Study finds vegetarian diets may actually be worse for the environment
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »_nicolemarie_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »_nicolemarie_ wrote: »While I agree with almost all of what you said, I don't know where you're getting that crops take up more space then animals?
All of this depends on the type of farming being done, but I suspect the point is that animals can be raised on land that is not suited for farming and can be grazed there also. (And if they are grazed and not grain-fed, no need to grow grains for them to eat.)
(I disagree with other bits of it, like that keto is one of the most-admired diets, but there are enough keto threads.)
I don't actually think the article should have provoked a vegetarian vs. meat-eater debate, as if you look at it (I quoted some of it above), it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
I suppose, but I'm not quite sure how an animal can graze on land unsuitable for crops? They'd need something to graze on.
Grass. This is common in the western US (including western mid-west, like parts of Nebraska, where some of my family is from), for example, where much of the area is more suited to ranching than farming (water being one reason why).Mind you, I am talking about large factory farming operations because that is what is being used for the majority of meat production.
Why focus just on this?I think it was more the comments on the first page (and the little bit of an over-reaction from someone) which sparked the meat vs vegetarian debate. Some people are a little more sensitive. I'm more interested in the sustainability of it.
It's about growing vegetables, not vegetarianism itself.
I'm focusing on factory farming because it's the primary form of meat production right now. Yes, there are some awesome, sustainable farms, but they are not the norm, and they are generally only servicing very small populations of people. There's also not enough land to run enough farms that way and supply meat in the quantities people are consuming meat right now.
And in terms of grazing, that's fair, I concede to that point.0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »
A couple of quotes:It wasn't a "belittling" of vegetarians. You just perceived it that way.
"You'd be hostile, too, if you were vitamin B, and iron deficient. Imagine seeing everyone eating delicious food and you're there with your couscous and tabouli smoothie. Hostility."
"You'd be hostile, too, if you could only eat rabbit food."
My perceptions are just fine, thank you. Now how about some even-handed moderating from you ?
You called it a troll thread. Neither of the statements you quote were made by the OP. As Niner said, the OP was not belittling vegetarians.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »Now the really funny part?
The diet parts of vegetarianism that increase emissions (eating more broccoli, vegetables, etc) is what healthy vegetarians do.
The diet parts that decrease emissions (eating mostly grains) is what trenditarian vegetarians tend to do.
The balance of most vegetarian diets will probably favor lowered emissions overall. The people trying to eat like they're a fruit bat on 80/10/10 plans probably aren't doing the world any favors.
It is also worth considering that for anyone already at a proper, healthy weight, the advice of getting more exercise will also increase greenhouse emissions as they'll have to eat back calories for that exercise. Unless maybe the exercise is bike or jog to work, than maybe they're coming out ahead.
Heads your health wins, tails the planet's health wins.
Never care for these scenarios that make you feel there's no winning.
I had to laugh at the bolded :laugh: I hadn't thought of it like that :laugh:
Have not heard of Freelee the Banana Girl and DurianRider, two of the world's most annoying raw vegans? They've espoused some down right bad advice - like dietary induced amenorrhea is a sign of toxins leaving the body - that gives vegans and vegetarians a bad name.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »Now the really funny part?
The diet parts of vegetarianism that increase emissions (eating more broccoli, vegetables, etc) is what healthy vegetarians do.
The diet parts that decrease emissions (eating mostly grains) is what trenditarian vegetarians tend to do.
The balance of most vegetarian diets will probably favor lowered emissions overall. The people trying to eat like they're a fruit bat on 80/10/10 plans probably aren't doing the world any favors.
It is also worth considering that for anyone already at a proper, healthy weight, the advice of getting more exercise will also increase greenhouse emissions as they'll have to eat back calories for that exercise. Unless maybe the exercise is bike or jog to work, than maybe they're coming out ahead.
Heads your health wins, tails the planet's health wins.
Never care for these scenarios that make you feel there's no winning.
