Netflix Documentary "What the Health" by Kip Andersen
Options
Replies
-
TravisJHunt wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My "save the animals" argument has always been:
How many animals and trees die in order to plant vast food crops over huge areas of land? Never mind the pesticides which mess up the ecosystem in general, but how about all the ground dwelling creatures that are killed by modern farm machines and lack of habitat? I don't think anyones' hands are clean. If we eat, other things die to make that happen. We were given dominion over the animals of the earth. It's not a pretty story - but then humans are pretty awful in general.
I just want to point out that it's actually significantly better for the environment to consume crops than to consume animals. Especially beef which also releases a significant amount of methane in our atmosphere.
I know you want to have a world-view that opposes that, but it just makes sense that growing animals is less efficient than growing crops. You have to have land for animals to live on, you have to feed and water animals food and water... we could be eating.
I think it's important (not from an ethical view point but from a logical one) to atleast reduce red-meat consumption as far as the environment is concerned along with doing everything we can to fight for legislation that falls in line with renewable energy, less fossil fuel based transportation, less waste and fresh water in agriculture and industrial sectors, less fracking or polluting of fresh water sources, recycling when possible, reducing our ac/heating when not necessary, and reducing the purchasing of certain items (like plastic water bottles) which are disposable.
We weren't given dominion over the planet, and at some point we're more than likely going to have to reap some serious consequences for our actions.
Actually no, this is one of the biggest myths for Vegan argument. One major error even with the whole Vegan is better for the environment is that most studies that have compared have compared this to the effect of the amount of food produced by size. So the cost to the environment to make one bushel of beef, vs one bushel of broccoli. Problem here is that you are going to get a lot calories and energy from one bushel of beef vs one bushel of broccoli. Once these studies looked at for example, the amount of harm to the environment if you compare at the actual diet level (the amount of food needed to be consumed equally) it was often found that it would be worse if we all switched to Vegan for the environment. You need a lot more food to satisfy calorie needs for a Vegan diet than many other diets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetarian-meat-bad-for-environment/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html
Just a few links.
Also, doesn't this assume that all vegans would be choosing broccoli to replace beef? It would be more accurate to compare a more calorie-dense vegan food. Vegetables like broccoli aren't a major calorie source for most vegans, it would be more accurate to compare to a food like a cereal grain or a bean. By comparing a higher calorie food to a lower calorie one, you're virtually guaranteeing that veganism looks like it will require more land to feed people. The reality is that many vegans eat broccoli the way non-vegans do, alongside more calorie-dense foods.
It was a simple example, sorry you must either be a troll or a Vegan. The point was simply as almost every study that has been done has shown if not cheery picked for answers, that switching our diet to Vegan across the world is not going to have the humongous savings to the environment that Vegan's like to argue. There are both good meats and good plant based products. To blindly say one is better than the other is ignorant.
I have no idea what in my answer struck you as trollish. And my status as a vegan or non-vegan is irrelevant -- either your claims are truthful or they are not.
If you don't like this simple example (the one you provided), you can provide a different one and we can discuss that.
I don't think the "beef versus broccoli" example stands up, for the reasons that I shared above. I'm not "blindly" stating anything, I'm pointing out the flaws in the example. If you have another scenario you'd like to discuss, we can discuss that one.1 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My "save the animals" argument has always been:
How many animals and trees die in order to plant vast food crops over huge areas of land? Never mind the pesticides which mess up the ecosystem in general, but how about all the ground dwelling creatures that are killed by modern farm machines and lack of habitat? I don't think anyones' hands are clean. If we eat, other things die to make that happen. We were given dominion over the animals of the earth. It's not a pretty story - but then humans are pretty awful in general.
I just want to point out that it's actually significantly better for the environment to consume crops than to consume animals. Especially beef which also releases a significant amount of methane in our atmosphere.
I know you want to have a world-view that opposes that, but it just makes sense that growing animals is less efficient than growing crops. You have to have land for animals to live on, you have to feed and water animals food and water... we could be eating.
I think it's important (not from an ethical view point but from a logical one) to atleast reduce red-meat consumption as far as the environment is concerned along with doing everything we can to fight for legislation that falls in line with renewable energy, less fossil fuel based transportation, less waste and fresh water in agriculture and industrial sectors, less fracking or polluting of fresh water sources, recycling when possible, reducing our ac/heating when not necessary, and reducing the purchasing of certain items (like plastic water bottles) which are disposable.
