Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I went vegetarian for years mostly for environmental reasons (Diet for a Small Planet book) anyway. The premise of the book might be faulty and naive (people are starving in the world not because we're wasting resources but because of political economic factors) but I don't see the need to waste resources anyhow.
Not sure why this was posted to the "green" forum since it is more of a diet question, but whatever. People are different. Any "one-size-fits-all" diet is a triumph of ego and activism over science and humanity. Example: I like oats, give me one or two oatmeal cookies and I'm a happy camper. If I eat much more than that my digestive system goes haywire and I can get sick. Like many people with diverticulitis, I don't tolerate lettuce well. Other people have problems digesting beef or pork. Bottom line, we tend to use LESS resources and be more productive when we aren't sick from following some stupid dictum of what other people KNOW we should eat because of yada yada.
It is in the green forum because the meat industry uses a lot of resources that impact the environment. A great way to address environmental problems in my opinion is to address things like meat consumption.
I went vegetarian for years mostly for environmental reasons (Diet for a Small Planet book) anyway. The premise of the book might be faulty and naive (people are starving in the world not because we're wasting resources but because of political economic factors) but I don't see the need to waste resources anyhow.
The premises is not faulty and naive, people starve because of poor allocation of resources due to politics.
If I bought a steak and threw it away, it is not like I am taking that steak out of the mouth of someone else. That is why people are starving not because of wasted resources but because of politics.
It is in the green forum because the meat industry uses a lot of resources that impact the environment. A great way to address environmental problems in my opinion is to address things like meat consumption.
No one addressed the factor of taste in this.
Let's be honest -- agriculture, period, uses a lot of resources that impact the environment. Wasteful, unsustainable and environmentally harmful practices exist whether you're raising animals or growing plants. The solution is not to eliminate or limit the industry, it's to eliminate or limit those wasteful, unstainable and harmful practices being employed by less-than-conscientious producers and processors.
While your body may not "store protein" it does use protein just like any other calorie. And let's be perfectly clear, your body only stores calories and some micronutrients -- 100 calories of meat and 100 calories of wheat and 100 calories of lard are still 100 calories that your body can use or store. So, if your body needs 1200 calories you can eat 1200 calories worth of animal proteins and fats; or you can eat 1200 calories of veggie proteins, carbs and fats... your body doesn't care as long as it gets the amount of calories and micronutrients it needs.
If you eat a surplus of any macronutrient, you body will either excrete it or store it. The only difference is how easily the body can break a food down to get the calories out... and it is more difficult for the body to digest proteins & fats, which is why you don't get blood sugar spikes and you feel full faster and longer. If you are eating a lot of carbs and you eat a surplus of protein, then your body is going to use up the easy carbs first, and probably "waste" the extra protein. If you are eating a surplus of carbs, your body is much more likely to store those easy calories as body fat since it's efficient... storing surplus protein & fat calories is much less efficient since they are harder to break down, so your body will store carb calories first if there is a surplus of calories in total.
Every body has different nutritional and caloric requirements, depending on basal metabolic rates and exertion levels. And every digestive system is slightly different, so each processes different foods with different efficiencies and different side effects. The FDA/USDA guidelines are... GUIDELINES.
Some days I do end up with 3+ meals that contain meat. Not often, but I've had bacon breakfasts with turkey sandwich lunches and steak dinners before. Of course, I have days where I don't eat meat at all, or only have meat in one meal, too. And having meat in a meal doesn't mean that you're serving up a big chunk of meat... it might only be a couple ounces of ground beef in your tomato sauce, or sausage crumbles in your rice & beans, or grilled chicken strips in a salad, or a few sardines on toast.
Pretty much all true. But many nutrients can be produced without the kind of environmental results of cattle and hog feeder lots. Vegetarian protein substitutes don't require animals living in their own excrement while they reach market weight. That's why I think there could be some environmental benefit if meat went from three times a day seven days a week to something like two times a day six days a week. That is, the campaign to simply stop meat isn't the only way out of the present food economy. Oh, and vegetarians tend to lose weight. So there could be reductions in the medical bill of the country as a secondary result.
Pretty much all true. But many nutrients can be produced without the kind of environmental results of cattle and hog feeder lots. Vegetarian protein substitutes don't require animals living in their own excrement while they reach market weight. That's why I think there could be some environmental benefit if meat went from three times a day seven days a week to something like two times a day six days a week. That is, the campaign to simply stop meat isn't the only way out of the present food economy. Oh, and vegetarians tend to lose weight. So there could be reductions in the medical bill of the country as a secondary result.
There would be environmental and animal welfare benefits to stopping the practices you've mentioned; but that doesn't necessarily equate to reducing meat and animal products in your diet, just getting your meat and animal products from sources who don't use those practices.
Agriculture of all types is potentially environmentally destructive. So a vegetable protein or meat analog may actually be worse for the environment depending on how it's grown (soil depletion, erosion, dry aquifers, polluted rivers, etc). It's the practices, not the food group.
And people who eat a lower carb diet rich in animal proteins and fats also tend to lose weight and have improved health status. The argument of which is "healthier" is facetious.
It is in the green forum because the meat industry uses a lot of resources that impact the environment. A great way to address environmental problems in my opinion is to address things like meat consumption.
No one addressed the factor of taste in this.
That is a slippery slope, one that a lot of people slide down into the mud pit, in their noble efforts to be conscious of their impact on the earth. As another poster mentioned, inequalities in distribution of foods are primarily political in nature, not a resource issue. The carrying capacity of agriculture is more than enough for any reasonable worldwide civilization.
If you examine the underlying concept you are flogging, it converts to a core:
If anything requires more resources than the absolute minimum, it is not as good as something requiring less resource use.
That is patently false. Technology and science require major uses of resources, often without immediate results, but the use of those resources ultimately benefits humanity. A huge amount of resources went into our first getting a satellite in orbit. Noxious chemicals like hydrazine were used with abandon. A portion of an environmentally sensitive area was razed for a spaceport.
Fast forward a few decades and I'm communicating with you via satellite, get my entertainment programming the same way, can use a GPS to keep from becoming lost, or look at Google satellite images to see what changes have happened around the world. The actual footprint, compared to additional my driving to a place to check it out, getting lost, and wasting time and energy, is INCREDIBLY smaller. Multiply my experience by millions.
"Koyaanisqatsi" ruminations aside, technology developed by a society that is a resource hog keeps most of us alive. (I'd be long dead from a burst appendix or gall bladder without it.) Part and parcel to such a society is the refusal to accept that a daily ration of the lowest impact gruel is meaningful.
In point of fact, meat animals graze in fields that are unsuitable to row crops and would otherwise be locked into unproductive sub-ecosystems. Neighbors around me keep goats to keep their property from becoming overgrown with trash trees (many of which are invasives and would otherwise dominate the environment).
There ARE effects when systems are improperly managed, for example, look online to see the remnants of the fabled cedar forests of Lebanon, or the denuded hills of Greece created by goat overgrazing and lead smelting. Modern agriculture views good producing land as too expensive to waste, the science (technology) is FAR better than that of the Greeks or Phoenicians, and repeats of environmental devastation are increasingly unlikely.
If you look at what used to be the giant feedlots of Chicago, you'll see concrete and banks. I submit that the feedlots were less of a danger to the environment.
The whole essence of this discussion is so amusing to me because I live with this. Hubs is from TX, I'm from CA. He is the meat and potatoes guy and I eat foods based on my cravings. Some of the basics I like; eggs, cheese, nuts, salads, pasta, rice, crustaceans...I figure if I am 'dying' for a spinach salad, then I'm low in magnesium, vitamin K, iron- and what ever else spinich has to offer.
If he cooks there was always meat, if I cook, he always asks, 'where's the meat? there has to be a meat dish.' And even if there was shrimp or clams on the table.
Naturally, I may have days that I eat meat once or twice, but in much smaller servings that most people. I can go days without meat. The last on my list of meat to eat is beef. Beef hurts me unless it is grassfeed and hormone free. Thus, I'm one who avoids much of the 'mass produced commercial' meats, but I don't completely. Sometimes that fast food burger and fries smells SO good...and likely be paying for it later.
I'm in the camp that, generally speaking, society eats way too much meat. And taking vitamins in pill form is indeed a waste. Vitamins and minerals are better absorbed by the body when there are other compounds that ride along with. Vitamin supplements don't have these compounds.
I'm not gonna preach the elimination of meat. I want to keep eating it, and I think it is entirely possible to continue, given the millenia they've done it in Asia. But these GIANT sandwiches? Huge steaks? Meat defining a "meal". It just seems such extreme behavior that I can't escape the feeling it is an addiction of some sort. In fact, in a long past decade, I had a bank job in Oregon. I worked with a woman who was probably in her 40's. At a particular time, there was an upswing in beef prices. She would bemoan how MUCH it cost to get beef. I said "Well, if you pay the price, why shouldn't they charge it?" Even at that time I felt she was displaying addict behavior. She insisted there "HAD to be beef". I was hardly anti-beef, but I just couldn't figure why there "HAD to be beef". We had meat every day in our family. We were a huge family, so it was no small matter to pay the cost. So my parents bought according to best prices. They served weenies, meatballs, fried chicken, occasionally fish (tuna). They insured some animal protein every day. But NOT at every meal. And NOT beef exclusively. I don't know if this was a sign of our poverty, but I never recall a single argument over the variety we had. In fact, I personally was always waiting for the chicken meal. That was my treat! We had chicken on holidays.
So what I lobby for is a retreat from extreme behavior. I had a brother who wanted to live on juice extracted from wheat grass. It didn't even matter to me if it tasted good or bad. I just couldn't stand the idea of obsessing over one thing. To me, its inhuman. We couldnt even have beef addicts in most economies. It takes a huge investment of a certain type to provide the meat. Which means it is really doomed in the long run. One paleontologist has hypothesized that the extinction of large game animals doomed the Neanderthals. Climatic conditions could doom beef husbandry. Then what will people do who must have beef all the time? Maybe they are the Neanderthals of today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
