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 Fri, Jul-01-16, 08:52
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
Thumbs down Meat is Horrible

Meat is horrible

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-seven-charts/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Premack
It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment — and not so great for human beings, too.

By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today — and half of that comes from livestock.

That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.


Maarten Hajer, professor at the Netherlands's Utrecht University, led the environment and food report that recommended the meat tax.

“All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products,” said Hajer, who is a member of U.N.’s International Resource Panel, which comprises 34 top scientists and 30 governments. “I think it is extremely urgent.”

But, he added, “Food is very political.”

In countries where meat is a cultural mainstay and income inequality already breeds a lack of food access, it could be a difficult argument. Taxing sugary drinks this month in Philadelphia caused an uproar among lobbyists, some groups representing the poor and even Bernie Sanders, who argued that the tax was regressive. The response to limiting meat, which is certainly more beneficial to a diet than soda pop, could be mutinous.

But, governments must soon move to limit major carbon producers, Hajer said. Food companies will naturally be part of that.

The idea of a meat tax has developed over the past 25 years as a “completely obvious” measure to economists and environmentalists, Hajer said, as knowledge of the environmental toll of meat emerged.

Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States. These two charts show that meat is particularly thirsty. For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.


more of this at the link.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Jul-01-16, 10:10
Seejay's Avatar
Seejay Seejay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,025
 
Plan: Optimal Diet
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default

Interesting idea. Nutty and slanted too. What about the total carbon footprint for growing and processing grains and vegetables, which I gather these folks think we should eat instead. How does it compare?

you would also have to include the gases emitted from people digesting cereal grains and beans bwa ha ha.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Jul-01-16, 15:47
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

I read that yesterday. One of the dumber commentary pieces in the venerable Post.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Jul-01-16, 16:46
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,147
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/162/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

The question remains: with all the slicing and dicing of statistics on this and hundreds of other issues by their respective interest groups, how can we really know the truth about anything?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Jul-01-16, 19:10
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

The way grains are grown today is devastating to the environment. It would be much better to let bison, goats, sheep etc. graze and poop on that land to grow more of their forage.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Jul-01-16, 20:41
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

Funny, that was pretty much my comment: that the single most devastating foodstuff to the environment isn't meat, it's grains, five of which use more resources for their growing than all other foods, crops or livestock, in the entire world.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Jul-01-16, 22:05
honeypie's Avatar
honeypie honeypie is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,047
 
Plan: M-F vlc, looser LC wkends
Stats: 353.6/260.8/165 Female 5'11
BF:
Progress: 49%
Default

Quote:
five of which use more resources for their growing than all other foods, crops or livestock, in the entire world.
That's interesting... how so? I would love to be able to use this one as a comeback to people!
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sat, Jul-02-16, 03:48
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkloots
The question remains: with all the slicing and dicing of statistics on this and hundreds of other issues by their respective interest groups, how can we really know the truth about anything?

Good point. I concluded a long time ago we can't know the truth without carefully wading through vast amounts of information and making sure that information is reasonably accurate. It's the reason why many frequent this forum, to embrace a WOE counter to conventional advice. It's a constant task nowadays with forces unhesitatingly spewing factually inaccurate information to push an ideology. It's a constant chore, but knowing that so many purposely lie to spread their BS is a motivator. Climate change and food? Seems like the perfect storm!
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sat, Jul-02-16, 19:11
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by honeypie
That's interesting... how so? I would love to be able to use this one as a comeback to people!


Because they, collectively, use more of the surface of the earth to be grown. Wheat and rice are one and two. I can't remember the other three.

But think about it. One of the datapoints in the movie "What's With Wheat?" was that there is enough wheat grown, every year, to feed 11 billion people.

The current population of the earth is estimated to be about 7.5 billion. So we're growing 1.6 times as much wheat as is needed for each and every one on the planet. And that's just ONE of those grains.

I was at Costco today, and saw a guy with a 50 lb sack of rice. For his home, based on the other contents of the cart.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jul-04-16, 10:16
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,573
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/150/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MickiSue
Because they, collectively, use more of the surface of the earth to be grown. Wheat and rice are one and two. I can't remember the other three.


I wonder if one of them might be canola? Just took the train through N. Dakota & noticed all the fields of pretty yellow flowers. Turned out to be canola.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MickiSue
I was at Costco today, and saw a guy with a 50 lb sack of rice. For his home, based on the other contents of the cart.


That's the way I used to shop - and eat. Just remembered an old cigarette commercial: "I'd rather fight than switch." Which seems to be the mantra of the ADA & USDA. I'm so glad I switched!
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Jul-04-16, 11:20
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

Not canola, it's not a grain.

Think grass. All grains are descended from grass.

Here's an article from 2011: http://www.businessinsider.com/10-c...rld-2011-9?op=1

Note, although corn is the top crop overall (and it's a grain), wheat, the number two crop, " covers more of the earth than any other crop." Corn, of course, is used heavily as feed for cattle and poultry, because it's super cheap and fattens quickly.

Insane, right?
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Wed, Jul-06-16, 14:44
Jesse LC Jesse LC is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 37
 
Plan: Keto/LCHF
Stats: 237/181/173 Male 72 inches
BF:34%/22%/18%
Progress: 88%
Location: USA
Default

Want to save money and encourage healthier farming methods? How about removing all the crony grain subsidies that is skewing the food market? Give local farmers who actually grow healthy produce a fighting chance to compete against Big Food. Stop subsidizing the obesity epidemic and then we'll see the real cost of Big Food products.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Jul-07-16, 07:42
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,147
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/162/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
Corn, of course, is used heavily as feed for cattle and poultry,
Corn and corn by-products have also been heavily promoted and subsidized as a fuel. Think methanol. Not a particularly efficient or environmentally-friendly way to power the cars that underpin the American economy. It's complicated, right?

I love the interstate system that gets me where I want to go, and lets me avoid traveling by plane. But, oh, wouldn't it be great if we had an Interstate High-Speed train system? Thanks, Mr. Eisenhower. Interstate seemed like a great idea at the time. We could say that about a lot of things we live with now, unanticipated consequences and all.
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 02:08.


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