Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Apr-07-16, 08:26
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default meat, fake meat and global warming

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...60404170427.htm

Quote:
Quantifying the environmental benefits of skipping the meat
Date:
April 4, 2016


Trying to reduce your carbon footprint? You may want to take a closer look at the protein you put on your plate.

While the pollution generated to produce a typical 8-ounce steak is equivalent to driving a small car for about 29 miles, replacing that steak with the same weight of a vegetarian meat substitute is like driving the same car just three miles. Across the board, meatless alternatives are associated with substantially lower emissions than actual meat, according to an analysis of the environmental impacts of 39 meat substitutes presented at the American Society for Nutrition Annual Meeting during Experimental Biology 2016.

"As the world population grows, there's an urgent need to produce protein-rich foods that are friendlier for the environment and healthy for people," said Alfredo Mejia, Dr.PH., an associate professor of nutrition at Andrews University and the study's lead author. "Our research shows that consumers can continue to enjoy meat-like tastes and textures while also significantly reducing their carbon footprint."

While many studies have drawn attention to the environmental impacts of producing beef, pork and chicken, less has been known about the impacts of "imitation meats" such as veggie burgers, meatless bacon and imitation chicken nuggets, the production of which typically involves heavy processing.

The study found that producing these foods generates approximately 10 times less greenhouse gas emissions than producing comparable beef-based products.

While some protein-rich meat substitutes like tofu have been produced for centuries, the variety and popularity of meat substitutes has exploded in recent years. Most such products today are derived from either soy or wheat, though ingredients such as quinoa and pea are becoming more common.

"People increasingly want foods that are healthy for them but also are sustainable for the environment," said Mejia. "This is the rationale that is driving an emerging market for meat substitutes. We have the power to use our fork to take care of our health and our planet."

The research team analyzed emissions generated to produce 39 common meat substitutes from the field to the grocery-ready factory output. They began with established data on the environmental impacts of farming wheat and soy, which includes inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides and water, as well as energy used for cultivation, harvesting and transportation. They then visited factories and worked with meat substitute producers to track emissions associated with each step of the food production process, including the amount and origin of ingredients and packaging materials, transport of raw materials, water, energy and other inputs required to operate the factory and pack the products.

Crunching thousands of data points using a specialized software called SimaPro, the team calculated total greenhouse gas emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents, a standard measure for emissions that accounts for carbon dioxide as well as other heat-trapping gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide.

The average impact across all types of meat substitutes was 2.4 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of product. Comparable stages of production in the meat industry are estimated to generate between 9-129, 4-11, and 2-6 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of product for beef, pork and chicken, respectively. Among meat substitutes, mince, nuggets, slices, rolls and sausages were associated with the lowest emissions, while veggie burgers were associated with the highest emissions, at 4.1 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of product.

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for at least a fifth of total humanmade greenhouse gas emissions. Mounting pressure to stem emissions has led to increasing calls to consider environmental impact, in addition to health, when making food choices.



What leaps out for me in this is the wide range given for beef--obviously, some beef involves way more carbon dioxide production than other beef. One thing I wonder about here is dairy beef. Googling around, cattle raised for meat purposes are usually harvested around 20 months of age. For dairy cattle, it's more like five or six years. So that's an extra three or four years of feeding the cows, and an extra three or four years of cow farts etc. Plus, beef cattle are bred for efficient growth. Dairy cows are bred to produce massive amounts of milk--and all that sugar, fat and protein that goes into milk production isn't going into beef production.

http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/...mental-impacts/

This site gives 27 kg carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of beef--and it's highly biased towards getting people off of meat in general. I don't know if that means it's correct. But I sort of doubt that 129 number is very relevant.

At any rate, giving a range of CO2 equivalent without giving an average is a bit disingenuous. Like giving a range for calorie intake for Americans and failing to mention that one of them is Michael Phelps.

This article might backfire--it seems obvious that if somebody's going to live off of refined vegetarian foods, they might as well consume chicken or pork, as long as it's not overly processed.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 09:20
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

How a Vegetarian Diet Could Help Save the Planet

http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-...ewsletter-brief

I wasn't able to copy and paste the article itself.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 10:07
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 37,199
 
Plan: LC paleo/ancestral
Stats: 241/188/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Judy, I was able to copy & paste from the original article .. http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-diet-climate-change/ ... instead of the "newsletter brief" link

Quote:
How a Vegetarian Diet Could Help Save the Planet

... And save trillions of dollars

Justin Worland ~justinworland , March 21, 2016

Evangelists of vegetarian and vegan diets are quick to cite growing evidence that reducing meat consumption improves human health in attempt to win over converts. Likewise, climate change activists often cite the strain that animal products place on the environment to advocate for changed practices.

Now, new research published in the journal PNAS combines the two perspectives to show that the widespread adoption of vegetarian and vegan diets could save millions of lives and trillion of dollars. “There is huge potential,” says study author Marco Springmann, a researcher at Oxford University, “from a health perspective, an environmental perspective and an economic perspective, really.”

Researchers assessed four different scenarios with humans consuming varying levels of meat to evaluate the links between diet, health and the environment. The lowest level of meat consumption—widespread adoption of the vegan diet—could help avoid more than 8 million deaths by 2050, according to the study. A vegetarian diet would save 7.3 million lives.

The environmental impacts of a dietary shift could be just as dramatic, according to the researchers. Livestock alone account for more than 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and by 2050 the food sector could account for half if cuts are implemented in other sectors along the lines that countries have committed to doing. A vegan or vegetarian diet could cut those emissions by 70% and 63%, respectively.

Changing dietary patterns could save $1 trillion annually by preventing health care costs and lost productivity. That figure balloons to as much as $30 trillion annually when also considering the economic value of lost life. And that doesn’t even include the economic benefits of avoiding devastating extreme weather events that could result from climate change.

Placing a dollar value on the benefits of the vegetarian diet could play a significant role in public policy on these issues, according Springmann. Policymakers often conduct cost-benefit analyses before implementing new rules and the new research could provide them with a starting point for accounting for the economic benefits of policies to wean the world off meat.

The study also illustrates how the benefits of changing dietary patterns vary from region to region. Some areas—namely, East Asia, Latin America and Western high-income countries—benefited from reduced red meat consumption. Others in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will benefit the most from increased fruit and vegetable intake. Those details could help policymakers create narrowly targeted policies, researchers say.

Link to PNAS study referenced in the article .. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1523119113


.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 10:14
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doreen
Judy, I was able to copy & paste from the original article


Thank you!
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 10:54
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I wonder if they count putting new crop land into production and how that releases loads of CO when you convert forests, swamps and so on.

And, there's only so much farmable land in the world. Land that could accommodate roving herds of things that eat scrubby grasses and things.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 10:56
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
The environmental impacts of a dietary shift could be just as dramatic, according to the researchers. Livestock alone account for more than 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and by 2050 the food sector could account for half if cuts are implemented in other sectors along the lines that countries have committed to doing.



More disingenuousity (how's that for a word)? Why stop there? Why not theorize that if all other emissions were curtailed, the food sector would account for 100%?
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 12:51
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

In addition to the deforestation, etc., mentioned by Nancy, these studies don't include the environmental costs of irrigation, fertilizer, and emissions by hordes of farting and belching vegans and vegetarians.

Grass-fed cows, sheep, goats don't require crop-growing.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 12:55
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I'm reluctant to ascribe to any of this a microgram of credibility. There are so many flaws in the referenced statements and "studies," not to mention a situation tailor made for selection bias, that the whole argument becomes suspect. In addition, basing food recommendations on the precarious claims and very debatable cause of climate change due to the desire to be a good citizen of the planet is also on a crumbling foundation of credibility.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 14:19
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,422
 
Plan: P:E=>1 (Q3-22)
Stats: 168/100/82 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 79%
Default

Animals and Plants should live together. That's the way it's been for a long time. It's good for both.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 17:20
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Plants eat CO2. Endof.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, Apr-08-16, 18:35
MickiSue MickiSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,006
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 189/148.6/145 Female 5' 5"
BF:36%/28%/25%
Progress: 92%
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Default

This kind of garbage gives me a headache.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:37.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.