I had to laugh at the bolded :laugh: I hadn't thought of it like that :laugh:
Have not heard of Freelee the Banana Girl and DurianRider, two of the world's most annoying raw vegans? They've espoused some down right bad advice - like dietary induced amenorrhea is a sign of toxins leaving the body - that gives vegans and vegetarians a bad name.
I have heard of the Banana Girl and agree, they give vegans and vegetarians a bad rep. But I hadn't thought of (or heard of) the 80/10/10 thing as trying to eat like a fruit bat. Now I'm going to have that image pop in my head every time I hear/read about it.0 -
I wrote earlier:lemurcat12 wrote: »it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
The general ecological argument, which IS true, is that the foods grown and fed to animals are much better utilized as direct foods to humanity. For example, eat corn rather than feeding it to animals that are later butchered. Less misery and much more environmentally sound. I've calculated the conversion efficiency of grains to consumable animal products before; if memory serves me it is ~ 1:7.
Comparing lettuce or broccoli to animal products is a straw man. Diets that substitute plants for animal products typically do so with beans, legumes, soya and grains. These meat substitutes are vastly more sustainable, ecological, and rational in a world beleaguered by starvation and climate change.
The differences are not subtle. This conversation is just sad that it is not obvious from even casual inspection of the facts and a little thought that an industry of food animals is ridiculous from an environmental standpoint. This link says that 97% of beef sold as food in the US goes through feedlots. So the canard about using otherwise wasted land is a rounding error that can and should be ignored. Not only is it rare overall, but it presumes that the land cannot be used for anything else.0 -
i feel dumber after reading this thread and the article
thanks mfp0 -
_nicolemarie_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »_nicolemarie_ wrote: »While I agree with almost all of what you said, I don't know where you're getting that crops take up more space then animals?
All of this depends on the type of farming being done, but I suspect the point is that animals can be raised on land that is not suited for farming and can be grazed there also. (And if they are grazed and not grain-fed, no need to grow grains for them to eat.)
(I disagree with other bits of it, like that keto is one of the most-admired diets, but there are enough keto threads.)
I don't actually think the article should have provoked a vegetarian vs. meat-eater debate, as if you look at it (I quoted some of it above), it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
I suppose, but I'm not quite sure how an animal can graze on land unsuitable for crops? They'd need something to graze on. Not too mention, they graze far more than what is going to be grown in a sustainable way, they'll need to expand the grazing area because they'll eventually run down the land they are currently grazing on, making it completely unsuitable for growth after they're finished on it. Mind you, I am talking about large factory farming operations because that is what is being used for the majority of meat production. I have no issues with sustainable, responsible farming, but the amount of space that would need is just not a possibility for the current amount of meat being consumed.
I think it was more the comments on the first page (and the little bit of an over-reaction from someone) which sparked the meat vs vegetarian debate. Some people are a little more sensitive. I'm more interested in the sustainability of it.
Grass and most plants considered weeds can grow pretty much anywhere. The cracks on my balcony tiles are proof of that. Crops not so much.0 -
I've heard the term fruitbat used as slang for 80/10/10 / Raw Vegans several times, but then again, I've probably watched too much of YouTube fitness from when I started getting in better shape.PikaKnight wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »Now the really funny part?
The diet parts of vegetarianism that increase emissions (eating more broccoli, vegetables, etc) is what healthy vegetarians do.
The diet parts that decrease emissions (eating mostly grains) is what trenditarian vegetarians tend to do.
The balance of most vegetarian diets will probably favor lowered emissions overall. The people trying to eat like they're a fruit bat on 80/10/10 plans probably aren't doing the world any favors.
It is also worth considering that for anyone already at a proper, healthy weight, the advice of getting more exercise will also increase greenhouse emissions as they'll have to eat back calories for that exercise. Unless maybe the exercise is bike or jog to work, than maybe they're coming out ahead.
Heads your health wins, tails the planet's health wins.
Never care for these scenarios that make you feel there's no winning.
I had to laugh at the bolded :laugh: I hadn't thought of it like that :laugh:
Have not heard of Freelee the Banana Girl and DurianRider, two of the world's most annoying raw vegans? They've espoused some down right bad advice - like dietary induced amenorrhea is a sign of toxins leaving the body - that gives vegans and vegetarians a bad name.
