Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Has a documentary ever influenced you to eat more plant based?
Replies
-
-
I've watched several, and I always walk away feeling very negatively towards the whole plant based way of eating. I know many of the things the docu-dramas present are untrue, exaggerated, or sensationalized so it makes me feel everything they are presenting is exaggerations or lies, but that's also false. So I stopped watching them. Instead I look for specifics.
How are the animals I consume treated? How are the chickens or ducks that lay the eggs I eat treated? How was the cow/sheep/goat that produced the milk for my cheese/baking/butter treated? What about their offspring? Where does my produce come from? How did it get here? Were the farmers, workers, sales people, etc. paid a fair wage and treated fairly well? What land management is being used? What about the seeds and grains I eat?
I think conscious consumption does more to guide people to more sustainable eating long term than scare tactics. I think open conversations about what and why people eat can make huge changes. Let people be flexible. Ease into it. Not only will their digestion be happier, they are more likely to keep pushing and expanding and feel encouraged.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I do not think that alarmism about the health consequences of animal products is a sustainable way to promote veganism.
This. 100%.
The best way to form your own opinion is to see all sides, and to do your research. I like watching some of those documentaries. They send me off on new avenues of learning, and I do eat a more plant-based diet because of the things I learned after watching them and doing my own research on the subject.
I make my food choices based on Michael Pollan's three simple rules for eating... "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." If you can do that, weight loss dieting becomes a thing of the past and your choices will positively impact the environment while supporting local food producers. Win-win-win.2 -
Not documentaries but I used to watch health and nutrition videos about veganism. I watched mostly Dr.McDougall, Michael Greger and other “experts” on the subject. While they sounded convincing, I don't see how I could apply all of that in my life. I have food intolerance to legumes, nuts, seeds and soy products. I would be very limited if I were to eat plant-based. On top of that I am not a very good cooker, or rather I have never learned how to cook properly.
I don't even know what my meals would look like.1 -
I find that foie gras tastes even better when one of the alarmist pseudo-documentaries from Netflix plays.2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I do not think that alarmism about the health consequences of animal products is a sustainable way to promote veganism.
This. 100%.
The best way to form your own opinion is to see all sides, and to do your research. I like watching some of those documentaries. They send me off on new avenues of learning, and I do eat a more plant-based diet because of the things I learned after watching them and doing my own research on the subject.
I make my food choices based on Michael Pollan's three simple rules for eating... "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." If you can do that, weight loss dieting becomes a thing of the past and your choices will positively impact the environment while supporting local food producers. Win-win-win.
To be fair, eating "not too much" of anything is just another way of describing weight loss dieting. "Too much" is, by definition, more than you need to sustain a healthy weight. The point is how we get there: for me, some form of conscious calorie control is necessary even when I'm eating plants exclusively.4 -
Forks over Knives
The China Study - book
The Blue Zone
Michael Pollan - 3 rules advice1 -
Not a documentary, but Graham Hill's TED Talk about being a weekday vegetarian did motivate me to eat less meat. My family now eats vegetarian at least a couple days a week and it's not difficult. Eggplant parm instead of chicken, for example, and nobody even notices.
Oh, I would notice...
4 -
Yes it did. I did watch these and I went vegetarian for a year and vegan for a few months. I can’t sustain that type of diet long term. So I just try not to eat meat much if possible1
-
I have seen a lot of these, plus documentaries, and so on, so this is just from my perspective...
I'm curious about food and food processing more than truly interested in vegetarianism or veganism, and that's why I watched these. I think that anyone who is not at least curious is not going to have any reason at all to watch these.
I mean, why would they? How many vegans are going out there reading about how awesome eating meat is? Pretty much none - there's not a single reason why it would be any different from the other direction, either, IMO.
So in terms of 'reaching anybody,' I think these movies are basically a failure, because they are going to catch all the people who already agree with everything they say, and a few curious people, and that's it. If someone wanted to actually promote a vegan or vegetarian agenda that they thought would make a difference and persuade a lot of meat eaters that they should change their diet, they would need to have something of interest for people of all diets, and then discuss some of plant based diet in the film/series.
As to their arguments? No, they don't persuade me, because they're typically pretty poor arguments, from what I've seen. They are often based on flawed or outright incorrect 'facts' or 'logic.' Many of the good points they DO have (like certain environmental issues, or how poorly some animals are treated) are things that have ways to fix that do not actually involve veganism/vegetarianism.
Like better ethical treatment of animals, or more regulations against mega farms to prevent the environmental problems, in many areas. Not to mention, these complaints about the environmental issues with meat eating often wear thin when the same people ignore many of the other environmental issues that ALSO involve plant based farming.
Food waste, nitrogen fertilizer run off pollution, over use of the land to the point it is steadily increasing salinity levels in our farm lands, insecticides and how they impact our bee population...all of these are major problems with growing vegetables.
The answer to them is not: stop eating veggies and fruits.
It's: we need to find better ways to grow our food instead of acting like some kind of locust species that lays waste to all around us. I think this applies for any type of food eaten, animals or veggies or fruits or whatever is eaten.
7 -
None of them has really influenced my choices. "Documentaries" that are biased from the start are IMHO just as misleading as many of the voodoo doctors out there peddling woo. The whole picture is the whole picture.
