


> oh dear OH DEAR!!
> mask slips


WTF are you on about?

In case you haven't been following:
1) Those processed meat alternatives can only be produced by massive corps
2) Jeff seems to think he is some sort of communist
3) See above post where he talks about said massive corps lackey and spawn of a Tory MP and councillor George Monbiot as "Comrade George"

compare with my opinion that:

"food production should be in more people's hands, not fewer"

See? Or do I need to make it jump a bit higher?


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Surely it would be easier to just pop in to the butchers and get a fillet steak.


You  seen what they are charging for that vegan ‘fillet steak’ ?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> You  seen what they are charging for that vegan ‘fillet steak’ ?



It’s not meant to be for poor people.

The value proposition is “fillet steak plus virtue-signalling”.  That’s premium market positioning.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 26, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> You  seen what they are charging for that vegan ‘fillet steak’ ?


I tried a bloody vegan burger recently just out of sheer interest. There is no way I'm going to pay daft money for a fillet alternative after my bloody burger experience. 
Steak is steak innit mate. 😀 

Must admit I had some cracking veggie food in Liverpool on Thursday night though.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> I tried a bloody vegan burger recently just out of sheer interest. There is no way I'm going to pay daft money for a fillet alternative after my bloody burger experience.
> Steak is steak innit mate. 😀
> 
> Must admit I had some cracking veggie food in Liverpool on Thursday night though.



Not sure which burger you tried but I’ve had a few really good ones.

I wouldn’t turn my nose up at a steak that was reasonable on quality / price either.  

The idea that these products can arrest the increasing global demand for meat is pretty hilarious, though, as is the idea that come the revolution your gourmet steal will be 3d-printed by an artisan butcher for a tiny snip of your day’s Universal Basic Income and served up by your friendly robot butler.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> Not sure which burger you tried but I’ve had a few really good ones.
> 
> I wouldn’t turn my nose up at a steak that was reasonable on quality / price either.
> 
> The idea that these products can arrest the increasing global demand for meat is pretty hilarious, though, as is the idea that come the revolution your gourmet steal will be 3d-printed by an artisan butcher for a tiny snip of your day’s Universal Basic Income and served up by your friendly robot butler.



You think its unrealistic that vegan meats become cheaper than slaughter meats with technological developments and economies of scale? We'll see. I suspect if you took away the massive public subsidies that keep the cost of slaughter meats artificially low, the non-slaughter meats would already be cheaper.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You think its unrealistic that vegan meats become cheaper than slaughter meats with technological developments and economies of scale? We'll see.



We might, I suppose.
What year would you consider the matter settled?  None of us gonna live forever.



Jeff Robinson said:


> I suspect if you took away the massive public subsidies that keep the cost of slaughter meats artificially low, the non-slaughter meats would already be cheaper.



I respect your decision to stay away from things like studies and numbers, and be open about your faith position.


----------



## bcuster (Nov 26, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> You  seen what they are charging for that vegan ‘fillet steak’ ?


It is very discouraging that I am saving little or no money on my food bill by reducing my meat intake


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

bcuster said:


> It is very discouraging that I am saving little or no money on my food bill by reducing my meat intake



What are you eating in lieu of the meat?


----------



## bcuster (Nov 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> What are you eating in lieu of the meat?


Tofu, barley, lentils and vegi-burgers


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Tofu, barley, lentils and vegi-burgers



Hard to make savings when just about everything is going up rapidly in price.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You think its unrealistic that vegan meats become cheaper than slaughter meats with technological developments and economies of scale?


Yes. There is no way on earth you can brew up fake meat for less than the cost of a bullet to catch your own.


----------



## bcuster (Nov 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> Hard to make savings when just about everything is going up rapidly in price.


Absolutely true. And if you look at the unit price of the items I named, you’ll  see that they are not that much cheaper than meat, which is a shame…


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> We might, I suppose.
> What year would you consider the matter settled?  None of us gonna live forever.
> 
> 
> ...



If you think a sentence beginning “I suspect” indicates “a faith position” then you don’t understand the meaning of those words.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> If you think a sentence beginning “I suspect” indicates “a faith position” then you don’t understand the meaning of those words.



Not generally.
Just when it’s you saying them.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2022)

I eat a lot less red meat than I used to. 
And, I wouldn't mind lab grown meat at all, especially if the taste was similar to animal meat.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 26, 2022)

weltweit said:


> I eat a lot less red meat than I used to.
> And, I wouldn't mind lab grown meat at all, especially if the taste was similar to animal meat.



I’d def give it a try too.  Though the best veg*n meals I’ve ever had haven’t involved anything that was trying to impersonate meat.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> I’d def give it a try too.  Though the best veg*n meals I’ve ever had haven’t involved anything that was trying to impersonate meat.


Yes, it is a little like alcohol free beer, beer has alcohol in it, if I want an alco free drink it wouldn't be an AFBeer.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> Hard to make savings when just about everything is going up rapidly in price.



Tofu up 25% this year, used to be two quid


----------



## bcuster (Nov 27, 2022)

From poop to power: Cow farm converts methane to sustainable energy for electric vehicles
					

A dairy farm is converting methane gas through a fuel cell to produce energy that is helping power electric vehicles.




					www.wtvr.com


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 28, 2022)

Gammon moron exposed and destroyed on national television.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 28, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gammon moron exposed and destroyed on national television.




Which particular type of vegan sausage was it?


----------



## bcuster (Nov 28, 2022)

8ball said:


> Which particular type of vegan sausage was it?


...and what does it cost?


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Nov 28, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Plants 'scream' when being cut - Energy Live News
> 
> 
> Researchers from Tel Aviv University, Israel, have suggested plants stressed by drought or physical damage may emit high-frequency distress noises
> ...



You're clearly not serious, but I'll take it.

If I went to visit a friend, and they said, "here I have a pig now, I've been keeping it in a cage," I'd be a bit disturbed. If they then pulled out a knife and cut it's throat and shouted, "LET'S EAT BACON!", I'd be looking for the quickest exit. Whereas, if they picked up a carrot and chomped it, or boiled some potatoes, I'd probably be less horrified.

To live, one unfortunately brings other lifeforms, sentient or not, to suffer. The bug splatted on the windscreen, the ant squashed as we walk down the street, the carrot unjustly pulled from the ground before its time. The point is about unecessary, cruel and avoidable suffering. The animal industry creates unjustifiable suffering, both in the animal's lifetime and at the point of death. A pig kept in a cage, never seeing daylight, is suffering. Is this justifiable? We don't need to eat meat to survive, at which point it becomes something we do because we enjoy it. We put our own enjoyment above the suffering of another being.

A carrot isn't caged, and if it suffers when it is dug up, it's not a relatable suffering. It doesn't trigger empathy. I've lived next to a farm when the lambs were separated from their mothers, and they cried for days, as did the mother sheep. It's suffering that affects one emotionally, assuming one is capable of compassion. How do you justify that, tearing apart a mother and child just weeks from birth? I don't think it can be justified. The only way to justify it, as far as I can see, is to say, "I am happy for any amount of suffering to be visited upon other beings, as long as I get to have my pleasure in the way I want it." It's not a philosophy that I can respect.

At the same time, I recognise parts of that philosophy in myself. We all have selfishness as a part of our psyche- not all the time, but it's there. My argument against meat-eating, or more specifically the barbarism of the meat industry, is that the suffering our selfishness causes is so obvious and relatable, and the exit strategy for an individual who has had enough of it is simple and can be effected immediately.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 28, 2022)

ebay sex moomin said:


> You're clearly not serious, but I'll take it.
> 
> If I went to visit a friend, and they said, "here I have a pig now, I've been keeping it in a cage," I'd be a bit disturbed. If they then pulled out a knife and cut it's throat and shouted, "LET'S EAT BACON!", I'd be looking for the quickest exit. Whereas, if they picked up a carrot and chomped it, or boiled some potatoes, I'd probably be less horrified.
> 
> ...








						Vegetable Cages Ideal for Lettuce and Carrots Use Your Own Garden Netting
					






					www.garden-netting.co.uk
				




I’m afraid carrot cages do exist ☹️


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 28, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gammon moron exposed and destroyed on national television.



Given how close that wanker is to a heart attack, giving him actual sausage would actually harm his reputation even more.

And no, I don't think the odious talksport troll should die


----------



## 8ball (Nov 28, 2022)

Jeremy Vine is on Talksport now?


----------



## newme (Nov 28, 2022)

I read this as MEAT as a public procurement person, this was confusing. Well ish tbh, if an equivalent product is cheaper sure go for it. If not then no, this is this the sort of policy that wins.


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Nov 28, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Vegetable Cages Ideal for Lettuce and Carrots Use Your Own Garden Netting
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I shall campaign against them forthwith.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 28, 2022)

Lab-grown food is no way to nourish the planet | Letters
					

Letters: Sue Branford, Richard Middleton and Ian Healey respond to an article by George Monbiot suggesting that technology and precision fermentation could end our reliance on farming




					www.theguardian.com
				




Have we had this one yet on the Frankenplant front?


----------



## bcuster (Nov 29, 2022)

ebay sex moomin said:


> You're clearly not serious, but I'll take it.
> 
> If I went to visit a friend, and they said, "here I have a pig now, I've been keeping it in a cage," I'd be a bit disturbed. If they then pulled out a knife and cut it's throat and shouted, "LET'S EAT BACON!", I'd be looking for the quickest exit. Whereas, if they picked up a carrot and chomped it, or boiled some potatoes, I'd probably be less horrified.
> 
> ...


Bravo!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 29, 2022)

How will the post-meat future look?​
Less bowel cancer for a start.









						Plant-based diet can cut bowel cancer risk in men by 22%, says study
					

Researchers find no such link for women, suggesting connection between diet and bowel cancer is clearer for men




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gammon moron exposed and destroyed on national television.



Ha ha that is brilliant. The meat loving  'expert' declared the vegan sausage to be as "luscious and lovely" and as delicious "as the one I had this morning."


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 29, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How will the post-meat future look?​
> Less bowel cancer for a start.
> 
> 
> ...


But not for women? 

What is the causal factor?

They studied 80k and 93k men/women respectively and found, after 19 years, only 5k instances of cancer? 

Now, I'm not saying there aren't links, I don't know. But it's not exactly conclusive at all. What were the diets of those participating? can we trust food questionaires (personally I think those who are critical of these are a bit too close to crankery, but nonetheless the point still stands)


----------



## ddraig (Nov 29, 2022)

But but but


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 29, 2022)

ddraig said:


> But but but


What is the causal factor? Can you answer, or do you just want simplistic headlines? Nearly 200,000 participants men and women and only 5000 cases? Hardly screams MEAT HATES YOUR BUM!


----------



## ddraig (Nov 29, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> What is the causal factor? Can you answer, or do you just want simplistic headlines? Nearly 200,000 participants men and women and only 5000 cases? Hardly screams MEAT HATES YOUR BUM!


Awww, look at you thrashing about, bless

You could of course just ignore the thread if it makes you that uncomfortable


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 29, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Awww, look at you thrashing about, bless
> 
> You could of course just ignore the thread if it makes you that uncomfortable


Can you explain why meat doesn't give women CRC?

I don't think you understand any of this and just want a simple gotcha


----------



## ddraig (Nov 29, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Can you explain why meat doesn't give women CRC?
> 
> I don't think you understand any of this and just want a simple gotcha


I'm not a fucking doctor, why do you think I owe you an answer? Get over yourself

It's you that's constantly looking for a gotcha and any little thing to justify an attack


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Can you explain why meat doesn't give women CRC?
> 
> I don't think you understand any of this and just want a simple gotcha


Plenty of people here you can direct your vital questions to

Plant-based dietary patterns defined by a priori indices and colorectal cancer risk by sex and race/ethnicity: the Multiethnic Cohort Study​
Jihye Kim, 
Carol J. Boushey, 
Lynne R. Wilkens, 
Christopher A. Haiman, 
Loïc Le Marchand & 
Song-Yi Park 



> Conclusions​Greater adherence to plant-based diets rich in healthy plant foods and low in less healthy plant foods is associated with a reduced risk of CRC in men, but not in women. The strength of the association among men may vary by race and ethnicity and anatomic subsite of tumors.











						Plant-based dietary patterns defined by a priori indices and colorectal cancer risk by sex and race/ethnicity: the Multiethnic Cohort Study - BMC Medicine
					

Background Plant-based diets assessed by a priori indices are associated with health outcomes. This study investigated the associations between pre-defined indices of plant-based diets and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and evaluated whether the association varies by sex, race and ethnicity...




					bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2022)

Here's some good news for the future



> Almost half of those who currently eat meat say they intend to eat less in the short-term future, with almost 30% saying that they plan to eat a plant-based diet in the long term.











						Many young people willing to go without cars, meat, and flights to help climate, survey states
					

The survey of 500 young people found that more than 90% of 16-24-year-olds judge protecting the environment to be very important.




					www.irishexaminer.com


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2022)

Handy factchecker here



> How does livestock contribute to global warming?​According to FAO data, 14.5% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to livestock farming, an industry that emits not only carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) — two gases considered to play a similar role to CO2 in driving global warming. Though methane and nitrous oxide do not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, their respective climate warming potential is about 25 times and 300 times higher than that of carbon dioxide. To compare the impact of different greenhouse gases, a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) is typically calculated.





> Examining greenhouse gas emissions tied to livestock farming does not tell us everything about the impact of meat consumption on the climate. As such, comparing greenhouse gas emission from plant-based and animal-based foods is more insightful. A 2021 study published in Nature Food did just this.
> 
> It found that that plant-based foods account for just 29% of greenhouse gases emitted by the global food industry. In contrast, 57% of greenhouse gas emission in the industry are linked to breeding and rearing cows, pigs and other livestock, as well as producing feed. A quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions in the food industry are said to result from beef production alone. This is followed by rice cultivation, which generates more greenhouse gases than pork, poultry, lamb, mutton and dairy production.





> Verdict​The meat industry is responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes not only to global warming but also causes direct environmental pollution. People who eat a lot of meat can help fight the climate crisis by reducing or quitting meat consumption altogether. Even substituting other meat for beef would considerably reduce greenhouse gas emission.











						Fact check: How bad is eating meat for the climate? – DW – 10/30/2022
					

More and more people are going vegeterian or vegan in an effort to help fight climate change. But is a meatless diet really better for the planet?




					www.dw.com


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 29, 2022)

editor said:


> Plenty of people here you can direct your vital questions to
> 
> Plant-based dietary patterns defined by a priori indices and colorectal cancer risk by sex and race/ethnicity: the Multiethnic Cohort Study​
> Jihye Kim,
> ...


All these are just links to the same thing: the same study I was referring to. 

In so doing you don't provide any further analysis, pertaining to the questions I asked for example.


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> All these are just links to the same thing: the same study I was referring to.
> 
> In so doing you don't provide any further analysis, pertaining to the questions I asked for example.


You can direct your enquiries to the report's authors. 

What point are you trying to make with all this uneducated  whataboutery,  by the way?


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 29, 2022)

editor said:


> You can direct your enquiries to the report's authors.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with all this uneducated  whataboutery,  by the way?


You just posted a bunch of links but they just direct me to the thing I already discussed. Do you understand that? Where is the whataboutery? I directly addressed the content of the study which you initially raised and now you don't want to talk about it? Why did you post it then? 

This makes no sense


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2022)

editor said:


> Here's some good news for the future
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gosh 500 people! That is representative.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 30, 2022)

I forego cars and flights. 

I couldn't learn to drive (yes you read that right)
I don't have a passport and never have.

I will now eat all the cow


----------



## ddraig (Nov 30, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I forego cars and flights.
> 
> I couldn't learn to drive (yes you read that right)
> I don't have a passport and never have.
> ...


Well done you!


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 30, 2022)

ddraig said:


> But but but





ddraig said:


> Awww, look at you thrashing about, bless
> 
> You could of course just ignore the thread if it makes you that uncomfortable





ddraig said:


> I'm not a fucking doctor, why do you think I owe you an answer? Get over yourself
> 
> It's you that's constantly looking for a gotcha and any little thing to justify an attack





editor said:


> You can direct your enquiries to the report's authors.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with all this uneducated  whataboutery,  by the way?


This is just weird. They are exactly the sort of questions that should be asked of a study let alone an article about one.


Karl Masks said:


> But not for women?
> 
> What is the causal factor?
> 
> ...


They say 2.9% of participants developed cancer but the important thing is the difference between the diets; in the region of 20% less cancer cases over the lifetime of the study.
We can not trust food questionnaires. People are likely to be inaccurate about what exactly they have eaten.. This may go some way to explaining the differences between men and women. Shy meat eaters hiding in the numbers. Men also have higher rates of the cancer in the general population though when women get it it is harder to detect and diagnosis. This may have made easier to detect changes in the male cohort. The article specifically says the study is unable to identify causal factors. The role of meat in causing cancer is quite well understood though. It is to do with compounds produced when red meat in particular breaks down and how they affect cells in the bowel.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 30, 2022)

Had a click through to the study had missed the link before. I haven't read through whole thing but it may answer some of your questions.  I found this summary in an abstract to a meta analysis they reference that might be of interest.



> Red meat and processed meat consumption has been hypothesized to increase risk of cancer, but the evidence is inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence of associations between consumption of red meat (unprocessed), processed meat, and total red and processed meat with the incidence of various cancer types. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through December 2020. Using a random-effect meta-analysis, we calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the highest versus the lowest category of red meat, processed meat, and total red and processed meat consumption in relation to incidence of various cancers. We identified 148 published articles. Red meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of breast cancer (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.03–1.15), endometrial cancer (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.01-1.56), colorectal cancer (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.03–1.17), colon cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.09-1.25), rectal cancer (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46), lung cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09–1.44), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46). Processed meat consumption was significantly associated with a 6% greater breast cancer risk, an 18% greater colorectal cancer risk, a 21% greater colon cancer risk, a 22% greater rectal cancer risk, and a 12% greater lung cancer risk. Total red and processed meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08–1.26), colon cancer (RR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.09–1.34), rectal cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09–1.45), lung cancer (RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.09-1.33), and renal cell cancer (RR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04–1.37). This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Higher risk of colorectal, colon, rectal, lung, and renal cell cancers were also observed with high total red and processed meat consumption.


From Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Epidemiology


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2022)

butcher said:


> Gosh 500 people! That is representative.


It seems pretty much in line with current trends, but perhaps you have some evidence that disproves this? Or are you just in denial?



> Statistics gathered up to December 2021 showed that 5% of 18-to-24-year-olds identified as vegan or plant-based; 10% were vegetarian; and 4% were pescatarian.
> 
> The diet which has seen the sharpest uptake in recent years however is the ‘flexitarian’ diet. This eating regime is characterised by followers mainly eating vegetarian food, and only occasionally eating meat or fish.
> 
> ...











						Half of young people avoid meat as flexitarian diet grows in popularity
					

Almost half of young people avoid meat to some degree according to YouGov data, and flexitarian diets are on the rise




					foodmatterslive.com


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 30, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Had a click through to the study had missed the link before. I haven't read through whole thing but it may answer some of your questions.  I found this summary in an abstract to a meta analysis they reference that might be of interest.
> 
> 
> From Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Epidemiology


Back up in the thread somewhere, I posted a study that reviews some of these findings and suggests that whilst the findings for processed meat are substantiated, there is no such causal link for unprocessed meat. 

As per this letter published in the Lancet: 

36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable?

The problem, is, of course as demonstrated above, there appears to be little understanding amongst some contributors to this thread how to read science and also, the many scientists and papers I mention are clearly wrong and all of these scientists are _the wrong scientists_, because, naturally, they are all shills for the meat industry. Or something.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 30, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> This is just weird. They are exactly the sort of questions that should be asked of a study let alone an article about one.
> 
> They say 2.9% of participants developed cancer but the important thing is the difference between the diets; in the region of 20% less cancer cases over the lifetime of the study.
> We can not trust food questionnaires. People are likely to be inaccurate about what exactly they have eaten.. This may go some way to explaining the differences between men and women. Shy meat eaters hiding in the numbers. Men also have higher rates of the cancer in the general population though when women get it it is harder to detect and diagnosis. This may have made easier to detect changes in the male cohort. The article specifically says the study is unable to identify causal factors. The role of meat in causing cancer is quite well understood though. It is to do with compounds produced when red meat in particular breaks down and how they affect cells in the bowel.


They're not asking in good faith tho, check their other posts here and elsewhere


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 30, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Back up in the thread somewhere, I posted a study that reviews some of these findings and suggests that whilst the findings for processed meat are substantiated, there is no such causal link for unprocessed meat.
> 
> As per this letter published in the Lancet:
> 
> ...



Well, the affiliation information on the authors shows that at least four of the six of them are either employed by the meat industry or have advisory and consultancy roles with in it. The lead author for example is employed by 'Devenish Nutrition': "an agri-technology company based in Belfast, supplying quality animal feeds for the pig, poultry and ruminant sectors". Maybe they're not shills, maybe they're just people who work for the meat industry and who just happen to write letters defending the meat industry. In their spare time they probably also write letters defending broccoli.  

Oh, and nice move Mr Science: _Mmmm, a meta-analysis, I'll just ignore that and cite a letter instead. _


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Well, the affiliation information on the authors shows that at least four of the six of them are either employed by the meat industry or have advisory and consultancy roles with in it. The lead author for example is employed by 'Devenish Nutrition': "an agri-technology company based in Belfast, supplying quality animal feeds for the pig, poultry and ruminant sectors". Maybe they're not shills, maybe they're just people who work for the meat industry and who just happen to write letters defending the meat industry. In their spare time they probably also write letters defending broccoli.
> 
> Oh, and nice move Mr Science: _Mmmm, a meta-analysis, I'll just ignore that and cite a letter instead. _


It's like the filthy tobacco industry all over again.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 30, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Well, the affiliation information on the authors shows that at least four of the six of them are either employed by the meat industry or have advisory and consultancy roles with in it. The lead author for example is employed by 'Devenish Nutrition': "an agri-technology company based in Belfast, supplying quality animal feeds for the pig, poultry and ruminant sectors". Maybe they're not shills, maybe they're just people who work for the meat industry and who just happen to write letters defending the meat industry. In their spare time they probably also write letters defending broccoli.


It's referenced, you do know that, don't you? 
I've posted more than one meta analysis in here that's been ignored because "the wrong scientists". 
Amazing how we've suddenly developed a tiny bit of critical analysis now, isn't it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Back up in the thread somewhere, I posted a study that reviews some of these findings and suggests that whilst the findings for processed meat are substantiated, there is no such causal link for unprocessed meat.
> 
> As per this letter published in the Lancet:
> 
> ...


The reply to that is interesting. The authors are a bit defensive, indicating that the forthcoming GBD 2020 will tell a rather different story. 



> For GBD 2020, we have undertaken separate analyses for ischaemic stroke and for haemorrhagic stroke. Based on the meta-regression of available studies, there is a clear protective relationship between red meat intake and haemorrhagic stroke, which will be reflected in the GBD 2020 findings. This protective relationship was not identified in the GBD 2019 analysis because of the pooled approach to analysing ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke data in one meta-regression.





> Including the estimated protective effect of red meat on haemorrhagic stroke in GBD 2020 will change the logic and estimates of the TMREL for GBD 2020. We expect that estimates of attributable deaths for red meat will be reduced based on this forthcoming analysis. The star-rating evaluation of the evidence on red meat consumption suggests that once between-study heterogeneity is taken into account, the strength of evidence regarding the relationship between red meat and various outcomes—including ischaemic heart disease—is relatively weak.



36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable? – Author's reply


It does appear that even the authors of GBD 2019 think its estimates are unreliable. We'll see what GBD 2020 has to say.


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 30, 2022)

ddraig said:


> They're not asking in good faith tho, check their other posts here and elsewhere


I skimmed them here and a few pages back of their posts. I can't really see anything that jumps out.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 30, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It's referenced, you do know that, don't you?
> I've posted more than one meta analysis in here that's been ignored because "the wrong scientists".
> Amazing how we've suddenly developed a tiny bit of critical analysis now, isn't it?



Yes, its referenced, but, as a science man, I'm sure you know that the peer review process is more rigorous for an article than a letter? 

Your complaint that you've posted meta analyses that have been ignored because they're by "the wrong scientists", is ironic, because that's literally what you just did. In response to the meta-analysis posted by CNT36 you post a letter responding to an entirely different study!  

It's just hilarious that you think of yourself as some impartial expert on these matters. You're not. You're in the mud with the rest of us, as biased, as partisan, as selective with facts and data.  

And, given that you were moaning about accusations of 'shill' scientists, maybe sharing a letter written by employees of the meat industry wasn't the best move?


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2022)

editor said:


> It seems pretty much in line with current trends, but perhaps you have some evidence that disproves this? Or are you just in denial?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


90% of 500 people asked an undefined question in an unreferenced study say the environment is important according to interpretation by 2nd source, and 500 people is hardly a significant data set.  And really, ask any virtue signalling teen what they think about the environment they will give the same response......
ETA: the paper was actually about comparison of inter-generational fears about the environment, and they were given a script to read first stating "

scientists have agreed for more than 30 years that climate change is happening but “older generations did not do enough to stop it.” They also read that “future generations are more likely to experience the worst effects” of climate change and that “young people around the world have started to criticise older people and governments for not taking climate change seriously enough.”

Of course they would then say they are worried about the environment.  Read the actual paper if you can be bothered.

WRT to the Nature paper did you read the whole thing or just cherry pick the figures that caught your eye as per? It was an extrapolation to projected figures to 2050 with be caveats.

WRT your YouGov Stats,looks like meat eating is actually gaining a bit of popularity in 18-24 year olds up 10% from Jan 22 to July 22.

Feel free to frantically quote your favourite paper again below.......


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 30, 2022)

New Ipsos MORI poll finds that 56% of the public favour increasing the provision of vegetarian or vegan options through public food provisioning choices and 47% support a tax on red meat and dairy. 






						New report examines people’s attitudes to climate change and how this translates into action
					

Report suggests public support new policies around food and travel – but backing is ‘fragile’.




					www.bath.ac.uk
				




FWIW I don't support a tax on red meat. Even setting aside questions of political feasibility, taxing red meat over white meat would likely just shift people to consume even more chickens, and the vast majority of the suffering in the meat industry is in chicken 'farming'. Governments should remove all state subsidies from animal agriculture and reinvest them in plant-based and cellular meats and precision fermentation so that peoples cravings for meat can be satisfied in a way that don't harm animals, the environment and public health to the extent that animal ag currently does.


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2022)

Here's a Harvard published by the BMJ which will no doubt be swiftly ignored, dismissed or whatabouted into oblivion:

Conclusion​Increases in red meat consumption, especially processed meat, over eight years were associated with a higher risk of death in the subsequent eight years in US women and men. Increased consumption of healthier animal or plant foods was associated with a lower risk of death compared with red meat consumption. Our analysis provides further evidence to support the replacement of red and processed meat consumption with healthy alternative food choices.

What is already known on this topic​
Higher consumption of red meat has been associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases and premature death
Evidence is lacking about how changes in red meat consumption over time influence mortality, or what kind of alternative food choices would benefit health
What this study adds​
Increases in red meat consumption, especially processed meat, were associated with a higher risk of death
Decreases in red meat consumption and simultaneous increases in healthy alternative food choices over time were associated with a lower mortality risk
Further evidence supports the health benefits of replacing red and processed meat consumption with healthy protein sources, whole grains, or vegetables









						Association of changes in red meat consumption with total and cause specific mortality among US women and men: two prospective cohort studies
					

Objective To evaluate the association of changes in red meat consumption with total and cause specific mortality in women and men.  Design Two prospective cohort studies with repeated measures of diet and lifestyle factors.  Setting Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up...




					www.bmj.com


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2022)

butcher said:


> 90% of 500 people asked an undefined question in an unreferenced study say the environment is important according to interpretation by 2nd source, and 500 people is hardly a significant data set.  And really, ask any virtue signalling teen what they think about the environment they will give the same response......
> ETA: the paper was actually about comparison of inter-generational fears about the environment, and they were given a script to read first stating "
> 
> scientists have agreed for more than 30 years that climate change is happening but “older generations did not do enough to stop it.” They also read that “future generations are more likely to experience the worst effects” of climate change and that “young people around the world have started to criticise older people and governments for not taking climate change seriously enough.”
> ...



You can fluster around all you like, but it would appear that there is a downward trend in eating meat - at least in the UK and US - add that's a good thing, right?









						Britons cut meat-eating by 17%, but must double that to hit target
					

People have been advised to reduce consumption by 30% for health and environmental reasons




					www.theguardian.com
				














						Nearly One in Four in U.S. Have Cut Back on Eating Meat
					

Nearly one in four Americans (23%) report eating less meat in the past year than they have previously, with the highest rates of reported meat consumption reduction among women, nonwhites and Democrats.




					news.gallup.com
				












						Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme
					

Despite the overall reduction in meat intake, reaching meat-consumption targets that align with sustainable diets will require a substantial acceleration of this trend.



					www.thelancet.com
				












						Over 15 yrs, US diets have gradually shifted away from beef
					

US citizens are eating less animal-based products—and that's driven a 35% decrease in dietary carbon emissions over 15 years. | Anthropocene Magazine




					www.anthropocenemagazine.org


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2022)

editor said:


> You can fluster around all you like, but it would appear that there is a downward trend in eating meat - at least in the UK and US - add that's a good thing, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I have frequently said, in fact _ad nauseam_ to us both, I don't oppose people eating less but better produced meat, in fact that is my business model. 

Still quoting the Guardian as a reliable source I see.......
ETA nice little dig with the fluster bit, stop it or I may flounce too 🥺


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2022)

butcher said:


> As I have frequently said, in fact _ad nauseam_ to us both, I don't oppose people eating less but better produced meat, in fact that is my business model.
> 
> Still quoting the Guardian as a reliable source I see.......
> ETA nice little dig with the fluster bit, stop it or I may flounce too 🥺


This is getting tiresome. You're ignoring 75% of the links I posted just to repeat your unfounded allegation that anything posted in the Guardian is biased and unreliable. If you're going to keep repeating it as a means to discount anything you don't like reading, can you back this claim up now please/

And your small business model is a niche one that is frankly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of people will continue to eat factory farmed slop because that's all they can afford, or they simply don't care about the horrendous trail of blood that gets their bucket full of cheap chicken parts.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 30, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yes, its referenced, but, as a science man, I'm sure you know that the peer review process is more rigorous for an article than a letter?
> 
> Your complaint that you've posted meta analyses that have been ignored because they're by "the wrong scientists", is ironic, because that's literally what you just did. In response to the meta-analysis posted by CNT36 you post a letter responding to an entirely different study!
> 
> ...


The letter has supporting references. Lordy.

Even the response to the letter acknowledges that it has a point and the science will be reviewed for 2020


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 30, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> The letter has supporting references. Lordy.
> 
> Even the response to the letter acknowledges that it has a point and the science will be reviewed for 2020



I know, I already agreed it had references. Bizarre response. The meta-analysis the letter is responding to isn't the one another user posted up here. That you posted it just shows you're engaging in the same cherry picking you're disavowing others for.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 30, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I know, I already agreed it had references. Bizarre response. The meta-analysis the letter is responding to isn't the one another user posted up here. That you posted it just shows you're engaging in the same cherry picking you're disavowing others for.


Disavow does not mean what you think it does

to say that you know nothing about something, or that you have no responsibility for or connection with something: 
They were quick to disavow the rumour.
She tried to disavow her past.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 30, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I know, I already agreed it had references. Bizarre response. The meta-analysis the letter is responding to isn't the one another user posted up here. That you posted it just shows you're engaging in the same cherry picking you're disavowing others for.


I didn't say it was, but it is on the same topic, no?

And no, it doesn't show that at all - I've posted up hundreds of references on her and attempted to discuss animal agriculture critically, highlighting ways I think that it needs to change to become less reliant on petrochemical fert and how soil building will be key.

You haven't - there have been a handful of references quoted over and over with sweeping subject changes whenever it looked like any degree of complexity was creeping into what is quite a complex topic, and then the whole thread has been punctuated with the wholesale dumping of (often the same and/or from the same source) articles from the lay press along with some truly bizarre assertions like "plants don't need nutrients because dinosaurs".

Back along I looked at all the lay press stuff that had been posted and found four or five papers the whole lot relied on, because it seemed quite interesting to me that a "consensus" could be manufactured by repeated articles sourced from (mostly) Poore and Nemecek, 2018.

Clearly, this is not just of concern to me, but the scientific community - the Dublin Declaration of scientists now has 575 signatories, and given the size of the scientific community, this is pretty significant .Home


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yes, its referenced, but, as a science man, I'm sure you know that the peer review process is more rigorous for an article than a letter?


You clearly didn't read the authors' reply to the letter, which I linked to. They have admitted that they made errors and say that their next publication will correct those errors with a likely correction downwards of red-meat-linked mortality. It means that GBD 2019, which produced startling results completely different from previous findings, is probably wrong (being so wildly different should be a red flag, after all), and we should wait for GBD 2020 before drawing any conclusions. That's not just some non-peer-reviewed letter. It's what the authors of GBD 2019 themselves say.


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2022)

editor said:


> This is getting tiresome. You're ignoring 75% of the links I posted just to repeat your unfounded allegation that anything posted in the Guardian is biased and unreliable. If you're going to keep repeating it as a means to discount anything you don't like reading, can you back this claim up now please/
> 
> And your small business model is a niche one that is frankly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of people will continue to eat factory farmed slop because that's all they can afford, or they simply don't care about the horrendous trail of blood that gets their bucket full of cheap chicken parts.


Ignored by agreeing that people should eat less meat, I see............

"If you're going to keep repeating it as a means to discount anything you don't like reading"   I know such behaviour is alien to you so will try to curb it.

BTW the growth in the independent meat industry is in 'niche businesses' like mine but do tell me more of the grand scheme of things and my place in it, I do so love being patronised ........and please explain why I shouldn't serve all those ordinary working people who use my business as they prefer less better sourced meat.....you obviously have a firm grasp of the area I work in the diverse demographic I serve.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 30, 2022)

editor said:


> And your small business model is a niche one that is frankly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.


On the contrary, if his "niche business model" returned to actually be the "grand scheme of things" which it was, you know, the way that whole thing used to be before the marketisation of it by big capital and the supermarkets including everything else like bread, cheese, veg, it would be a much healthier place for animals and humans alike. You can't knock him for trying to continue his traditional trade against those factors in a world where people are still going to continue to eat meat. At least he's presenting an alternative to meat eaters who want to continue eating meat with some conscience about where that meat comes from.

In my opinion you'd be better getting behind that sort of commerce than wasting your energy on living on the pipe-dream that some day soon we'll all live on a vegetarian planet chief, it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetime, not in the next.

Promoting the concept of eat less, buy better, from healthier sources who's origins are exposed to better animal husbandry and in turn makes for a better countryside economy seems a lot better than banging on  "Stop eating meat, It's killing the planet" to me as a method of reduction in the harm that's being done. I also don't think that it's purely a thing of economics it's much more to do with educating people about the same things that you're rightly fucked off about in animal welfare.

Putting the money back in local farming communities, ensuring people like Welsh Hill farmers can make a living out of their natural *heritage* (Something I often think is overlooked in this debate) , cutting out the supermarkets and enabling a return of independent traders on our high streets is much more of a realistic goal than thinking everyone is going to go veggie anytime this century.  

It's the same with fish but at least with a rod you have a choice with what you put in the pan.


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> On the contrary, if his "niche business model" returned to actually be the "grand scheme of things" which it was, you know, the way that whole thing used to be before the marketisation of it by big capital and the supermarkets including everything else like bread, cheese, veg, it would be a much healthier place for animals and humans alike. You can't knock him for trying to continue his traditional trade against those factors in a world where people are still going to continue to eat meat. At least he's presenting an alternative to meat eaters who want to continue eating meat with some conscience about where that meat comes from.
> 
> In my opinion you'd be better getting behind that sort of commerce than wasting your energy on living on the pipe-dream that some day soon we'll all live on a vegetarian planet chief, it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetime, not in the next.
> 
> ...


If you want to hear a real pipdream, expecting a near-future where the vast majority of meat is produced by 'people like Welsh Hill farmers' is really the stuff of dreamers.

Most of the dead animal people shove in their faces comes from ghastly factory farms which are _increasing_ every fucking year. Some small business selling 'nice' meat is nothing but a drop in a deep, bloody ocean.


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2022)

editor said:


> If you want to hear a real pipdream, expecting a near-future where the vast majority of meat is produced by 'people like Welsh Hill farmers' is really the stuff of dreamers.
> 
> Most of the dead animal people shove in their faces comes from ghastly factory farms which are _increasing_ every fucking year. Some small business selling 'nice' meat is nothing but a drop in a deep, bloody ocean.



Have you always been a townie Ed? ie lived in Cities/Towns not in villages.  Not my business at all just curious. I am trying to understand your position as I hope you might try to appreciate mine.

I ask because friedaweed explained my general feeling about my choice (and it was a choice) of living far more eloquently than I would have if asked.  

It reminded me that part of why I have my business is due to a deep connection with the soil I still feel although I now live in a city (and spent 5+ years in the East end and Kilburn), I put this partly down to a rural childhood and teen age life.  It is also exactly what friedaweed touched on when speaking of the heritage aspect of traditional farming/meat production.


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 30, 2022)

Average sheep flock size in UK : 450
Average cattle herd size in the UK: 145


There's a world of difference between intensive pig and poultry production and ruminant livestock production on the whole.

It's highly likely if you buy lamb, it's been grazed outdoors for most, if not all of its life, beef may have been finished indoors and cows often come in for the winter (too much rain here mostly, the cattle would be standing in mud).


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 30, 2022)

butcher said:


> Have you always been a townie Ed? ie lived in Cities/Towns not in villages.  Not my business at all just curious. I am trying to understand your position as I hope you might try to appreciate mine.
> 
> I ask because friedaweed explained my general feeling about my choice (and it was a choice) of living far more eloquently than I would have if asked.
> 
> It reminded me that part of why I have my business is due to a deep connection with the soil I still feel although I now live in a city (and spent 5+ years in the East end and Kilburn), I put this partly down to a rural childhood and teen age life.  It is also exactly what friedaweed touched on when speaking of the heritage aspect of traditional farming/meat production.



Interestingly (or not): I'm originally from Salford (Gt Manchester) but my mum's friend married a cumbrian farmer so we used to go up there a lot as kids. Didn't move to the countryside until my dad took a job down south when I was 10. Hung about on mate's farms a lot.

Think I'm still (was) the only shepherd in the family....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 30, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You clearly didn't read the authors' reply to the letter, which I linked to. They have admitted that they made errors and say that their next publication will correct those errors with a likely correction downwards of red-meat-linked mortality. It means that GBD 2019, which produced startling results completely different from previous findings, is probably wrong (being so wildly different should be a red flag, after all), and we should wait for GBD 2020 before drawing any conclusions. That's not just some non-peer-reviewed letter. It's what the authors of GBD 2019 themselves say.



I'd have been more impressed if FM had just quoted the authors (partial) retraction of their findings. But even then, so what? It was FM that bought the study to the thread in first place - nobody else cited it! The paper he was responding to (and ignored) was published more recently and had more modest findings:



> This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Higher risk of colorectal, colon, rectal, lung, and renal cell cancers were also observed with high total red and processed meat consumption.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 1, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Average sheep flock size in UK : 450
> Average cattle herd size in the UK: 145


Omg mega farming.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Average sheep flock size in UK : 450
> Average cattle herd size in the UK: 145
> 
> 
> ...



It is also the case that in the parts of the world in which dairy farming has been growing most rapidly, such as India and Pakistan, most of that dairy farming is done by smallholders. They're a world away from industrialised farming. Any serious look at how farming might be changed needs to include those stakeholders front and centre. If it doesn't, it's worthless.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> If you want to hear a real pipdream, expecting a near-future where the vast majority of meat is produced by 'people like Welsh Hill farmers' is really the stuff of dreamers.
> 
> Most of the dead animal people shove in their faces comes from ghastly factory farms which are _increasing_ every fucking year. Some small business selling 'nice' meat is nothing but a drop in a deep, bloody ocean.


I used the example of North Wales Hill farmers because I remember only too well the number of them who were taking their own lives because they couldn't make a living out of the thing they had done for generations when the supermarkets flexed their grip. There has been a recovery in that aspect of farming and there is more than one butcher doing what butcher  Is doing.

local butchers selling locally reared quality meat is not a niche drop in the ocean its much more widespread than that. Not all meat comes out of a factory but if that's the thing that gets your goat then what I've put to you is an alternative to factory farming worth getting behind. Educating people away from factory farmed meat is more likely to change things for the better than waiting for everyone to have some sort of vegetarian epiphany.

A return to better practices for the benefit of rural communities and the economy as a whole. Better self sufficiency, less transportation, more local jobs, better meat. 

Its more likely to work than ranting 'Dead animal' hoping that it will put people off meat and on to tofu.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 1, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> I used the example of North Wales Hill farmers because I remember only too well the number of them who were taking their own lives because they couldn't make a living out of the thing they had done for generations when the supermarkets flexed their grip. There has been a recovery in that aspect of farming and there is more than one butcher doing what butcher  Is doing.


Farming generally has one of the highest suicide rates out of any industry in the UK. 

Sadly, this is often misrepresented by the vegan cultists as mental damage from rearing livestock who go to slaughter, when if you read any research around this, this is not the case.


----------



## Karl Masks (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> This is getting tiresome. You're ignoring 75% of the links I posted just to repeat your unfounded allegation that anything posted in the Guardian is biased and unreliable.


I think you need to find a greater plurality of links because most of the time you're just posting the same link multiple times. Case in point, the study that was just being discussed


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> I used the example of North Wales Hill farmers because I remember only too well the number of them who were taking their own lives because they couldn't make a living out of the thing they had done for generations when the supermarkets flexed their grip. There has been a recovery in that aspect of farming and there is more than one butcher doing what butcher  Is doing.
> 
> local butchers selling locally reared quality meat is not a niche drop in the ocean its much more widespread than that. Not all meat comes out of a factory but if that's the thing that gets your goat then what I've put to you is an alternative to factory farming worth getting behind. Educating people away from factory farmed meat is more likely to change things for the better than waiting for everyone to have some sort of vegetarian epiphany.
> 
> ...


Ah, so it's all about 'educating people' not to buy the affordable factory farmed slop that's served up in fast food restaurants across the land but to somehow find more money to buy flesh from animals that have been slaughtered in nicer conditions.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is also the case that in the parts of the world in which dairy farming has been growing most rapidly, such as India and Pakistan, most of that dairy farming is done by smallholders. They're a world away from industrialised farming. Any serious look at how farming might be changed needs to include those stakeholders front and centre. If it doesn't, it's worthless.


Oh right. So carry on filling your face with factory farmed, cruelly-soaked meat because dairy farming in Pakistan


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> Oh right. So carry on filling your face with factory farmed, cruelly-soaked meat because dairy farming in Pakistan


How the hell did you get that from my post? It's impossible to have a discussion with you on this subject. 

You post up link after link giving worldwide figures, but the world is a big place and worldwide figures cover a wide range of areas, people and situations. Anyone who quotes worldwide ruminant emissions figures and says they need to be reduced needs to grapple with the fact that dairy farming in places like the Indian subcontinent has expanded a fair bit in recent years. Any solution that doesn't include those farmers - not as people to be talked at but as people to be talked to - is worthless. The likes of Monbiot and his dribblings are worthless.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How the hell did you get that from my post? It's impossible to have a discussion with you on this subject.
> 
> You post up link after link giving worldwide figures, but the world is a big place and worldwide figures cover a wide range of areas, people and situations. Anyone who quotes worldwide ruminant emissions figures and says they need to be reduced needs to grapple with the fact that dairy farming in places like the Indian subcontinent has expanded a fair bit in recent years. Any solution that doesn't include those farmers - not as people to be talked at but as people to be talked to - is worthless. The likes of Monbiot and his dribblings are worthless.



Private car ownership is also rapidly expanding in India. If somebody raised that in a discussion about the need to move away from burning fossil fuels everyone would note it for the bullshit red herring it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Private car ownership is also rapidly expanding in India. If somebody raised that in a discussion about the need to move away from burning fossil fuels everyone would note it for the bullshit red herring it is.


It's not a red herring given the various ways that farming is embedded into the cultures of, well, every human society. 

The red herring is the idea that global heating is being driven by ruminant farming. It is the extraction of carbon from under the ground, where it has been locked away for millions of years, and adding that into the carbon cycle that is driving global heating. And the responsibility for that rests firmly on the shoulders of the industrialised North.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a red herring given the various ways that farming is embedded into the cultures of, well, every human society.
> 
> The red herring is the idea that global heating is being driven by ruminant farming. It is the extraction of carbon from under the ground, where it has been locked away for millions of years, and adding that into the carbon cycle that is driving global heating. And the responsibility for that rests firmly on the shoulders of the industrialised North.



Cars also exist in every human society (or the vast majority) too. It's a red herring because this is an exchange between mostly British people and everyone understands what's under discussion here is reducing meat consumption in, as you put it, 'the industrialised North'. Nothing we say here matters for people in India.

The burning of fossil fuels for electricity and heat is the leading cause of global GhG emissions, but that doesn't mean there aren't other contributing factors. "Livestock" farming contributes at least 14.5% of global GhG emissions - more than the entire transport sector. But animal farming has devastating environmental impacts far beyond its GhG emissions. We could talk about ammonia emissions, deforestation, land use, land degradation, soil erosion, ocean dead zones, water pollution, water depletion. In all of these areas the evidence is overwhelming that animal agriculture is having the worst impacts of the agricultural sector. That's why the IPCC, the FAO, the UNEP and pretty much every reputable environmental NGO and activist group are emphasising that meat reduction is part of an effective policy of achieving environmental sustainability. 

Instead of looking at the totality of evidence, the classic strategy of the meat industry apologists on this thread is to try and nitpick the odd detail of this or that study, to try and sew enough seeds of doubt in their own mind and others about the need to drastically reduce meat production and consumption. It's pretty tedious stuff.


----------



## butcher (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> Ah, so it's all about 'educating people' not to buy the affordable factory farmed slop that's served up in fast food restaurants across the land but to somehow find more money to buy flesh from animals that have been slaughtered in nicer conditions.


How did you gain your encyclopaedic knowledge of comparative meat prices across different markets and the meat buying habits of different demographics?  Unrelated Guardian article perchance?

I have a clue on nut roast and tofu prices but I am sure the hard up are clamouring to buy them, no doubt very affordable.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 1, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Private car ownership is also rapidly expanding in India. If somebody raised that in a discussion about the need to move away from burning fossil fuels everyone would note it for the bullshit red herring it is.



I think that you honestly think these analogies are quite clever....

You can't eat cars. You won't starve if you don't have access to sufficient motor vehicles. The type and quantity of motor vehicles available to you have little to do with local climate, soil type etc. Cars don't have a role in the ecosystem, nor do they shit out fertiliser. Food and farming (and the culture surrounding it) has been in place for millennia, it's often intrinsically linked to cultural identity and has been for thousands of years before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Britain is a slightly unusual proposition, insomuch as we had a very early industrial revolution (which removes people from the land) and our food culture, because of that and perhaps advertising postwar seems to have eroded lots of it.
Plenty of cultures not a million miles away really value food - France, Italy etc


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2022)

butcher said:


> How did you gain your encyclopaedic knowledge of comparative meat prices across different markets and the meat buying habits of different demographics?  Unrelated Guardian article perchance?
> 
> I have a clue on nut roast and tofu prices but I am sure the hard up are clamouring to buy them, no doubt very affordable.



So you're saying you can match the price of meat produced in factory farms?  Please share your secret!


----------



## kabbes (Dec 1, 2022)

And yet, people still buy his meat.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 1, 2022)

The only meat I can see being difficult to price match (or at least get close) is chicken (possibly pork, given the contraction in supply), especially if a butcher is buying direct from an abattoir/farmer.
Maybe I've missed something butcher ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> So you're saying you can match the price of meat produced in factory farms?  Please share your secret!


Lamb isn't produced in factory farms. Most beef in the UK isn't either, although as we know, US-style feedlot farming has arrived here. But I'm pretty sure that everyone active on this thread is opposed to that development.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lamb isn't produced in factory farms. Most beef in the UK isn't either, although as we know, US-style feedlot farming has arrived here. But I'm pretty sure that everyone active on this thread is opposed to that development.


Finishing beef in lots has always happened to some extent, I'm not sure it's quite as controversial as is made out - traditionally "barley beef" - tends to be in winter when it'd be hard for the animals to gain fat/weight outdoors (breed notwithstanding, you could finish native breeds outside quite easily)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 1, 2022)

Deeply grim tail of the direction of animal "farming" in China. A new 26-storey pig torture skyscraper: “Workers will be required to go through multiple rounds of disinfection and testing before being given clearance to enter, and won’t be able to leave the site until their next break – reportedly once a week.” China’s 26-storey pig skyscraper ready to slaughter 1 million pigs a year


----------



## butcher (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> So you're saying you can match the price of meat produced in factory farms?  Please share your secret!


You tell me, you are the one who makes such positive assertions.......
Which supermarket, which product, like for like?


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2022)

butcher said:


> You tell me, you are the one who makes such positive assertions.......
> Which supermarket, which product, like for like?


How do you compare with Iceland's prices? Or any one of the zillions of awful fast food chicken/kebab outlets?


----------



## mentalchik (Dec 1, 2022)

I been watching this thread for ages and though i completely agree that we need to eat less meat no one has proposed any feasible ways to get from one to the other, you all seem to be going round and round in circles
....i work in a medium sized supermarket and i can tell you it isn't slowing down as of yet....we sell massive amounts of meat...in fact it's so wanted that our 'christmas' large joints are targeted by our local shoplifters


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2022)

mentalchik said:


> I been watching this thread for ages and though i completely agree that we need to eat less meat no one has proposed any feasible ways to get from one to the other, you all seem to be going round and round in circles



These threads aren’t about discussing alternatives and never have been. They’re just froth-outlets.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 1, 2022)

mentalchik said:


> I been watching this thread for ages and though i completely agree that we need to eat less meat no one has proposed any feasible ways to get from one to the other, you all seem to be going round and round in circles
> ....i work in a medium sized supermarket and i can tell you it isn't slowing down as of yet....we sell massive amounts of meat...in fact it's so wanted that our 'christmas' large joints are targeted by our local shoplifters


can you tell us anything about the exorbitant pricing of meat alternatives eg barley, lentils, tofu, etc


----------



## butcher (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> How do you compare with Iceland's prices? Or any one of the zillions of awful fast food chicken/kebab outlets?


Fresh food vs frozen or cooked, sorry try again


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> How do you compare with Iceland's prices? Or any one of the zillions of awful fast food chicken/kebab outlets?


I'm genuinely at a loss as to what point you think you're making now. 

There are three strands to this, which keep getting tangled up. 

First, there is the basic morality of farming animals and eating meat. Should we be doing this at all? Should those who think it's wrong be telling others that they are wrong to participate? 

Second, linked, there is animal welfare and the ethics of intensive animal farming of various kinds. Should we be doing this at all? Should those who think it's wrong be telling others that they are wrong to participate? 

And then third, there are the arguments to do with sustainability, boidiversity, potentially climate-changing effects, and social justice for producers and consumers. In contrast to the first two strands, which potentially have simple answers depending on your beliefs, this last one is complex and wide-ranging. It's very certainly not as simple as plants good animals bad for a whole host of reasons to do with monocultures, biodiversity, soils, the widespread use of fertilisers and pesticides made using oil, etc, etc. 

Our positions on the first two strands are of course going to influence what we think the last strand should be. But this last strand is essentially separate from the other two. Animal farming can be done in sustainable ways. Plant farming can be done in unsustainable ways. And many of the sustainable methods of doing one involve integration with the other. 

It would be helpful if we were able to keep a clear head as to which bit of this we're addressing in our posts. Full-frontal triple-strand arguments don't work.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 1, 2022)

mentalchik said:


> I been watching this thread for ages and though i completely agree that we need to eat less meat no one has proposed any feasible ways to get from one to the other, you all seem to be going round and round in circles
> ....i work in a medium sized supermarket and i can tell you it isn't slowing down as of yet....we sell massive amounts of meat...in fact it's so wanted that our 'christmas' large joints are targeted by our local shoplifters


Makes you wonder why the gang here put so much effort and time into dissing veganism if it's so insignificant eh!


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 1, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Makes you wonder why the gang here put so much effort and time into dissing veganism if it's so insignificant eh!


You seem to have manufactured yourself a shoulder chip, there....


----------



## ddraig (Dec 1, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> You seem to have manufactured yourself a shoulder chip, there....


yeah course, must be, well done, keep it up


----------



## mentalchik (Dec 1, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Makes you wonder why the gang here put so much effort and time into dissing veganism if it's so insignificant eh!


Where did i say it was insignificant ?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 1, 2022)

mentalchik said:


> Where did i say it was insignificant ?


Not saying you did, I appreciate what you're saying and acknowledge it, Veganism is still relatively tiny

Funny then that it lives rent free in many people's heads and some here in particular just won't stop attacking/rubbishing it
I know some of it is being done by a few just to attack and troll editor but the fragility by some if hilarious!


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 1, 2022)

ddraig said:


> Not saying you did, I appreciate what you're saying and acknowledge it, Veganism is still relatively tiny
> 
> Funny then that it lives rent free in many people's heads and some here in particular just won't stop attacking/rubbishing it
> I know some of it is being done by a few just to attack and troll editor but the fragility by some if hilarious!


That's your take away from this?


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> Ah, so it's all about 'educating people' not to buy the affordable factory farmed slop that's served up in fast food restaurants across the land but to somehow find more money to buy flesh from animals that have been slaughtered in nicer conditions.



This is where I got my meat yesterday on the way up to the highlands. Not a niche drop in the ocean. An educated choice of preferring to buy better and less. 

I saw it an thought of you.

Maybe you should stand outside McDonalds then and enlighten people. How will people change if they don't know the horrors that you know.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 2, 2022)

On BBC 2 at 22:30 this Sunday, Andrea Arnold's multiple award-winning documentary 'Cow' - an unflinching look at British dairy farming:









						Cow
					

Released 14 January 2022



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Unlike Panorama's expose of brutal and sadistic torture of dairy cows on British farms, 'Cow' is not undercover footage, it is all filmed with the consent of the farmers. It doesn't document illegal activity, but routine dairy industry practices. Would appreciate if any people on this thread who think the dairy industry should continue to exist could watch it and then share their thoughts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Maybe you should stand outside McDonalds then and enlighten people. How will people change if they don't know the horrors that you know.


Ironically, McDonald's is far from the worst place to buy meat. Their beef is British/Irish, their pork is outdoor-bred - not free range but in the top 40% for welfare - and their eggs are free-range. 

Buying better-welfare meat isn't straightforward and it's not just a matter of price. You can buy high-end products like parma ham or chorizo and the animal welfare standards may well be below those of a McDonald's sausage.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 2, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> On BBC 2 at 22:30 this Sunday, Andrea Arnold's multiple award-winning documentary 'Cow' - an unflinching look at British dairy farming:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will find this here and watch it


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> This is where I got my meat yesterday on the way up to the highlands. Not a niche drop in the ocean. An educated choice of preferring to buy better and less.
> 
> I saw it an thought of you.
> 
> ...


I'm sure it's all lovely for you but it's absolutely niche in the grand scheme of overall meat sales. 
What percentage of meat consumed un the UK comes from places like this do you think?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> I'm sure it's all lovely for you but it's absolutely niche in the grand scheme of overall meat sales.
> What percentage of meat consumed un the UK comes from places like this do you think?



This is all very confusing. You've told people off before for focusing on systems and societies and downplaying the role of consumer choice in changing those systems, but now you are poo-pooing the idea of consumer choice driving change in systems.

You yourself celebrate the fact that veganism is no longer niche. What is niche in one era can become mainstream in the next, _as you have repeatedly pointed out_.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is all very confusing. You've told people off before for focusing on systems and societies and downplaying the role of consumer choice in changing those systems, but now you are poo-pooing the idea of consumer choice driving change in systems.
> 
> You yourself celebrate the fact that veganism is no longer niche. What is niche in one era can become mainstream in the next, _as you have repeatedly pointed out_.


So you actually believe that people are going to stop eating factory farmed slop en masse and go for the more expensive 'nice' stuff? 

So what evidence do you have for this huge shift in consumer habits? Because from where I'm sitting I'm just seeing more and more factory farms being built.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> So you actually believe that people are going to stop eating factory farmed slop en masse and go for the more expensive 'nice' stuff?
> 
> So what evidence do you have for this huge shift in consumer habits? Because from where I'm sitting I'm just seeing more and more factory farms being built.


I think your arguments are all over the place. That was the point I was making there.

But to take one issue, the issue of farrowing crates, they're used for about 60% of pigs in the UK, nearly all pigs in Denmark, and no pigs at all in Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, where they're banned. So supporting a campaign to have them banned in the UK is a good thing to do, imho. When we were in the EU, UK campaigners were working towards an EU-wide ban. 

You may well not think this enough, but it's not nothing. And it's also not nothing when the likes of McDonald's switch to farrowing crate-free meat. We're now close to a point where they will be banned in the UK, but one of the arguments used against this kind of ban is that it places UK farmers at a competitive disadvantage. What is really needed is international measures against this kind of thing - measures that would ensure that your parma ham or chorizo would also come from outdoor-bred pigs. 

What are farrowing crates? | RSPCA Assured


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> So you actually believe that people are going to stop eating factory farmed slop en masse and go for the more expensive 'nice' stuff?
> 
> So what evidence do you have for this huge shift in consumer habits? Because from where I'm sitting I'm just seeing more and more factory farms being built.


Where would you place its liklihood versus people giving up meat completely?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

Another measure, eggs, shows marked improvements in the last few years here in the UK. Free range eggs' share of the market has doubled in the last 20 years. Again, I would like to see caged hen eggs banned internationally. But at least they now only make up one third of the UK market.

UK Egg Industry Data | Official Egg Info

Doesn't totally solve welfare issues. Beak trimming is another practice I would like to see banned, and many free range hens still have their beaks trimmed. That's an issue I'd like to see given much wider attention.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Where would you place its liklihood versus people giving up meat completely?


That's hugely unlikely and it's not something I've ever expected to happen - at least not in the near future.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another measure, eggs, shows marked improvements in the last few years here in the UK. Free range eggs' share of the market has doubled in the last 20 years. Again, I would like to see caged hen eggs banned internationally. But at least they now only make up one third of the UK market.
> 
> UK Egg Industry Data | Official Egg Info
> 
> Doesn't totally solve welfare issues. Beak trimming is another practice I would like to see banned, and many free range hens still have their beaks trimmed. That's an issue I'd like to see given much wider attention.


Except



> Of all their cons, the “free range” egg is perhaps the most audacious. You’d need Disney-level imagination to believe the UK can produce more than 10bn eggs each year without inconveniencing any chickens. But by slapping “free range” on the label, and perhaps a nice pastoral scene with a few chickens roaming free, most consumers never realise how the eggs came to be in the box.











						Free range is a con. There’s no such thing as an ethical egg | Chas Newkey-Burden
					

Slapping ‘free range’ on a box of eggs simply hides the catalogue of routine horrors that are allowed under this reassuring banner




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

That author would fit in well here. He makes some valid points but wraps them all up in so much self-righteousness that he just comes across as a twat.

None of that is new to me btw. The birds have their beaks trimmed because they are placed in overcrowded conditions. For decent hen welfare, you don't have to go organic necessarily. I recommend Waitrose blacktail eggs. The birds don't have their beaks trimmed. Their Essential range free range eggs on the other hand come from conditions like those described in that self-righteous article. The blacktail eggs are more expensive than the Essential ones but quite a bit cheaper than their most expensive eggs.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That author would fit in well here. He makes some valid points but wraps them all up in so much self-righteousness that he just comes across as a twat.
> 
> None of that is new to me btw. The birds have their beaks trimmed because they are placed in overcrowded conditions. For decent hen welfare, you don't have to go organic necessarily. I recommend Waitrose blacktail eggs. The birds don't have their beaks trimmed. Their Essential range free range eggs on the other hand come from conditions like those described in that self-righteous article. The blacktail eggs are more expensive than the Essential ones but quite a bit cheaper than their most expensive eggs.


I'd go one step further and AI notwithstanding, suggest far more community owned egg production.

Pigs and poultry were domesticated alongside people and do pretty well off scraps in various forms (making sure they stay disease free, naturally). Plenty of community veg growing cropping up, adding chicken could only improve soil fertility and make those enterprises more holistic.

As I said before - more people producing food, rather than less.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> That's hugely unlikely and it's not something I've ever expected to happen - at least not in the near future.


Given that what do you think should happen considering your environmental concerns? If consumer pressure can work what should they do. Everyone buy less meat? Better sourced meat?  Two out of three going veggie? What changes should be made? I don't think less but more environmentally friendly meat is a bad start.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I'd go one step further and AI notwithstanding, suggest far more community owned egg production.
> 
> Pigs and poultry were domesticated alongside people and do pretty well off scraps in various forms (making sure they stay disease free, naturally). Plenty of community veg growing cropping up, adding chicken could only improve soil fertility and make those enterprises more holistic.
> 
> As I said before - more people producing food, rather than less.


I'm repeating myself here but I'd love it if we were to reach a situation in which everyone had the chance to spend one or two days a week working on a community farm of some kind. Be great for us city types to mix up our working week and it would have all kinds of benefits in terms of local food production. A mate does a fair bit of gardening on his estate's community patch, but many of us don't have anything nearby at all. His centre could keep chickens, definitely. I might suggest it.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm repeating myself here but I'd love it if we were to reach a situation in which everyone had the chance to spend one or two days a week working on a community farm of some kind. Be great for us city types to mix up our working week and it would have all kinds of benefits in terms of local food production. A mate does a fair bit of gardening on his estate's community patch, but many of us don't have anything nearby at all. His centre could keep chickens, definitely. I might suggest it.



I've been helping a school put together its curriculum to deliver the new iGSCE in Agriculture as of this September, I think  - I believe there are only three schools in the country doing this at the moment but I'd love to see it take off. This would give kids who are interested (but perhaps not necessarily so interested that they want to make a career of it) a chance to interact with agriculture and gain some real working knowledge of where our food comes from and insight into how they might produce some.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

Sadly, if you look at the new housing developments sprouting around London, there is no provision for any of this kind of thing. Mate mentioned above lives on an estate built in the 50s/60s for which community provision of this kind was part of the brief. That's no longer the case. There are so many aspects to building healthier food systems and one of them is to build healthier, integrated built environments. Every development that doesn't do that is a missed opportunity.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sadly, if you look at the new housing developments sprouting around London, there is no provision for any of this kind of thing. Mate mentioned above lives on an estate built in the 50s/60s for which community provision of this kind was part of the brief. That's no longer the case. There are so many aspects to building healthier food systems and one of them is to build healthier, integrated built environments. Every development that doesn't do that is a missed opportunity.


There are loads of benefits to Urban Ag, I cover it a bit in a "sustainable agriculture" module I deliver, not least are the social benefits (community integration and inclusion). In some cases, its actually more efficient than field based horticulture (you can grow up, for example, with supports which would be impossible if you were going to combine peas or beans). In the US they are taking abandoned spaces in the rust belt - over here, there's lots of potential space, the difficulty is access (car park roofs, for example).


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> I'm sure it's all lovely for you but it's absolutely niche in the grand scheme of overall meat sales.
> What percentage of meat consumed un the UK comes from places like this do you think?


Pretty much all of mine and that's enough for me. An educated ethical choice pretty much the same as your dietary choices.

It's not 'expensive nice stuff' it's a choice in  response to the same things you're banging on about but because it involves people still eating meat you can't engage in a discussion about it and attempting to ridicle it as trendy and niche. 

Just comes across a bit ranty to me especiallyfor someone woh must has been on the recieving end of similar for being a trendy vegan. 

Each to their own.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Pretty much all of mine and that's enough for me. An educated ethical choice pretty much the same as your dietary choices.
> 
> It's not 'expensive nice stuff' it's a choice in  response to the same things you're banging on about but because it involves people still eating meat you can't engage in a discussion about it and attempting to ridicle it as trendy and niche.
> 
> ...



Sometimes you can save money by going to yer actual butchers too.
You don't often get scrag end of lamb or decent offal in the supermarket.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Pretty much all of mine and that's enough for me. An educated ethical choice pretty much the same as your dietary choices.
> 
> It's not 'expensive nice stuff' it's a choice in  response to the same things you're banging on about but because it involves people still eating meat you can't engage in a discussion about it and attempting to ridicle it as trendy and niche.
> 
> Just comes across a bit ranty to me especiallyfor someone woh must has been on the recieving end of similar for being a trendy vegan.


You know, I've never realised I'm supposed to be a 'trendy vegan' before, But then that's quite probably because I'm not one.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm repeating myself here but I'd love it if we were to reach a situation in which everyone had the chance to spend one or two days a week working on a community farm of some kind. Be great for us city types to mix up our working week and it would have all kinds of benefits in terms of local food production. A mate does a fair bit of gardening on his estate's community patch, but many of us don't have anything nearby at all. His centre could keep chickens, definitely. I might suggest it.


Even better if everyone got to work in an abattoir/industrial factory farm. Let people find out where that cheap bucket o'chicken wings comes from.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> Even better of everyone got to work in an abattoir/industrial factory farm. Let people find out where that cheap bucket o'chicken wings comes from.


That's your response to that post? Wow. I know you don't want to hear about constructive suggestions for non-vegan solutions to anything, but is that an excuse for being such a joyless fucker? 

You like using this smilie. Have one back.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

I'm not sure people being in abattoirs is quite the "coup" it's made out to be. I've taken people round a teaching abattoir at a university veterinary school on numerous occasions. An ex colleague is farm liason for a beef company. I've taken people round that one too, and she hosts visits often. 

People generally seem fine with it, I've had the odd one who's had to sit it out, but they are very much in the minority.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I'm not sure people being in abattoirs is quite the "coup" it's made out to be. I've taken people round a teaching abattoir at a university veterinary school on numerous occasions. An ex colleague is farm liason for a beef company. I've taken people round that one too, and she hosts visits often.
> 
> People generally seem fine with it, I've had the odd one who's had to sit it out, but they are very much in the minority.


Most people who live in societies where killing animals is done at the everyday family level grow up without having a problem with it. Some grow up to be repelled by it. 

That's not so different I don't think from our society - most people aren't repelled by the idea that animals are killed so that we can eat them but some are. But it does seem that those who are repelled by the idea struggle to understand why everyone isn't repelled.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 2, 2022)

editor said:


> Even better if everyone got to work in an abattoir/industrial factory farm. Let people find out where that cheap bucket o'chicken wings comes from.


this is the most disturbing aspect of this entire discussion. the cruelty shown these creatures is astounding...


----------



## bcuster (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Most people who live in societies where killing animals is done at the everyday family level grow up without having a problem with it. Some grow up to be repelled by it.
> 
> That's not so different I don't think from our society - most people aren't repelled by the idea that animals are killed so that we can eat them but some are. But it does seem that those who are repelled by the idea struggle to understand why everyone isn't repelled.


creatures live and die. there is no need for mankind to inject unnecessary cruelty into the already stark reality of life & death...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

bcuster said:


> creatures live and die. there is no need for mankind to inject unnecessary cruelty into the already stark reality of life & death...


That's not really my point. I'm talking here perhaps about the pig that is kept in the backyard to be killed for New Year. Other than on the day of its death, the pig has a perfectly fine life. The killing of a pig is pretty horrible, that is undeniable, but that's also no different really from the killing of a prey animal by a predator. It is something I've witnessed and I ate the pig I saw being killed. Being exposed to the reality of slaughter has not stopped me from eating meat. 

Not every post here is about industrialised factory farming. In fact some posts are explicitly about something else.


----------



## Saunders (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus your post #1932
I agree with many, most of your posts on this thread but I do think you’re being overly simplistic about people who eat meat and their comfort zone when it comes to the dead animal that they’re eating.
I eat meat, and live in a rural community where the butchers sell meat that they’ve raised and slaughtered and know I am lucky to have all this on my doorstep. Nevertheless I do also and often buy meat I have no proper idea of the provenance of, whether it’s ham for a sandwich, a saucisson from the supermarket, or food for the dog. I’m one of those meat eaters that pretends to myself that, because I know how well animals Can be reared for meat, that’s all I eat. Which isn’t true.
Also, while I think I could probably kill a rabbit, and am not bothered of my dog gets one or two, I don’t know if I could happily turn it into meat for me to eat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

Saunders said:


> I agree with many, most of your posts on this thread but I do think you’re being overly simplistic about people who eat meat and their comfort zone when it comes to the dead animal that they’re eating.
> I eat meat, and live in a rural community where the butchers sell meat that they’ve raised and slaughtered and know I am lucky to have all this on my doorstep. Nevertheless I do also and often buy meat I have no proper idea of the provenance of, whether it’s ham for a sandwich, a saucisson from the supermarket, or food for the dog. I’m one of those meat eaters that pretends to myself that, because I know how well animals Can be reared for meat, that’s all I eat. Which isn’t true.
> Also, while I think I could probably kill a rabbit, and am not bothered of my dog gets one or two, I don’t know if I could happily turn it into meat for me to eat.


I'm very far from perfect. I buy meat that I know full well is low-welfare - in a restaurant, say, or in a pie. I'm trying to do better. But I don't set myself up as some example to follow. Never have.


----------



## Saunders (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm very far from perfect. I buy meat that I know full well is low-welfare - in a restaurant, say, or in a pie. I'm trying to do better. But I don't set myself up as some example to follow. Never have.


Oh gosh I didn’t think you were, just was flagging up something.
I read this thread (I think I must have posted on it once, it turns up on my ‘alerts’) and also I’m interested in food and my near ecology, as well as the global issue that the thread OP alludes to.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

Saunders said:


> littlebabyjesus your post #1932
> I agree with many, most of your posts on this thread but I do think you’re being overly simplistic about people who eat meat and their comfort zone when it comes to the dead animal that they’re eating.
> I eat meat, and live in a rural community where the butchers sell meat that they’ve raised and slaughtered and know I am lucky to have all this on my doorstep. Nevertheless I do also and often buy meat I have no proper idea of the provenance of, whether it’s ham for a sandwich, a saucisson from the supermarket, or food for the dog. I’m one of those meat eaters that pretends to myself that, because I know how well animals Can be reared for meat, that’s all I eat. Which isn’t true.
> Also, while I think I could probably kill a rabbit, and am not bothered of my dog gets one or two, I don’t know if I could happily turn it into meat for me to eat.



In spite of coming from a city family, I grew up rurally from being 10 or so, and even within the UK, those that know how their meat arrives are, on the whole not bothered by it. 

The Rural Vs Urban working class perspective is one of the main things informing the rejection of "the left" in the countryside, much to my frustration, being a committed Salford Socialist and trade unionist. 

Ferrets, running dogs, poaching etc are part of the rural working class way of life to this day, and sadly, somehow these things have been portrayed as "right wing" by (usually) middle class, "left" townfolk. Ive stolen pheasants, rabbits and hares. I've known 'keepers steal me hares and hang them on my gatepost because I had a young family to feed and times were hard. 

People are only horrified by death for food when their life has been sterilised.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 2, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> In spite of coming from a city family, I grew up rurally from being 10 or so, and even within the UK, those that know how their meat arrives are, on the whole not bothered by it.
> 
> The Rural Vs Urban working class perspective is one of the main things informing the rejection of "the left" in the countryside, much to my frustration, being a committed Salford Socialist and trade unionist.
> 
> ...


I'm horrified by unnecessary cruelty, not by death


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

bcuster said:


> I'm horrified by unnecessary cruelty, not by death


Most farms and all abattoirs Ive been in successfully avoid that.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 2, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Most farms and all abattoirs Ive been in successfully avoid that.


where do the notorious pictures & videos of Indescribable cruelty i've seen come from then?


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 2, 2022)

bcuster said:


> where do the notorious pictures & videos of Indescribable cruelty i've seen come from then?


Farms or abattoirs? 

All the slaughter ones Ive seen that have been promoted by the likes of PETA are not obviously in the UK - they lack SOPs that are universal to UK slaughterhouses ect

Farms - I have no idea. I haven't been on all the farms in the UK, but, as I've said, Its best not to construct your view of something from online videos. You can easily go and visit farms in person on open farm sunday etc etc - go and look round some for yourself. Meet farmers, talk to them.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 3, 2022)

Saunders said:


> Also, while I think I could probably kill a rabbit, and am not bothered of my dog gets one or two, I don’t know if I could happily turn it into meat for me to eat.


If you're not going to eat it what would be the point in killing it if you could?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 3, 2022)

Just watched the film Cow. I would recommend it.

 A few comments fwiw. The only bit I find at all troubling in the context of this thread is the separation of the cows from their calves. Of course they suffer when that happens. This was a farm on which they prevent calves from suckling. I'd be interested to compare to how things work on farms where they don't do that. Such farms are not widespread, but they do exist - it is a possible way to do it. But it's a strength of the film that this is a typical dairy  farm, seemingly well run by people who have a certain affection for their animals. 

The filmmaker Andrea Arnold is clearly making lots of choices here. She portrays Luma more than once as seemingly the only cow in a big circle being milked that is mooing and agitated. The cows generally, Luma included, aren't bothered at all about being milked. They need to be milked after all. Luma mooing at the camera near the start is supposed to represent her separation anxiety from a calf, but tbh it could just as easily be agitation at having a camera shoved in her face. So there's a fair bit of narrative construction going on here. I don't have a problem with that, especially if the filmmaker thinks this is the best way to portray the underlying truth of a situation, which she may very well have done. And the comment from the farmer near the end that Luma is becoming more protective of her calves as she gets old is revealing. She is remembering what happened last year and the year before, and she doesn't like it.

The film captures certain moments very well. The delight among the cows at being allowed out into the fields is very well captured. Of course being inside sheds is nowhere near as pleasurable for the cows, although presumably being out in a field in winter with little grass and freezing cold wouldn't be much fun either. Luma does look knackered by the end. She's had six calves at this point so is around eight years old, maybe nine, quite old for a dairy cow but not that old for a wild bovine. But those are big fuck off udders by that point. She's made a lot of milk in that lifetime.


----------



## butcher (Dec 3, 2022)

editor said:


> You know, I've never realised I'm supposed to be a 'trendy vegan' before, But then that's quite probably because I'm not one.


So which animal products do you consume if you are not a Vegan?


----------



## iona (Dec 3, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Sometimes you can save money by going to yer actual butchers too.
> You don't often get scrag end of lamb or decent offal in the supermarket.


That's another issue with how people are disconnected with their food and where it comes from now - how much is wasted. The farmer I sometimes work for gives me really good offal for free because so many customers don't want it.


----------



## DaphneM (Dec 3, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> If you're not going to eat it what would be the point in killing it if you could?


_I shot a man in Reno_ just to watch him die


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 3, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> If you're not going to eat it what would be the point in killing it if you could?


I killed one because it was hit by a car and had been suffering for hours


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 3, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> I killed one because it was hit by a car and had been suffering for hours


Fair enough in cases like that but that's not how the post I was replying to came across.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 3, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just watched the film Cow. I would recommend it.
> 
> A few comments fwiw. The only bit I find at all troubling in the context of this thread is the separation of the cows from their calves. Of course they suffer when that happens. This was a farm on which they prevent calves from suckling. I'd be interested to compare to how things work on farms where they don't do that. Such farms are not widespread, but they do exist - it is a possible way to do it. But it's a strength of the film that this is a typical dairy  farm, seemingly well run by people who have a certain affection for their animals.


It's certainly possible: 
Home

Yields would be lower though, it kind of depends on demand. 

I don't know if the farm on the film milks with a parlour or robots, robots certainly seem a more ethical way to do it (although I'm not bothered with conventional twice a day milking, but on demand seems even better) .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 3, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It's certainly possible:
> Home
> 
> Yields would be lower though, it kind of depends on demand.
> ...


Not robots. Circular parlour bit like this one. Not in any way as clean as this one, though. I've been on dairy farms. They're never this clean.








Another choice by the filmmaker is the amount of time spent looking at milking, mating, giving birth, vet exams, etc, while the cows are inside. The only time the camera lingers on the cow eating or just sitting there among the herd chewing the cud is when the cows are in the fields. Of course, they spend most of their time when inside doing this as well, but that is barely shown. It is the cows in the background who are seen doing it while Luma is going through her various difficulties. This accentuates the contrast between the relative idyll of being in the field and the daily grind of being in the shed.

I'm sure others will draw different conclusions from the film Cow, but other than the separation from the calves, which is rough, I don't think it portrayed the life of a dairy cow as one of unremitting misery. Summer is better than winter, for sure, but that's not so surprising.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 3, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not robots. Circular parlour bit like this one. Not in any way as clean as this one, though. I've been on dairy farms. They're never this clean.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, rotary parlour.
No, won't be as clean as that but will need to be cleaned and disinfected between milkings.
Did it have cow brushes?
Cows spend most of their time eating, lying down or using the brush in my experience. 
What was down in the cubicles? Sand?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 3, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Ah, rotary parlour.
> No, won't be as clean as that but will need to be cleaned and disinfected between milkings.
> Did it have cow brushes?
> Cows spend most of their time eating, lying down or using the brush in my experience.
> What was down in the cubicles? Sand?


I don't know, sorry.  

They showed the teats being cleaned by hand before putting the suckers on. It may well have shown a cow brush, but I might not recognise one.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 3, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know, sorry.
> 
> They showed the teats being cleaned by hand before putting the suckers on. It may well have shown a cow brush, but I might not recognise one.


Cow brushes are placed around the shed, they often have motors attached which make them rotate - cows like them and go and stand against them from time to time. I guess it reproduces scratching themselves against a tree or similar.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 3, 2022)

Ok. I don't remember seeing anything like that. For the shots inside, something was always happening pretty much in terms of birth, milking, etc. The film only dwells on 'downtime' when the cows are outside. And while I think it's a good film and would recommend watching, that is a criticism that I would have of it. It's quite manipulative in certain respects.

ETA:

I was curious to see what reviews had to say about Cow. There's a fair bit of rubbish in some of them, for instance this from the Guardian:



> Arnold, however, has no desire to prettify her subject matter. The film is shot with handheld urgency, the lens positioned at udder and eye level. She forces us to confront the grinding cycle of life for a dairy cow, the dull buzz of strip lights and the murky gloom in the milking sheds. Perhaps most heartbreaking is the moment of skittish joy when the cows are released into pastures in spring – tellingly, it’s a good 45 minutes into the film before we even glimpse a blade of grass.



Cow review – Andrea Arnold’s deeply moving chronicle of the life of a dairy cow

Does the reviewer not understand how films are made? The first two sentences are fine, but then it just descends into nonsense. It's 45 minutes into the film _before we even glimpse a blade of grass_ because the filmmaker chose to make it that way. And the cycle of life for a dairy cow is shown as grinding in large part because the filmmaker leaves out the hours spent in between the bits of action being shown. Surely this is basic stuff a professional film critic ought to know.

It's an affecting film alright. I've been thinking about it more today, hence the posts, but one thing that is absent from the film is a sense of the relationships between the cows. Cows are social animals with hierarchies. Individual cows have selective friendships with other cows in the herd. I think Arnold may have missed something important here. In following just one cow so closely, 'the lens positioned at udder and eye level', she has possibly missed out a big part of that cow's life, namely the other cows around her.


----------



## Saunders (Dec 3, 2022)

WouldBe said:


> If you're not going to eat it what would be the point in killing it if you could?


Bastards ate all my runner bean plants.
They are a dreadful pest, make holes in fields and hedges etc. I personally do not want to kill them and can cope with the damage they do but occasionally I see one with myxi, the dog might injure one and I ought to put it out of its misery, whatever. The observation I was trying to make, not very well obviously, was that I would find it very difficult to turn the dead rabbit into meat and then eat it. And that I think that I’m not uncommon in being perfectly comfortable with the idea that meat comes from a dead animal in theory, but would struggle to put that process into practice myself. 
Which is of course rather hypocritical.


----------



## butcher (Dec 3, 2022)

editor keeps pointing out that he is not Vegan, still wondering what cruelty free products he makes use of....


----------



## butcher (Dec 4, 2022)

Thread seems very quiet since I asked a simple question 🤔


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 4, 2022)

Maybe we could place a moratorium on gotchas? From all sides. 

Accept that none of us are perfect and while some of us can do better, slinging mud isn't going to help. Also accept that it's not as simple as looking just at individual choices. Choices are constrained - by economics, culture, time, knowledge, mental health, all kinds of things. In any other field of politics, discussion on here that didn't acknowledge this would be shouted down as liberal nonsense. 

To really tackle the question of how we can produce sustainable agricultural systems, we need to look at collective action, systems change and solidarity with those within the system who would carry out those changes. And there is a potential virtuous circle here. More sustainable, integrated systems very often fit naturally with higher animal welfare. Industrialised farming, whether it involves factory-farmed animals or monoculture crops, is both unethical and unsustainable. Is that a point of consensus from which we can build?


----------



## butcher (Dec 4, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe we could place a moratorium on gotchas? From all sides.
> 
> Accept that none of us are perfect and while some of us can do better, slinging mud isn't going to help. Also accept that it's not as simple as looking just at individual choices. Choices are constrained - by economics, culture, time, knowledge, mental health, all kinds of things. In any other field of politics, discussion on here that didn't acknowledge this would be shouted down as liberal nonsense.
> 
> To really tackle the question of how we can produce sustainable agricultural systems, we need to look at collective action, systems change and solidarity with those within the system who would carry out those changes. And there is a potential virtuous circle here. More sustainable, integrated systems very often fit naturally with higher animal welfare. Industrialised farming, whether it involves factory-farmed animals or monoculture crops, is both unethical and unsustainable. Is that a point of consensus from which we can build?



Most of us have been but if someone is taking a moral high ground then perhaps it needs questioning.   

If you are not totally committed vegan (and perhaps not even then) you benefit from the present system, so if you are finger wagging at others do not be surprised if your own values are questioned.


Or are you saying let's all be hypocrites (rhetorical)?  FWIW I like your posts and contributions to this thread, but would find it highly amusing if someone were to harangue others while still financially supporting a system they profess to despise.

Finally, I totally agree that Industrialised farming, whether it involves factory-farmed animals or monoculture crops, is both unethical and unsustainable.


My position has always been that overpopulation and under funding of infrastructural development are the big problems, everything else is a sticking plaster on an amputation.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 4, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe we could place a moratorium on gotchas? From all sides.
> 
> Accept that none of us are perfect and while some of us can do better, slinging mud isn't going to help. Also accept that it's not as simple as looking just at individual choices. Choices are constrained - by economics, culture, time, knowledge, mental health, all kinds of things. In any other field of politics, discussion on here that didn't acknowledge this would be shouted down as liberal nonsense.
> 
> To really tackle the question of how we can produce sustainable agricultural systems, we need to look at collective action, systems change and solidarity with those within the system who would carry out those changes. And there is a potential virtuous circle here. More sustainable, integrated systems very often fit naturally with higher animal welfare. Industrialised farming, whether it involves factory-farmed animals or monoculture crops, is both unethical and unsustainable. Is that a point of consensus from which we can build?


Honestly, I don't think this thread was started for that.
I've been quite critical of factory farming throughout, but it seems to matter not.
There are people out there trying (and succeeding) to portray "the meat industry" as a small collection of massive multinationals, and make parallels to the fossil fuel industry/the tobacco industry.
Whilst both analogies are full of holes, the lack of understanding of farming systems amongst the general population (through no fault of their own), means that in some cases this sticks and crates zealots (as we have seen), with a kind of  religious evangelism on the subject.

I've attempted to weigh in on the issues facing Agriculture and how I feel it needs to change, but this is brushed aside wholesale as "nonsense" by people who have neither looked at research in any depth or produced any food.

I fully expect a random source dump in order to attempt to stymie any real discussion to be along shortly.


----------



## butcher (Dec 4, 2022)

I just want to know if Ed is vegan or not, and if not how he sources non-vegan products considering his fondness of pointing the finger of self-righteousness at others.

ETA mainly as I have been a target of such fingerwaggery (it is a bit like that other word whatabouterry but the other direction)


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 4, 2022)

butcher said:


> editor keeps pointing out that he is not Vegan, still wondering what cruelty free products he makes use of....


TBF Editor hasn't posted on this thread since Friday or at all since early Saturday morning.
My question is ahead of yours anyway...


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 4, 2022)

butcher said:


> Finally, I totally agree that Industrialised farming, whether it involves factory-farmed animals or monoculture crops, is both unethical and unsustainable.


I guess the issue is that 50% of the meat we eat is poultry and 80% of the meat eaten in the UK is pig & poultry.
Although 40% of our pork is outdoor reared, you can see how its easy to make the assertion that "most of the meat we eat is factory farmed". 

If you ate lamb and beef only, you'd almost always avoid factory farmed food without trying.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 5, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just watched the film Cow. I would recommend it.
> 
> A few comments fwiw. The only bit I find at all troubling in the context of this thread is the separation of the cows from their calves. Of course they suffer when that happens. This was a farm on which they prevent calves from suckling. I'd be interested to compare to how things work on farms where they don't do that. Such farms are not widespread, but they do exist - it is a possible way to do it. But it's a strength of the film that this is a typical dairy  farm, seemingly well run by people who have a certain affection for their animals.
> 
> ...



Thanks for watching it and for your thoughts. I agree that the strength of the film comes from its portrayal of a standard dairy farm - and one in which the farmers are presumably on best behaviour. This means the viewer has to confront the practical realities of the dairy industry. I found the scenes of mother-calve separation more than 'troubling' though, I found them heart-breaking. As you say, the fact that the farmers observe that she gets more protective with older age suggests she is aware of all this, she remembers the past and worries about it repeating in the future. To subject any mammal to such an emotionally painful life cycle is just staggeringly cruel. 

I'd also use a stronger word than 'knackered' to describe Luma at the end of her life - she looked like a physically and emotionally broken being, a mere husk of an animal and her swollen udders looked incredibly painful. This for me touched on one of the other inherent cruelties of the dairy industry - the selective breeding practices that turn the bodies of these animals against themselves. No wonder 'milk' is a synonym for exploit! I guess I found it much more horrifying portrayal than you did.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Dec 5, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Thanks for watching it and for your thoughts. I agree that the strength of the film comes from its portrayal of a standard dairy farm - and one in which the farmers are presumably on best behaviour. This means the viewer has to confront the practical realities of the dairy industry. I found the scenes of mother-calve separation more than 'troubling' though, I found them heart-breaking. As you say, the fact that the farmers observe that she gets more protective with older age suggests she is aware of all this, she remembers the past and worries about it repeating in the future. To subject any mammal to such an emotionally painful life cycle is just staggeringly cruel.
> 
> I'd also use a stronger word than 'knackered' to describe Luma at the end of her life - she looked like a physically and emotionally broken being, a mere husk of an animal and her swollen udders looked incredibly painful. This for me touched on one of the other inherent cruelties of the dairy industry - the selective breeding practices that turn the bodies of these animals against themselves. No wonder 'milk' is a synonym for exploit! I guess I found it much more horrifying portrayal than you did.


Living semi rural I've heard the cries when mother and calf are separated, and It's quite a distance away as well! My friends garden backs onto a field where they breed cows, the farmer gives her the nod when they're going to be separated from the calves and she goes out for the day. She was inconsolable when she first witnessed it.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 5, 2022)

Calamity1971 said:


> Living semi rural I've heard the cries when mother and calf are separated, and It's quite a distance away as well! My friends garden backs onto a field where they breed cows, the farmer gives her the nod when they're going to be separated from the calves and she goes out for the day. She was inconsolable when she first witnessed it.


Something is very wrong, cruel & unethical about this...


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 5, 2022)

Calamity1971 said:


> Living semi rural I've heard the cries when mother and calf are separated, and It's quite a distance away as well! My friends garden backs onto a field where they breed cows, the farmer gives her the nod when they're going to be separated from the calves and she goes out for the day. She was inconsolable when she first witnessed it.


The wife remembers lying awake listening to the cries and found it upsetting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 5, 2022)

Point of info. Cow has popped up on BBC iPlayer this week.


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not robots. Circular parlour bit like this one. Not in any way as clean as this one, though. I've been on dairy farms. They're never this clean.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's hard to imagine anything more unnatural for a cow than to be chained into a big metal turntable, all facing each other.


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2022)

butcher said:


> Thread seems very quiet since I asked a simple question 🤔


Or maybe I've been busy and didn't see your_ oh-so-important_ fucking question which I've already answered multiple times throughout this long thread. See 'search thread' box above and fill your  boots,


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

editor said:


> Or maybe I've been busy and didn't see your_ oh-so-important_ fucking question which I've already answered multiple times throughout this long thread. See 'search thread' box above and fill your  boots,


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

14 pages of your comments Ed and at no point, apart from saying you are not vegan, do you say what animal products you do use.

If you don't believe me use the search box.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> 14 pages of your comments Ed and at no point, apart from saying you are not vegan, do you say what animal products you do use.
> 
> If you don't believe me use the search box.


What do you mean?  Of course he's vegan.


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What do you mean?  Of course he's vegan.


Post in thread 'Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?' Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 6, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> The wife remembers lying awake listening to the cries and found it upsetting.



This is a quote from the director about an audience reaction to the film at a screening:

“We had a screening at the London film festival. People were crying, one person fainted, somebody was sick, somebody had a panic attack. Somebody said to me it made them think women’s bodies are not their own; somebody said ‘It makes me think of infertility and how hard I’ve tried for a baby’; somebody said ‘It’s made me feel about my mother and the relationship we’ve never had’; somebody talked about the relationship with a mother she did have, and somebody said it made them think about how our lives are managed.”


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2022)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What do you mean?  Of course he's vegan.


Of course you can quickly show me all the times I've claimed to be, then?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 6, 2022)

editor said:


> Of course you can quickly show me all the times I've claimed to be, then?


Sorry - I just assumed you were.  I got it wrong.


----------



## DaphneM (Dec 6, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is a quote from the director about an audience reaction to the film at a screening:
> 
> “We had a screening at the London film festival. People were crying, one person fainted, somebody was sick, somebody had a panic attack. Somebody said to me it made them think women’s bodies are not their own; somebody said ‘It makes me think of infertility and how hard I’ve tried for a baby’; somebody said ‘It’s made me feel about my mother and the relationship we’ve never had’; somebody talked about the relationship with a mother she did have, and somebody said it made them think about how our lives are managed.”


that really belongs in Pseuds Corner...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 6, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> that really belongs in Pseuds Corner...



I guess you either didn't understand the point of Pseuds Corner or you don't understand the quote or perhaps just don't understand either.


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

editor said:


> Of course you can quickly show me all the times I've claimed to be, then?


So for the sake of transparency would you be willing to say what animal products you find ethically comfortable to use?


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

Some hyper-processed meat substitutes are on the way out it seems:  

BBC News - After the hype plant-based proteins face leaner times








						After the hype plant-based proteins face leaner times
					

Booming just a few years ago, the market for plant-based proteins is going through a tough patch.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Perhaps I should dig out my Cranks cook book....


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> Some hyper-processed meat substitutes are on the way out it seems:
> 
> BBC News - After the hype plant-based proteins face leaner times
> 
> ...


The share price for beyond meat looks interesting.....
It's almost like people don't actually want ultra processed shite..


Beyond Meat Inc (BYND) Stock Price & News - Google Finance


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> So for the sake of transparency would you be willing to say what animal products you find ethically comfortable to use?


I'm not ethically comfortable eating any animal products.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 6, 2022)

editor said:


> I'm not ethically comfortable eating any animal products.


I know for sure I will never eat lamb or veal again...


----------



## Saunders (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> Some hyper-processed meat substitutes are on the way out it seems:
> 
> BBC News - After the hype plant-based proteins face leaner times
> 
> ...


The Cranks cookbook is a great recipe book
Also Rose Elliot’s ‘not just a load of old lentils’


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

editor said:


> I'm not ethically comfortable eating any animal products.



I did say use not eat.

Obviously if you are avowedly not Vegan it implies you use dead animal products.


----------



## Saunders (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> I did say use not eat.
> 
> Obviously if you are avowedly not Vegan it implies you use dead animal
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> I did say use not eat.


Sorry what amazing point are you trying to arrive at here and what has it got to do with the actual discussion?


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

editor said:


> Sorry what amazing point are you trying to arrive at here and what has it got to do with the actual discussion?


Perhaps that if you use animal products derived from the processes you find so appalling that you are complicit in supporting the same.


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> Perhaps that if you use animal products derived from the processes you find so appalling that you are complicit in supporting the same.


Which sort of products are you thinking about here? Get to the point, FFS.

I hate capitalism but I'm complicit in it as a consumer. As are you. The difference is that I don't actively promote  it (see: this site) neither do I actively promote the meat industry or its products.


----------



## butcher (Dec 6, 2022)

Any animal derived product.  

If you are so against the meat and dairy  industries why support them by using product derived from them when you could use vegan alternatives or just not use them.  

It seems hypocritical.  I am not the one constantly wishing ruin on one section of the food industry while still supporting it by using its products.


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2022)

butcher said:


> Any animal derived product.
> 
> If you are so against the meat and dairy  industries why support them by using product derived from them when you could use vegan alternatives or just not use them.
> 
> It seems hypocritical.  I am not the one constantly wishing ruin on one section of the food industry while still supporting it by using its products.


It would be hypocritical if I stated I was a vegan activist but I'm not. FYI I haven't bought any meat, or milk, or eggs for 30-odd years and I'm constantly trying to reduce the absolute miniscule amount of animal products I consume down to zero. Which it is most days of the week. 

And far from demanding people eat no meat at all, ever (although I'd be fine with that personally), you'll see that throughout this thread I've constantly argued that people should eat less meat - in line with the research presented by multiple experts and studies.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 8, 2022)




----------



## butcher (Dec 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


>



"I'm sure it's all lovely for you but it's absolutely niche in the grand scheme of overall meat sales."


----------



## ddraig (Dec 8, 2022)

butcher said:


> Any animal derived product.
> 
> If you are so against the meat and dairy  industries why support them by using product derived from them when you could use vegan alternatives or just not use them.
> 
> It seems hypocritical.  I am not the one constantly wishing ruin on one section of the food industry while still supporting it by using its products.


Hypocrisy hunting at it's finest! Will you feel better about yourself if you get the answers you so desperately need?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 8, 2022)

butcher said:


> "I'm sure it's all lovely for you but it's absolutely niche in the grand scheme of overall meat sales."



All products start out as niche.


----------



## Karl Masks (Dec 8, 2022)

editor said:


> It would be hypocritical if I stated I was a vegan activist but I'm not. FYI I haven't bought any meat, or milk, or eggs for 30-odd years and I'm constantly trying to reduce the absolute miniscule amount of animal products I consume down to zero. Which it is most days of the week.
> 
> And far from demanding people eat no meat at all, ever (although I'd be fine with that personally), you'll see that throughout this thread I've constantly argued that people should eat less meat - in line with the research presented by multiple experts and studies.


You'd agree, surely, the amounts recommended by the research I assume you're referring to is so small it's essentially saying "eat no meat". They're just being diplomatic about it. No one is going to bother buying beef if the recommendation is 20g a week for example. So it's a way of saying we ought not eat meat at all.


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


>



Do meat alternatives such as this actually have less impact on the environment than the meat products they are intended to replace?


----------



## DaphneM (Dec 8, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Do meat alternatives such as this actually have less impact on the environment than the meat products they are intended to replace?


no


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 8, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> no


Then they’re not very relevant to this thread, which is not about meat alternatives for ethical reasons, but rather for reducing environmental impact.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 8, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Do meat alternatives such as this actually have less impact on the environment than the meat products they are intended to replace?



Conflicting data on that point. In terms of GhG emissions, I think the general view is that cultivated meat is not necessarily better than slaughter meat, but it can be. Cultured meat's main benefit seems to be that it requires much less land use.


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Conflicting data on that point. In terms of GhG emissions, I think the general view is that cultivated meat is not necessarily better than slaughter meat, but it can be. Cultured meat's main benefit seems to be that it requires much less land use.


So if we are to address climate change and cultured meat alternatives are not going to accomplish that, how do we get the masses to change their diet to reduce meat consumption considerably?

It seems to me the only measure which will have a sufficiently powerful effect is to tax meat to the point at which it’s out of reach of most as a daily meal choice.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 8, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> no


source?


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 8, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> So if we are to address climate change and cultured meat alternatives are not going to accomplish that, how do we get the masses to change their diet to reduce meat consumption considerably?
> 
> It seems to me the only measure which will have a sufficiently powerful effect is to tax meat to the point at which it’s out of reach of most as a daily meal choice.



Yeah you can let the wealthy carry on as normal, while counting the coins that the ordinary people shovel into your treasury, or you can just ban it. See also: smoking, gambling, drinking, congestion charges, parking fines etc.


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah you can let the wealthy carry on as normal, while counting the coins that the ordinary people shovel into your treasury,


Seems this approach is likely to hold the most appeal for the legislators of the world


----------



## RainbowTown (Dec 8, 2022)

butcher said:


> Any animal derived product.
> 
> If you are so against the meat and dairy  industries why support them by using product derived from them when you could use vegan alternatives or just not use them.
> 
> It seems hypocritical.  I am not the one constantly wishing ruin on one section of the food industry while still supporting it by using its products.



Life and living, and making moral judgements about any given issue -  but especially ethical issues like animal consumption or animal cruelty - can and does involve a degree of compromise somewhere along the line. Not always, of course; but often it does. That's the reality of the world we exist in.  I guess all you can do as an individual is to come as close as possible to upholding those values, causes and beliefs you believe in -  even if you can't/won't always get it right every time.  But at least it's better to be 50% of something than 100% of nothing.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Cultured meat's main benefit seems to be that it requires much less land use.


What's the point in that if the land saved is no use for anything else?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Dec 8, 2022)

mentalchik said:


> ....i work in a medium sized supermarket and i can tell you it isn't slowing down as of yet....we sell massive amounts of meat...in fact it's so wanted that our 'christmas' large joints are targeted by our local shoplifters



Do the ethical shoplifters nick nut roasts?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2022)

editor said:


> It's hard to imagine anything more unnatural for a cow than to be chained into a big metal turntable, all facing each other.


Takes five or six minutes twice a day. And the cows are fine with being milked. They need it. I don't see great hardship in that particular aspect of their lives.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Takes five or six minutes twice a day. And the cows are fine with being milked. They need it. I don't see great hardship in that particular aspect of their lives.


It's the "getting slaughtered" part of the cows' day that is troubling...


----------



## ddraig (Dec 8, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Takes five or six minutes twice a day. And the cows are fine with being milked. They need it. I don't see great hardship in that particular aspect of their lives.


are you fucking for real?
They produce milk for their calves, who are stolen from them so they can provide you with the milk meant for calves

LBJ has spoken, there's no great hardship with being artificially inseminated, having your babies taken off you and then having to get your milk sucked out of you by a machine, no hardship at all

e2a - dress it up how you like but don't make claims and proclamations you won't and can't back up


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 8, 2022)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2022)

There's a whole other ethical discussion to be had about breeding cows to be like that and taking away their calves (although dairy can be done without that last part), but once you have the cows there needing to be milked it would be  cruel not to. Robotic milking systems allow cows to choose when to be milked, and they do choose it. Cos they'd be in trouble otherwise with all that milk in them. The cows willingly line up in a parlour to have their udders drained. 

Picking on the aesthetic of the milking parlour, as judged by humans, misses the mark as a criticism of dairy farming. And they're not stuck in there for hours. They're there a few minutes each day,  doing something that they would choose to do anyway.

Cows are social animals btw . Having them facing each other as they're milked doesn't seem such a bad idea.


----------



## butcher (Dec 8, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> All products start out as niche.


Just quoting an earlier post about provenance driven butchers shops


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2022)

"they're there anyway, might as well exploit them" is such a brilliant excuse for exploitation, could be used in all kinds of situations

"Cows are social animals" so isn't it lovely they get to face each other for a few minutes, let's not dwell on the fact they've had their babies ripped from them etc

Abusers can normalise all kinds of situations, don't make it right


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 9, 2022)

ddraig said:


> "Cows are social animals" so isn't it lovely they get to face each other for a few minutes, let's not dwell on the fact they've had their babies ripped from them etc


You do realise that they spend the entire day with the rest of the cows, don't you?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2022)

aww that's all you got left


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 9, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a whole other ethical discussion to be had about breeding cows to be like that and taking away their calves (although dairy can be done without that last part), but once you have the cows there needing to be milked it would be  cruel not to. Robotic milking systems allow cows to choose when to be milked, and they do choose it. Cos they'd be in trouble otherwise with all that milk in them. The cows willingly line up in a parlour to have their udders drained.
> 
> Picking on the aesthetic of the milking parlour, as judged by humans, misses the mark as a criticism of dairy farming. And they're not stuck in there for hours. They're there a few minutes each day,  doing something that they would choose to do anyway.
> 
> Cows are social animals btw . Having them facing each other as they're milked doesn't seem such a bad idea.



To focus on elements of dairy farming that, taken in isolation, seem relatively unproblematic, whilst vaguely gesturing towards "ethical discussion to be had" about the other parts reads like apologism to be honest. Cows only "need" to be milked because (1) they've been forcibly separated from their calves and (2) they've been selectively bred to produce far more milk than is healthy for their bodies. Factory farmers also justify debeaking chickens and de-tailing pigs on welfare grounds - they say they need to be protected from the aggression of other animals. What they omit to mention is that the aggression is only a threat in the first place because of they've crammed the animals so tightly into sheds!


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 10, 2022)

Cost of living crisis: I'm going on the road to save my butcher's shop
					

As the cost of living crisis bites, butcher Gary Peline has bought a mobile shop to keep his business going.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




I suppose the cabbage juicers amongst you will think he's trying to work a niche market with this one by going mobile and suggest it serves him right for trying to earn a living from evil factory-bread beasts whilst they continue to nip into ASDA for there athletes foot fungus tika masala?


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 10, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Cost of living crisis: I'm going on the road to save my butcher's shop
> 
> 
> As the cost of living crisis bites, butcher Gary Peline has bought a mobile shop to keep his business going.
> ...


Oh so you're a cunt after all.


----------



## DaphneM (Dec 10, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Cost of living crisis: I'm going on the road to save my butcher's shop
> 
> 
> As the cost of living crisis bites, butcher Gary Peline has bought a mobile shop to keep his business going.
> ...


that could work well with a mobile  slaughterhouse?






						Mobile Abattoirs - Model Farm
					

Many small-scale abattoirs have been shut down, leading to increased animal transportation. Mobile abattoirs could be an ideal solution for animal welfare




					modelfarmshop.org


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 10, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> Oh so you're a cunt after all.


What can I say, this thread seems to bring out the best in people x


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> athletes foot fungus tika masala?


What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## butcher (Dec 11, 2022)

editor said:


> What on earth are you talking about?


Quorn I would imagine.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 11, 2022)

butcher said:


> Quorn I would imagine.


Not as nutritious apparently.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 11, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> You do realise that they spend the entire day with the rest of the cows, don't you?


You mean they don't live locked up in solitary confinement all day?


----------



## bcuster (Dec 14, 2022)

My concern on this subject is needless suffering by animals. This article sheds some  light on "self-awareness" in animals:









						What Do Animals See in a Mirror?
					

A controversial test for self-awareness is dividing the animal kingdom.




					getpocket.com
				






*Key to their arguments is the scientific evidence that ... animals are self-aware like humans. Not only can they suffer, but they can think to themselves, I am suffering. *


----------



## souljacker (Dec 14, 2022)

bcuster said:


> *Key to their arguments is the scientific evidence that ... animals are self-aware like humans. Not only can they suffer, but they can think to themselves, I am suffering. *


That's a very selective quote from what is actually a very balanced article.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 15, 2022)

souljacker said:


> That's a very selective quote from what is actually a very balanced article.


Which, fascinating as it is has very little to do with the subject at hand here. 

Unless I've missed all the chimp and dolphin farms, that is. 

Also, pretty sure nobody is saying that farmed animals can't suffer - the idea that they can is the basis of our welfare legislation, the five freedoms.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 15, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Also, pretty sure nobody is saying that farmed animals can't suffer - the idea that they can is the basis of our welfare legislation, the five freedoms.



Legislation which is weak and barely enforced. Farmed animals receive very little protection.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Which, fascinating as it is has very little to do with the subject at hand here.
> 
> Unless I've missed all the chimp and dolphin farms, that is.
> 
> Also, pretty sure nobody is saying that farmed animals can't suffer - the idea that they can is the basis of our welfare legislation, the five freedoms.


I think the article's point is that the animals are self aware and cognizant of their human inflicted suffering


----------



## kabbes (Dec 16, 2022)

In order to have self-awareness, you need to have semiotic mediation between experience and the environment, to be able to recognise the self as an object and be able to mirror that object in the reflected world.  You also need to have some kind of dialogic cognition, so that you can understand that there are alternative perspectives that do not centre you in experience.  You need to be able to construct an identity in order to provide that self with continuity over time.  I am _extremely_ unconvinced that almost any animal has these abilities, and would not be at all surprised to discover humans are unique in having them all (or, indeed, any of them).

Certainly, the most likely contenders (like chimpanzees and apes) do not have these abilities.  For example, a chimp can pick up and move a chair and then pick up a stick in order to get down some bananas.  However, if either chair or stick is outside their visual field, they are unable to do this task, even if they have previously done it.  This is because they have no internalised representation of their visual field.  Without the ability to semiotically mediate the world, it is ephemeral.  Without the ability to hold a narrative, there is no self-continuity and so no self.

None of which is to say that animals can’t suffer.  The complement of an objective self is subjective experience.  If animals cannot self-reflect then all they have is subjectivity.  Suffering is the subjective experience of not having your needs met, which is fundamental to _being_ an animal.  And without self-continuity, there is no future or past, only the now.  As such, suffering is absolute, because there is no conception of experience without suffering.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 16, 2022)

butcher said:


> Quorn I would imagine.



I don't think athlete's foot is accurate.  If I recall correctly the fungus involved is much more closely related to the one that old men get on their toenails, turning them yellow.


----------



## souljacker (Dec 16, 2022)

bcuster said:


> I think the article's point is that the animals are self aware and cognizant of their human inflicted suffering


I think the articles point is that it's inconclusive. Did you read it?


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

bcuster said:


> I think the article's point is that the animals are self aware and cognizant of their human inflicted suffering


It isn't. 

Its point is that if you agree that the mirror test does indicate self awareness (and not cognisance), which many scientists don't,  then some great apes have it, whereas monkeys do not and that it may be that dolphins do, but its not well supported.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2022)

Ah, those lovely caring farmers



> *Livestock farms in England polluted rivers 300 times last year, causing 20 major incidents, according to the latest government figures.
> *
> Yet only six farms were prosecuted in 2021, with the Environment Agency giving out warning letters instead.
> The dairy industry - mostly thanks to the waste its millions of cows produce - is the worst environmental offender, linked to half of all farm pollution.





> One offender is Michael Aylesbury, a director of Cross Keys Farms Ltd. In June this year, he was ordered to pay more than £25,000 for polluting the River Frome in Somerset with slurry in 2020.
> He had been prosecuted before for polluting the same stretch of the Frome in 2016, an incident that killed more than 1,700 fish.











						Livestock farming polluted rivers 300 times in one year
					

Only six farms are prosecuted for pollution despite 300 river contaminations in one year.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2022)

> An industry campaign that urges the public to buy more meat and dairy will return to TV screens this Christmas with a new advert.













						AHDB meat and dairy campaign returns with new TV advert - Farmers Weekly
					

An industry campaign that urges the public to buy more meat and dairy will return to TV screens this Christmas with a new advert. The AHDB is set to




					www.fwi.co.uk
				




And also:









						Intensive, lower-carbon animal farming could raise pandemic risks
					

Agriculture not only has a greenhouse gas footprint, but also a disease footprint. An environmental expert outlines ways we can help reduce both.




					www.weforum.org


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

And as if by magic, as soon as the discussion goes too far down a path that doesn't fit with the anti-science narrative of the conspiracists, bang! Massive unrelated source dump. 

Agricultural pollution continues to drop whereas water company pollution continues to rise.......


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> It isn't.
> 
> Its point is that if you agree that the mirror test does indicate self awareness (and not cognisance), which many scientists don't,  then some great apes have it, whereas monkeys do not and that it may be that dolphins do, but its not well supported.


I think the mirror test is somewhat overrated as a test. However, even if an animal fails it, that can be down to lots of reasons and you can't draw conclusions about their minds from that failure. Asking a dog to pass the mirror test when most of its cerebral sensory processing power is dedicated to smell rather than vision isn't very reasonable.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 16, 2022)

If the forums thinks the below is too far off the topic of the thread, i'll withdraw it; however i think the intent of the legislation is in keeping with one of the thread's themes; ie the avoidance of cruelty to animals. in that spirit, i fully agree with the legislation :









						NY Gov. Kathy Hochul signs law banning ‘puppy mill’ sales at pet stores
					

Pet stores will be barred from selling dogs, cats and other animals supplied by breeders under a controversial law approved Thursday by Gov. Kath Hochul.




					nypost.com


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

However, back on the topic about which this thread was started.......

Many "meat substitutes" have low nutritional quality because the nutrients are delivered in a way that inhibits absorbtion. 

Low nutritional quality in many vegetarian meat substitutes


----------



## bcuster (Dec 16, 2022)

Further, i'd wonder if the 1,500 captive fish in the Berlin aquarium aquarium were "cognizant" of the fact that they were being torn to shreds by broken glass,  stepped on or suffocating, as their human created glass prison exploded around them..



			https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/nation-world/berlin-aquarium-aquadom-sea-life-attraction-bursts-releasing-flood-of-fish/507-0fc0c261-df79-4f23-921b-5b5f130f905b


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 16, 2022)

tbh I think this discussion of animal minds is a little beside the point when it comes to animal cruelty. Jeremy Bentham had this bit right when he said 'The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?' The answer to that question for any animal with even a rudimentary consciousness is yes they can. 

Some people do seem to have weird ideas about fish in this regard. There is neurological evidence that fish probably don't experience chronic pain - it wouldn't do them any good as they don't have the option of hiding themselves away to get better, so they have evolved appropriately. But they do experience sharp pain. And certainly they can suffer.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 16, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think the mirror test is somewhat overrated as a test. However, even if an animal fails it, that can be down to lots of reasons and you can't draw conclusions about their minds from that failure. Asking a dog to pass the mirror test when most of its cerebral sensory processing power is dedicated to smell rather than vision isn't very reasonable.


didn't know you were an expert in the industry as well!!


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

kabbes said:


> In order to have self-awareness, you need to have semiotic mediation between experience and the environment, to be able to recognise the self as an object and be able to mirror that object in the reflected world.  You also need to have some kind of dialogic cognition, so that you can understand that there are alternative perspectives that do not centre you in experience.  You need to be able to construct an identity in order to provide that self with continuity over time.  I am _extremely_ unconvinced that almost any animal has these abilities, and would not be at all surprised to discover humans are unique in having them all (or, indeed, any of them).
> 
> Certainly, the most likely contenders (like chimpanzees and apes) do not have these abilities.  For example, a chimp can pick up and move a chair and then pick up a stick in order to get down some bananas.  However, if either chair or stick is outside their visual field, they are unable to do this task, even if they have previously done it.  This is because they have no internalised representation of their visual field.  Without the ability to semiotically mediate the world, it is ephemeral.  Without the ability to hold a narrative, there is no self-continuity and so no self.
> 
> None of which is to say that animals can’t suffer.  The complement of an objective self is subjective experience.  If animals cannot self-reflect then all they have is subjectivity.  Suffering is the subjective experience of not having your needs met, which is fundamental to _being_ an animal.  And without self-continuity, there is no future or past, only the now.  As such, suffering is absolute, because there is no conception of experience without suffering.



Yes, but you have to interpret these things through the physiology Of the individual species of animals concerned.
Fish perceive the world entirely differently than humans - we lack a lateral line (or ampullae of Lorenzini in the case of elasmobranchs). They often eat food with exoskeletons (crustaceans etc) and thefore have very bony mouths which lack much in the way of nerves, for example.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 16, 2022)

_ampullae of Lorenzini in the case of elasmobranchs_

Do you think these may make fish more sensitive to pain, rather than less?


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

bcuster said:


> _ampullae of Lorenzini in the case of elasmobranchs_
> 
> Do you think these may make fish more sensitive to pain, rather than less?


No difference. 
They aren't pain receptors, they sense electrical fields generated by other living creatures.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

And yet more studies linking ultra-processed foods (which these synthetic meat substitutes will have to be by default) with poor health outcomes: 
New evidence links ultra-processed foods with a range of health risks | BMJ


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 16, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> And yet more studies linking ultra-processed foods (which these synthetic meat substitutes will have to be by default) with poor health outcomes:
> New evidence links ultra-processed foods with a range of health risks | BMJ



On the other hand, no non-slaughter meats are known to increase your risk of cancer, so swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> On the other hand, no non-slaughter meats are known to increase your risk of cancer, so swings and roundabouts.


As I've posted prior, the link between unprocessed meat and cancer has been debunked.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2022)

Encouraging piece here



> A wealth of research points to the need to cut meat consumption. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food systems accounted for over a third of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, around half attributed to livestock alone. At the same time, a 2021 study published in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability found that a global shift toward plant-based diets could sequester 332 to 547 gigatons of carbon by 2050 -- compared to total global emissions of around 35 gigatons a year -- and would likely keep warming to 1.5 Celsius, the threshold seen as crucial to avoiding the worst of climate change. According to a 2016 study conducted by Oxford University, a surcharge of 40 percent on beef and 20 percent on milk would be needed to account for the damage made by producing these foods -- incentivizing the consumption of more climate-friendly foods and raising tax revenue to repair damage.





> Beyond the Plant Based Treaty, a plethora of policies have been tried and tested across the globe. European program Greener By Default, which makes plant-based foods the default option on menus, has more than doubled consumption of vegan meals, reducing the carbon footprint of caterers in the program by 40 percent and water footprint by 24 percent. California’s Oakland Unified School District, meanwhile, has reduced its carbon footprint from food purchases by 14 percent while saving over 42 million gallons of water and $42,000 by reducing animal products on its menu.
> 
> Some are taking a more radical approach: in September, the Dutch city of Haarlem announced it would become the first place in the world to ban meat advertisements from public spaces. But many others are implementing straightforward policies: several county councils in the UK have passed motions to serve only vegan food at events; Helsinki no longer serves meat or dairy at council events; Montreal serves at least 75 percent vegetarian food at city events; Berkeley will switch to 50 percent plant based by 2024 and Vancouver passed a motion to swap 20 percent animal-based foods for plant-based, which it expects to save up to $99,000 and cut emissions by more than 500 metric tons.