I have heard of the Banana Girl and agree, they give vegans and vegetarians a bad rep. But I hadn't thought of (or heard of) the 80/10/10 thing as trying to eat like a fruit bat. Now I'm going to have that image pop in my head every time I hear/read about it.0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »
I wrote earlier:lemurcat12 wrote: »it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
The general ecological argument, which IS true, is that the foods grown and fed to animals are much better utilized as direct foods to humanity. For example, eat corn rather than feeding it to animals that are later butchered. Less misery and much more environmentally sound. I've calculated the conversion efficiency of grains to consumable animal products before; if memory serves me it is ~ 1:7.
Comparing lettuce or broccoli to animal products is a straw man. Diets that substitute plants for animal products typically do so with beans, legumes, soya and grains. These meat substitutes are vastly more sustainable, ecological, and rational in a world beleaguered by starvation and climate change.
It's not a straw man. It's what the study and piece linked were about: the cost of eating more like our dietary recommendations, more vegetables and fruit (and fish!, obviously not vegetarian) vs. meat and starches too.
To frame it as about vegetarianism vs. meat eating is the straw man, and was a fault in the way the article was initially framed and how the discussion progressed here.
As I quoted before:The researchers acknowledge that their findings may be somewhat surprising in light of the zeitgeist over meat's impact. "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," they write in Environment Systems & Decisions....
Inevitably, producing far greater amounts of foods like broccoli to compensate for the calories lost from meat and other high-energy food sources involves larger amounts of energy, water and emissions than any simple kilo-for-kilo comparison of environmental footprint allows. Take a look at the graphic here to see how the impact of foods is reordered when they're ranked by calorie content as opposed to by weight....
Update: The researchers did not find that vegetarians or vegetarianism are harmful to the environment, or that producing vegetables is more harmful to the environment than producing meat.
What they found, in light of the data they examined, is that producing some vegetables and other foods results in high use of natural resources – and that eating more of those foods (as recommended for health by the USDA) in two particular scenarios results in higher energy use, blue water footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
If you have issues with the conclusions in the actual study (which I have not read or formed any opinions on, except that it seemed quite different than what was being discussed here), I would be interested. Maybe I will actually read it myself.0 -
^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
Agricultural production eaten directly is a vastly more sustainable and efficient use of resources than turning those products into animals that people then eat. This should be obvious to the MFP group. Just ask any 'lifter' how many extra calories they consume for the extra Kg of muscle mass.
The attempt to obscure the latter with the triviality of the former is a straw man argument. I'm fairly sure that spices could be argued the same way. Before you say that spices are not recommended in the food pyramid, the point is that neither are substantial daily caloric intake.
So for the last time I will say the obvious:
Vegetarianism is environmental because it removes extremely inefficient conversion processes in the middle -- aka "meat animals."
Vegetarianism does not preclude the possibility of growing a resource intensive crop*.
These two ideas are connected only in the minds of trolls, the intellectually challenged, and those with an agenda.
*although feeding it to a pig is the same environmental insanity that agribusiness animal consumption in general implies.0 -
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eatAnimal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.
Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)
Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed.
Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future."
So, what does MFP do ? Why, use lettuce as a rallying cry against vegetarianism, of course.0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eatAnimal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.
Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)
Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed.
Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future."
So, what does MFP do ? Why use lettuce as a rallying cry against vegetarianism, of course.
Rally cry?
Really?
Don't you think that might be a slight exaggeration of this thread?0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
Agricultural production eaten directly is a vastly more sustainable and efficient use of resources than turning those products into animals that people then eat. This should be obvious to the MFP group. Just ask any 'lifter' how many extra calories they consume for the extra Kg of muscle mass.
The attempt to obscure the latter with the triviality of the former is a straw man argument. I'm fairly sure that spices could be argued the same way. Before you say that spices are not recommended in the food pyramid, the point is that neither are substantial daily caloric intake.
So for the last time I will say the obvious:
Vegetarianism is environmental because it removes extremely inefficient conversion processes in the middle -- aka "meat animals."
Vegetarianism does not preclude the possibility of growing a resource intensive crop*.
These two ideas are connected only in the minds of trolls, the intellectually challenged, and those with an agenda.
*although feeding it to a pig is the same environmental insanity that agribusiness animal consumption in general implies.
The missing link in your diatribe is how inefficient it is to feed humans on a strict vegetarian diet. As a large active male, i need to eat a substantial amount of calories per day along with an equally substantial amount of protein. That pig you be hating on converted it's food into something that gets me to my calorie and protein goal much more quickly and efficiently. And it's goddamn delicious to boot.
0 -
Down with vegetarianism! #carnivorz4lyfe
Seriously, though, I don't actually think anyone around here is truly anti-vegetarianism. You don't think you're being a wee bit over the top?0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
Agricultural production eaten directly is a vastly more sustainable and efficient use of resources than turning those products into animals that people then eat. This should be obvious to the MFP group. Just ask any 'lifter' how many extra calories they consume for the extra Kg of muscle mass.
The attempt to obscure the latter with the triviality of the former is a straw man argument. I'm fairly sure that spices could be argued the same way. Before you say that spices are not recommended in the food pyramid, the point is that neither are substantial daily caloric intake.
So for the last time I will say the obvious:
Vegetarianism is environmental because it removes extremely inefficient conversion processes in the middle -- aka "meat animals."
Vegetarianism does not preclude the possibility of growing a resource intensive crop*.
These two ideas are connected only in the minds of trolls, the intellectually challenged, and those with an agenda.
*although feeding it to a pig is the same environmental insanity that agribusiness animal consumption in general implies.
Wow. Talk about belittling...0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »ericGold15 wrote: »^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
Agricultural production eaten directly is a vastly more sustainable and efficient use of resources than turning those products into animals that people then eat. This should be obvious to the MFP group. Just ask any 'lifter' how many extra calories they consume for the extra Kg of muscle mass.
The attempt to obscure the latter with the triviality of the former is a straw man argument. I'm fairly sure that spices could be argued the same way. Before you say that spices are not recommended in the food pyramid, the point is that neither are substantial daily caloric intake.
So for the last time I will say the obvious:
Vegetarianism is environmental because it removes extremely inefficient conversion processes in the middle -- aka "meat animals."
Vegetarianism does not preclude the possibility of growing a resource intensive crop*.
These two ideas are connected only in the minds of trolls, the intellectually challenged, and those with an agenda.
*although feeding it to a pig is the same environmental insanity that agribusiness animal consumption in general implies.
Wow. Talk about belittling...
Christmas card list is getting smaller....
0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
Obviously.
As I keep saying, none of this has anything to do with a vegetarian diet, in reality. The study seems to be about the cost of changing our overall diets to something more similar to that recommended by the gov't, among others.0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eatAnimal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.
Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)
Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed.
Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future."
So, what does MFP do ? Why, use lettuce as a rallying cry against vegetarianism, of course.
How is MFP acting collectively here?
For the record, I'm not rallying against vegetarianism. That would be dumb.
If you like, the current study seems not dissimilar to the discussion over whether it was wrong to make grains the base of the food pyramid, since it would make more sense nutritionally to put vegetables there. The response is that vegetables are too costly to make the base, especially since they are so low cal. The study here seems to be saying they are also too environmentally costly due to being resource intensive.
Yes, the article and then the beginning of this thread framed it badly, but you are arguing against something different.
Also, of course, you can raise many animals without feeding them grain.0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »Agricultural production eaten directly is a vastly more sustainable and efficient use of resources than turning those products into animals that people then eat. This should be obvious to the MFP group. Just ask any 'lifter' how many extra calories they consume for the extra Kg of muscle mass.
Well, there are a few things to consider:
1. Animal feed typically is lower grade grains, not the same quality that is used for human consumption. If we were going to directly feed these to humans, we'd have to accept an overall lower average quality of food.