We weren't given dominion over the planet, and at some point we're more than likely going to have to reap some serious consequences for our actions.
Actually no, this is one of the biggest myths for Vegan argument. One major error even with the whole Vegan is better for the environment is that most studies that have compared have compared this to the effect of the amount of food produced by size. So the cost to the environment to make one bushel of beef, vs one bushel of broccoli. Problem here is that you are going to get a lot calories and energy from one bushel of beef vs one bushel of broccoli. Once these studies looked at for example, the amount of harm to the environment if you compare at the actual diet level (the amount of food needed to be consumed equally) it was often found that it would be worse if we all switched to Vegan for the environment. You need a lot more food to satisfy calorie needs for a Vegan diet than many other diets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetarian-meat-bad-for-environment/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html
Just a few links.
But animals don't grow on nothing. It takes crops to create the meat, so you'd need to consider the total calories consumed per pound of beef to be accurate.
Actually be fully accurate you need to compare a whole whack of things, most of which as one study noted I read said that its not as simple to say either is good or bad. For example some foods or animals are meant to survive better in certain climates. So for example living in Canada where we get frozen grounds for 1/2 the year, surviving on a Vegan only diet means I need to have most of food shipped in during the winter months, where meats and dairy are available year round easily. The cost of bringing in for example beans for somewhere near the equator is huge, in terms of fossil fuels used, etc. So again, the argument one is better over the other blindly is incorrect. I've got nothing against Vegan diet, just don't say its better for the environment on the whole because that statement is false. Unless I eat grain which can be stored for the animals, but I'm not sure eating dried stored grain is a diet anyone would want to eat.
You don't eat grain? It's a staple food for people around the world. Your claim that people wouldn't want to eat it doesn't make sense. People in North America have access to more variety in their diets that almost anyone in history has ever had. The top two sources of calories in the US diet are both grain-based.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I saw it, plus a few other documentaries about veganism and plant based diet. On some message boards when people comment about people who choose to eat meat and dairy, there is like this intense hate and doom and gloom from the people who believe in the message from What the Health and such like that. however, in the past 3 weeks, I tried to go plant based, but I don't know what it was but I was plateauing. I had been eating two egg whites and Greek yogurt, and have less calories (since calories is THE way to lose weight); and also coffee creamer (which has the dreaded HFC in it but ONLY 1 calorie, vs the vegan way which packs on MORE calories. if I eat an oatmeal/nut/a little creamer it packs on 643 calories. So I have decided to go back to my way of dieting and even if it means I'm putting the awful "poison" in my body. I do not believe the miniscule amount of HFC in my coffee creamer and my eggs are gonna kill me. But it is hurting my weight loss progress to follow the veganism. So I watch it for interest but I have to make up my own mind.
There are many ways to eat low calorie as a vegan. Just because you chose vegan foods that were not lower calorie (or ate portions that put you over your calorie goals), it doesn't mean that veganism is inherently damaging to weight loss efforts.
It's like saying that non-vegan weight loss didn't work for me because I was eating a big pepperoni pizza for lunch each day. It wasn't non-veganism that failed, I just needed to choose a smaller portion or a different lunch.
i know how it happened. i was trying the mostly plant based diet and i'd eat vegetables or salad and i added calories with the butter or mayo. so yeah i know thats my choice.. but like my oatmeal breakfast, i'd have it with nuts, and some half and half, and it totalled more than my 2 boiled egg whites. so im going to go back to my eggs. yes i know i could eat oatmeal plain but it needs nuts and creamer in it. (for me that is).
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My "save the animals" argument has always been:
How many animals and trees die in order to plant vast food crops over huge areas of land? Never mind the pesticides which mess up the ecosystem in general, but how about all the ground dwelling creatures that are killed by modern farm machines and lack of habitat? I don't think anyones' hands are clean. If we eat, other things die to make that happen. We were given dominion over the animals of the earth. It's not a pretty story - but then humans are pretty awful in general.
I just want to point out that it's actually significantly better for the environment to consume crops than to consume animals. Especially beef which also releases a significant amount of methane in our atmosphere.
I know you want to have a world-view that opposes that, but it just makes sense that growing animals is less efficient than growing crops. You have to have land for animals to live on, you have to feed and water animals food and water... we could be eating.
I think it's important (not from an ethical view point but from a logical one) to atleast reduce red-meat consumption as far as the environment is concerned along with doing everything we can to fight for legislation that falls in line with renewable energy, less fossil fuel based transportation, less waste and fresh water in agriculture and industrial sectors, less fracking or polluting of fresh water sources, recycling when possible, reducing our ac/heating when not necessary, and reducing the purchasing of certain items (like plastic water bottles) which are disposable.
We weren't given dominion over the planet, and at some point we're more than likely going to have to reap some serious consequences for our actions.
Actually no, this is one of the biggest myths for Vegan argument. One major error even with the whole Vegan is better for the environment is that most studies that have compared have compared this to the effect of the amount of food produced by size. So the cost to the environment to make one bushel of beef, vs one bushel of broccoli. Problem here is that you are going to get a lot calories and energy from one bushel of beef vs one bushel of broccoli. Once these studies looked at for example, the amount of harm to the environment if you compare at the actual diet level (the amount of food needed to be consumed equally) it was often found that it would be worse if we all switched to Vegan for the environment. You need a lot more food to satisfy calorie needs for a Vegan diet than many other diets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetarian-meat-bad-for-environment/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html
Just a few links.
But animals don't grow on nothing. It takes crops to create the meat, so you'd need to consider the total calories consumed per pound of beef to be accurate.
The issue here is that it depends. A ruminant animal can eat things that humans can't. So if you aren't overgrazing and feeding native plants they can have very little impact. If it's a big feed lot operation it can have a very different impact.3 -
This popped up on my facebook the other day, for anyone who might be curious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skIGCoopR-g 3 -
I watched the beginning, then stopped and gave it a thumbs down.
I found the beginning full of hyperbole and he abused good science. He was constantly pushing correlation equals causation. For example his innuendo was if you eat any processed meat, you might as well as eat plutonium.2 -
I haven't watched it nor do I need to. I know the effects that not eating animal products has had on my body and I'm happy. Whatever other people do, does not in anyway concern me or matter to me at all.4
-
I'm asking here because I'm being lazy and not looking it up myself, but for the people who argue the world should go vegan (and I'm not saying anyone here says that, but I know they'reout there and you guys might be able to tell me) - what do they say will happen with all the existing animals? Because we'd need all that land to grow crops, right? And just letting them wander about would presumably result in a lot of crops getting destroyed/eaten etc. and presumably they'd keep breeding and I've seen what happens when large herds of kangaroos, for example, get into food crops.
I'm genuinely curious as to the proposed solution.1 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I'm asking here because I'm being lazy and not looking it up myself, but for the people who argue the world should go vegan (and I'm not saying anyone here says that, but I know they'reout there and you guys might be able to tell me) - what do they say will happen with all the existing animals? Because we'd need all that land to grow crops, right? And just letting them wander about would presumably result in a lot of crops getting destroyed/eaten etc. and presumably they'd keep breeding and I've seen what happens when large herds of kangaroos, for example, get into food crops.
I'm genuinely curious as to the proposed solution.
Also- what are we going to do to replace fertilizers derived from animal products? (Manure, oyster shell, blood meal, bone meal, fish emulsion...)0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I'm asking here because I'm being lazy and not looking it up myself, but for the people who argue the world should go vegan (and I'm not saying anyone here says that, but I know they'reout there and you guys might be able to tell me) - what do they say will happen with all the existing animals? Because we'd need all that land to grow crops, right? And just letting them wander about would presumably result in a lot of crops getting destroyed/eaten etc. and presumably they'd keep breeding and I've seen what happens when large herds of kangaroos, for example, get into food crops.
I'm genuinely curious as to the proposed solution.
Most of the animals humans eat are bred for consumption in mass without any thought given to population density. If we stopped breeding them, they wouldn't breed especially not at the mass numbers there are now.
Also, sure some loser SJW vegans go around telling everyone to be vegan because they have subpar sad lives but for me, I don't care what anyone else does ever. Through the principles of libertarianism I think people should do whatever it is they feel the liberty to want to do without me or big government infringing on their rights.
That being said, big government is infringing on your rights to eat locally sustainable high quality meat by subsidizing big meat manufacturers rather than local organic farms. You could be eating Kobe beef at decent prices but instead you are eating crappy stringy sad cows that need to be processed so heavily to even be decent enough to eat. The choice to eat meat or not eat meat is the same as the choice to smoke cigarettes, it's your choice.
1 -
Crappy stringy sad cows? I've never heard of a farmer or rancher who cared so little for their livelihood that they'd sell and breed crappy stringy sad cows. Me personally I don't want more organic farms, large or small. Too much land use, often smaller return, and have to use far more pesticides than their non-organic counterparts. As I understand it family farmers supply the vast majority, so I don't know who these 'big meat manufacturers' or 'farm factories' or 'corporate farms' are supposed to be, or where they exist. I keep finding family-run farms.4
-
fatvegan88 wrote: »I haven't watched it nor do I need to. I know the effects that not eating animal products has had on my body and I'm happy. Whatever other people do, does not in anyway concern me or matter to me at all.
Would you mind sharing what effects you've experienced by not eating meat? This is what I'm struggling with right now-switching to a mostly whole foods, plant based diet hasn't done anything feeling wise or health wise for me so far, and I'm trying to decide if it's worth continuing with. How long have you eaten this way?2 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »Crappy stringy sad cows? I've never heard of a farmer or rancher who cared so little for their livelihood that they'd sell and breed crappy stringy sad cows. Me personally I don't want more organic farms, large or small. Too much land use, often smaller return, and have to use far more pesticides than their non-organic counterparts. As I understand it family farmers supply the vast majority, so I don't know who these 'big meat manufacturers' or 'farm factories' or 'corporate farms' are supposed to be, or where they exist. I keep finding family-run farms.
Well I live in Canada so we do our own thing that's very socialist and ridiculous when it comes to meat but in the States you have Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef who all have a kill rate of at least 20,000 a day. I'm sure their slaughterhouses do tours, you should check them out.
I own a small little farm, I grow like 70 heads of lettuce and some other veggies and I don't use any pesticides because... that's what organic means. Also, before becoming a vegan we had goats and chickens and I slit their throats with my own hands as a child because that's what taking an animal's life is. No machines or stun guns just you, a knife and a lot of blood and suffering. No cute little styrofoam packages either just blood on your hands and warm organs. Our animals didn't suffer, they had great lives but it got to a point where I couldn't see taking their lives anymore for my consumption. It didn't make sense.
1 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »fatvegan88 wrote: »I haven't watched it nor do I need to. I know the effects that not eating animal products has had on my body and I'm happy. Whatever other people do, does not in anyway concern me or matter to me at all.
Would you mind sharing what effects you've experienced by not eating meat? This is what I'm struggling with right now-switching to a mostly whole foods, plant based diet hasn't done anything feeling wise or health wise for me so far, and I'm trying to decide if it's worth continuing with. How long have you eaten this way?
Well, I have terrible psoriasis and gluten free and low carb and all that stuff didn't work for me. I also have terrible digestion issues and not eating meat or dairy has helped a lot. My psoriasis is basically gone and I have no more stomach problems. I mean it's everyone's choice to eat meat or not if it works for you then it does.
1 -
It was a trainwreck! From the cigarettes in the frying pan to the comparisons to terrorism. I just can't do that sensationalized type of "stuff." They were all over the place. From the dairy farm, to the people that live by the pig slaughtering plant, to the medical associations, and all the quackery about diabetes. I was feeling guilty lf all the tuna packets I ate when I was pregnant.... 17 years ago! What a waste of my time.4
-
fatvegan88 wrote: »Well I live in Canada so we do our own thing that's very socialist and ridiculous when it comes to meat but in the States you have Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef who all have a kill rate of at least 20,000 a day. I'm sure their slaughterhouses do tours, you should check them out.
I own a small little farm, I grow like 70 heads of lettuce and some other veggies and I don't use any pesticides because... that's what organic means. Also, before becoming a vegan we had goats and chickens and I slit their throats with my own hands as a child because that's what taking an animal's life is. No machines or stun guns just you, a knife and a lot of blood and suffering. No cute little styrofoam packages either just blood on your hands and warm organs. Our animals didn't suffer, they had great lives but it got to a point where I couldn't see taking their lives anymore for my consumption. It didn't make sense.
I actually wouldn't mind those tours, but I'm also in Canada. Long trip. Also organic does not definitively mean pesticide-free. Small farms like yourself can probably afford to avoid them, many others cannot. The gov't has a list of all allowed organic pesticides allowed to be use in organic farming, and someone must obviously be buying them since there are companies who sell them.
I am genuinely curious about how the process is considered socialist and ridiculous though.
2 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »fatvegan88 wrote: »Well I live in Canada so we do our own thing that's very socialist and ridiculous when it comes to meat but in the States you have Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef who all have a kill rate of at least 20,000 a day. I'm sure their slaughterhouses do tours, you should check them out.
I own a small little farm, I grow like 70 heads of lettuce and some other veggies and I don't use any pesticides because... that's what organic means. Also, before becoming a vegan we had goats and chickens and I slit their throats with my own hands as a child because that's what taking an animal's life is. No machines or stun guns just you, a knife and a lot of blood and suffering. No cute little styrofoam packages either just blood on your hands and warm organs. Our animals didn't suffer, they had great lives but it got to a point where I couldn't see taking their lives anymore for my consumption. It didn't make sense.
I actually wouldn't mind those tours, but I'm also in Canada. Long trip. Also organic does not definitively mean pesticide-free. Small farms like yourself can probably afford to avoid them, many others cannot. The gov't has a list of all allowed organic pesticides allowed to be use in organic farming, and someone must obviously be buying them since there are companies who sell them.
I am genuinely curious about how the process is considered socialist and ridiculous though.
We have Cargill in Canada too, look at that but just like everything in Canada, the government needs to have their hands in it and it's pretty bad in the meat industry on how they subsidize farmers in Canada especially in the meat industry
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/08/meat-a23.html?view=article_mobile
They profited in a crisis, classic socialism.
http://www.cmc-cvc.com/sites/default/files/files/MeatIntake Fact Sheet ENG.pdf
Thanks Canadian meat council for telling me how great Red Meat is for me despite the warnings from the WHO that it's carcinogenic.
"Meat, good for you and good for Canada" oh god, soon they will be telling us all weed is good for us to and we should all smoke 10 bong rips a day.
1 -
fatvegan88 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »fatvegan88 wrote: »Well I live in Canada so we do our own thing that's very socialist and ridiculous when it comes to meat but in the States you have Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef who all have a kill rate of at least 20,000 a day. I'm sure their slaughterhouses do tours, you should check them out.
I own a small little farm, I grow like 70 heads of lettuce and some other veggies and I don't use any pesticides because... that's what organic means. Also, before becoming a vegan we had goats and chickens and I slit their throats with my own hands as a child because that's what taking an animal's life is. No machines or stun guns just you, a knife and a lot of blood and suffering. No cute little styrofoam packages either just blood on your hands and warm organs. Our animals didn't suffer, they had great lives but it got to a point where I couldn't see taking their lives anymore for my consumption. It didn't make sense.
I actually wouldn't mind those tours, but I'm also in Canada. Long trip. Also organic does not definitively mean pesticide-free. Small farms like yourself can probably afford to avoid them, many others cannot. The gov't has a list of all allowed organic pesticides allowed to be use in organic farming, and someone must obviously be buying them since there are companies who sell them.
I am genuinely curious about how the process is considered socialist and ridiculous though.
We have Cargill in Canada too, look at that but just like everything in Canada, the government needs to have their hands in it and it's pretty bad in the meat industry on how they subsidize farmers in Canada especially in the meat industry
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/08/meat-a23.html?view=article_mobile
They profited in a crisis, classic socialism.
http://www.cmc-cvc.com/sites/default/files/files/MeatIntake Fact Sheet ENG.pdf
Thanks Canadian meat council for telling me how great Red Meat is for me despite the warnings from the WHO that it's carcinogenic.
"Meat, good for you and good for Canada" oh god, soon they will be telling us all weed is good for us to and we should all smoke 10 bong rips a day.
The WHO's report was on processed meat, which takes your risk of colon cancer up from 5% to 6%. That's around a 20% or so increase in risk.
Meat is usually good for you, baring a meat allergy or living off only highly processed meat.3 -
fatvegan88 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »fatvegan88 wrote: »Well I live in Canada so we do our own thing that's very socialist and ridiculous when it comes to meat but in the States you have Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef who all have a kill rate of at least 20,000 a day. I'm sure their slaughterhouses do tours, you should check them out.
I own a small little farm, I grow like 70 heads of lettuce and some other veggies and I don't use any pesticides because... that's what organic means. Also, before becoming a vegan we had goats and chickens and I slit their throats with my own hands as a child because that's what taking an animal's life is. No machines or stun guns just you, a knife and a lot of blood and suffering. No cute little styrofoam packages either just blood on your hands and warm organs. Our animals didn't suffer, they had great lives but it got to a point where I couldn't see taking their lives anymore for my consumption. It didn't make sense.
I actually wouldn't mind those tours, but I'm also in Canada. Long trip. Also organic does not definitively mean pesticide-free. Small farms like yourself can probably afford to avoid them, many others cannot. The gov't has a list of all allowed organic pesticides allowed to be use in organic farming, and someone must obviously be buying them since there are companies who sell them.
I am genuinely curious about how the process is considered socialist and ridiculous though.
We have Cargill in Canada too, look at that but just like everything in Canada, the government needs to have their hands in it and it's pretty bad in the meat industry on how they subsidize farmers in Canada especially in the meat industry
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/08/meat-a23.html?view=article_mobile
They profited in a crisis, classic socialism.
http://www.cmc-cvc.com/sites/default/files/files/MeatIntake Fact Sheet ENG.pdf
Thanks Canadian meat council for telling me how great Red Meat is for me despite the warnings from the WHO that it's carcinogenic.
"Meat, good for you and good for Canada" oh god, soon they will be telling us all weed is good for us to and we should all smoke 10 bong rips a day.
The WHO's report was on processed meat, which takes your risk of colon cancer up from 5% to 6%. That's around a 20% or so increase in risk.
Meat is usually good for you, baring a meat allergy or living off only highly processed meat.
I agree with the first part, but for the second, there can be many other health conditions that need limited meat intake. But it's not just a case of an average healthy person needing to limit it.0 -
fatvegan88 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »fatvegan88 wrote: »Well I live in Canada so we do our own thing that's very socialist and ridiculous when it comes to meat but in the States you have Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef who all have a kill rate of at least 20,000 a day. I'm sure their slaughterhouses do tours, you should check them out.
I own a small little farm, I grow like 70 heads of lettuce and some other veggies and I don't use any pesticides because... that's what organic means. Also, before becoming a vegan we had goats and chickens and I slit their throats with my own hands as a child because that's what taking an animal's life is. No machines or stun guns just you, a knife and a lot of blood and suffering. No cute little styrofoam packages either just blood on your hands and warm organs. Our animals didn't suffer, they had great lives but it got to a point where I couldn't see taking their lives anymore for my consumption. It didn't make sense.
I actually wouldn't mind those tours, but I'm also in Canada. Long trip. Also organic does not definitively mean pesticide-free. Small farms like yourself can probably afford to avoid them, many others cannot. The gov't has a list of all allowed organic pesticides allowed to be use in organic farming, and someone must obviously be buying them since there are companies who sell them.
I am genuinely curious about how the process is considered socialist and ridiculous though.
We have Cargill in Canada too, look at that but just like everything in Canada, the government needs to have their hands in it and it's pretty bad in the meat industry on how they subsidize farmers in Canada especially in the meat industry
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/08/meat-a23.html?view=article_mobile
They profited in a crisis, classic socialism.
http://www.cmc-cvc.com/sites/default/files/files/MeatIntake Fact Sheet ENG.pdf
Thanks Canadian meat council for telling me how great Red Meat is for me despite the warnings from the WHO that it's carcinogenic.
"Meat, good for you and good for Canada" oh god, soon they will be telling us all weed is good for us to and we should all smoke 10 bong rips a day.
The WHO's report was on processed meat, which takes your risk of colon cancer up from 5% to 6%. That's around a 20% or so increase in risk.
Meat is usually good for you, baring a meat allergy or living off only highly processed meat.
I agree with the first part, but for the second, there can be many other health conditions that need limited meat intake. But it's not just a case of an average healthy person needing to limit it.
True. The (vast) majority of people have no need to limit meat.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions