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 Sat, Jul-25-20, 04:17
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Do we need to stop eating meat?

Do we need to stop eating meat?

Concern whether mass production is increasing the likelihood of animal-to-human viruses is inflaming an already heated debate

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-an...op-eating-meat/

Quote:
Just a few months ago, news of an H1N1 virus with ‘pandemic potential’ being identified in the lungs of Chinese pig-farm workers would have been greeted with an uninterested sigh. These days, of course, it causes a collective gasp of horror. Many have taken the recent reports as terrifying evidence that a second player has entered the game. 2020 is, after all, the year of the unthinkable.

Although it is probably not worth stockpiling canned goods quite yet, and the emerging virus is simply one of interest that has not yet been shown to pass from human to human, it was perhaps a mass failure of the imagination that meant we had to experience a deadly pandemic in order to fully appreciate the dangers that exist. Scientists had been telling us for years that novel zoonotic diseases, those that transfer from animals to humans, pose one of the greatest threats to humanity. Even before this year’s events, animal-to-human diseases such as tapeworm and avian flu accounted for 2.5 billion cases of human illness annually, resulting in around 2 million deaths, mainly in poor or middle-income countries.

The more intensively we farm animals, the greater the danger of new diseases transferring across the species boundary. The more land we require for agriculture, the closer wild animals come into contact with humans and livestock, increasing the danger further. The H1N1 virus currently emerging may well prove benign, but the intensity of livestock farming around the world makes future pandemics inevitable. Devastating though it has been, Covid-19 has a relatively low mortality rate and largely spares children, which is unusual in comparison with similar respiratory diseases. The reality is that next time we might not be so lucky.

Another shocking aspect of our current pandemic has been the impact of the disease on the meat-packing industry. In the US alone, over 27,000 meat-plant workers have been infected and nearly 100 have died; while 1,500 cases at a single meat plant in Germany dramatically raised the R value for the entire country, placing thousands into quarantine and sending shock waves around the world. In the UK, 200 cases were confirmed at a chicken-packing plant in Anglesea, and 130 at a meat processor in Merthyr Tydfil.

Why has the meat industry been hit so hard? It may partly be due to low-temperature working environments, although few cold logistics operations have been hit in the same way. It is perhaps more likely that in combination with temperature, cramped working conditions, constant spray washing, having to shout over noisy machinery and hard physical tasks that make social distancing impossible have all made meat plants ideal sites for transmission. Whenever poorly paid workers are packed tightly together in a culture that encourages working while sick, it creates the perfect environment for viruses to spread. Meat plants are an extreme example, a horrifying symptom of an industry sick to its core. It is a sad indictment that it took a deadly disease to fully expose them.

Our current methods of meat production are so broken that they produce an environment that simultaneously creates pandemic diseases, and helps them spread. It seems likely that as the world recovers and priorities change, the sickness at the heart of global meat production will become a source of much soul searching. Many will question whether we should continue to eat meat at all, while others will claim it is vital to our physical and economic health. The existing debate about its environmental impact is likely to intensify, no doubt becoming increasingly polarised.

Is meat really so bad for the planet?

Even before Covid-19, there was precious little nuance in debates about meat production. Depending on who you listen to, eating meat is either the most environmentally destructive of all human activities, or a vital part of a sustainable food future. A close-up of a cow’s face is now as emblematic of climate change as a power station chimney or a Chelsea tractor’s exhaust.

But are cows really the scourge of the planet? Or is meat’s impact vastly overplayed, the deflection tactics of a liberal vegan elite, desperate to assuage their guilt about foreign holidays and air-conditioned 4x4s? Should we eat less meat, better meat or no meat at all?

The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is a good deal more complex than both sides would care to admit.

On the surface, things don’t look great for meat, particularly for beef cattle, which gets a particularly hard time because of cows’ infamously methane-rich flatulence. Methane, produced by microorganisms in the guts of ruminant animals such as cows, goats and sheep, is a considerably more potent agent of global warming than carbon dioxide, and so the presence of over a billion cattle burping it out is of great concern. Livestock flatulence currently accounts for around 44 per cent of all agricultural emissions.

But the real problem with meat is that its impact doesn’t stop at the burps of a billion cows. Cattle grow relatively slowly, expending an awful lot of energy pooing, mooing and chewing, which makes them an inefficient way of producing edible protein for humans to eat. Compared to a productive crop such as soya, growing a kilogram of beef produces 150 times more greenhouse gas, requires six times more water and uses 100 times the land. Livestock production takes up 83 per cent of global farmland, but only provides 18 per cent of our calories.

Whenever demand for meat increases, more land is required for grazing or growing feed. As all of the planet’s agricultural land is currently in use, the only way of creating space for new pasture or crops is by cutting down tropical forests. This means that when the world desires more rib-eyes and sirloins, the chainsaws start up in Brazil, Indonesia and the Congo. Cutting down forests destroys ecosystems, but also releases huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, both from vegetation and the soil. It is this contribution that means livestock accounts for 14.5 per cent of human-produced greenhouse emissions, more than the direct emissions of the whole of the transport sector. It is also this increased land use that pushes nature and agriculture closer together, increasing the likelihood of animal-to-human disease.

By 2050, demand for meat is expected to increase by 73 per cent, mostly driven by rising demand from rapidly developing economies in Asia and Africa as they begin to catch up with Western consumption levels. Unless something bucks this trend, within 30 years all of the world’s tropical forests will have been destroyed.

Although it is true that we don’t clear rainforests to grow British beef, perhaps we should not be so smug. It is a little too easy to criticise distant nations for plundering their precious natural habitats. Even if we eat a 100 per cent British burger, we still increase the global demand for beef, so putting pressure on forests abroad. Any claim that we can happily up our meat consumption without accountability is isolationist and absurd.

Should the world go vegan?

However damning the statistics regarding meat production, calls for a vegan world are still premature. Crucially, although deforestation is (literally) a burning issue, much of this land that is currently grazed is of poor quality and not fit for growing crops. For many of the world’s poorest people, livestock provide the only possible source of income and security on the land they inhabit. Tell them to switch to vegan alternatives, and the likelihood is that they would starve.

It is relatively straightforward for vegans in privileged countries to eat a nutritionally adequate diet. Most have access to a wide range of fresh produce, dietary supplements, fortified foods and accurate nutrition information. But in a world where around two billion people are currently nutrient deficient, consuming a few animal products can make a huge difference to health. Small amounts of meat, eggs and dairy in otherwise meagre diets can do wonders, helping to provide adequate iron, calcium and essential vitamins. Campaigns for global veganism may well have good intentions, but they often lack cultural sensitivity and take little account of circumstance.

Even in affluent countries like the UK, meat production has a number of benefits, too. Well-managed livestock farms can be full of biodiversity and wildlife. Cows and sheep can transform things that humans cannot consume such as grass and hay into nutrient-dense foods such as milk and meat. A limited amount of livestock farming can be of huge benefit to the food system as a whole, consuming what would otherwise go to waste and producing large amounts of manure to enrich arable soils.

The mantra of many environmentally conscious meat lovers is ‘better not less’ and most, quite rightly, think of grass-fed beef as a better option. Many consider it healthier, and because it doesn’t involve feeding human-edible produce to animals, more eco-friendly.

But the reality is that grass-fed beef production is extremely limited in scale. We could perhaps make enough globally for between 9g and 31g each of meat per day each, but in the UK we already eat around 230g. In the US the figure is more like 350g.

To meet the demand for any type of beef, animal feed needs to be intensively grown. This has a huge environmental impact, driving soil degradation, habitat destruction and the pollution of waterways. Much of the world’s most destructive crop production, in particular large amounts of soy and palm, is a result of feeding the planet’s increasing numbers of livestock animals.

Livestock also consumes around a third of the world’s cereal grain, particularly wheat and corn, enough to feed 3.5 billion people. Even the most ardent meat advocates struggle to justify these wasteful production methods, but as demand for meat grows, further intensification will be the only way to meet it. For the good of our health and the planet’s, over the next 30 years Western nations need to dramatically reduce the amount of meat that they consume. The consequences of not doing so will be catastrophic for the environment, but perhaps worse, as available land runs out, we will soon see rich nations using grain to fatten animals, while the world’s poor are left to starve. Persuading people to eat better and less, and to swap half their meat for vegetables might sound trivial, but is probably the best solution. It has been estimated that replacing half the meat protein with plant alternatives would reduce agricultural land use by 38 per cent. If that spare land can be used to benefit the environment and the few remaining tropical forests protected, there is at least some hope.

What we should all be eating more of (and it's not veg)

The key to such a transformation probably lies in unglamorous and unheralded protein sources like chickpeas, lentils and soybeans, which have a far lower environmental impact per gram of protein than that of meat or dairy.

If these can be made more desirable, and diets containing them can become a way of eating that the world aspires to, the impact of agriculture will lessen considerably. Investment in this sort of change will be far more effective than flashy new bioreactors, robot farms or 3D food printers.

It is also important to remember that not all vegetables are as virtuous. If food is assessed in emissions per calorie or per gram of protein, many commonly eaten fruits, salads and vegetables do not fare much better than beef or pork. Celery is terrible in terms of CO2 per calorie, as is lettuce, tomato and broccoli, largely because these plants require lots of CO2-generating inputs (fertiliser, farm machinery etc) to make them grow, but the resulting crop is largely composed of water and dietary fibre, and so extremely low in calories. Yet unlike meat, these commonly eaten foods get little criticism, largely because everyone understands that we don’t eat them for calories or protein. We eat vegetables, fruits and salads because they are delicious, form an important part of our cuisine and contain vital nutrients.
Perhaps we would be better off viewing meat in a similar way. Seeing it as a vital source of nutrients. Considering it a delicious adjunct to meals, rather than the centre of every plate. Eating better meat, eating it less often, and valuing it far more. That way, we could still eat well, but with less impact upon the world. As with so many environmental decisions, we should really try and do this now when we can, rather than tomorrow because we have to.

Test yourself: Which is worse for the environment?

Chicken or beef?


Is chicken ‘better’ than beef? It is more efficient at converting feed into meat and has far lower carbon emissions per gram, but chickens are largely fed on human-edible food such as grain, whereas cows can convert grass into protein. Swapping some beef for chicken is probably wise, but unfortunately it’s complicated.

Loose vs plastic-wrapped produce?

It depends. Excess plastic packaging is certainly to be avoided, but in some cases plastic can help reduce food waste. Plastic wrapping on cucumbers and broccoli has been shown to reduce the environmental impact by extending shelf life.

Palm oil or animal fat?

Although palm oil production drives a lot of tropical deforestation, it is a very efficient, productive crop. Completely banning it may not be the best option as some of the replacements, including beef fat, might have a greater environmental impact. Instead, look for RSPO-certified palm oil that doesn’t result in deforestation.

Chicken or organic chicken?

Organic food is often sold as a more sustainable option, but organic chicken requires three times the land of conventional production.

LEAF produce or regular produce?

The LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) standard is a mark of good environmental management on farms. Forty per cent of vegetables sold in the UK are LEAF-marked. Seeking out LEAF produce is a simple way of ensuring it is produced in a more sustainable way

Almond milk or oat milk?

Although almond milk production has low climate emissions and is efficient regarding land use, it uses large amounts of water, often in regions where supplies are limited. Oats are a better option as they can be grown in regions with high rainfall.

No-till or conventional?

No-till agriculture is one of the most promising farming practices in environmental terms, with many crops now being produced without any ploughing. Ploughing is known to cause soil degradation and releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is currently hard to identify food grown in this way, although some progressive farms sell produce directly.

Local or imports?

Although locally grown produce has lower transport emissions, the cost of growing things in unsuitable climates can exceed the benefit. Hot-house-grown tomatoes often have several times the climate impact of imported varieties.

Air freight or road freight?

Although the transport of food is generally a low proportion of its climate impact, air-freighted fruits and vegetables are an exception. These are best avoided or minimised.

Plastic or glass?

Although glass bottles and jars are often chosen on environmental grounds, they can have a greater impact than plastic over a full life cycle. Heavy-duty reusable plastics, or easily recycled lightweight versions, are often better options.

Cheese or meat?

Many people going vegetarian will swap meat for cheese, but there is evidence that cheese has a greater climate impact than chicken or pork (although less than beef or lamb). A note: most studies look at climate impact per gram. While eating 150g of chicken is not usual, that much cheddar would be fairly extreme.

Slow-grown chickens or standard?

Slow-grown chickens are highly prized, but the difference is often only a matter of 10-12 days. Slowly raised animals have a larger climate impact, although if choosing them means you eat less and value it more, it might still be a good choice.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Jul-25-20, 05:56
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,176
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

I see large tracks of pampered lawn that could be used to raise hens for eggs, or a couple head of cattle. Nope, just mowed every week, fertilized regularly and a total waste.

My soils absorb the natural fertilizer, no run off here.

Think local.

Hmm how many head of buffalo are gone from the midwest? Maybe the trains of gun toting enthusiasts did us a favor by aiding in the destruction of millions of head of bison that have roamed for tens of thousands of years.


Destruction of the native forests to produce meat is a real problem. Much of that meat is shipped..... There are programs to reduce clearing more land in some SAcountries but still not enough. KNOW ehere your meat is coming from.
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 10:17.


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