2. While it's true animals require more energy to produce their meat than can be extracted from the meat, there is one big difference - animals can get different amounts of calories from foods than humans, particularly ruminants which can digest cellulose and other plant fibers. So animals can take plant products that would be calorie-poor to humans and extract far more calories than we could. For example, they can eat wheat chaff and gain calories from it, while to humans it would be essentially indigestible.
0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »
I wrote earlier:lemurcat12 wrote: »it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
The general ecological argument, which IS true, is that the foods grown and fed to animals are much better utilized as direct foods to humanity. For example, eat corn rather than feeding it to animals that are later butchered. Less misery and much more environmentally sound. I've calculated the conversion efficiency of grains to consumable animal products before; if memory serves me it is ~ 1:7.
Comparing lettuce or broccoli to animal products is a straw man. Diets that substitute plants for animal products typically do so with beans, legumes, soya and grains. These meat substitutes are vastly more sustainable, ecological, and rational in a world beleaguered by starvation and climate change.
The differences are not subtle. This conversation is just sad that it is not obvious from even casual inspection of the facts and a little thought that an industry of food animals is ridiculous from an environmental standpoint. This link says that 97% of beef sold as food in the US goes through feedlots. So the canard about using otherwise wasted land is a rounding error that can and should be ignored. Not only is it rare overall, but it presumes that the land cannot be used for anything else.
Lol. You obviously know little about corn - the corn feed to animals is not edible corn for humans - when cooked it remains very hard and results in nutrient poor consumption; we don't digest it well.0 -
To the extent that the government recommendations say less animal products, they can be loosely called 'more vegetarian.'lemurcat12 wrote: »ericGold15 wrote: »^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
As I keep saying, none of this has anything to do with a vegetarian diet, in reality. The study seems to be about the cost of changing our overall diets to something more similar to that recommended by the gov't, among others.
However, this 'more vegetarian' approach does not mean grow more broccoli to eat more broccoli, it means eat more grains, beans, lentils and soya products. The same products that are now being diverted to the animal parts business and returning about 14% of their nutritional value to the food supply.
Please read the Pimental article I linked to above. Good data0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »
To the extent that the government recommendations say less animal products, they can be loosely called 'more vegetarian.'lemurcat12 wrote: »ericGold15 wrote: »^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
As I keep saying, none of this has anything to do with a vegetarian diet, in reality. The study seems to be about the cost of changing our overall diets to something more similar to that recommended by the gov't, among others.
That seems silly to me. I buy into the reduce meat camp. But I'm not vegetarian at all, which I consider about ethics (my own ethical issues have been resolved based on ethical sourcing, many vegetarians and vegans I know think that's nonsense, we agree to disagree).
The issue for the sake of this study is that gov't recommendations (and how I personally like to eat, so I'm interested) is lots more veg, more fruit, more fish.However, this 'more vegetarian' approach does not mean grow more broccoli to eat more broccoli, it means eat more grains, beans, lentils and soya products. The same products that are now being diverted to the animal parts business and returning about 14% of their nutritional value to the food supply.
Again, this is not what the study is about.0 -
Are you under the impression that Govt reccs are to eat a large fraction of your daily calories from leafy vegetables ?
Have a look at the Govt pyramid. They are advocating less "red meat" animal products. Substitution of the lost calories and protein is from the staples I mentioned, chicken and fish. They also advocate for vegetables because the American diet is so poor but that (calorie wise) is a small fraction.
The Fruit advocacy is a bit of political correctness. After all, how else can they possibly hope to wean kids off cookies and candy ?
Addendum: This is the USDA guideline. They say that the vegetarian version of the USDA food patterns, and the DASH diet are two examples that conforms to the guideline.
---
• Increase vegetable and fruit intake.
• Eat a variety of vegetables, especially dark-green
and red and orange vegetables and beans and peas.
• Consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. Increase whole-grain intake by replacing refined grains with whole grains.
• Increase intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese, or fortified soy beverages.6
• Choose a variety of protein foods, which include seafood, lean meat and poultry, eggs, beans and peas, soy products, and unsalted nuts and seeds.
• Increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry.
• Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils.
• Use oils to replace solid fats where possible.
• Choose foods that provide more potassium,
dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D, which are nutrients of concern in American diets. These foods include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and milk and milk products.
0 -
Table 3 is the US recommended diet for Vegetarians or the so-called Med diet.
Compared to the recommended regulator US diet, the main change is a substitution of red meats by soya.
Not broccoli. Soy
How is this germane to the environmental footprint ? Because the Soya products are being eaten directly by the person, rather than losing some 85% of the their embodied nutritional value when passed through an animal products chain.
I don't know how to explain this any clearer.0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »Are you under the impression that Govt reccs are to eat a large fraction of your daily calories from leafy vegetables ?
The study is not about that. It is largely about the cost if people were to eat the recommended servings of fruit and veg, which most people in the US do not do. (And for the record, I think they should, and don't consider this study a reason not to do so myself -- I like to eat more than the recommended amount of non starchy veg and don't plan to stop.)
Again:Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) say that adopting the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) current recommendations that people incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood in their diet would actually be worse for the environment than what Americans currently eat.
And from the abstract: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.
I've said several times now that not having read the study I don't have an opinion on its methodology or conclusions, but it would be nice if people would stop pretending like it said something that it does not.
I am quite aware of the gov't recommendations. Your need to argue with things people are not saying is becoming tiresome.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ericGold15 wrote: »
I wrote earlier:lemurcat12 wrote: »it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
The general ecological argument, which IS true, is that the foods grown and fed to animals are much better utilized as direct foods to humanity. For example, eat corn rather than feeding it to animals that are later butchered. Less misery and much more environmentally sound. I've calculated the conversion efficiency of grains to consumable animal products before; if memory serves me it is ~ 1:7.
Comparing lettuce or broccoli to animal products is a straw man. Diets that substitute plants for animal products typically do so with beans, legumes, soya and grains. These meat substitutes are vastly more sustainable, ecological, and rational in a world beleaguered by starvation and climate change.
It's not a straw man. It's what the study and piece linked were about: the cost of eating more like our dietary recommendations, more vegetables and fruit (and fish!, obviously not vegetarian) vs. meat and starches too.
To frame it as about vegetarianism vs. meat eating is the straw man, and was a fault in the way the article was initially framed and how the discussion progressed here.
As I quoted before:The researchers acknowledge that their findings may be somewhat surprising in light of the zeitgeist over meat's impact. "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," they write in Environment Systems & Decisions....
Inevitably, producing far greater amounts of foods like broccoli to compensate for the calories lost from meat and other high-energy food sources involves larger amounts of energy, water and emissions than any simple kilo-for-kilo comparison of environmental footprint allows. Take a look at the graphic here to see how the impact of foods is reordered when they're ranked by calorie content as opposed to by weight....
Update: The researchers did not find that vegetarians or vegetarianism are harmful to the environment, or that producing vegetables is more harmful to the environment than producing meat.
What they found, in light of the data they examined, is that producing some vegetables and other foods results in high use of natural resources – and that eating more of those foods (as recommended for health by the USDA) in two particular scenarios results in higher energy use, blue water footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
If you have issues with the conclusions in the actual study (which I have not read or formed any opinions on, except that it seemed quite different than what was being discussed here), I would be interested. Maybe I will actually read it myself.
Well, while I'm not as up to date with what Eric is arguing in this thread, I'm a little confused by this study.
Can anyone clarify for me why they feel this was anything to take seriously when they had people replacing a protein source with broccoli and based the comparisons on caloric content rather than direct nutrient content?
Vegetarians don't eat broccoli instead of beef. Vegetarians eat beans or soy or eggs instead of beef.
The study was meaningless, and the update sort of paid lip service to that.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ericGold15 wrote: »
I wrote earlier:lemurcat12 wrote: »it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
The general ecological argument, which IS true, is that the foods grown and fed to animals are much better utilized as direct foods to humanity. For example, eat corn rather than feeding it to animals that are later butchered. Less misery and much more environmentally sound. I've calculated the conversion efficiency of grains to consumable animal products before; if memory serves me it is ~ 1:7.
Comparing lettuce or broccoli to animal products is a straw man. Diets that substitute plants for animal products typically do so with beans, legumes, soya and grains. These meat substitutes are vastly more sustainable, ecological, and rational in a world beleaguered by starvation and climate change.
It's not a straw man. It's what the study and piece linked were about: the cost of eating more like our dietary recommendations, more vegetables and fruit (and fish!, obviously not vegetarian) vs. meat and starches too.
To frame it as about vegetarianism vs. meat eating is the straw man, and was a fault in the way the article was initially framed and how the discussion progressed here.
As I quoted before:The researchers acknowledge that their findings may be somewhat surprising in light of the zeitgeist over meat's impact. "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," they write in Environment Systems & Decisions....
Inevitably, producing far greater amounts of foods like broccoli to compensate for the calories lost from meat and other high-energy food sources involves larger amounts of energy, water and emissions than any simple kilo-for-kilo comparison of environmental footprint allows. Take a look at the graphic here to see how the impact of foods is reordered when they're ranked by calorie content as opposed to by weight....
Update: The researchers did not find that vegetarians or vegetarianism are harmful to the environment, or that producing vegetables is more harmful to the environment than producing meat.
What they found, in light of the data they examined, is that producing some vegetables and other foods results in high use of natural resources – and that eating more of those foods (as recommended for health by the USDA) in two particular scenarios results in higher energy use, blue water footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
If you have issues with the conclusions in the actual study (which I have not read or formed any opinions on, except that it seemed quite different than what was being discussed here), I would be interested. Maybe I will actually read it myself.
Well, while I'm not as up to date with what Eric is arguing in this thread, I'm a little confused by this study.
Can anyone clarify for me why they feel this was anything to take seriously when they had people replacing a protein source with broccoli and based the comparisons on caloric content rather than direct nutrient content?
Vegetarians don't eat broccoli instead of beef. Vegetarians eat beans or soy or eggs instead of beef.
The study was meaningless, and the update sort of paid lip service to that.
You're just trying to distract us so you can steal our souls...0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ericGold15 wrote: »
I wrote earlier:lemurcat12 wrote: »it is talking about the environmental cost of producing the types of foods that we are all recommended to eat more of -- meat-eaters as well as vegetarians.
The general ecological argument, which IS true, is that the foods grown and fed to animals are much better utilized as direct foods to humanity. For example, eat corn rather than feeding it to animals that are later butchered. Less misery and much more environmentally sound. I've calculated the conversion efficiency of grains to consumable animal products before; if memory serves me it is ~ 1:7.
Comparing lettuce or broccoli to animal products is a straw man. Diets that substitute plants for animal products typically do so with beans, legumes, soya and grains. These meat substitutes are vastly more sustainable, ecological, and rational in a world beleaguered by starvation and climate change.
It's not a straw man. It's what the study and piece linked were about: the cost of eating more like our dietary recommendations, more vegetables and fruit (and fish!, obviously not vegetarian) vs. meat and starches too.
To frame it as about vegetarianism vs. meat eating is the straw man, and was a fault in the way the article was initially framed and how the discussion progressed here.
As I quoted before:The researchers acknowledge that their findings may be somewhat surprising in light of the zeitgeist over meat's impact. "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," they write in Environment Systems & Decisions....
Inevitably, producing far greater amounts of foods like broccoli to compensate for the calories lost from meat and other high-energy food sources involves larger amounts of energy, water and emissions than any simple kilo-for-kilo comparison of environmental footprint allows. Take a look at the graphic here to see how the impact of foods is reordered when they're ranked by calorie content as opposed to by weight....
Update: The researchers did not find that vegetarians or vegetarianism are harmful to the environment, or that producing vegetables is more harmful to the environment than producing meat.
What they found, in light of the data they examined, is that producing some vegetables and other foods results in high use of natural resources – and that eating more of those foods (as recommended for health by the USDA) in two particular scenarios results in higher energy use, blue water footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
If you have issues with the conclusions in the actual study (which I have not read or formed any opinions on, except that it seemed quite different than what was being discussed here), I would be interested. Maybe I will actually read it myself.
Well, while I'm not as up to date with what Eric is arguing in this thread, I'm a little confused by this study.
Can anyone clarify for me why they feel this was anything to take seriously when they had people replacing a protein source with broccoli and based the comparisons on caloric content rather than direct nutrient content?
Vegetarians don't eat broccoli instead of beef. Vegetarians eat beans or soy or eggs instead of beef.
The study was meaningless, and the update sort of paid lip service to that.
You're just trying to distract us so you can steal our souls...
I only do that at night. I need a new day time hobby. I'm thinking of taking up tap dancing.0 -
Correct.lemurcat12 wrote: »Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) say that adopting the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) current recommendations that people incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood in their diet would actually be worse for the environment than what Americans currently eat.
And now for last time I am telling you that the main WEIGHTED change by daily calories in the Govt recommendation is in the substitution of red meats by plants eaten directly rather than processed through animals, which carries a very strong environmental advantage. Broccoli may (and I emphasize MAY, depending on assumptions) have a bigger GHG footprint than red meat, but the extra portion is mostly irrelevant to the blurb I wish to debunk, that a vegetarian or vegetarian lite or DASH or USDA for vegetarian diet has a larger GHG footprint than the current, "typical" US diet. If you do not understand my use of WEIGHTED change let me know and I will either explain it or send you to a site for an explanation.
If you find me tiresome, just imagine how I feel trying to explain the obvious to you some five times over. I'll quote PeachyCarol for you in case that will help youVegetarians don't eat broccoli instead of beef. Vegetarians eat beans or soy or eggs instead of beef.
Disclaimer: I imagine that if the CMU GHG footprint data is accepted and a theoretical vegetarian that eats only broccoli is considered, the blog headline would be true.
Now, back to the real world.
Addendum: The Weighted Average. Perhaps (hopefully) with this idea under your belt we can stop cross-talking.
0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »^^ You will pay ~$40 for the privilege.
Lettuce and broccoli is resource intensive. It is also a small fraction of the daily calories of a vegetarian diet.
Agricultural production eaten directly is a vastly more sustainable and efficient use of resources than turning those products into animals that people then eat. This should be obvious to the MFP group. Just ask any 'lifter' how many extra calories they consume for the extra Kg of muscle mass.
The attempt to obscure the latter with the triviality of the former is a straw man argument. I'm fairly sure that spices could be argued the same way. Before you say that spices are not recommended in the food pyramid, the point is that neither are substantial daily caloric intake.
So for the last time I will say the obvious:
Vegetarianism is environmental because it removes extremely inefficient conversion processes in the middle -- aka "meat animals."
Vegetarianism does not preclude the possibility of growing a resource intensive crop*.
These two ideas are connected only in the minds of trolls, the intellectually challenged, and those with an agenda.
*although feeding it to a pig is the same environmental insanity that agribusiness animal consumption in general implies.
Complaining of strawman while calling other people insane or intellectually challenged for pointing out that veganism isn't the most efficient use of all surface areas or even arable surfaces of the Earth is
1. Ableist - it is kind backwards to be worried about animals to such an extent that you want to denigrate the intrinsic human worth of people by using mental illness and mental disability as insult
2. Ad hominem - you're trying to claim your opponents wrongness is based in the above, when
3. You're wrong - it is demonstrable that using some land for animal based food production is more environmentally efficient. It isn't say that going more vegetarian and vegan won't be environmentally beneficial in most cases, but merely that going 100% isn't actually the most efficient use of the world's resources.
4. Hypocritical - because you're making straw-men yourself if you're going to say they're wrong based solely on comparing a purely vegan diet to purely the current world diet, when their arguments address a purely vegan diet as not always being efficient at providing calories for all land areas.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions