BYND Beyond Meat out of main

[SageBrush]

meat is a superior food product for humans based on it's nutritional value. Meat. Not plants. That study showed that at MOST you could reduce your carbon footprint by 4% if you stopped eating meat. It did not take into account the nutritional consequences of that conversion.
If a Beyond meat "burger" has 20 grams of protein and a real burger has 20 grams of protein, the two are not of equal value. You will only be able to absorb about 14 grams of protein from the beyond meat burger. SO you will need to eat more of the monocrop roundup sprayed fake burger to get the same nutritional content.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Plants have more than enough protein to meat human requirements if one avoids meeting the energy requirements with junk food and sugar.

At least you have consistency on your side: you understand nutrition about as well as you understand climate change.

 

[mspohr]

We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops?

We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops? | George Monbiot

The official carbon footprint of people in the UK is 5.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year. But in addition to this, the Nature paper estimates that the total greenhouse gas cost – in terms of lost opportunities for storing carbon that the land would offer were it not being farmed – of an average northern European diet is 9 tonnes a year. In other words, if we counted the “carbon opportunity costs” of our diet, our total footprint would almost triple, to 14.4 tonnes.

The problem is that it concentrates on just one of the two ways of counting the carbon costs of farming. The first way – the IPCC’s approach – could be described as farming’s current account. How much greenhouse gas does driving tractors, spreading fertiliser and raising livestock produce every year? According to the panel’s report, the answer is around 23% of the planet-heating gases we currently produce. But this fails miserably to capture the overall impact of food production.

Then there are the nature opportunity costs. A famous paper in Science shows that a plant-based diet would release 76% of the land currently used for farming. This land could then be used for the mass restoration of ecosystems and wildlife, pulling the living world back from the brink of ecological collapse and a sixth great extinction.

One kilo of beef protein has a carbon opportunity cost of 1,250kg: that, incredibly, is roughly equal to driving a new car for a year, or to one passenger flying from London to New York and back.

 

[roblab]

Beyond meat is fake food. Period. If you like eating fake food go ahead. I personally am against eating non human foods that have been processed to resemble real foods. Politics aside. Also Beyond Meat should be required to show long term safety studies for their fake processed food that they are advocating replacing real, traditional, time proven human food.

And if you can't admit that antifa has dozens if not hundreds of members who promote and commit actual violence you are living under a rock.

As far as I know, foods based on grains have been around forever. They are not "FAKE". Nuts and grains are better in many ways than meat, and studies show that a person eating a vegetarian diet lives TEN YEARS longer than a person on a diet containing meat. Meat is the primary cause for colon cancers, too.

Good luck on your meat eating diet, Tarzan. Most people can live long, healthy lives without meat. People who eat meat three times a day usually have clogged arteries and slow intestinal processing times, a cause of intestinal cancer. The people with the longest life spans eat little to no meat, not lots of meat. Your prejudice and warped tastes will kill you early.

The average meat eating cowboy in the late 1800s lived to be 40 years old.

 

[SageBrush]

I still remember a clever class in Philosophy in which a person is defending his eating habits:

"
Should I strive to eat all the vitamins, minerals and diet components I need to live a healthy life ?
Does human have those things in abundance, tailored to my needs ?
Then clearly human is the preferred diet ."

 

[RDoc]

I still remember a clever class in Philosophy in which a person is defending his eating habits:

"
Should I strive to eat all the vitamins, minerals and diet components I need to live a healthy life ?
Does human have those things in abundance, tailored to my needs ?
Then clearly human is the preferred diet ."

Yeah, that's an excellent example of what's wrong with philosophy.

 

[SageBrush]

Yeah, that's an excellent example of what's wrong with philosophy.

What is a well reasoned rebuttal ?

It was obvious to me as a medical student but the students not familiar with biology floundered.

 

[RDoc]

What is a well reasoned rebuttal ?

It was obvious to me as a medical student but the students not familiar with biology floundered.

My point is that all to often (perhaps almost always?) philosophical arguments are very little more than word games based on very simplistic world models which replace actual knowledge with sophomoric cleverness.

The rebuttal is that in the real world, with real humans, an all meat diet is pretty bad.

 

[SageBrush]

My point is that all to often (perhaps almost always?) philosophical arguments are very little more than word games based on very simplistic world models which replace actual knowledge with sophomoric cleverness.

The rebuttal is that in the real world, with real humans, an all meat diet is pretty bad.

I've always thought that the fallacy in the argument of the cannibal is that it ignores the things in human we do not want to consume. By-products and accumulated toxins aside, humans are engineered to regulate via anabolism.

 

[cpa]

The rebuttal is that in the real world, with real humans, an all meat diet is pretty bad.

Not to argue your point. Just noting that the traditional diet of the Inuit and their cousins was nearly 100% meat and fish, but mostly meat. They had a very small window during summer to gather plants for food, mostly roots and shoots with the occasional berry if they managed to make their way to lower latitudes. They seemed to do OK because they consumed everything from their catches.

 

[SageBrush]

Not to argue your point. Just noting that the traditional diet of the Inuit and their cousins was nearly 100% meat and fish, but mostly meat. They had a very small window during summer to gather plants for food, mostly roots and shoots with the occasional berry if they managed to make their way to lower latitudes. They seemed to do OK because they consumed everything from their catches.

The Inuit are a an excellent example of just the opposite. Their health is atrocious.

 

[ohmman]

Because meat is more resource intensive than vegetal protein sources, replacing it with efficient plant alternatives is potentially desirable, provided these alternatives prove nutritionally sound. We show that protein conserving plant alternatives to meat that rigorously satisfy key nutritional constraints while minimizing cropland, nitrogen fertilizer (Nr) and water use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exist, and could improve public health.

They estimate that replacing beef, pork, and chicken in the US diet would be the equivalent of taking 60 million cars off the road. Importantly, without impacting our nutritional needs. There are some limitations and caveats in the study, which are noted in the public text.

Environmentally Optimal, Nutritionally Sound, Protein and Energy Conserving Plant Based Alternatives to U.S. Meat

 

[mspohr]

Goldsmiths bans beef from university cafes to tackle climate crisis

Goldsmiths bans beef from university cafes to tackle climate crisis

A university has banned the sale of beef in campus food outlets in order to help tackle the climate emergency.

Goldsmiths, University of London, is also attempting to phase out single-use plastics and installing more panels to power its buildings in New Cross, as part of a move to become carbon neutral by 2025.

 

[renim]

Where does meat come into this ?

or another famous thought leader from history

Dining Like Darwin: When Scientists Swallow Their Subjects

 

[RDoc]

While we're huge beef fans, we have made a conscious decision to cut back on it a lot and reorient our meat eating to fish, pork and chicken, all of which have a much lower CO2 impact than beef.

I'm totally convinced that the essential thing we (the developed countries) need to do to reverse global warming is research, but in the mean time, things like this do help a little bit.

 

[ohmman]

I'm totally convinced that the essential thing we (the developed countries) need to do to reverse global warming is research, but in the mean time, things like this do help a little bit.

I'm convinced that the only way to slow or stop AGW is legislation and/or proper alignment of incentives. Research should continue as well. Education, voluntary adoption, and the like aren't nearly adequate. And I say that as someone who had done lots of the voluntary adoption, including dropping beef and most meat out of our diet. So long as I'm outnumbered thousands to one, it's not remotely enough.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm convinced that the only way to slow or stop AGW is legislation and/or proper alignment of incentives.

The trick to internalizing externalities is to find a mechanism that does not flap with the political winds of the week. Incentives are far too vulnerable.

 

[gilscales]

 

[mspohr]

While we're huge beef fans, we have made a conscious decision to cut back on it a lot and reorient our meat eating to fish, pork and chicken, all of which have a much lower CO2 impact than beef.

I'm totally convinced that the essential thing we (the developed countries) need to do to reverse global warming is research, but in the mean time, things like this do help a little bit.

More research is just a delay tactic.
We know what to do. We just need political will.

 

[JRP3]

A recent United Nations IPCC report on climate compared a vegan diet to others.

Spoiler: It was the best.

 

[mspohr]

Too many cows in New Zealand destroy the environment.

The Incontinent Cows of Middle-earth Opinion | The Incontinent Cows of Middle-earth

New Zealand has been using the slogan “100% Pure New Zealand” to advertise itself as a tourist destination since 1999, with admirable success. “Clean Green New Zealand” is another phrase closely bound up in our national self-image. The country is certainly a beautiful one, and thanks to our low population levels, it has previously not had to face heavy consequences from our lax environmental stewardship. But the rivers of Canterbury are not 100 percent pure; they are a long way from clean, and if they seem green, it’s because of the algal levels. Dams built for irrigation have reduced flows, concentrating nutrients and reducing the power of floods to move sediment and algae. Fecal contamination from cows has closed many swimming areas. Fishers and recreational users of rivers in Canterbury have become increasingly vocal about the destruction of the natural environment