View Latest: 1 Day | FISO Injury Search

Eating less meat... good for the planet?

A forum for general discussion on News & Politics issues and topics
Post Reply
User avatar
fancy dan
Grumpy Old Dan
Posts: 3843
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:27
Location: Having a secret meeting in the basement of my brain
FS Record: Winner of S4's big WC prediction game - and 2-time winner of the Premier League A game!

Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by fancy dan » 10 Feb 2019, 14:57

SPLIT FROM THE EU THREAD
Billy Whiz wrote:
09 Feb 2019, 13:29
forestfan wrote:
08 Feb 2019, 21:59
... And our shelves will be filled with crap unfit for human consumption, like chlorinated chicken, hormone fed beef and Hershey’s pukeolate.
That would be a plus. It would do people good (and the planet) to massively cut down on meat consumption.
That's for sure, but lowering standards to make meat even cheaper is no way to achieve it.

User avatar
murf
FISO Baron
Posts: 89676
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: Chasing an egg (see my WWW or FPL links)
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by murf » 10 Feb 2019, 15:22

Why is meat consumption a bad thing? Decent meat isn't bad for you, it is all the processing etc.

I live in the Lake District - like much of the country it would be far less beautiful without the sheep and other animals (which would never be born if we were all veggie) to manage the grass in the valleys and on the fells. Plus all the industry that relies on meat production (and I thought remainers only cared about the economy :wink: )

User avatar
Billy Whiz
Rhubarb Crumbledore
Posts: 7054
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: Cloud cuckoo land

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by Billy Whiz » 10 Feb 2019, 22:03

murf wrote:
10 Feb 2019, 15:22
Why is meat consumption a bad thing? Decent meat isn't bad for you, it is all the processing etc...
I agree. But if people ate less meat it wouldn't have to be so intensively farmed to keep up with the phenomenal demand, and a greater proportion of animals could be free-range, like your Lake District sheep.

But to get back on topic, why are people so horrified at eating chlorinated chicken from America when they're quite happy to eat meat from animals from the UK that have been pumped full of hormones and antibiotics?

Oh, and the European Food Safety Agency has passed chlorinated-washed chicken for safe consumption.

User avatar
Tacalabala
FISO Knight
Posts: 18952
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 01:03

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by Tacalabala » 10 Feb 2019, 22:08

I think it'll be a moot point in the decades to come as we'll probably be able to grow meat in artificial labs in the end, it would be a more efficient, cost effective method of farming - not having to rear and feed livestock at all.

User avatar
unc.si.
Dumbledore
Posts: 7099
Joined: 11 Oct 2010, 14:08
Location: Off to buy Loctite
FS Record: 'Loser' by Beck

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by unc.si. » 10 Feb 2019, 22:45

Huge quantities of feed grown to produce meat - around 8kg of good quality plant protein (eg Soy) that we could eat is needed to produce 1kg of beef protein. As LDC's improve living standards more people want meat - more land taken up growing crops to feed the animals.

If 1 million people stopped eating beef, the land freed up (ie the Soy protein grown on it) could feed 8 million people.

Also, a high proportion of all antibiotic use is for healthy animals (improving Feed Conversion Ratio's, preventing disease in intensive systems). Likely to be a significant factor in the evolution of antibiotic resistant microbes.

Lab grown animal protein won't be the answer, but it might be part of it if it ever got cost effective. Switching to animals with better FCR's (Chicken, lamb), more fish consumption (Atlantic Salmon FCR is around 1), use of insect protein, synetic proteins will all be part of the solution to food security.

User avatar
Tacalabala
FISO Knight
Posts: 18952
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 01:03

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by Tacalabala » 10 Feb 2019, 22:56

I could live with only having beef once a year, I think chicken and ham would be a real issue for a lot of people though.

User avatar
murf
FISO Baron
Posts: 89676
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: Chasing an egg (see my WWW or FPL links)
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by murf » 10 Feb 2019, 23:02

A lot of land for livestock wouldn't be suitable for arable farming so that negates part of that argument. How much arable land is left fallow to meet EU quotas and 'set aside'???

(Do they grow soy in UK?)

PS Did you know people only started eating lamb when wool values plummeted (way before veganism :wink: )? Nobody killed young sheep when they were mainly bred for wool, just ate mutton when the sheep got old. Also, most lamb is male as the females are kept to breed and only a few (lucky) young rams are needed for breeding.