I do try to stay somewhat in touch with food sources and consequences. Small family farms die off due to lack of water and the worlds love for avocado's, but is that being reported by the plant based community? Likewise resource use of many foods, both plant and animal based, is just excessive. The impacts on the environment can be changed somewhat with food choices.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Not a documentary, but Graham Hill's TED Talk about being a weekday vegetarian did motivate me to eat less meat. My family now eats vegetarian at least a couple days a week and it's not difficult. Eggplant parm instead of chicken, for example, and nobody even notices.
Oh, I would notice...
Even if you enjoy chicken AND eggplant, it's hard for me to imagine not being able to tell the difference between the two. They're completely different tastes and textures!3 -
angelexperiment wrote: »Yes it did. I did watch these and I went vegetarian for a year and vegan for a few months. I can’t sustain that type of diet long term. So I just try not to eat meat much if possible
To be fair, from your post history you were also often attempting to layer in additional restrictions on top of the veganism, such as vegan keto. The more restrictions you layer on top, the more challenging veganism is going to be.
There is a learning curve with figuring out how to create meals with just plants given how many of us learned to eat and create meals, but after that curve is passed, many people find it to be quite sustainable.4 -
The Game Changers influenced me. I tried it out, and had high blood pressure and gained weight and severe bloating. No more vegan for me. The documentary or movie was inspirational though, but it just didn't resonate with me when I tried it out.0
-
It may have discouraged me as I found them to be moralistic and extreme. When I watched Colin Beaven's No Impact Man where he stopped driving cars, stopped subscribing to magazines, no longer eating out, and forced his wife to stop wearing makeup for a year, he came across as an green nut. When I used to watched those organic food documentaries on LINK TV, those vegans had a higher-than-thou behavior towards us meat-eaters, like Americans are killing Mother Earth when all I'm doing is ordering a burger at Carl's Jr. I don't want to have anything to do with people with such a narrow world view.0
-
It may have discouraged me as I found them to be moralistic and extreme. When I watched Colin Beaven's No Impact Man where he stopped driving cars, stopped subscribing to magazines, no longer eating out, and forced his wife to stop wearing makeup for a year, he came across as an green nut. When I used to watched those organic food documentaries on LINK TV, those vegans had a higher-than-thou behavior towards us meat-eaters, like Americans are killing Mother Earth when all I'm doing is ordering a burger at Carl's Jr. I don't want to have anything to do with people with such a narrow world view.
Are you turned off by any suggestion that some acts may be preferable to others in their impact to other individuals and society as a whole or is this something that is exclusive to discussions of environmental impact and veganism?
I ask because most people implement some kind of standard of behavior -- holding that one act can be kinder or more responsible or more just than another act. All vegans do is apply this relatively common assessment to behaviors that involve animals (and all environmentalists are doing is applying this relatively common assessment to behaviors that impact the health of the earth overall).1 -
No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of whether or not a person should eat meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans pontificate that most Americans are destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
2 -
No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat production. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?5 -
To whoever flagged my comment above, if you'd like to clarify what part of my post crossed the line, I would be happy to either clarify it or edit it.2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?
Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?
Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.
Some of them are capitalists. They aren't a monolithic group, they have varieties of opinions, convictions, and belief systems just like any group of scientists. Some of them eat meat, some of them drive cars, etc.
The oncologist thing was an example of how your argument is constructed. You claim that most scientists agree that factory farming isn't harmful to the environment. The only way you can even potentially establish that claim as true would be to eliminate those who are experts in the subject (and, by the way, you haven't even provided a source for that claim). You can't eliminate the experts and then use that to determine that your position is the mainstream one. That isn't how it works.
Environmental science is a hard science -- it's the study of our earth and how our actions are impacting it. I am not sure where you are getting your information on the actual practice of it, but it appears you've been misinformed. Did you read the articles I linked above? Those are actual scientists.
If you rule out those who study the earth and the impact of human actions from the discussion, who is your source of information on the subject? Those who reject the entire practice of science as it relates to human action are not immune from political motivations. Are we going to rely on Smithfield Foods and Iowa Select Farms to tell us there's nothing to see here?5 -
That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?
Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.
Science is science. Unless proven to be used to skew reality (such as often the case in documentary films), facts are facts regardless of how we package it. Certainly we have to view the entirely of the facts to form a proper picture, but they remain facts. It is hard science if taken in full context.
It's well known within the scientific community that beef has a much higher carbon footprint than most other proteins, including other animal proteins. It's also well accepted that in terms of water resources it does poorly compared to other food sources. On an overall scale, it's a resource intensive form of food and has greater environmental impact than most other foods.
But it's all a balancing act as well. A person could eat beef but lead an otherwise fairly green lifestyle and have a reasonably small carbon footprint, or eat beans and tofu and waste resources elsewhere and have a large footprint.
The same applies to other foods. Nuts as a whole have a very low if not neutral carbon footprint, since many grow on trees. But their water consumption per calorie is higher than many other sources. For areas with lower water resources, this might impact the water available for other plants that scrub the air.
It's a complex picture, regardless of how you paint it. But facts remain facts regardless of the choices we make.
9 -
That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions