What we do know is that livestock uses over 30% of the Earth's surface, contributes more greenhouse gases than the all world's transportation systems, and uses 4,000 gallons of water each day to feed one person instead of 300 for a vegan.
Assuming you're basing this on the Californian study linking high protein diets and cancer, probably, if you're between 40 and 60, but a statistically significant percentage increase is not the same as a statistically significant percentage point increase.
On the whole eating a chunk of meat is better than eating the same calories in say milk chocolate and you have to eat something.
You also have to consider how you prepare the meat, some cooking oils have been linked with cancer but I'd have to look up exactly which ones.
Then there is the type and quality of the meat, for instance processed meats with preservatives are in the highest class of potentially causing cancer according to cancer research groups. Things like hot dogs and packs of sliced and preserved ham are more likely to cause cancer than say a fresh steak. White meats like chicken, turkey and fish are unclassified but are believed to be less likely to cause cancer.
I don't know much about the cardiovascular health concerns of various meats but I'd assume they follow the same basic model, the more processed it is the worse for you, with chicken, turkey and fish being related to greater longevity. I'm only assuming here though.
We're also changing our opinions on the roles of visible fat in things like cholesterol levels. They have less of a role than we thought with exercise and calorie intake playing a larger role. While it's probably better to choose cuts with less visible fat, it's not the end game of staying healthy like we thought in the 90s.
tldr not as much as you would think, just don't eat too much of it and buy fresh rather than preserved.
It also provides a financial incentive to free grazing farming. The taxes on factory farmed meats go to subsidies in the EU based on land categorised as open grazing land, or in some countries per head of cattle on open grazing land.
Outlawing factory farming would very quickly make any kind of meat prohibitively expensive and lead to the death of traditional farming. The knock on effect of this would be to reduce the number of animals with a high quality of care index and ultimately cause major environmental shifts as more fields were used for arable farming, decreasing soil quality in rural areas meaning that more fertiliser would have to be produced, increasing toxic byproduct production in industrial areas, decreasing biodiversity and microbial biodiversity on and around farms, greater use of herbicides and pesticides increasing ppm concentration effects up the food chain causing detrimental effects on wildlife.
It's just a clusterfuck basically. You mean well, but what you're proposing is just unworkable and would result in more overall harm.
You should look in to methods of branding in your country to find meats marked as non-intensively farmed. Fish are factory farmed too, I'd argue intensive fish farming is worse than chicken batteries or penned cattle.
>>7775106 >>7775941 I'm not him, and I don't have a source, but I do know that is true. If you ask anybody that studies climate science, sustainability, environmental policy, or something similar, they will tell you that agriculture is the number one contributor towards greenhouse gas emission and fresh water consumption. That's the real reason for being vegetarian/vegan, not >animals have feelings too! Now while I recognize that the aforementioned degrees aren't held in the highest regard among /sci/, I would ask that we all put aside our pride for a moment in sober consideration for our planet.
Water footprint http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Hoekstra-2012-Water-Meat-Dairy.pdf All meat products are at or above 4,000 L/kg (~2 lb) required for production. Many vegetable products use more water than I had previously believed, but the values are still far lower than those representing the meat industry. >[Vegetarianism] means a reduction [in water usage] of 36%.
Greenhouse gases http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772 >The livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
Land use http://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-animal-feed.html >26% of the Earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface is used for grazing.
Arguments and rebuttals http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/meatarg.html
I'm positive you can find other sources online if you try.
>>7774391 There have been studies that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that eating meat is extremely harmful to your health There have been studies that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that eating meat is extremely beneficial for your health
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.