dos

3/25/2009 8:29:08 AM

Quote :

"Save the environment: Eat less meat By Mark Bittman A sea change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil. It’s meat. The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible. Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests. Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost. The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in livestock production.” Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total. Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation. To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days. Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices. This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization. Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States. The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people. Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough. Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources . What can be done? There’s no simple answer. Better waste management, for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income. Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research Institute, says, "There should be investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level of meat."

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 8:37 AM. Reason : continued.......]

3/25/2009 8:35:48 AM

Quote :

"Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel. Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of “meat without feet” — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks. Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense.” But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of the chicken. Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure “lagoons” pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement annually.) These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast as land-based methods, according to the United Nations. Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.” Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human beings? Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies), though we’re beginning to see them increase now. But many experts, including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, say they don’t believe meat prices will rise high enough to affect demand in the United States. “I just don’t think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat consumption,” he said. “There may be a temporary spike in food prices, but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the burden is put on eaters, that’s not a tragic state of affairs.” If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals. Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees “a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet.” It wouldn’t surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact. “The good of people’s bodies and the good of the planet are more or less perfectly aligned,” he said. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” made a similar point: “There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.” In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality. If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end. Maybe that’s not such a big deal. “Who said people had to eat meat three times a day?” asked Mr. Pollan. Mark Bittman, who writes the Minimalist column in the Dining In and Dining Out sections, is the author of “How to Cook Everything Vegetarian,” which was published last year. He is not a vegetarian."

There is nothing wrong with eating meat, per se.
That being said.... Nearly every american should eat less meat.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 8:36:39 AM

tl;dr

3/25/2009 8:38:23 AM

HIGH ON HIS HORSE, WILLY NILLY SUBJECTS US ALL TO HIS PROPAGANDA AND ELITIST RAMBLINGS. IS THE EARTH REALLY GOING TO END BECAUSE I LIKE TO EAT STEAK? OH SAVE US WILLY NILLY, SAVE US PLEASE!

3/25/2009 8:47:33 AM

^
lol....
But seriously.... The world won't end because you like eating steak.
I like eating steak -- and I'm fairly certain the author of the above text also likes eating steak.
It's simply a matter of sustainability. You don't need to eat steak 3 times a day... that being said, if the steak is sustainably produced and thus costs $30/lb, and you're willing to pay that... then go right ahead and eat steak 3 times a day, or 6 times... in fact eat as much as you want.

3/25/2009 8:58:09 AM

Willy Nilly manages to be an interesting character...

I agree with (most of) his ideas, but am completely opposed to his methods of delivering them.

Not many people manage to so totally polarize those two things.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .]

3/25/2009 8:59:59 AM

^
True
I tend to be so assertive that I sound like an asshole, but when I try to come off less assertive, I end up sounding like a douche.
I value your constructive criticism.

(I put the "ass" in "assertive" )

3/25/2009 9:05:53 AM

Quote :

"Apparently if you eat more than a childs size hamburger a week you'll likely die an early age. This means you need to cut out bacon, processed meats for sandwiches, hot dogs, sausages, steak, ribs, burgers, etc. but but it tastes sooooooooooooooooooooo goooooooooooooooooooood "

What are you, some kind of fucking retard? We're all eager for diet advice from the girl who lost 10 pounds in two years by giving it her all

3/25/2009 9:23:35 AM

this all makes sense

i just don't care

3/25/2009 9:24:59 AM

ground beef from a fast food joint != meat

3/25/2009 9:26:38 AM

vegetarians and vegans:

the next time you are in the bathroom, look at your teeth. you will notice that your set of chompers is very different from an herbivore like a cow or a horse. your teeth are designed to tear flesh. you evolved this way because it was advantageous to our species' ability to survive.

don't fight your biology.

3/25/2009 9:34:48 AM

so you can live a few years longer with decreased mental capacity or eat meat and die younger knowing what is going on around you. It's a trade-off.

Quote :

"SCIENTISTS have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain - with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage. Vegans and vegetarians — such as Heather Mills — are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin. The link was discovered by Oxford University scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87. When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12. "

/end trolling of crazy vegetarian militants

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

3/25/2009 9:36:35 AM

but but but but they can take pills for that!!!

blows another hole in their "natural" theory...

3/25/2009 9:37:49 AM

Willy Nilly,

How is the price of meat artificially marked down?


Also is this thread, or Kiwi's point, about red meat or all meat.

3/25/2009 9:38:43 AM

who eats steak 3 times per day?

and I thought this was Amurrrrricaaahhh. Land of the free, freedom of choice type things? if they want to eat it, let them eat it. No sense in driving up the cost of meat and making poor people poorer.

3/25/2009 9:39:08 AM

^ well put. i have priced out being a vegetarian. it's expensive as fuck to get the same caloric intake off of veggies and other organic foodstuffs. it's even more costly to be a vegan.

comfortable, happy, and dying at 85 >>> poor, gaunt, and dying at 95

3/25/2009 9:42:49 AM

Quote :

"How is the price of meat artificially marked down?"

Meat is subsidized, so in reality, someone else's tax dollars are already paying for a part of the cost of the meat -- not the actual consumer. Also, by not forcing meat production facilities to pay for 100% of the costs associated with "cleaning up after themselves", further tax dollars are used inappropriately to pay for the clean-up. If the meat production facilities had to pay for this, (and of course they should because it's their fucking mess,) they would have to raise prices to what they should have been to begin with -- the real price. The price of conventional (unsustainable, polluting and subsidized,) meat is not the real price -- is it artificial.

Quote :

"Land of the free, freedom of choice type things? if they want to eat it, let them eat it. No sense in driving up the cost of meat"

Like I said, if someone is paying the real price of meat, they have every right to eat 50lbs a week, if possible. The choice to eat however much meat you want is your right, so as long as it doesn't affect other rights. And when you buy meat at lower artificial prices, you are affecting others' rights because their taxes go to subsidies and pollution clean-up.

Also, it's not "driving up the cost of meat". It's abandoning the artificial price of meat and returning to the real cost.

Quote :

"who eats steak 3 times per day?"

Bill Brasky, but only when he's on a diet....

Quote :

"Also is this thread, or Kiwi's point, about red meat or all meat."

I heard the story on the radio, and if I remember correctly, it's about red meat, over-heated fat, and processed meats.

3/25/2009 9:54:37 AM

No one has posted the source yet?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7959128.stm

You know what, I wish someone would do a study of people eating only fresh meat, not processed meat.

And then I wish someone would do a study of people eating only free-range meat, not commercially farmed meat, nor processed meat.

Hopefully one day.

3/25/2009 9:58:54 AM

3/25/2009 10:00:10 AM

i eat ostrich steak more often than beef steak...it's red meat that's:

- 60% fewer calories of beef (30% less than turkey)
- same protein content as beef (slightly more, actually)
- 80% less fat than beef (60% less than turkey)
- has 0g saturated fat (vs. beef's 6.4 and turkey's 0.9)
- has 0g mono-unsaturated fat (vs. beef's 6.9 and turkey's 0.5)
- has 0g poly-unsaturated fat (vs. beef's 0.6 and turkey's 0.7)
- 25% less cholesterol than beef (about the same as turkey)

it's more expensive, though it tastes better than beef, IMO

3/25/2009 10:05:21 AM

Ostrich tastes amazing, as does venison.

Quote :

"- has 0g saturated fat (vs. beef's 6.4 and turkey's 0.9) - has 0g mono-unsaturated fat (vs. beef's 6.9 and turkey's 0.5) - has 0g poly-unsaturated fat (vs. beef's 0.6 and turkey's 0.7)"

So it has 0 g fat, you mean? I am sure it has some fat. And those numbers for beef and turkey, they are in how much of the flesh?

3/25/2009 10:09:02 AM

Quote :

"Ostrich Nutrition Comparison Serving (3 oz.) Calories Protein (g) Fat (g) Chol. (mg) Ostrich 97 22 2 58 Bison 85 18 2 49 Chicken (skinless) 140 27 3 73 Turkey (skinless) 135 25 3 59 Beef (lean, steak) 240 23 15 77 Pork (lean, loin) 275 24 19 84"

3/25/2009 10:10:22 AM

Quote :

"Meat is subsidized, so in reality, someone else's tax dollars are already paying for a part of the cost of the meat -- not the actual consumer. Also, by not forcing meat production facilities to pay for 100% of the costs associated with "cleaning up after themselves", further tax dollars are used inappropriately to pay for the clean-up. If the meat production facilities had to pay for this, (and of course they should because it's their fucking mess,) they would have to raise prices to what they should have been to begin with -- the real price. The price of conventional (unsustainable, polluting and subsidized,) meat is not the real price -- is it artificial."

Ok I didn't realize you were talking about being subsidized, I thought you were implying something completely different.

3/25/2009 10:10:50 AM

The Wuss Web

3/25/2009 10:11:03 AM

same with bison, which i love.

3/25/2009 10:11:33 AM

Nothing but my bank account is going to prevent me from eating as much meat as I want to(although I don't eat crazy amounts of red meat anyway). If I stop eating red meat it isn't going to do anything to solve any problems so why should I get in a fuss over it. I ate three strips of london broil last night and according to this "study" i've already eclipsed my red meat allowance for the week? Forget that mess. If I want to go out this friday and eat a steak I'm not going to stop and think, "on second thought i'll have a salad and be miserable because i had three pitiful pieces of red meat earlier this week." No, I'm going to order a steak, eat it, and enjoy every bite of it.

3/25/2009 10:20:47 AM

Quote :

"Nothing but my bank account is going to prevent me from eating as much meat as I want to"

That right. But you have to pay the real cost, otherwise you're affecting others. If you pay the real cost of meat, you have the right to eat as much as you want.

3/25/2009 10:26:43 AM

No, I pay whatever I want to pay and I still have the right to eat it. Annnd, I don't have to do anything in order to exercise my right to eat a piece of meat. Are you kidding me?

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 10:36:48 AM

Whereabouts would I find ostrich or bison meat? I haven't seen it in Kroger or Fresh Market.

3/25/2009 10:38:18 AM

Someone beat me to the punch of posting the study and the details kiwi conveniently left out. Half-baked, and half-cocked.

It would be OEP, though
^whole foods?

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason : d]

3/25/2009 10:38:26 AM

Meat is like gas. If it doubled in price I might be a little more conservative, but I'm going to keep buying as much as I want/need. I doubt I'd cut my usage by more than 5%. Then again, I don't think I eat an excessive amount of the stuff.

3/25/2009 10:39:19 AM

why are vegans so fuckin militant about their lifestyle?

3/25/2009 11:32:35 AM

Oh ya - vegans are so healthy looking.

3/25/2009 11:33:42 AM

i'd honestly never eat beef again were bison/ostrich more affordable...i'd never miss it, either

3/25/2009 11:34:24 AM

that aint a burger thats a bird


i really hate vegetarians, anti-paper towel people, and organic farming supporters (inefficient partial plant culture) that oppose GM breeding

they are so fuckin militant about their beliefs yet they dont know jack shit

and they all look like faggots

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : f]

3/25/2009 11:38:07 AM

Last night I made some turkey burgers using a recipe I randomly found on Yahoo and they actually tasted just like beef. I was really surprised.

3/25/2009 11:38:09 AM

Quote :

"i'd honestly never eat beef again were bison/ostrich more affordable"

mcdonalds is pretty affordable, and its ostrich and road tar

3/25/2009 11:39:23 AM

now kids are too good for beef?

3/25/2009 11:43:58 AM

Quote :

"No, I pay whatever I want to pay and I still have the right to eat it. Annnd, I don't have to do anything in order to exercise my right to eat a piece of meat. Are you kidding me?"

No, I'm not kidding you. If the inexpensive price you pay for meat is only possible because of taxpayer-funded subsidies and taxpayer-funded meat production facility pollution clean-up, then NO you do not have a right. You do not have a right to force others to pay more in taxes. If, and ONLY IF, the price of meat was real, and not artificially lowered by taxes, would buying it not affect others' rights. (By the way, this is about your right to buy meat at a certain price, not your right to simply eat meat per se. Of course everyone has a right to eat.)

Quote :

"i really hate...organic farming supporters (inefficient partial plant culture) that oppose GM breeding they are so fuckin militant about their beliefs yet they dont know jack shit"

lol...
You are fucking stupid as shit. You go ahead and hate on preachy vegans, but get a fucking clue about organic vs. gmo.....

non-invasive organic genetic engineering >>>>>> invasive artificial genetic engineering

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 11:53:36 AM

how is it invasive dude

and how would organic genetic engineerng be non invasive?


gmo is gmo no matter the cultural practices applied to the technology

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : d]

3/25/2009 11:55:51 AM

^
QED

(If you don't even what the distinction "invasive" means, then you clearly don't know jack shit.)

3/25/2009 11:58:33 AM

you do know bighit is a horticulture guy, right?

3/25/2009 11:59:27 AM

haha what? he is a horticulture guy? so all this chst thumping was for nothing?

in the other thread he says:

Quote :

"go be a woman and gather i got some hunting to do"

hunting? more like tending to plants. SO TUFF!


[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 12:02:25 PM

Quote :

"you do know bighit is a horticulture guy, right?"

Good. Then he should already fucking know that GMOs are trash. (unless they are merely studied and never applied)

The fact of the matter is that artificial genetic engineering is crude, imprecise and invasive.
Quite simply, it is dangerous and harmful at best and downright immoral at worst.

Quote :

"turkey burgers"

...can be delicious.

3/25/2009 12:09:02 PM

hah on that note, you obviously are terribly misinformed


dangerous??? haha tomatoes are an evil fruit!

3/25/2009 12:15:03 PM

Quote :

"If the inexpensive price you pay for meat is only possible because of taxpayer-funded subsidies and taxpayer-funded meat production facility pollution clean-up, then NO you do not have a right."

YES, I do. See, I just provided as much reason for why I have a right as you did for why I don't have a right. Everybody throw out any meat you have that you didn't pay the "real" price for because the feds are coming to break down your door. "My tax money is being used to help other people get food for free and I have no choice. oh no! my rights are being violated because my money is being used for welfare and foodstamps!" does this apply? Are our rights being violated? It's affecting others! rawr!

3/25/2009 12:16:34 PM

Pescetarianism works for me.

If I keep it up for a couple years, I'm gonna look into vegetarianism.

I don't know about going all the way and doing the vegan thing.

3/25/2009 12:17:35 PM

dont do it

3/25/2009 12:18:05 PM

o ya and i hate soccer fans

3/25/2009 12:18:29 PM