> Researchers at University of Bonn, who reviewed the current state of research on the environmental as well as health and economic effects of eating meat, concluded that rich countries must cut meat consumption by at least 75 percent. They found Americans, the world’s top meat eaters, consume around 124 kilograms of meat per person per year and Europeans around 80 kilograms – several times higher than dietary needs. By comparison, in some African countries, people consume less than 20 kilograms a year.











						Cities Take on a New Front in the Climate Battle: Meat Eating
					

From Buenos Aires to L.A., there's a growing consensus that serious climate action means getting citizens to change one very popular habit.




					reasonstobecheerful.world


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2022)

And here's the flaws with the EU subsidy system



> E.U. Ag Subsidies Prop Up Beef Industry​
> Another new report reveals another flaw in E.U.’s climate action, as it continues to use billions of euros to subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle producers. An investigation by Follow the Money found that Dutch farmers who keep cows received 3.4 billion euros between 2014 and 2022 — by far the biggest amount of agricultural subsidies granted during that time period.
> 
> The E.U.’s basic payment scheme and the payment for climate and environmentally-friendly farming practices are calculated according to the size of a farm, the report explains. This results in farmers who own large areas of land, like cattle farmers, receiving more subsidies than farmers who raise pigs and chickens or grow grain, fruits and vegetables. During the same period, the E.U. gave less than half this amount — 1.6 billion euros — in subsidies to farmers growing grain, vegetables and potatoes — and only 80 million euros to farmers growing fruit.
> ...











						New Research Finds E.U. Policies Fund Beef and Bioenergy Over Nature
					

Two new reports find E.U. policies are failing to protect climate and biodiversity.




					sentientmedia.org


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 16, 2022)

Ffs.
BPS is a decoupled subsidy based on land area farmed. The biggest recipients would be farming that takes up the most land area. Combinable crops, extensive grazing.
If beef is gaining the most sub, it means that beef takes up the largest land area. You wouldn't graze beef cattle on land suitable for cropping. It'd be grade 3 or less.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> On the other hand, no non-slaughter meats are known to increase your risk of cancer, so swings and roundabouts.


It's processed meat that has been linked to cancer, specifically. The link of unprocessed red meat to cancer is weak, or as FM says, unproven, so you should stop repeating that idea until more evidence comes to light, particularly as there are health benefits to unprocessed red meats that need to be balanced in the evidence. As posted before, even the authors of various reports on red meat and cancer admit this.

And the evidence that there is comes from long-term studies, the likes of which have not been done for 'non-slaughter meats'. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that various non-animal proteins have a cancer link. Truth is that we don't know either way as the studies have not been done. But given the link between processed meat and cancer that has been found, we should be cautious about advocating processed non-meat. What kinds of processes are done to this non-meat, and what harms could they be introducing?


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's processed meat that has been linked to cancer, specifically. The link of unprocessed red meat to cancer is weak, or as FM says, unproven, so you should stop repeating that idea until more evidence comes to light, particularly as there are health benefits to unprocessed red meats that need to be balanced in the evidence. As posted before, even the authors of various reports on red meat and cancer admit this.
> 
> And the evidence that there is comes from long-term studies, the likes of which have not been done for 'non-slaughter meats'. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that various non-animal proteins have a cancer link. Truth is that we don't know either way as the studies have not been done. But given the link between processed meat and cancer that has been found, we should be cautious about advocating processed non-meat. What kinds of processes are done to this non-meat, and what harms could they be introducing?


You are an expert on everything


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2022)

Humberto said:


> You are an expert on everything


The links are already on the thread. no need to repeat them. Read the thread.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

The furiously Google pretend to be an authority game


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2022)

Do you have anything to say?

I'll give you a clue. 'as posted before' are crucial words. Read the fucking thread.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

Well I don't pretend to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2022)

Humberto said:


> Well I don't pretend to.


Well fuck off then.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well fuck off then.


oh no


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

Some people pretend to


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2022)

Humberto said:


> Some people pretend to


Be specific when you're cunting someone off. What specifically am I pretending to know? Bear in mind before replying that I'm referencing here links that I and others have already posted.

If you can't be fucked to read the thread, that's fine. But if that is the case, then fuck the fuck off.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

Aight man respect. It's nothing so personal. Impressed with the effort and Black Belt 3rd dan and all that. Soz.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2022)

Humberto said:


> Aight man respect. It's nothing so personal. Impressed with the effort and Black Belt 3rd dan and all that. Soz.


Fuck off.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

Ok I change my mind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2022)

Fuck off again. Fucking twat.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

So you are an authority. Gotcha. So convincing.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 17, 2022)

Humberto said:


> So you are an authority. Gotcha. So convincing.



Had a sniff of the barmaids apron again?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's processed meat that has been linked to cancer, specifically. The link of unprocessed red meat to cancer is weak, or as FM says, unproven, so you should stop repeating that idea until more evidence comes to light, particularly as there are health benefits to unprocessed red meats that need to be balanced in the evidence. As posted before, even the authors of various reports on red meat and cancer admit this.
> 
> And the evidence that there is comes from long-term studies, the likes of which have not been done for 'non-slaughter meats'. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that various non-animal proteins have a cancer link. Truth is that we don't know either way as the studies have not been done. But given the link between processed meat and cancer that has been found, we should be cautious about advocating processed non-meat. What kinds of processes are done to this non-meat, and what harms could they be introducing?



There have been over 800 studies on the link between red meat and cancer. The evidence for unprocessed red meat being carcinogenic isn’t as strong as processed red meat but that doesn’t mean the evidence is ‘weak’.

The WHO and the International Agency for Research on Cancer classify processed red meat as a Group 1 carcinogen meaning that it is carcinogenic to humans. Unprocessed red meat  is classified as a Group 2A carcinogen meaning it’s ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.

On the basis of the totality of the evidence and (I presume) a precautionary principle, bodies like the WHO, the IARC, the NHS, Cancer Research UK and others recommend moderating red meat intake to reduce the risk of cancer.

Now we could play a game of ‘frantically-googling-all-the-studies-that-support-my-position-on-this’ but personally, I’d take Cancer Research UK’s views on this over a meat partisan like ‘Funky Monks’.

One more thing, there’s a blatant double standard in urging a weighing of the nutritional pros and cons of red meat but never doing the same animal abuse free meats? There’s never any differentiating between the thousands of animal abuse free meat products or considering their nutritional benefits. For example, seitan is packed with protein, iron and calcium. If you add some oil, salt and stabilising agents to that it doesn’t become nutritionally barren


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Had a sniff of the barmaids apron again?


Good one Clarkson.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 17, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Now we could play a game of ‘frantically-googling-all-the-studies-that-support-my-position-on-this’ but personally, I’d take Cancer Research UK’s views on this over a meat partisan like ‘Funky Monks’.


By "meat partisan" presumably you mean one of the 95% or so of the population that eats meat?  😂


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 17, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> By "meat partisan" presumably you mean one of the 95% or so of the population that eats meat?  😂



No, I mean the 0.01% of the population who takes to the internet to defend the meat industry.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 17, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> No, I mean the 0.01% of the population who takes to the internet to defend the meat industry.


I was already here, I didn't join these boards to do that. 
IIRC I've been here since 2001 or 2?


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 17, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> I was already here, I didn't join these boards to do that.
> IIRC I've been here since 2001 or 2?


2003.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 17, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> 2003.


Thats what my profile says, but it can't have been because I heard about this place whilst I was at uni from 1999-2002. Maybe I just lurked, not sure.


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2022)

Good piece in Private Eye about the filthy dirty poultry farms polluting the beautiful River Wye. 



> POLLUTION from the rapidly expanding intensive poultry farming industry in mid-Wales is indeed harming protected species in the River Wye and its tributaries, according to documents released by Welsh environment watchdogs who have been denying for years that the problem exists.
> Regulator Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has repeatedly insisted there is no proven link between manure from poultry farming and environmental damage identified by campaign groups, after big blooms of algae offered a clue that all was not well.
> 
> Afonydd Cymru, the umbrella body for Welsh river trusts, and Fish Legal, a campaigning law firm funded by anglers, have highlighted phosphate pollution along the Wye and Ithon rivers (Eyes passim) and, after paying for expert research themselves, reported their concerns to NRW in 2020 and 2021. As recently as May 2022, NRW told the campaigners that their own monitoring "does not support the hypothesis that poultry units are the cause" of pollution issues on the Wye.





> "There has been increasing evidence that the poultry industry expansion has had an effect on the Wye, yet for two and a half years since the Wye and Usk Foundation first highlighted their concerns, there has been nothing but denial from NRW of such links," said Gail Davies- Walsh, CEO of Afonydd Cymru. Fish Legal solicitor Justin Neal called for the Welsh government to step in and make NRW investigate the poultry units properly, and at long last carry out appropriate enforcement under environmental damage regulations.











						Private Eye | Green Eye: Why oh-Wye
					

POLLUTION from the rapidly expanding intensive poultry farming industry in mid-Wales is indeed harming protected species in the River Wye and its tributaries, according to documents released by Welsh environment watchdogs who have been denying for years that the problem exists.



					www.private-eye.co.uk


----------



## bcuster (Dec 18, 2022)

In my mind,poultry farming has become intensely brutal


----------



## bcuster (Dec 24, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Dec 24, 2022)

We could be eating roast vegans, if vegans have their way:

“Animal rights group Peta has asked a town in Connecticut to rename its oddly monikered Roast Meat Hill Road to Roast Vegan Hill Road.”









						Peta asks Connecticut town to rename street ‘Roast Vegan Hill Road’
					

Animal rights group sends letter asking town to rename its oddly monikered Roast Meat Hill Road




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## NoXion (Dec 24, 2022)

Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.



Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2022)

Yet more damning evidence of the cancer risks of processed meat:



> A leading scientist has urged ministers to ban the use of nitrites in food after research highlighted the “clear” risk of developing cancer from eating processed meat such as bacon and ham too often.
> 
> The study by scientists from Queen’s University Belfast found that mice fed a diet of processed meat containing the chemicals, which are used to cure bacon and give it its distinctive pink colour, developed 75% more cancerous tumours than mice fed nitrite-free pork.
> 
> It also found that mice fed nitrite-cured pork developed 82% more tumours in the bowel than the control group.





> About 90% of bacon sold in Britain is thought to contain nitrites, which previous research studies have linked to the development of bowel, breast and prostate cancers. The chemical is also used in some continental meat products such as frankfurter sausages.











						‘Too much’ nitrite-cured meat brings clear risk of cancer, say scientists
					

Call for UK government ban of chemical in processed meat such as bacon and ham after mice tumours study




					www.theguardian.com
				




And let's hope this idea works out:









						Climate impact labels could help people eat less red meat
					

Information on environmental impact can persuade consumers against carbon-heavy food choices, says study




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## ddraig (Dec 29, 2022)

All Consuming - Plant-based Meats - BBC Sounds
					

Charlotte Williams sinks her teeth into a surprisingly meaty topic - plant-based meats.




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 29, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.




Cunts of the highest order. Some of them recently released a load of mink from a farm in Ohio. The ones that didn't get run over on the nearby roads, killed most of the local wildlife.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 29, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cunts of the highest order. Some of them recently released a load of mink from a farm in Ohio. The ones that didn't get run over on the nearby roads, killed most of the local wildlife.


I hope they gave them a PCR first.


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> We could be eating roast vegans, if vegans have their way:
> 
> “Animal rights group Peta has asked a town in Connecticut to rename its oddly monikered Roast Meat Hill Road to Roast Vegan Hill Road.”
> 
> ...


PETA can be beyond embarrassing at times.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.



I knew they lied and fabricated evidence. I didn't know they had embarked upon a mission to kill pets. They are really very disturbed individuals.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 29, 2022)

NoXion said:


> *Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored*, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.



ah yeah, we haven't had the Peta card for a fair few pages, best way to ignore them is to post about them eh!


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 29, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Honestly I think it would be better for all concerned if PETA were completely ignored, and allowed to slide into the obscurity that they justly deserve. They're so batshit and hypocritical that I don't think they truly represent the side of the argument that they supposedly stand for.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently animal rights don't extend as far as the right to life, as far as PETA is concerned. Nobody should take them or their attention-seeking stunts seriously.




They shouldn't be ignored. They should be ridiculed as frequently as possible. Whenever they're mentioned I think of our very own fruitcake, Jeff Robinson!


----------



## NoXion (Dec 29, 2022)

ddraig said:


> ah yeah, we haven't had the Peta card for a fair few pages, best way to ignore them is to post about them eh!



I posted that video because I believe it provides a good summary for precisely _why_ I think PETA isn't a good representative of their chosen side of the debate. Anyone dismissing the concept of animal rights because of PETA's actions is not doing so in good faith, because PETA themselves do not actually uphold animal rights.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2022)

Most people on here are clued up enough not to quote PETA or PETA-related material. Sadly not everyone, though. 

We do need to have the equivalent of the S*n ban on here, I think. PETA make stuff up. They fabricate stories, falsify videos and routinely lie. They're also serial pet killers. Nobody should ever make any argument based on anything they say or quote anything that does so.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 29, 2022)

NoXion said:


> I posted that video because I believe it provides a good summary for precisely _why_ I think PETA isn't a good representative of their chosen side of the debate. Anyone dismissing the concept of animal rights because of PETA's actions is not doing so in good faith, because PETA themselves do not actually uphold animal rights.


Well done you! Hope it made you feel good for a while
PETA has been done several times


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 29, 2022)

All I know about PETA is that they once ran an ad campaign trying to convince people that shearing sheep involved skinning them alive. 

Told me all I needed to know, really.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 29, 2022)

I picked up a copy of 'Small is Beautiful' by E. F. Schumacher the other day in a charity shop for a quid. I read it in Uni some 30 years ago and it still stands the test of time. It made me think of how much of a waste of time it is engaging with this thread


----------



## ddraig (Dec 29, 2022)

So that's 3 of you out? Great!


----------



## bcuster (Dec 29, 2022)

I'd've'nt thought it'd be very difficult to be fanatical in wanting to prevent cruelty to animals. Greenpeace has the same goal.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 29, 2022)

Oof, now you're in for it! Scarper!!


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 2, 2023)

I would be interested in this if it involved force feeding corn to vegans









						‘Fuah!’ sure: the vegan foie gras selling out across Spain
					

The plant-based pate has exceeded the Spanish startup’s expectations as orders fly in




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## ddraig (Jan 2, 2023)

DaphneM said:


> I would be interested in this if it involved force feeding corn to vegans
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why? Why are you so bothered by vegans?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 3, 2023)

Vegan pub in Welsh valleys
People said they'd go broke when they decided to go fully vegan but they haven't and are often booked up


----------



## bcuster (Today at 6:31 PM)




----------



## editor (15 minutes ago)

ddraig said:


> Vegan pub in Welsh valleys
> People said they'd go broke when they decided to go fully vegan but they haven't and are often booked up



Good for them


----------



## editor (13 minutes ago)

bcuster said:


>



Poor thing looks in a right state,


----------



## bcuster (11 minutes ago)

editor said:


> Poor thing looks in a right state,


it'll be happy now, as it deserves to be...


----------



## editor (7 minutes ago)

The meat industry shills are hard at it again









						Climate Change Isn’t The Only Environmental Issue. The Meat Industry Wants You To Think It Is.
					

Factory farming isn’t the top contributor to global warming, but it is the greatest cause of environmental destruction.




					www.forbes.com
				




And for all those ignorant morons who keep on insisting that veggie/vegan food can be every bit as good - if not better - than meat dishes, this should prove an enlightening read: 



> Last year, one of the world’s most critically acclaimed restaurants, three Michelin-starred Eleven Madison Park pulled off a culinary feat – becoming the first plant-based restaurant in the world with three Michelin stars.





> Around the world, restaurants are seeing green. Ranked the number one restaurant in the world in 2022, Copenhagen’s three-Michelin-starred Geranium removed meat from its menu at the start of last year, although it still serves seafood options for discerning pescatarians.











						The best Michelin-starred restaurants that are meat-free
					

With a move away from meat diets crucial to reducing CO2 emissions, more Michelin-starred restaurants are pivoting to plant-based and elevating vegetables




					businesschief.com


----------



## WouldBe (4 minutes ago)

editor said:


> And for all those ignorant morons who keep on insisting that veggie/vegan food can be every bit as good - if not better - than meat dishes, this should prove an enlightening read:


Did you mean to say that?


----------

