 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: Meat: an environmental issue |
 |
|
I eat meat. I'm also aware of its environmental impact, and am trying to reduce my consumption. I also know that in mixed farming, sustainable or organic, having livestock can be an important part of the local farm system, particularly in terms of manure production. Organic meat is hard to find and expensive, but I'm trying to stick to organic dairy products (other than cheese), eggs, and meat if I can get it.
Mega-livestock production? I don't think anyone would claim it was environmentally friendly.
I also adore fish, but am getting more and more leery of it, both because of overfishing of wild stocks, environmental concerns around farmed fish, and health concerns about the nastiness that can head up the food chain.
PETA has of course jumped on this issue, which isn't going to do it much good in terms of credibility.
Food production is an environmental issue, and we've discussed buying local, and buying less processed, extensively. But let's put the cards on the table: Can meat-eaters be environmentalists?
| Quote: | EVER since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.
... The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions, but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases.
Some backlash against this position is inevitable, the groups acknowledge, but they do have scientific ammunition. In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
... “You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist,” said [manager of vegan campaigns for PETA Matt] Prescott, whose group also plans to send billboard-toting trucks to the Colorado Convention Center in Denver when Mr. Gore lectures there on Oct. 2. The billboards will feature a cartoon image of Mr. Gore eating a drumstick next to the tagline: “Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming.”
... “We know that vegetarian organizations have sometimes made exaggerated health and environmental claims, but that U.N. report is an impartial, unimpeachable source of statements we can quote,” said Matt Ball, executive director of Vegan Outreach. |
NY Times |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Amy Grace
The space-age robot
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 774
Location: The Drive
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I also adore fish, but am getting more and more leery of it, both because of overfishing of wild stocks, environmental concerns around farmed fish, and health concerns about the nastiness that can head up the food chain. |
We have a list posted on the fridge -- it's kind of a stoplight type of thing. Fish that are listed as green are considered OK to eat, yellow is a moderate risk (to self and environment) and red is the no-go list. If I eat fish I try to eat the kind on the green list, or fish that's been caught by a friend or family member.
I was raised practically vegan and stayed at least veggie til I was 20 but I can't do it anymore. My body just functions better when I eat meat, although I am much healthier without dairy (yogurt as the exception). I think there are ways we can be environmentalists and still eat meat. Saying it's impossible is like saying you can't be an environmentalist if you have a vehicle (which I am sure is something other people would argue, but I think it's BS). It'd be great if everyone who called themselves environmentalists didn't own a vehicle, but there are other uses for them than idling in rush hour traffic and not every one who drives is driving a huge SUV. Same goes with meat, but some peoples' bodies really function better when they eat it but IMO, it's a matter of how the animals were raised, caught, slaughtered, etc. Oh, and how much meat is consumed. I don't imagine even the people who really depend on meat for being healthy need it at every meal or even every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cartman
Beyond cuddly
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8635
Location: OMG! They killed Jason Kenney!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
[rant] Ah dammit. Can somebody please call a mod? Yet another one of these freaky threads (by Tehanu surprise, surprise). Because of you, I am now terrified of my dentist. You made me disgusted with chicken and now red meat? Soon all that will be available will be free range, organic, local, government inspected tofu. Are you happy now? [/rant]
Move along. Nothing to see here folks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see my nefarious plan is succeeding. Cartman, you're forgetting about the thread on street meat, and I was kind enough to warn you the other day not to read my reply to your post here.
Roll on the free range tofu! 
Amy, is that fish guide the one that the David Suzuki Foundation put out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vundo Draxon
Leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1712
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think that environmentalists necessarily have to shun animal products completely, they just need to reduce their consumption way below the excess that has become the norm in North America. It would be better for our health if everyone were to reduce consumption rather that try to cut it out completely overnight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Searosia
The Rain King
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 917
Location: Back in Calgary!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
|
I'd like to see the report... I beleive they are extremely limiting of the 'all forms of transportation' to have livestock emissions overtake transportation. Then again, there is some overlap in livestock transportation. Personally, it seem like a pretty cherry picked stat to be presenting (from a single UN report that the link on the times goes to a generic UN site).
I think Tehanu's line regarding PETA rings true... They enter the stage and credibility goes out the window. From the article:
| Quote: | “Using global warming as a tactic for advancing the cause of vegetarianism feels a bit opportunistic,” said Hank Stewart, senior copywriter at Green Team Advertising, which specializes in environmentally themed ads.
|
PETA and Opportunistic? never! hehe.
| Quote: | | On its Web page and in its literature, the Humane Society has also been highlighting other scientific studies — notably, one that recently came out of the University of Chicago — that, in essence, show that “switching to a plant-based diet does more to curb global warming than switching from an S.U.V. to a Camry,” said Paul Shapiro, senior director of the factory farming campaign for the Humane Society. |
Once again smacks of cherry picking stats... The switch from a SUV to a 4 cylinder car thats really nothing special beyond decent gas mileage being compared to completely cutting out meat products? Why not compare completely cutting out the personal transportation to public or alternative (walk/run/bike/ect...) or atleast with a hybrid vehicle? Answer my own question... Shapiro's concerns have nothing to do with emissions and everything to do with halting meat consumption.
And to point out the opportunistic nature of this a bit further... The push from environmentalists in regards to transportation is to be aware of your consumption and make active choices to limit your consumtpion and it's impact. The same approach regarding meat products would be to make choices that have limited impact (what types of meats have lower impacts, limiting mass overconsumption of meat, and eating locally produced livestock products over imports to limit transportation impacts). We'll never see this approach from PETA... Limiting greenhouse emissions is not the goal here, stopping meat consumption is.
I think PETA makes their motives quite clear with their attacks on Gore in the ads and Gore's press secretary's comment:
| Quote: | | Mr. Gore declined to make himself available for comment. Chris Song, his deputy press secretary, simply noted that a suggestion to “modify your diet to include less meat” appears on Page 317 of Mr. Gore’s book version of “An Inconvenient Truth.” |
It's not like Gore and other environmentalist voices haven't brought up the issue of meat consumption and it's impacts in the past... But they would use the limit meat consumption (or local consumption) view point as limiting greenhouse gasses is the priority, not eliminating meat consumption. Apparently Gore's stance of limiting meat consumption as opposed to promoting vegiterianism earns the ire of PETA and the Humane society.
All this aside... The impact from meat products on the globe is heavy and environmentalists need to realize this if they haven't already. Vundo Draxon has it right. Just like the push against cars is not to make people stop using cars altogether but to make choices that limit your impact, the push with meat consumption should not be to elminate meat consumption but to promote choices to limit the impact. I'll be honest... I think personal vehicle ownership should be done away with. And I would expect my view on absolutely no personal vehicle ownership to be as well received as an absolutely no meat message would.
Personally I like the carbon taxing methods for highlighting meats impacts, simply because it would inflate the price of many meats and make the impact of these products much more obvious to consumers. It'd also go after certain companies that mass import meats (fast food primarily) that is promoting slash and burn in other nations to make land for these animals to be raised. I would like to see some information comparing the impacts of beef to pork to chicken to lamb to fish to ect...
Oh... And I see it a bit in this thread... Be careful with linking 'organic' with low environmental impact. Organic foods refridgerated and flown in from the other side of the world do not have lower impacts by anymeans.
Added:
Should also note, by making uninformed 'organic vegitables' and Tofu / other meat product replacements, your impact can still be quite large. Organic veggies imported from South America leaves a decent sized footprint, and most meat replacements (tofu definately) have similar refridgeration requirements during transportation as the meat products they are replacing (refridgeration during transport is one of the larger impacts, especially on imports that travel long distances). Simply being vegetarian does not implicity come with a low carbon footprint, you need to be just as careful with your consumption.
_________________
Now is not the time for you Liberal fools, its time for a witch hunt. - Bloc Party |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the summary/press release of that FAO report. Here's the complete report downloadable in pdf sections. Haven't had a chance to read it yet. Enjoy!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reverend Blair
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2255
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we tend to forget that there used to be huge herds of bison and other animals wandering about North America and "emitting" too. There are more cattle now, granted, but to take the total amount cattle without adjusting for what used to be there strikes me a little disingenuous.
That being said, everybody should cut their meat consumption and try to eat locally grown meat as much as possible. It's not easy...I got my dentures fixed the other day and the first thing I did was to cook up some huge steaks...but it is worthwhile to try.
_________________
He was a wise man who invented beer.
--Plato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Searosia
The Rain King
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 917
Location: Back in Calgary!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Tehanu... Perhaps it's my turn to read one and provide you with a nice little summary this time?
| Quote: | There are more cattle now, granted, but to take the total amount cattle without adjusting for what used to be there strikes me a little disingenuous.
|
From the article:
| Quote: | | Advertising specialists warn that this new attention to global warming may attract enemies as well as converts. |
I think you'll find that most environmentalists are exceedingly used to wading through the bullshit 'facts' presented by oil companies... They consistantly use misleading statistics or disingenuous information (Rev. Blair pointed out a peice I completed missed, and I am sure there is more). Anyone used to looking at the Climate Change denial articles will see the paralells between what those articles are and what PETA//Humane Society are doing here.
Now that I think of it... Anyone else see the paralells between this PETA ad and the earlier attacks on Gore regarding his home and personal energy use?
| Quote: | There are more cattle now, granted, but to take the total amount cattle without adjusting for what used to be there strikes me a little disingenuous.
|
I beleive the transportation of the cattle (including refridgeration) is heavier than the animal itself, but I haven't seen much info on that. Unfortunately, the 'vegitarian or nothing' aspect being presented doesn't look into information like that and I'm not sure how well analzed that type of data is.
_________________
Now is not the time for you Liberal fools, its time for a witch hunt. - Bloc Party |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Should also note, by making uninformed 'organic vegitables' and Tofu / other meat product replacements, your impact can still be quite large. Organic veggies imported from South America leaves a decent sized footprint, and most meat replacements (tofu definately) have similar refridgeration requirements during transportation as the meat products they are replacing (refridgeration during transport is one of the larger impacts, especially on imports that travel long distances). Simply being vegetarian does not implicity come with a low carbon footprint, you need to be just as careful with your consumption. |
I agree with all this, and so do things like grow my own beans in my two gardens (one in a community plot across town - I try to cycle out there rather than take the Ford, to reduce that there footprint, if you will).
It's possible to buy locally-grown pulses where I live - which is incidentally the world's second-largest exporter of lentils - so one can actively reduce the amount of transportation involved in one's diet here.
[An aside: grocery stores in France indicate the origin of most of their foodstuffs, so you'll se labels such as "Pays" (local), "Vendee,", "Espagne" etc. On one type of lentils, among all the other French varieties, I saw "Canada" as the origin.]
Regarding fish consumption, we quit eating fish about 17-18 years ago after seeing a David Suzuki film on the environmental impact of the world's fisheries. A couple of months later we quit eating meat altogether.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Searosia
The Rain King
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 917
Location: Back in Calgary!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree with all this, and so do things like grow my own beans in my two gardens (one in a community plot across town - I try to cycle out there rather than take the Ford, to reduce that there footprint, if you will). |
Well done
I think on the environmental scale, the decentralization of the food system is more important than what the food system is composed of (We'll see what the UN article has to say on this. I would suspect the UN article is counting the transportation of refridgerated meats in with the footprint made by the livestock industry). Small local production vs a large centralized operations is preferable. Very often the distribution network required to support these centralized operations (read as transportation) is more of a foot print than the food (or whatever else) it is transporting. Replacing the transport of meat with the transport of meat alternatives doesn't do too much good. Even addressing the mass over consumption is more important (atleast as an evironmental concern) than trying to change what we are over consuming.
_________________
Now is not the time for you Liberal fools, its time for a witch hunt. - Bloc Party |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q*Bert
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 598
Location: The side of a pyramid made of cubes
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Searosia wrote: | | I beleive they are extremely limiting of the 'all forms of transportation' to have livestock emissions overtake transportation. Then again, there is some overlap in livestock transportation. |
| Searosia wrote: | | I would suspect the UN article is counting the transportation of refridgerated meats in with the footprint made by the livestock industry). |
Given that it's a worldwide figure, and transportation emissions correlate with wealth, I wonder if poorer regions emit less from transportation than meat production (for export). I also wonder if deforestation is part of the figure.
| Searosia wrote: | | Once again smacks of cherry picking stats... The switch from a SUV to a 4 cylinder car thats really nothing special beyond decent gas mileage being compared to completely cutting out meat products? Why not compare completely cutting out the personal transportation to public or alternative (walk/run/bike/ect...) or atleast with a hybrid vehicle? Answer my own question... Shapiro's concerns have nothing to do with emissions and everything to do with halting meat consumption. |
I don't think this is fair. It is true that cutting out personal vehicles likely dwarfs reduced emissions from being vegetarian. But you have to compare it with something, and the goal of eliminating SUVs (as opposed to all personal vehicles), or the equivalent of having tougher vehicle emission standards, does indeed have a cred among environmentalists. (Indeed, improved fuel efficiency has kept pace with greater numbers of automobiles, so that if all personal vehicles in Canada were cars, total emissions from this sector would be the same now as in 1990. In other words, the increased emissions in this sector are almost entirely from people buying SUVs instead of cars.)
| Searosia wrote: | | Should also note, by making uninformed 'organic vegitables' and Tofu / other meat product replacements, your impact can still be quite large. Organic veggies imported from South America leaves a decent sized footprint, and most meat replacements (tofu definately) have similar refridgeration requirements during transportation as the meat products they are replacing (refridgeration during transport is one of the larger impacts, especially on imports that travel long distances). Simply being vegetarian does not implicity come with a low carbon footprint, you need to be just as careful with your consumption. |
Most soy is used to produce meat, so the refrigeration costs would be compounded in the case of meat.
All that said, I agree with your general sentiment.
| Reverend Blair wrote: | | I think we tend to forget that there used to be huge herds of bison and other animals wandering about North America and "emitting" too. There are more cattle now, granted, but to take the total amount cattle without adjusting for what used to be there strikes me a little disingenuous. |
Perhaps. There were indeed huge herds of bison, but there was also a huge area supporting them. If you want to compare the emissions from megafauna, you have to consider all the other land uses (in this case, most of the agricultural and industrial activity of the prairies) that it displaces. The number of bison on land supporting cattle (grazing and feed crops) is probably significantly lower than even the absolute numbers you allude to, and that excludes emissions associated with transportation, fertilizer, etc.
In fact, from reading the reports, it seems that most of the environmental damage from livestock comes from the intensity of the production. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Searosia
The Rain King
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 917
Location: Back in Calgary!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think this is fair. It is true that cutting out personal vehicles likely dwarfs reduced emissions from being vegetarian. But you have to compare it with something. |
I was pointing out that he was comparing a small reduction (SUV to a Camry) to a complete halt in eating meat. Now if he was comparing this to reducing your meat consumption from 3 daily servings to a more modest 3-5 servings per week... Then he's got a valid comparison (and in my opinion, a more realistic of adressing the livestock based emissions). Compare the halt in vehicle use to a halt in meat consumption or compare a reduction to a reduction.
(footnote: how many meat servings do you think this fastfood nation consumes daily? I just used 3 as a random example)
_________________
Now is not the time for you Liberal fools, its time for a witch hunt. - Bloc Party |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reverend Blair
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2255
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Perhaps. There were indeed huge herds of bison, but there was also a huge area supporting them. If you want to compare the emissions from megafauna, you have to consider all the other land uses (in this case, most of the agricultural and industrial activity of the prairies) that it displaces. The number of bison on land supporting cattle (grazing and feed crops) is probably significantly lower than even the absolute numbers you allude to, and that excludes emissions associated with transportation, fertilizer, etc. |
I agree, but the fact remains that the comparison's need to be adjusted properly to be valid. That would include carbon sequestration by undisturbed prairie grasses, for instance.
The point is that it's a pretty weak case waiting to be trashed if we compare apples to oranges, which is basically what we're doing if we look only at current livestock production without taking into account what used to there.
Not only that, but we have to be able to provide reasonable alternatives. Expecting large-scale livestock production to shut down is not realistic. Being able to quantify where we were and where are now is the first step in coming up with a plan that will be accepted.
_________________
He was a wise man who invented beer.
--Plato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abnormal
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 445
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Searosia"] | Quote: | | (footnote: how many meat servings do you think this fastfood nation consumes daily? I just used 3 as a random example) |
My guess is the vast majority eat "meat" twice a day on average [note that I'm including fish here since even the most dedicated carnivore is likely to eat fish once a while]. I know very few vegetarians (and that includes quasi-vegetarians that eat milk and eggs but no meat, or fish but no meat and so forth) and virtually all of them do so because of specific health problems, as opposed to any sort of ethical etc. reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reverend Blair
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2255
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't even eat food twice a day, as a rule. Or is coffee food? Yeah, I know...we don't grow coffee locally. Shit, my tobacco comes from Holland too. The staples of my (exceedingly health-conscious) diet aren't very environmentally friendly.
Back to meat though. Are there any reliable numbers on how much meat we actually need in our diets. I'd say that we need at least some because of our evolutionary history, but the amounts in the food guides etc seem rather excessive based on that same criteria.
_________________
He was a wise man who invented beer.
--Plato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Most soy is used to produce meat, so the refrigeration costs would be compounded in the case of meat. |
But only if steers are eating tofu, mind you.
I've come across the "Red meat=SUV" argument before, but this is all I've found in writing after a very quick search:
Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q*Bert
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 598
Location: The side of a pyramid made of cubes
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Searosia wrote: | | I was pointing out that he was comparing a small reduction (SUV to a Camry) to a complete halt in eating meat. Now if he was comparing this to reducing your meat consumption from 3 daily servings to a more modest 3-5 servings per week... Then he's got a valid comparison (and in my opinion, a more realistic of adressing the livestock based emissions). Compare the halt in vehicle use to a halt in meat consumption or compare a reduction to a reduction. |
I think you're suggesting that the a valid comparison ought to be comparable not only to the result (the intended comparison) but also the effort required to achieve the result. I don't think that's fair. Providing a scale gives people a handle on the quantities involved. If someone then uses that comparison to argue "That's it? I thought it would be more." or "Good heavens! We must legislate vegetarianism!", then those arguments can be addressed independently.
But I agree with you that it's less disruptive of the current North American lifestyle to switch from SUVs to Camrys than to eliminate meat consumption.
| Reverend Blair wrote: | I agree, but the fact remains that the comparison's need to be adjusted properly to be valid. That would include carbon sequestration by undisturbed prairie grasses, for instance.
The point is that it's a pretty weak case waiting to be trashed if we compare apples to oranges, which is basically what we're doing if we look only at current livestock production without taking into account what used to there.
Not only that, but we have to be able to provide reasonable alternatives. Expecting large-scale livestock production to shut down is not realistic. Being able to quantify where we were and where are now is the first step in coming up with a plan that will be accepted. |
I agree that we have to keep careful accounts on both sides of the ledger. I was suggesting that, in the absence of any specific study, it's easy to overestimate emissions from less intensive land use.
| al-Qa'bong wrote: | | But only if steers are eating tofu, mind you. |
Yes, my mistake. I was thinking soy beans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Searosia
The Rain King
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 917
Location: Back in Calgary!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I think you're suggesting that the a valid comparison ought to be comparable not only to the result (the intended comparison) but also the effort required to achieve the result. I don't think that's fair. Providing a scale gives people a handle on the quantities involved. |
Hmm, you're putting together a bit more than I had intended with my line... I was getting into the goals behind the statement being made. KK... You have Gore being massively attacked because his suggestion to “modify your diet to include less meat” isn't enough and full out vegiterianism the way to go, and then compare the "reduction isn't enough" standpoint to a reduction in the transportion category. Hopefully I'm a little more clear with what what I was getting it... I kinda see it as ironic.
So far what I can take from the meat being the number 1 source of greenhouse emissions, it simply comes down to the number of people that consume meat products (worldwide) compared to a relatively small number of people driving the SUV's (Personally, I was a bit baffled how you could have meat as the number one source of emissions be equivlent to a slight reduction in transportation).
But just a quick comment to the scale for the quantities involved... A generic SUV (which we all know is bad, right?) to a car gives very little insight into a scale. As I mentioned, exceedingly cherry picked and vague offering no insight at all except a term we perceive as bad 'SUV' to something good, 'Camry'. Heh, I'm decently informed with this information, and even I can't get a handle on the quantities involved from something this vague. Couple tons of emissions? 100 tons?
_________________
Now is not the time for you Liberal fools, its time for a witch hunt. - Bloc Party |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oh_CanaBa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I blame the people that eat too much meat rather than those who enjoy it as a healthy part of their diet. Go SLIM people, save the planet. Perhaps, I need to make a new thread.
And the SUV analogy makes me chuckle too, as it's the same overconsumption argument. Food's the same people, time to downsize. Better resale value too, in case of divorce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Where it falls apart for me is that we've been eating meat throughout our human history. Climate change is something relatively recent. Clearly, something we've been doing a long time cannot be responsible for a relatively recent problem. Of course there are valid issues related to transportation, factory farming, etc, but I think asking to not eat meat is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oh_CanaBa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DSquared wrote: | | Where it falls apart for me is that we've been eating meat throughout our human history. Climate change is something relatively recent. Clearly, something we've been doing a long time cannot be responsible for a relatively recent problem. Of course there are valid issues related to transportation, factory farming, etc, but I think asking to not eat meat is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. |
Let's see, we've eaten meat for thousands perhaps millions of years but the combustible engine just came along about 100 yrs ago. Dunno about your logic D^2 but Im sure someone will find fault with it. Damned technology. Mail me a letter ***damn it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems really stupid to me. Animals can be part of a natural carbon cycle. It is when we have to add fossil fuels and petroleum based products to meat production that we end up with the problem.
Otherwise its natural greenhouse gases -> plants ->food for animals ->animals->farting, breathing consumption, decompositions -> greenhouse gases.
PETA is being disengenuous, why not start looking at the "unnatural" carbon cycle ... if you are really concerned about the environment (and animals). The thing is, when you do this, you don't find meat production as bad, you find the way we produce meat as bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Searosia
The Rain King
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 917
Location: Back in Calgary!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Where it falls apart for me is that we've been eating meat throughout our human history. |
Not to the extent we are now. The report listed earlier in this thread will show you the extent of the meat consumption we're currently at. Combine this high consumption rate with over population (or atleast the highest population levels this world has seen), and you see the impact this meat eating has. Though in my opinion it's the overconsumption // mass production that is the issue.
| Quote: | | PETA is being disengenuous, why not start looking at the "unnatural" carbon cycle |
The unnatural carbon once was life and carbon in this system... Many years ago, that carbon was in the system just like any 'natural' carbon. Although, the north pole has signs that it was once a lush tropical region. I don't think we are fully aware of what this planet could look like if we reintroduce all the carbon thats taken so many millions of years to refine out of the system to allow the globe to have the climate it does now.
How does the song go? Some day some where some thing died and now you'll steal it's carbon, some time some where you will die and something somehow will steal your carbon
The problem with the 'natural' carbon as a defence for meat eating, the amount of CO2 we are talking here is well above and beyond the capability of plants to refine it (the numbers of livestock has grown to the point where the planet can't suppot it). Meat in the past was on a small enough scale that plant life was capable of refining the carbon from the CO2 gasses into sugar.
Global dimming enters the discussion here too... Plantlife uses sunlight to refine carbon from CO2 (with water) to become sugars. The greenhouse gasses are trapping energy in infrared form that plantlife doesn't really use (EI, the warming effect isn't aiding plants by providing more energy to refine carbon with), but Global dimming is effectively reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface and limiting the plant lifes ability to refine carbon.
So not only are we at record levels of animal life producing CO2, we are impacting the globes ability to refine out this CO2. The 'we've done this through history' defence doesn't work when take a closer look at it
_________________
Now is not the time for you Liberal fools, its time for a witch hunt. - Bloc Party |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 221
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Our current food system in total is unsustainable regardless of whether you are looking at legume, beef, grains, or chicken production. It is the way we are producing our food. If we stopped meat production down completely you can guarantee that chemical fertilizer use would increase, so would the use of pesticides and herbicides as the continual cropping without forages would destroy the health of the soil allowing opportunistic invaders. All of those increases would be dramatic.
As well, you would see an increase (or at least no real reduction)in greenhouse gas emissions as those little carrots and soya beans and the rest don't walk themselves into the hopper or from there to the processor. Nor do they get into the field by themselves. It all takes diesel fuel.
Yes it would be nice if we have all had little gardens and I would encourage it. But comparing the growing of a garden to even a market garden let alone the fields needed to feed a community, region, province, country, the world that is becoming increasingly concentrated in cities is not just apples and oranges, but more like potatoes and marble.
_________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
- Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever happened to the brave new world of the future where we "farmed the oceans" and everyone ate kelp?
Or for that matter, the one where we'd get our entire day's nutritional needs from a pill? I mean, how much land would it take to grow those little tiny pills?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cartman
Beyond cuddly
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8635
Location: OMG! They killed Jason Kenney!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | Whatever happened to the brave new world of the future where we "farmed the oceans" and everyone ate kelp?
Or for that matter, the one where we'd get our entire day's nutritional needs from a pill? I mean, how much land would it take to grow those little tiny pills? |
Exactly. And we were supposed to get robots....and flying cars.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just wanted ice cream  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1042
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reverend Blair wrote: | I think we tend to forget that there used to be huge herds of bison and other animals wandering about North America and "emitting" too. There are more cattle now, granted, but to take the total amount cattle without adjusting for what used to be there strikes me a little disingenuous.
|
And indeed, it turns out that we might be better off farming bison or ostrich rather than cattle because these are more adapted to a prarie environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1042
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | Whatever happened to the brave new world of the future where we "farmed the oceans" and everyone ate kelp?
Or for that matter, the one where we'd get our entire day's nutritional needs from a pill? I mean, how much land would it take to grow those little tiny pills? |
Nobody wants to eat kelp or pills, it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Au contraire, mon frère.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reverend Blair
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2255
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And indeed, it turns out that we might be better off farming bison or ostrich rather than cattle because these are more adapted to a prarie environment. |
Ostrich maybe. Bison are pretty hard on pasture land, which is why they used to migrate constantly.
That's something else we have to consider...the Canadian prairies is one of the most altered eco-systems on earth. We cut down trees where there used to be trees, and planted trees where there didn't used to be any. We ripped up the grasses and indigenous plants that existed and planted other grasses.
Bison would still do well here if they were allowed to wander about, but nobody really wants that, so the option is to raise them in fairly intensive scenarios.
_________________
He was a wise man who invented beer.
--Plato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pardon the foodie drift, but have you ever eaten ostrich? That meat is so purple it makes steak look like veal. Like venison, it's almost too lean to cook on its own, and needs a bit of fat, but if you keep it moist, it's uniquely tasty.
Also, ostrich eggs weigh about three pounds. If you subtract the weight of the shell, that's brunch for two.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reverend Blair
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2255
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had a taste of ostrich at a thing one night. It was very good.
_________________
He was a wise man who invented beer.
--Plato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abnormal
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 445
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Pardon the foodie drift, but have you ever eaten ostrich? |
Definitely. If properly cooked it's excellent.
But this discussion is making me hungry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reverend Blair
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2255
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Damn, I thought those were lawn chairs for a second. Kind of makes the cheese and tomato sandwich I had for supper look kind of sad though.
_________________
He was a wise man who invented beer.
--Plato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vaugely related:
| Quote: | | Avian influenza has been confirmed at a large chicken farm near Regina, officials with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Thursday. |
Question for our resident farmers: is 50 000 chickens a large farm?
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reverend Blair
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2255
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's kind of a funny question, DSquared. My first impulse is to say that it's huge. By today's standards it isn't though.
It's a perfect example of what's wrong with the way we do agriculture though. 50,000 chickens, all of the same breed and all with the same resistance to the same diseases, all gathered in one place. The breed and resistance is the same on almost every chicken operation in North America and Western Europe and is moving into the rest of the world with alarming speed.
All of a sudden a disease carried by wild birds, who have a fair bit of resistance to it, becomes a major threat to agriculture and a concern for public health.
_________________
He was a wise man who invented beer.
--Plato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 221
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DSquared wrote: | Vaugely related:
| Quote: | | Avian influenza has been confirmed at a large chicken farm near Regina, officials with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Thursday. |
Question for our resident farmers: is 50 000 chickens a large farm? |
In Ontario that is on the high side of most middle-sized chicken operations. For example the minimum quota you can purchase, unless you negotiate with the board for over a frikkin year and are a specialty producer such as organic is 14,000 units which depending on your weight is around 40-60,000 chickens. So someone with 50,000 chickens must have about 56,000 units of quota assuming 4 flocks per year average. Of course that could be less as chances are the chickens in different barns are also of different ages. So in short it is about middle sized.
Incidently those quota costs - minimum quota about $750,000. For 56,000 units over $3 million at Ontario prices any way.
Wonder why average farmers are having a rough time being able to sell chicken which you must have quota to do if you want to advertise in Ontario - and that is only up to 300 chickens. After that you must have quota. (By the way we are, I think the smallest quota holders in the province with a 135 units- the irony is we could sell quite a bit more of our organic chicken, but just getting the rights to sell it, never mine the costs of producing and processing would be about $10,000 if we wanted to double our production to 1200 chickens a year) And that is what the consumer supports every time they buy the cheapest chicken on the market in the grocery store. I favour quota, because it means farmers can actually make a living, but it sure has some serious problems that need major overhaul.
Betcha that was more info than you were looking for 
_________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
- Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ferment your manure and you can power your house. Methane produced through an anaerobic bacterial decomposition process is burned to produce electricity.
The article doesn't talk about greenhouse gas effects, but given that burning methane produces carbon dioxide, and methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, this sounds like a Good Thing ... assuming that this process doesn't produce significantly more methane than normal composting.
| Quote: | ... The technology developed by farmer and engineer Paul Klaesi and his brother Fritz won a $50,000 innovation award from the Ontario government this year, and now tourists are flocking to their farm in Foresters Falls, about 100 kilometres northwest of Ottawa.
... The technology uses bacteria to generate a biogas mixture containing methane or natural gas, and then collecting and burning the gas to power a generator connected to the provincial power grid.
[Klaesi] added that unlike the cow's digestive system, which uses four stomachs and an intestinal tract to remove 85 per cent of the energy from the food over two days, it takes the bacteria 25 days to extract the remaining 15 per cent of the energy by producing a biogas mixture of:
* Sixty per cent methane.
* Thirty-five per cent carbon dioxide.
* Five per cent other gases.
That mixture is collected in a rubber cap that expands like a rising loaf of bread, and then is fed into a generator.
The gas is burned to produce electricity.
Klaesi said 40 per cent is used to power the farm, cutting a monthly power bill that was once $2,500 to only a basic $30 fee. |
CBC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kewl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Long article on the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture (and it's worth reading the whole thing; I've edited to include the first paragraphs of each section). As we all know, the impact is big.
So, interesting fact, the EPA estimated that agriculture counted for 18% of the USA carbon footprint, but that does NOT include fertilizer/pesticide manufacture, fuel for farm machinery, fuel for shipping, or the much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide GHGs, etc. So it's likely a lot higher. And let's not forget the massive amounts of fuel required to move increasingly processed food from one plant to another, before it comes anywhere near a grocery store.
Long list of environmentally damaging practices, and while the article is specific to the USA, these are certainly issues in Canada as well.
| Quote: | Agriculture Is One of the Most Polluting and Dangerous Industries
... Carbon Foot Print: The U.S. EPA estimated in 2007 that agriculture in the U.S. was responsible for about 18% of our carbon footprint, which is huge because the U.S. is the largest polluter in the world. This should include (but doesn't) the manufacture and use of pesticides and fertilizers, fuel and oil for tractors, equipment, trucking and shipping, electricity for lighting, cooling, and heating, and emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other green house gases. Unfortunately, the EPA estimate of 18% still doesn't include a large portion of the fuel, the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, some of the nitrous oxide, all of the CFCs and bromines, and most of the transport emissions. When they are counted, agriculture's share of the U.S. carbon footprint will be at least 25 to 30%.
... Fertilizer Pollution/Dead Zones: Factory farming is polluting the ground, river, and ocean water with high amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous, and other fertilizers. High levels of nitrates and nitrites were found in twenty-five thousand community wells that provided drinking water to two thirds of the nation's population. More than fifteen million people in two hundred eighty communities are drinking water with phosphorous or phosphates which mostly come from industrial farming operations.
... Pesticides in Water: In addition to fertilizer pollution of our food and water, high amounts of pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones are also in the food, soil, water, and air. More than twelve thousand wells that provide water to 100 million people have arsenic or lead concentrations above the health based limits established by the U.S.EPA. Arsenic has been used on crops in the U.S. since 1867 and lead-arsenic since 1890. Arsenic is still widely used today on turf crops, corn, soy, and cotton as an herbicide or defoliant. The EPA, FDA, USDA and almost all state agencies, however, do not even keep good track of arsenic use. It is hard to regulate when you don't know how much is being used.
... Excessive Pesticide Use Today: Factory farmers continue to use enormous quantities of the most toxic poisons. In 2006, four of the six most used farm pesticides in California were among the most dangerous chemicals in the world. Farmers applied more than 35.7 million pounds of four pesticides: Metam sodium, Methyl bromide, Telone II, and Chloropicrin.
Data? What Data?: California is the only state that has collected pesticide use data in the U.S. (New York recently passed the same law). Unfortunately, for all the other states, we do not have good data. California began collecting use data from farmers and applicators in 1970. The USDA and most states only collect survey data, not actual usage amounts. Because California has real data, and because California provides half of the fresh produce in the country, their information is an invaluable guide to the level of poisonous exposure that U.S. farmers, farmworkers, food handlers, and customers have endured on farm products for almost forty years.
Confinement Animals/Excess Antibiotics and Hormones: I have pointed out in The War on Bugs and in other articles that our confinement animal operations (where most of our meat comes from) are a serious health and safety threat. And, as we have all come to realize, they are very poorly regulated. Overuse of hormones and antibiotics has left us with antibiotic resistant meat, large quantities of antibiotics in rivers and drinking water, and even antibiotic resistant pork farmers and consumers. Beef cows are often injected with hormones, milk cows with genetically modified growth hormones. The U.S. meat supply is so dangerously unhealthy that large amounts of it are regularly recalled (about 200,000,000 pounds of beef in 2008) and some of the more suspicious or contaminated meat has been allowed by the FDA to be irradiated since the 1990s. Nuked meat?
... If We Can't Fix it, Let's Change it!: While U.S. factory farming can't be fixed, the good news is that changing U.S. agriculture it is not an unattainably complex goal. However, it does call for a paradigm shift. We must stop pretending that fossil based fertilizer and fuel is endless, sustainable, or environmentally justifiable. The Green Revolution is over! After one hundred years of use the jury is in. What looked in 1909 like a cheap and efficient fertilizer has polluted our drinking water, turned deadly to the oceans, is increasingly more expensive, and today is doing more harm than good. We must dramatically reduce the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and began an immediate phase out.
In 1945, only five percent of the nitrogen used on U.S. farms was synthetic. Now, more than ninety-five percent is. Before the synthetic takeover, farmers grew fertilizer crops and applied small amounts of composted manure for fertility and tilth, to increase organic matter, and to feed the microorganisms. These techniques and more modern ones are used by both organic and non-organic farmers today and enable them to produce high yields of quality produce, meat, fiber, oilseeds, and grains. Farmers all over the world are getting higher yields of calories per acre on diversified organic farms than on monocultural chemical or GMO farms.
We can solve the dead zone problem by switching back from synthetic nitrogen and soluble phosphorous fertilizers to organic plant-based fertility. This is not rocket science and it is not a long shot with outmoded technology. It is, in fact, achievable within a few years. As a plus, fertilizer crops sequester carbon, which our currently barren soils in the fall and winter don't.
We can eliminate the cancer and birth defect clusters and high pesticide residues on our favorite foods by using biological IPM strategies to control pests and diseases. Releasing beneficial insects, altering our growing practices, rotation of crops, soil balancing, and careful monitoring of pest damage are a few of the successful techniques that thousands of farmers are using to control pests and eliminate poisonous pesticides on their farms. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norse of 60
Kokanee Kid
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3711
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?" - Homer J Simpson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vundo Draxon
Leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1712
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| elmateo wrote: | Seems really stupid to me. Animals can be part of a natural carbon cycle. It is when we have to add fossil fuels and petroleum based products to meat production that we end up with the problem.
Otherwise its natural greenhouse gases -> plants ->food for animals ->animals->farting, breathing consumption, decompositions -> greenhouse gases.
PETA is being disengenuous, why not start looking at the "unnatural" carbon cycle ... if you are really concerned about the environment (and animals). The thing is, when you do this, you don't find meat production as bad, you find the way we produce meat as bad. |
But if we were to produce meat in the most ethical and sustainable way possible, it would be so rare that only the extraordinarily rich would be able to afford the price. There just isn't a good way (that I'm aware of) to produce enough meat to feed billions of people a meat-centric diet. That's why I think we in the "developed" world should aim at reducing (perhaps eventually eliminating) our consumption. It's far preferable to the alternatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Soylent green, anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a marketing tip: call it "Green Soylent", and instead of showing a photo of ground up human bodies in the ads for it, show a farmer and a young kid holding up a seedling in a handful of dirt, superimposed over a photo of the planet.
The copy on the ad should read "Two Birds. One Stone. Your Planet."
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're hired, Magoo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Pollan, who's understandably miffed that some companies have taken his "eat simply" guidelines and started using them, has a new suggestion: Don't eat food that you've seen advertised.
Wise words.
Previously, he'd suggested not eating food that had more than five ingredients listed, in order to avoid highly processed food. Coincidence? Haagen-Daaz releases a 5-ingredient ice cream. And Frito Lay starts branding some chips as local. He's also impressed that food manufacturers have managed to brand sugar as healthy -- compared to high-fructose syrup.
Read the entire article at AlterNet to get some additional details, along with some horrors about pork factory farming.
| Quote: | Goodman: What about companies boasting that they use real sugar, like that’s a health claim.
Pollan: Well, you know, it’s very interesting. Since this book came out, where I argue don’t buy high-fructose corn syrup and don’t buy products with more than five ingredients, suddenly the industry is—you know, they’re so clever. I have to hand it to them. But now they’re arguing that their products are simpler, and there’s new Haagen-Dazs 5, which is a five-ingredient Haagen-Dazs product. You know, it’s still ice cream. Ice cream is wonderful, but we shouldn’t treat it as health food because it now has only five ingredients. ... Frito-Lay potato chips now is arguing that they’re local. Now, you have to remember, any product is local somewhere. Right? This food doesn’t come from Mars. But to think that Frito-Lay as a local potato chip is really a stretch.
So—and on the high-fructose corn syrup thing, now that you’ve got Snapple and soon-to-be Coca-Cola making a virtue of the fact that they contain real sugar, no high-fructose corn syrup, what that is is an implicit health claim for sugar. And that is an incredible achievement on the part of industry, to convince us that getting off of high-fructose corn syrup has made their products healthier. It has done no such thing. Biologically, there’s no difference between high-fructose corn syrup and sugar.
Goodman: Well, explain why you were going after high-fructose corn syrup.
Pollan: Well, my argument about high-fructose corn syrup and why you should avoid it is it is a marker of a highly processed food. I’m just trying to help people, when they’re going through the supermarket—the main thing you want to avoid is processing, you know, extreme processing. And high-fructose corn syrup—I mean, think about it. Do you know anyone who cooks with high-fructose corn syrup? It’s not a home—it’s not an ingredient you’ll find in a home pantry. It’s a tool of food science.
My problem with it is its ubiquity through the food system. You have high-fructose corn syrup showing up where sugar has never been—in bread, in pickles, in mayonnaise, in relish, in all these products—that they basically have found that if you sweeten anything, we will buy more of it. High-fructose corn syrup is a very convenient, cheap ingredient, because we subsidize the corn from which it’s made.
But to boast about your product not having high-fructose corn syrup as being some kind of virtue is really stretching it. And I think what we see here is another example of the food industry’s ingenuity in taking any critique of industrial food and turning it into the next marketing strategy. It’s a lot like the low-fat campaign, you know, which began as a government critique of food, you know, beginning with George McGovern in the ’70s saying we should eat less red meat because of heart disease. Whatever you think of the science of that, which turns out not to have been that good, it was a well-meaning campaign to improve the American diet. Industry came back and re-engineered the whole food system to have less fat in it and no fat in it. And that campaign sold a lot more food. And, in fact, since that campaign, we’ve been eating about 300 more calories a day, and we’re a lot fatter. So, you can’t—you just can’t underestimate their ability turn any critique into a way to sell food.
So, I’ve had to update my rules. And with all this new marketing based on these ideas, my new suggestion is, if you want to avoid all this, simply don’t buy any food you’ve ever seen advertised. Ninety-four percent of ad budgets for food go to processed food. I mean, the broccoli growers don’t have money for ad budgets. So the real food is not being advertised. And that’s really all you need to know. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
A Michael Pollan interview in the Globe and Mail as he's in Canada doing some book and film promotion ...
| Quote: | ... He's in Vancouver on the only Canadian stop of his tour to promote the paperback release of In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto , the New York Times bestselling follow up to The Omnivore's Dilemma . In it, Mr. Pollan, who lives in San Francisco, looks at the state of what's on our plates and encourages us to reject processed products in a return to real food. He's also here to attend a fundraiser for the University of British Columbia Farm, currently battling for protection against future condominium development.
All of this takes place just before the release of the documentary Food Inc. The film – which opens June 19 in Toronto and Montreal – points its cameras at the feedlots and chicken processing plants Mr. Pollan described in The Omnivore's Dilemma . When the producers approached him to contribute, Mr. Pollan says it was an easy decision.
... There is, he admits, a more visceral reaction to seeing images of factory farms than to simply reading about them: “I think meat eaters will watch this and it will give them pause,” he suggests. “Going to feedlots changes the way you eat. Seeing the production of industrialized chicken changes the way you eat. I still eat meat, but I do so in a much more conscious and deliberate way. I am very picky – and I don't eat industrialized meat.”
... “It's very clear that if we are going to have healthy food compete with junk food then there has to be a shift at the policy level,” he says. “We subsidize corn and soy – the building blocks of fast food. The corn becomes the animal feed, becomes the high fructose corn syrup. Of the obscure 37 ingredients on the chicken nugget, 20 of them are sourced from corn and the rest is from soy that's been turned into hydrogenated oils and animal feed. It's no wonder it's the cheapest food out there, because we make it so. We have governments who on the one hand rail about the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and on the other we're signing farm bills to subsidize high fructose corn syrup.”
... Mr. Pollan believes in growing and buying food locally. The erosion of farmland to development at UBC is but a microcosm of what's happening across the United States, he says. “We're losing something like 16 acres of agricultural land a minute in the U.S.,” he says. “And we are going to need this land to feed our cities. The luxury of developing all the land where people live and having the farms thousands of miles away was a luxury underwritten by cheap fossil fuel.”
His answer: We should be planting gardens, growing food in pots, supporting our local farmers and shopping as little as possible in the supermarket. We should also, he suggests, be cooking every meal from scratch – and don't be telling him there aren't enough hours in the day. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like that guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics