Netflix Documentary "What the Health" by Kip Andersen

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.

cmtigger 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.

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.

fatvegan88 wrote: »

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.

fatvegan88 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

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.

The WHO's report was on processed and red meats... I have read it like 10 times.

Here it is if you need some help:

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

kimny72 wrote: »

Theo166 wrote: »

There is no integrity in this documentary, it even said Milk was institutionalized racism, all they did was try push all the emotional outrage buttons they could find. They didn't share science to educate people.

the only takeaway for me was that processed meats are classed as a group 1 carcinogen, which everyone already knew already. What are some other group 1 carcinogens?

Beer and wine, Paint, Areca nuts, Air pollution and finally - Sunlight

Dammit, I was all set to move to a paint-free apartment, hermetically sealed with an air filtration system, and create a UV body suit with a filtering mask to wear outside, but if I have to give up beer and wine it's a moot point anyway.

fatvegan88 wrote: »

I mean I know a lot of people hate on vegans but at the end of the day you are hating on someone for something they will ultimately expel from their body into the toilet. So you are just taking crap. No one is telling you to go vegan, be vegan or do anything with yourself. Everything is your choice.

janejellyroll wrote: »

cmtigger 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.

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.

Regardless of what we might wish for the future, most ruminant animals used for food in the US are part of feedlot operations for at least a portion of their lives. It has to be taken into account when we're evaluating the current impact on the environment. I've seen hypothetical examples based on the assumption that could change and those are interesting conversations, but not quite what we're discussing here.

janejellyroll wrote: »

cmtigger wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

cmtigger 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.

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.

Regardless of what we might wish for the future, most ruminant animals used for food in the US are part of feedlot operations for at least a portion of their lives. It has to be taken into account when we're evaluating the current impact on the environment. I've seen hypothetical examples based on the assumption that could change and those are interesting conversations, but not quite what we're discussing here.

I'm not sure how it isn't what we're discussing. Environmental impacts. Depending on where you live you might be able to buy from operations that aren't feed lot style. I can where I live, it's not everywhere, but for some parts of the US, grass fed meat from small farms is an option.

Individuals can choose to purchase from small farms (assuming such a source is available to them), but I'm thinking of the larger, population-level impact and that makes it absolutely relevant that most ruminants killed for meat in the US are run through feedlot operations.

It's like discussing the environmental impact of cars but basing your calculations on the assumption that everyone is driving an electric. They might someday and you can use the projected change as a basis for an argument that more people should . . . but they aren't right now.

There's the theoretical impact if people would change their purchasing habits. That's one conversation.

There's the actual impact of today's behaviors. That's another -- that's what I meant.