[BeaverFever]

andyt andyt:

Why only EU targets? Surely this is a global thing.

This is where climate change becomes problematic for me. Reducing direct energy usage, fine. But not eating beef - no way.

Our parents and grandparents and the generations before them didn't eat as much red meat - or meat in general- as we do and they were much healthier. Today's generations have been raised to practically believe they need a 12 oz porterhouse at breakfast, lunch and dinner just to "get their protein".

[andyt]

Meat consumption is actually down quite a bit from your parents post war generation. Especially beef. I eat smaller portions of meat than I used to, but I do eat it for most suppers and lunches. And I like beef, have kind of gone off chicken, never ate that much pork or fish. So I'll be contributing to global warming on an ongoing basis. Make up for it by owning a small car I don't drive much.

[BeaverFever]

You're not wrong to say that we're come off our peak but consumption is still high compared to historical values.

[martin14]

So the real reason everything is messed up is because we are eating too much chicken
and not enough beef.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:

That the meat industry is bad for the environment is old news actually. Reducing meat consumption just never gains traction as an method to save the environment because people are:
#1 lazy and
#2 they want to do what they want which is typically
#1 (be) lazy

#1. Or maybe it's because they like meat!!!

Eating meat isn't bad for the environment. Anyone who actually believes that is a fucking putz. It's the fast food industry that's the main problem.
Instead of trying to convince people to eat less beef, how about putting strict limits on the number of fast food dumps that can operate in a given geographical area. It's also not like there isn't a shit ton of food waste in that line of business.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Eating meat isn't bad for the environment. Anyone who actually believes that is a fucking putz. It's the fast food industry that's the main problem.

You are quite mistaken. Raising animals like cattle by letting them graze grass on the land is indeed very easy on the environment. But razing rain forest to plant soybeans that get sprayed with chemicals that run off and pollute rivers and oceans (ie: factory farming), causes a great deal of environmental impact.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

http://ecowatch.com/2013/01/21/factory- ... l-warming/

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html

The fast food industry is bad for our health, and is a whole other thread.

[peck420]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

How come we had no worries when there were tens of millions of bison?

I am still sourcing studies, but there are many references to bison and cattle producing approximately the same amount of methane per head, which would make bison significantly more efficient per kilo of meat.

Also, I don't think the bison herds ever came close to the current cattle herds in numbers. The highest NA bison estimate I have seen (pre-European) is 60,000,000. Versus the odd 110+ million cattle in North America.

I have excluded other animals, due to finding info on bison being difficult enough.

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

So the real reason everything is messed up is because we are eating too much chicken
and not enough beef.

Too much beef, not enough fish, less chicken and more eggs.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Eating meat isn't bad for the environment.

Factory farming meat is bad for the environment. That's just proven fact. Some people might not care about the environment, or think it's a worthy trade-off, but it doesn't change the fact.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You're not wrong to say that we're come off our peak but consumption is still high compared to historical values.

Interesting that since the USA stopped eating so much beef in 1976 that obesity has been on a steady increase.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Interesting that since the USA stopped eating so much beef in 1976 that obesity has been on a steady increase.

Obesity is caused by eating too many calories for the calories expended. It can be from any food source, not just beef.

[andyt]

He's saying obesity has increased as beef consumption has decreased.

The eighties was the time when the focus on fat is bad started - low fat, high carb foods came out. Carbs were promoted as good - all carbs, not just low glycemic index ones. Beef was demonized, skinless chicken was in. I remember going over to dinner with people that ate like that - beige food.

I'd like to see Canada go over to mostly grass fed beef. I've heard that our winters preclude that, but I don't see how - don't cows eat hay? In fact I've seen ranchers distribute hay for their cows in the winter. Maybe throw in some goodies in the hay to make it more palatable, but cut way back on the corn and soy

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

He's saying obesity has increased as beef consumption has decreased.

Yes, I got that. Thanks.

I'm saying then, since the two don't correlate then perhaps that's not the food to look at in relation to obesity.

andyt andyt:

The eighties was the time when the focus on fat is bad started - low fat, high carb foods came out. Carbs were promoted as good - all carbs, not just low glycemic index ones. Beef was demonized, skinless chicken was in. I remember going over to dinner with people that ate like that - beige food.

And fat still is the way to get lots and lots of empty calories quickly. Chicken wings, for example, are fatty skin, covering fatty meat, dipped in carbs and fried in fat. Perhaps that might contribute more to the obesity problem Bart is concerned with?

And just looking at beef, grain fed versus grass fed meat has much less Omega-6 fatty acid and more stearic acid than the grain fed beef. Healthier all around.

What I'd like to see is a graph of fat content of beef, annually. I bet that although we are consuming less beef, that the beef eaten has more fat in it.

Edit:
I did find this; that Omega 3 acids decrease the longer a cow remains in a feed lot.



http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm

[andyt]

I doubt it. We have been using feed lots for a long time now. More fat than 100 years ago, sure. More fat in the last 40 years or so, doubt it.

It is well recognized that the rise in obesity is correlated to our focus on fat as the problem, with subsequent increase in carbs, especially refined ones. I remember so expert on PBS in the 1980's sneering at the idea of eating avocados or walnuts. I knew then he was out to lunch, and so does everybody else, now.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Eating meat isn't bad for the environment. Anyone who actually believes that is a fucking putz. It's the fast food industry that's the main problem.

You are quite mistaken. Raising animals like cattle by letting them graze grass on the land is indeed very easy on the environment. But razing rain forest to plant soybeans that get sprayed with chemicals that run off and pollute rivers and oceans (ie: factory farming), causes a great deal of environmental impact.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

http://ecowatch.com/2013/01/21/factory- ... l-warming/

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html

The fast food industry is bad for our health, and is a whole other thread.

I think you may have missed the point. By severely restricting the number of fast food dumps, the need to clear cut rain forests to service the industry would be diminished. It's the rise of the fast food dumps that is responsible for most of the problem. Hell, it wasn't really very long ago that most of our beef cattle was pasture fed.
Even those shitty Ponderosa Restaurant steaks had more flavor than the steaks one gets in the grocery stores these days.

As to how the fast food industry is the primary driver of rain forest razing, growing up in Windsor with a population of 200,000, in 1980 there were 2 McD's, 2 BKs, a Wendy's, a Harvey's and one DQ brazier. That's a total of 7
With the population numbers pretty much the same today, the number of franchised fast food dumps has grown to 19. 3 McD's, 3 BKs, 3 Wendy's, 3 Harvey's, 3 A&Ws, 3 Wimpys, but still just one DQ brazier.
That's not counting the independent, non-franchised fast food places either. So, 35 years ago there was one franchised fast food dump for every 28,500 population. Today it's one for every 10,500 population. And those numbers seem fairly consistent in other cities of similar size.
Oshawa had a handful of fast food dumps 35 years ago. Basically 1 McD's, one BK, and 1 Harvey's. Wendy's showed up a few years later. Today, there are 21 franchised fast food dumps in Oshawa, which equates to one for every 7000 population. 35 years ago it was one for every 39,000 population.