Yes, I think Tony Seba predicted this... cheaper more sustainable less polluting proteins from yeast.
(Why do you think this is Pure Torture... Are they torturing the yeast? Surely not torturing cows.)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
We must face facts - meat is the problem
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
(Why do you think this is Pure Torture... Are they torturing the yeast? Surely not torturing cows.)
Brazil launches biggest ever operation against illegal cattle farms in Amazon
Taskforce deployed to remove thousands of cows owned by land grabbers from indigenous territory
www.theguardian.com
Three helicopters, a dozen vehicles and a heavily armed corps of police and environment rangers are carrying out the cattle drive, which criminal gangs attempted to block by setting fires on the route, destroying bridges and intimidating drivers.
Operation Eraha Tapiro (“Ox Removal” in the language of the Assurini Indigenous people) aims to restore state control over the Ituna-Itatá Indigenous Territory, which suffered some of the worst deforestation and invasions in the Amazon during the previous presidency of the nationalist Jair Bolsonaro.
World’s dogs going vegan would save more emissions than UK produces, study shows
Study estimates cats and dogs consume about 9% of all land animals killed for food
www.theguardian.com
If all the world’s dogs went vegan it would save more greenhouse gas emissions than those produced by the UK, according to research advocating the environmental benefits of plant-based pets. The study estimated cats and dogs consume about 9% of all land animals killed for food – about 7 billion animals annually – as well as billions of fish and aquatic animals. Plant-based diets lower greenhouse gas emissions and require less land and water.
The research at the University of Winchester calculated that if all the world’s dogs went vegan, it would free up a larger land mass than Mexico and more freshwater than all the renewable freshwater in Denmark, and would feed about 450 million additional people – more than the entire EU population.
He noted that large scale studies had already shown that dogs and cats can be just as healthy, or even more, on a vegan diet, so long as they eat pet food that is specially formulated with additional vitamins, amino acids and minerals to ensure it is nutritionally sound.
Knight’s calculations also demonstrated that if all the world’s people went vegan, it would save more greenhouse gases than all those emitted by the entire EU, land larger than Russia and India combined, renewable freshwater exceeding all that of Cuba, and would feed about 5.3 billion additional people – almost two-thirds of the world’s current population.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
When you dial the stupid past 11....
Growing Alfalfa in one desert to feed cows in another desert on the other side of the planet.
Growing Alfalfa in one desert to feed cows in another desert on the other side of the planet.
How a Saudi firm tapped a gusher of water in drought-stricken Arizona
Top grain traders ‘helped scupper’ ban on soya from deforested land
Cargill and ADM led push to weaken new protections for threatened ecosystems in South America, report says
www.theguardian.com
Cargill and ADM, two of the world’s leading livestock feed companies, helped to scupper an attempt to end the trade in soya beans grown on deforested and threatened ecosystem lands in South America, a new report alleges. Soya is one of the cheapest available types of edible protein, and is in huge demand for feed for animals around the world; as our consumption of meat and dairy has risen globally, the need for soya has soared too.
These 8 Alternative Fat Brands Are on a Mission To Upgrade Plant-Based Meat
Fat is the reason why meat tastes so, well, meaty. Meet the brands trying to find an innovative, sustainable alternative with vegan and cruelty-free ingredients.
vegnews.com
It turns out, a key reason why many humans love animal meat so much has to do with fat. Think of crispy bacon, for example, or pork belly. The texture, the mouthfeel, and the flavor have a lot to do with fat content. “Fat tends to absorb the aromatic compounds from an animal’s food, and as the animal ages, those flavor compounds intensify,” explains meat-processing giant Teys Australia. If you’re thinking, “But is this relative to the plant-based sector?” The answer is a big yes. If we know exactly what makes people want to eat meat, then food scientists and brands can get to work on replicating it in a more sustainable, healthier way. And that’s why, all over the world, alternative protein companies are working on fat.
‘Our world hangs by a thread’: Indigenous activist asks US agri giant to stop destroying Amazon rainforest
Beka Saw Munduruku , 21, traveled 4,000 miles to deliver letter and confront family behind Cargill empire over what she says amounts to a litany of broken promises
www.theguardian.com
Beka Saw Munduruku traveled more than 4,000 miles to confront the family behind Cargill, the world’s largest grain trader and a major meat producer, over what she says amounts to a litany of broken promises that pose an existential threat to Indigenous peoples and the global climate. “Your executives tell us that Cargill is a good company, that they have pledged to end the destruction of nature. But this is not our experience. In every region where Cargill operates, you are destroying the environment and driving out or threatening the communities who live there,” writes Beka, whose requests for face-to-face meetings with family representatives went unanswered.
Eating red meat twice a week may increase type 2 diabetes risk, study finds
Experts claim latest research from Harvard University adds a greater level of certainty about the link
www.theguardian.com
The research suggests that every additional daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 46% greater chance of developing type 2 diabetes. Every additional daily serving of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 24% greater risk, the study found.
The chances of a person developing type 2 diabetes can increase even if they eat red meat just two times a week instead of an alternative option, researchers have said. Replacing red meat with plant-based protein sources, such as nuts and legumes, may reduce the chances of developing the condition and would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change, according to experts at Harvard University
Estimating the potential effects of replacing one daily serving of red meat for another protein source, researchers found substituting for nuts and legumes was associated with a 30% lower risk of type 2 diabetes. Substituting a serving of dairy products was linked to a 22% lower risk.
The scientists added that swapping red meat for healthy plant protein sources would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change, and provide other environmental benefits.
Not disagreeing at all that eating less red meat is good, but there are legitimate concerns about the conclusions from such studies.Eating red meat twice a week may increase type 2 diabetes risk, study finds
Experts claim latest research from Harvard University adds a greater level of certainty about the link
The research suggests that every additional daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 46% greater chance of developing type 2 diabetes. Every additional daily serving of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 24% greater risk, the study found.
The chances of a person developing type 2 diabetes can increase even if they eat red meat just two times a week instead of an alternative option, researchers have said. Replacing red meat with plant-based protein sources, such as nuts and legumes, may reduce the chances of developing the condition and would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change, according to experts at Harvard University
Estimating the potential effects of replacing one daily serving of red meat for another protein source, researchers found substituting for nuts and legumes was associated with a 30% lower risk of type 2 diabetes. Substituting a serving of dairy products was linked to a 22% lower risk.
The scientists added that swapping red meat for healthy plant protein sources would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change, and provide other environmental benefits.
It is an observational unblinded study, and has limited controls. I have not looked at the entire study, but it is that.
It is possible that people who eat less red meat are also eating less of some essential thing that actually causes diabetes. Also, we rely on an individual reporting their diet intakes accurately in such a study. The same issue of the journal where the Harvard study is published has an accompanying article addressing this. The quality of previous studies addressing this topic has been considered "poor".
Links to the Abstracts:
Ex-officials at UN farming body say work on methane emissions was censored
Pressure from agriculture lobbies led to role of cattle in rising global temperatures being underplayed by FAO, claim sources
www.theguardian.com
Former officials in the UN’s farming wing have said they were censored, sabotaged, undermined and victimised for more than a decade after they wrote about the hugely damaging contribution of methane emissions from livestock to global heating. Team members at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) tasked with estimating cattle’s contribution to soaring temperatures said that pressure from farm-friendly funding states was felt throughout the FAO’s Rome headquarters and coincided with attempts by FAO leadership to muzzle their work.
But many scientists plot farm emissions on a very different trajectory. One recent study concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from animal products made up 20% of the global total and a 2021 study found that the figure should be between 16.5% and 28.1%.
High steaks society: who are the 12% of people consuming half of all beef in the US?
Beef production is a huge climate crisis driver, and a new study says only a small percent in the country does most of the eating
www.theguardian.com
Research has shown that beef production, which goes hand in hand with deforestation to create grazing land for cows, is responsible for over 4.2bn metric tons of global carbon emissions. Consuming beef is up to 10 times more impactful than chicken, and over 50 times that of beans. Numerous health studies have shown risks of elevated heart disease from red meat.
Men and people between the ages of 50 and 65 were more likely to be in what the researchers dubbed as “disproportionate beef eaters”, defined as those who, based on a recommended daily 2,200 calorie-diet, eat more than four ounces – the rough equivalent of more than one hamburger – daily.
Now, amid growing public discourse over the dangers of meat consumption, Republicans have politicized meat. There have even been false claims that Joe Biden would “take away” hamburgers. Specht said that meat is now part of “what it means to be American”. “Meat, apple pie, football, having a truck, it becomes a marker of identity.”
A recent study published in Nature shows that if by 2050, people substitute half of the global beef, chicken, pork and milk consumption for plant-based alternatives, emissions from agriculture and land use to produce these animal products would decline by 31%.
This land isn’t for you or me. It’s for the meat industry.
Almost half of the continental US is used for meat production. There’s something better we could do with it.
www.vox.com
To avoid the worst effects of climate change, it won’t be enough to just reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we spew into the air — we also need to remove them from the atmosphere. One effective way to do that, which doesn’t rely on unproven carbon capture technology, is by “rewilding,” or retiring agricultural land back to its original ecosystem so that its vegetation can sequester carbon dioxide. Much of that potential is currently wasted on inefficient livestock production — what climate scientists call the “carbon opportunity cost” of meat.
A 2020 study published in the journal Nature Sustainability highlights the immense environmental potential of changing how we farm and eat. Researchers found that if all high-income countries shifted to a plant-based diet from 2015 to 2050, they’d free up enough land to sequester 32 gigatons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of removing nine years of all those countries’ fossil fuel emissions from the atmosphere. Globally, if we shifted to plant-based diets over that same time period, the land saved could sequester the equivalent of 16 years of global fossil fuel emissions.
The Smell of Money: inside the fight to take on ‘unbelievable’ pig farm pollution
A new documentary has stirred up anger with its portrayal of a North Carolina community suffering as a result of pork factory toxic waste
www.theguardian.com
Harm committed by factory farming against humans, animals and the environment. The film captures on-camera the toxic hog waste produced in North Carolina’s concentrated animal feeding operations, which is then sprayed across fields near people’s homes, producing a foul and debilitating stench that has severe health impacts. Longtime residents like Elsie Herring and Rene Miller (who spoke out in a Guardian investigation on the same issue) are among the few who resiliently stand their ground and continue to fight back. They do so despite police harassment, intimidation and other insidious attempts to silence them in a state where many citizens are employed by the same industry.
Our failure to regulate livestock emissions is choking off US agriculture
Congress may think it is helping U.S. farmers with its annual exemption to the sector on emissions reporting, but investors see an industry lagging behind global peers.
thehill.com
A powerful example of the obstacles to progress in the U.S. is the rider added to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) funding bill every year since 2009. Heavily lobbied for by the U.S. agriculture industry and voted through regardless of which party controls Congress, this small amount of fine print severely hampers the ability of the EPA to monitor and regulate emissions from food animal operations.
The U.S. government has made clear it is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), the Biden administration launched a global campaign to reduce methane emissions, and published a report showing agriculture is the single biggest source of methane in the U.S. — greater than landfill, coal mining and petroleum systems combined. Just last month, analysis found that in the environmentally conscious state of California, the single largest methane emitter is a giant feedlot, home to almost 140,000 beef cattle. Yet large emitters such as these remain absent from both state and federal databases, because while the EPA is already moving on fossil fuels, its hands are tied when it comes to animal agriculture.
U.S. lobbyists may well be tucking into a steak dinner as they congratulate themselves on keeping the EPA at bay for another year. But what international investors see isn’t cause for celebration: they see an industry lagging ever further behind the rest of the world, failing to measure the risks it faces, and failing to manage them in a way that will stop capital going elsewhere. For the sake of U.S. farmers now and in the future, it’s time for that to change.
Revealed: the industry figures behind ‘declaration of scientists’ backing meat eating
Document used to target top EU officials over environmental and health policies but climate experts view it as propaganda
www.theguardian.com
A public statement signed by more than 1,000 scientists in support of meat production and consumption has numerous links to the livestock industry, the Guardian can reveal. The statement has been used to target top EU officials against environmental and health policies and has been endorsed by the EU agriculture commissioner. The “Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock” says livestock “are too precious to society to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry” and calls for a “balanced view of the future of animal agriculture”. One of the authors of the declaration is an economist who called veganism an “eating disorder requiring psychological treatment”.
Documents obtained by Unearthed, Greenpeace UK’s journalism project, and seen by the Guardian, show the creation, launch and promotion of the declaration have significant links to the livestock industry and its consultants. The declaration and associated studies are viewed as “propaganda” by leading environmental scientists. Prof Matthew Hayek of New York University in the US said: “The scientific consensus is that we need rapid meat reduction in the regions that can afford that choice.”
Studies in the highest-ranking scientific journals have concluded that cutting meat and dairy consumption in rich countries is the single best way to reduce a person’s impact on the environment and that the climate crisis cannot be beaten without such cuts. People already eat more meat than health guidelines recommend in most developed nations.
Interesting that milk has such a relatively small impact considering the source.
And then, what about that chocolate milk?
I like the chart and surprised about farmed fish (which I avoid for other reasons already).
But one complaint is the a KG is not the best metric. On the margins that matter - take poultry vs. rice. I would rather see calories and protein rather than raw kilograms. Or similarly eggs vs rice.
I'd like to see wild caught fish and shrimp.
If you go by that chart alone, the real issue is beef, lamb, farmed shrimp and cheese. The weight of dark chocolate and coffee consumed per person is probably very small. And cheese can also be pretty small but it depends. I would suspect that different cheeses can have vastly different footprints.
Coffee is 4.4 kg per person annually vs 26 kg for beef. In the US. So beef is roughly a 20 fold problem over coffee. But at least beef provides something necessary compared to coffee.
But one complaint is the a KG is not the best metric. On the margins that matter - take poultry vs. rice. I would rather see calories and protein rather than raw kilograms. Or similarly eggs vs rice.
I'd like to see wild caught fish and shrimp.
If you go by that chart alone, the real issue is beef, lamb, farmed shrimp and cheese. The weight of dark chocolate and coffee consumed per person is probably very small. And cheese can also be pretty small but it depends. I would suspect that different cheeses can have vastly different footprints.
Coffee is 4.4 kg per person annually vs 26 kg for beef. In the US. So beef is roughly a 20 fold problem over coffee. But at least beef provides something necessary compared to coffee.