User avatar
Tacalabala
FISO Knight
Posts: 18952
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 01:03

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by Tacalabala » 10 Feb 2019, 23:15

We won't need the land for food if we're able to bring indoor vertical farming to scale, again more efficient and cost effective. Indeed, if action is not taken to combat pollution, conventional farming may become impossible, or at least not able to continue at a cost the market can bear.

User avatar
unc.si.
Dumbledore
Posts: 7099
Joined: 11 Oct 2010, 14:08
Location: Off to buy Loctite
FS Record: 'Loser' by Beck

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by unc.si. » 11 Feb 2019, 04:10

murf wrote:
10 Feb 2019, 23:02
A lot of land for livestock wouldn't be suitable for arable farming so that negates part of that argument. How much arable land is left fallow to meet EU quotas and 'set aside'???

(Do they grow soy in UK?)

PS Did you know people only started eating lamb when wool values plummeted (way before veganism :wink: )? Nobody killed young sheep when they were mainly bred for wool, just ate mutton when the sheep got old. Also, most lamb is male as the females are kept to breed and only a few (lucky) young rams are needed for breeding.
Its not the land used for livestock thats the issue.

ps its a global problem, although as this is a brexit thread then maybe not the right place to talk about global issues...

User avatar
fancy dan
Grumpy Old Dan
Posts: 3843
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:27
Location: Having a secret meeting in the basement of my brain
FS Record: Winner of S4's big WC prediction game - and 2-time winner of the Premier League A game!

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by fancy dan » 11 Feb 2019, 14:49

Billy Whiz wrote:
10 Feb 2019, 22:03

But to get back on topic, why are people so horrified at eating chlorinated chicken from America when they're quite happy to eat meat from animals from the UK that have been pumped full of hormones and antibiotics?

Oh, and the European Food Safety Agency has passed chlorinated-washed chicken for safe consumption.
As I understand it, they chlorine-wash their chicken in the US because they bypass so many other safety standards - it's like a final kill-everything-toxic stage to make up for all the previous lapses. So I guess the chlorination is not in itself hazardous, but it's what comes before it in terms of lowering of standards. But for most people, the sound of chlorine-washed chicken probably doesn't sound too appetising.

User avatar
murf
FISO Baron
Posts: 89676
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: Chasing an egg (see my WWW or FPL links)
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by murf » 11 Feb 2019, 15:08

I'd like to think there are enough people who care and would shout such that environmental food standards would be maintained. I really don't think the British public cares less than the European public (US is a different matter).

User avatar
Billy Whiz
Rhubarb Crumbledore
Posts: 7054
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: Cloud cuckoo land

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by Billy Whiz » 11 Feb 2019, 17:59

murf wrote:
11 Feb 2019, 15:08
I'd like to think there are enough people who care and would shout such that environmental food standards would be maintained. I really don't think the British public cares less than the European public (US is a different matter).
May says we will adopt EU environmental regulations and the Commons will vote on whether to accept any new ones they come up with

User avatar
David Luiz Is A Hero
Treebeard
Posts: 256
Joined: 02 Aug 2018, 09:07
FS Record: 2014/15 1757th FPL

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by David Luiz Is A Hero » 11 Feb 2019, 18:12

Billy Whiz wrote:
11 Feb 2019, 17:59
murf wrote:
11 Feb 2019, 15:08
I'd like to think there are enough people who care and would shout such that environmental food standards would be maintained. I really don't think the British public cares less than the European public (US is a different matter).
May says we will adopt EU environmental regulations and the Commons will vote on whether to accept any new ones they come up with
I think that is just for show to be honest. A big reason so many on the right want Brexit is to deregulate. Likely we'll adopt the regulations, on environment, food safety, workers rights etc and these will be removed over time.

User avatar
bluenosey
Dumblenose
Posts: 12522
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: Solihull
FS Record: Considerably poorer than yow :-(

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by bluenosey » 12 Feb 2019, 19:52

Tacalabala wrote:
10 Feb 2019, 22:56
I could live with only having beef once a year, I think chicken and ham would be a real issue for a lot of people though.
There's a lot of decent veggie substitutes - a lot of the Linda McCartney stuff is pretty decent.

You still not a spot of meat though, otherwise don't you need Zinc supplements if you are totally vegan to ensure that you get the right vitamins (B12) ?

Meat is a problem. Cows don;t help with their carbon emissions. But other things too, check out Cotton production re cheap throwaway clothing (the Aral Sea, or what's left of it :( ), palm oil plantations (Amazon forest) and so on. Just look at soil erosion after deforestation. Apparently we're now into a great extinction event too (insects). The climate is definitely changing. Well, I think so anyway.

Overall, though, everything boils down to overpopulation. It needs to level off and drop. Even Sir David Attenborough has said it and he's no racist.

RomynPG
Dumbledore
Posts: 7321
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:32
FS Record: FPL 134 overall 06/07 ... never close since

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by RomynPG » 12 Feb 2019, 20:19

bluenosey wrote:
12 Feb 2019, 19:52
Meat is a problem. Cows don;t help with their carbon emissions. But other things too, check out Cotton production re cheap throwaway clothing (the Aral Sea, or what's left of it :( ), palm oil plantations (Amazon forest) and so on. Just look at soil erosion after deforestation. Apparently we're now into a great extinction event too (insects). The climate is definitely changing. Well, I think so anyway.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are with you there :mrgreen:

For the other things you mentioned ... sounds like you're are/are becoming an enviromentalist :o - bloody lefty :wink:

bluenosey wrote:
12 Feb 2019, 19:52
Overall, though, everything boils down to overpopulation. It needs to level off and drop. Even Sir David Attenborough has said it and he's no racist.
I don't think everything boils down to overpopulation - greed and over-consumption by the developed world is pretty high up the list.

Not sure why thinking population needs to level off and drop would be interpreted as being racist ... unless of course the "solution" to it is to be carried by 3rd world nations and we just carry on as we are.

User avatar
trampie
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 2778
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by trampie » 12 Feb 2019, 23:03

The UK Government will have to pay our farmers to keep the countryside looking tidy, some say the EU was doing that to a degree already.

User avatar
bluenosey
Dumblenose
Posts: 12522
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: Solihull
FS Record: Considerably poorer than yow :-(

Re: EU post referendum discussion [see page 136, T&Cs apply with zero tolerance]

Post by bluenosey » 13 Feb 2019, 17:22

RomynPG wrote:
12 Feb 2019, 20:19
bluenosey wrote:
12 Feb 2019, 19:52
Meat is a problem. Cows don;t help with their carbon emissions. But other things too, check out Cotton production re cheap throwaway clothing (the Aral Sea, or what's left of it :( ), palm oil plantations (Amazon forest) and so on. Just look at soil erosion after deforestation. Apparently we're now into a great extinction event too (insects). The climate is definitely changing. Well, I think so anyway.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are with you there :mrgreen:

For the other things you mentioned ... sounds like you're are/are becoming an enviromentalist :o - bloody lefty :wink:

bluenosey wrote:
12 Feb 2019, 19:52
Overall, though, everything boils down to overpopulation. It needs to level off and drop. Even Sir David Attenborough has said it and he's no racist.
I don't think everything boils down to overpopulation - greed and over-consumption by the developed world is pretty high up the list.

Not sure why thinking population needs to level off and drop would be interpreted as being racist ... unless of course the "solution" to it is to be carried by 3rd world nations and we just carry on as we are.
The more people, the more resources we need and consume.

Totally agree that the top, say 10%, probably use more resources than say, the bottom 25%, who live in abject poverty, struggling to have access to running water,

The thing is a lot of the people in the poorer/developing countries live in shanty towns, favelas, slums etc seem to have very large families. It's cultural and religious. Look at the population pyramids for these countries and the bases will be very wide. The gap between the rich and the poor is also horrendous

If the population remained constant we would be able to plan more so. We wouldn't have to clear large areas of the rain forests to provide food and so forth, which would probably turn to dust anyway :?

The problem being a lot of the developing countries, say the BRIC countries, are going through an industrial type revolution the UK had two centuries ago,in turn pumping out endless pollution. Trying to generate more wealth for the economy to support their every burgeoning populations (except Russia)

It's a vicious cycle.

Factor in climate change, migration through conflicts (Syria) and economic migrants and you then end up with widescale issues which can cause havoc (see Mediterranean refugees and the social impact in Italy and implications in Germany) and the plight of the Rohingya (Burma). More farming leads to less wildlife. loss of habitat, to feed more people. More people = more waste. And so on.

With this in mind it's ever more important to try and keep he World's population in check :)

User avatar
Billy Whiz
Rhubarb Crumbledore
Posts: 7054
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: Cloud cuckoo land

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by Billy Whiz » 14 Feb 2019, 16:13

The greatest rate of population increase is in Africa. In Nigeria, its most populated country, the average fertility rate among women is currently 5.53 children. In Ethiopia, as recently as 1995, it was 7 children.

User avatar
murf
FISO Baron
Posts: 89676
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: Chasing an egg (see my WWW or FPL links)
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by murf » 14 Feb 2019, 20:07

Billy Whiz wrote:The greatest rate of population increase is in Africa. In Nigeria, its most populated country, the average fertility rate among women is currently 5.53 children. In Ethiopia, as recently as 1995, it was 7 children.
With modern advances more children survive yet tradition dictates high birth rates and high population growth (something the catholic church still hasn't cottoned on to but that is another thread except for the change in the protestant:catholic ratio in NI).
It is a geographical (?) fact that some parts of the world just cannot support big human populations.

User avatar
Dennisthemenace
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 1300
Joined: 08 May 2012, 10:21
Location: Dennis, not really a menace !

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by Dennisthemenace » 14 Feb 2019, 22:48

Image


Image

User avatar
Billy Whiz
Rhubarb Crumbledore
Posts: 7054
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: Cloud cuckoo land

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by Billy Whiz » 15 Feb 2019, 11:21

If people were made to watch animals being slaughtered and meat being processed there would be a hell of a lot more vegetarians around. It's a classic case of out of sight, out of mind.

As far as I'm concerned, they can add as much chlorine as they like to American chickens because I never eat the stuff anyway.

User avatar
trampie
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 2778
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by trampie » 15 Feb 2019, 13:07

Townies don't understand how the countryside works, some of that ignorance was seen during the fox hunting debate, fine fox hunting was banned but townies did not understand the arguments all the same.

User avatar
murf
FISO Baron
Posts: 89676
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: Chasing an egg (see my WWW or FPL links)
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by murf » 15 Feb 2019, 18:51

trampie wrote:Townies don't understand how the countryside works, some of that ignorance was seen during the fox hunting debate, fine fox hunting was banned but townies did not understand the arguments all the same.
True. Shame the fox hunting brigade took over the Countryside Alliance (or whatever they were called). Could have been a real force for good.

User avatar
murf
FISO Baron
Posts: 89676
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: Chasing an egg (see my WWW or FPL links)
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by murf » 15 Feb 2019, 18:53

Dennisthemenace wrote:Image
Do you think that has bones in it?

User avatar
bluenosey
Dumblenose
Posts: 12522
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: Solihull
FS Record: Considerably poorer than yow :-(

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by bluenosey » 15 Feb 2019, 20:32

Billy Whiz wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 11:21
If people were made to watch animals being slaughtered and meat being processed there would be a hell of a lot more vegetarians around. It's a classic case of out of sight, out of mind.

As far as I'm concerned, they can add as much chlorine as they like to American chickens because I never eat the stuff anyway.
Linda McCartney stuff (veggie sausages/mozzarella burgers etc) is half price at Tesco's. I filled my basket.

Worth a try even if you're a staunch meat eater.

I'd live on grass if I came face to face with an animal and had to kill it.

Goro
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 01 Apr 2019, 13:51

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by Goro » 01 Apr 2019, 14:03

Hello!
Definitely yes. The modern man does not starve so much to kill. Death for no reason is murder. I agree that meat is difficult to completely replace in the human diet, and I understand that plants are also alive. This problem in any case requires a solution. A man must not only refuse to eat meat and use animals in his industry in general. Clothing, other values, leather that is used in many areas - it needs to be stopped

User avatar
blahblah
FISO Baron
Posts: 68145
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:46
Location: .. he thinks that he knows something which he doesn't, whereas I am quite concious of my ignorance.
Contact:

Re: Eating less meat... good for the planet?

Post by blahblah » 01 Apr 2019, 16:48

murf wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 18:53
Dennisthemenace wrote:Image
Do you think that has bones in it?
Yep, there are loads of clips on YouTube 8-)

View Latest: 1 Day View Your posts
Post Reply

Return to “News & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fancy dan and 3 guests