>eating meat harms the environment
OMG MAKE SHOCKUMENTARIES, ORGANIC AND NATURAL GLUTEN-FREE ANTI-GMO SCARE MARKETING, EVERYONE MUST FEEL GUILTY ABOUT LIKING MEAT, EGGS, AND DAIRY
>eating all plants harms the environment more
There no numbers in this article to prove their point, so an infograph comparing all the different foods they tested could be nice..
But other than that, it does make logical sense that the amount of ressources used and greenhouse gas emissions per calorie***** is significantly bigger for celeri and cucumbers... but this is only true because these foods have less than 20 calories each! So obviously all the water/ nutrients/ GHG emissions used to grow these veggies is fairly big compared to their calories.. Again let me stress the "relative to amount of calories"*** so of course if you plan on eating your full 2000 calories per day by eating lettuce and cucumbers, then obviously you will be causing more harm to the environment... but thats because you would be eating around 100 cucumbers and 80 cups of lettuce.... nobody does that. I dont even think thats physically possible.
are these people retarded? They looked at things like lettuce and celery, which are extremely low-calorie. Nobody eats them for calories, in fact pretty much the opposite they eat them as filler foods to keep their calories low.
vegans not rekt, sorry. Dumb researchers and even dumber people interpretting the results rekt
>you scum! How dare you have the omnivorous diet your body is designed for!
>in other news Angry Vegan has never done a single thing to improve conditions in slaughterhouses, actually believes that buying veggies will somehow make them simply go away
This article measures the changes in energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with shifting from current US food consumption patterns to three dietary scenarios, which are based, in part, on the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines (US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services in Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, 7th edn, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 2010). Amidst the current overweight and obesity epidemic in the USA, the Dietary Guidelines provide food and beverage recommendations that are intended to help individuals achieve and maintain healthy weight. The three dietary scenarios we examine include (1) reducing Caloric intake levels to achieve “normal” weight without shifting food mix, (2) switching current food mix to USDA recommended food patterns, without reducing Caloric intake, and (3) reducing Caloric intake levels and shifting current food mix to USDA recommended food patterns, which support healthy weight. This study finds that shifting from the current US diet to dietary Scenario 1 decreases energy use, blue water footprint, and GHG emissions by around 9 %, while shifting to dietary Scenario 2 increases energy use by 43 %, blue water footprint by 16 %, and GHG emissions by 11 %. Shifting to dietary Scenario 3, which accounts for both reduced Caloric intake and a shift to the USDA recommended food mix, increases energy use by 38 %, blue water footprint by 10 %, and GHG emissions by 6 %. These perhaps counterintuitive results are primarily due to USDA recommendations for greater Caloric intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and fish/seafood, which have relatively high resource use and emissions per Calorie.
>which have relatively high resource use and emissions per Calorie.
vitamins, minerals, proteins, etc. aren't really known for their caloric value. however, being that it's christmas, i'll give you 3/10
A horrible person is too harsh. However , i can easily see the frustration of a vegetarian toward a non-vegetarian because scientific evidences shows how eating meat is highly contributing to the deterioration of the environment because of effects such as GHG emissions, intense deforestation, enormous waste of water and so on. Therefore , a person refusing to give up meat simply because it is too good has some serious thinking to do on his life choices and should feel at least a bit embarrassed that he is eating meat since so many other options are available.
that's assuming that eating less meat will somehow improve our environmental impact. I think this article is trying to say that if we're not eating then we'll probably being using more land for things like corn or beans which might possibly have a higher greenhouse gas emission. I didn't read the actual study though, just the abstract, so I don't know if they actually found higher GHG in those specifically, but I think the point is that using more land for vegetables may not necessarily be more beneficial.
Just keep in mind that no matter how great your efforts are to change people's eating behaviour, there will always be lots of other factors contributing to global warming. Why not focus on those?
Let these people focus on this problem. You can focus on that problem with others.
Besides, studying this diet effect on environment can possibly discover new information that we couldn't get anywhere else to help solve the global problem.
This makes no sense. The VAST majority of crops grown and land used is to feed and raise animals. By like a 90% to 10% ratio or more.
Everything stated in the article is misrepresented so badly they might as well just lie.
researchers just proved that you'll use EVEN MORE resources if you stop feeding animals; you'll also lose manure, and without it you'll be forced to always use chemical fertilizers, otherwise your precious vegetables will have an hard time growing; transporting 10 Kg of meat is easier than transporting 700 Kg of vegetables needed as a replacement; and so on and on; they considered everything
Someone is a little booty bothered huh?
anyway you should always eat what's best for you. If you have a problem how the animals are treated look it up then. Don't be lazy faggots. Also don't have kkids because it hurts the environment
So glad you decided to contribute so comprehensively.
Why, your clear and coherent explanation of how their methodology was flawed has made me do a full 180 regarding my support of this article.
Congratulations, you absolute pinnacle of idiocy.
>foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie.
This would have been a dead giveaway to any person with brain activity, but to you, naw..
Have you ever tried to fill your daily calorie intake with only cucumber? But I bet you can shove that much of it up your ass.
If we're talking cows on open pasture that's somewhat alright, though that still produces shitloads of methane. CAFOs use feed that's grown on arable land that'd be otherwise produce calorie dense veggies like beans, lentils, wheat and corn. In many cases cows and pigs are just fed corn.
They did all these measurements PER CALORIE. One of the huge health benefits of a vegetarian diet is that you lower your calorie intake overall (insert American obesity joke). The measurements of the proposed "healthy diet" are directly at odds with the measuring system of this so-called study.
Just more crap "science" so that people get their grant money and the public feels that universities like CMU are "relevant."
>inb4 vegan spotted
Well, you do generally need things like corn or wheat or whatever the fuck for cows anyway, right? I don't keep up on this stuff too much, but I'm almost positive that this is the case since the general practice is to feed them such things to fatten them up faster than on grass. The exception being brands that specifically mention that they're grass-fed iirc.
Since they did it per calorie, you can clearly see an all-vegetable and fruits diet causes more environmental harm than good.
Even if you only eat 3000 kcal, eating that through meats is better, because it requires less biomass and thus less resources, water, GHG.
i think the idea is that if we didnt destroy half the planet we could have a more vegan diet while still eating meat as opposed to the contrary.
but yes i agree 100% anyone with common sense could work this out without paying some chuckle fuck to do a study
>I think this article is trying to say that if we're not eating then we'll probably being using more land for things like corn or beans which might possibly have a higher greenhouse gas emission
Nah, it's saying nothing of the sort. The study is comparing a small sample in a limited context with very limited findings. The headline is a gross exaggeration.
Since when do vegetarians have an all veggie and fruit diet, though? Don't they have grains and beans and nuts and stuff, too? And that's discounting the animal stuff like eggs and milk and shit.
Food grows from the earth. Food has always grown from the earth. Always will. The earth supports itself. You think man, who also grew from the earth, will destroy the very ground he stands on from eating shit that came from the earth?
Are we always going to find shit to go autist over?
Because of space constriction, massive amounts of pesticides and antibiotics are fed which assemble in the bodies and transfer to the humans, which eat these animals, which in turn leads to serious health diseases.
Anesthesia via electric pliers behind the ears: Because of stress and piecework, the pliers are applied much too short (usually only a few seconds instead the required 40 seconds), or applied at the wrong places. The animal may freeze, but are not numb and wake up shortly after resulting in innumerably ammounts of animals being cut open fully conscious (~10 minutes til the heart stops beating).
>no meat diet = certain death for lack of vital vitamins
Those vitamins you mention (most famously B-12) are readily available in fortified foods or in straight supplements.
I'm not a vegan, and I don't particularly care about it, but with modern nutritional science it's perfectly healthy to go vegan.
you fuckin stupid, kid? when was the last time you met someone that ate 3kcal in lettuce or celery without having their stomach explode? jesus christ, kids these days cant even understand that you dont get full from calories alone. smh
I'm not vegan, or vegetarian, but I do have a garden where i grow my own fruits and veggies.
Where most of my neighbors have worthless trees, bushes, flowers, and grass, I have an edible landscape.
Watering their lawn, is a waste of resources purely for decoration. They get nothing out of their yard, except bags of grass clippings, leaves, branches, and twigs.
I don't use any more water than they do, and my yard produces over 1000 lbs of food every year, a lot of which I donate to the local shelter for the poor. All the waste is composted and goes back into the soil.
If you want to do something for the environment, stop growing ornamental plants in your yard, that waste so much water.
Apple, pear, walnut, pecan, cherry, plum, avocado, peach, etc. are all beautiful trees you can grow in your yard with very little effort.
>Green house gases
yeah landfill and toxic chemicals and gases being released... but yeah that extra .2% green house gases makes the most difference
literally shilling for the meat industry and I don't even eat this rabbit food
>Following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas emissions per calorie
>comparing famously low-calorie high-nutrient foods to calorie-dense foods based on resources per calorie
>implying growing corn and wheat to feed cows is more efficient or environmentally friendly than just eating the corn or wheat
>implying even grass-fed cows produce more calories/acre than wheat or corn on anything but marginal land
I'm not even a vegetarian but you guys are retarded. This is a shitty metric to judge by. Animals absolutely have their place in our diet as calorie producers on hilly land and in crop rotations, but when buckwheat is comparable in protein to beef for a fraction of the inputs you really can't justify the amount of meat developed nations produce and eat with anything other than "It tastes good and it's tradition."
There are millions of "wild horses" in the US, which are fed and cared for by taxpayers. This horse population is literally growing out of control costing billions more and more each year, with no benefit what-so-ever.
These horses contribute to greenhouse gasses, just as much as cattle.
Back when the army needed horses in case of war, it made sense to keep a reserve, but today it makes no sense at all.
Americans don't eat horses, but In Japan, horse meat is delicious. I think the US should export a few million of these horses, to help pay off the national debt that was created by housing and feeding these horses for all these years.
I mean technically speaking as long as you don't consume any animal products you're vegan, but I figure most people who go that far also avoid animal products in other aspects of their life besides their diet
And vegans will do anything to justify their retarded logic.
Go eat your beans. We don't care. Just don't spam everyone who eats meat because no matter what you do or say, you are not going to "convert" anyone into your plant eating cult.
>you are not going to "convert" anyone
actually vegans do speak some truth. the meat industry is disgusting. cows and pigs are infected will all sorts of diseases, bacteria, and viruses. if you want to eat that shit, it's your choice, but don't try and convince me that it's healthy because i've seen the evidence.
enjoy your parasites, burgerboy