Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism

happytree923 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

bpetrosky wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

bpetrosky wrote: »

Regarding what qualifies as a rare disease: in the US less than 200,000 individuals at any given time, in the EU an incidence of 1 in 2000. By both measures a disease with a 1 in 200 incidence is not rare.

My mistake. I guess I did not read up enough on it. 1 in 227 would be over 200 000.

Regardless, I don't consider 1 in 227 a reason for advising all against a carnivorous diet.

bpetrosky wrote: »

So you advise not consulting a RD because they won't subscribe to your "keto uber alles" worldview? Ok then.

No. It's because RDs are not trained in dealing with a carnivorous diet. I imagine many would approach it from a moderation-in-everything RDA bias. They teach what they are taught.

Do you honestly believe that RDs are taught how to help people eat a healthy successful carnivore diet? All animal diets have gained some interest, but it is still just a tiny population who is interested in eating that way.

If RDs can advise people about the pros and cons of a vegan diet without vegan specific training, they can certainly guide someone looking for a carnivore diet. They would have the education to evaluate a meal plan for nutrition and compatibility with a person's medical history, recommend adjustments, and note any problems to be mindful of.

So yes, I honestly believe an RD can give reasonable advice to their client on approaching a carnivore diet and help them be successful if they embark on it. It is preferable, in my estimation, than taking unqualified advice from carnivore enthusiasts online who oversell the benefits and downplay the potential downsides.

It's possible an RD would do an okay job with a carnivore diet. Maybe. Possibly. I would be shocked if they are taught about carnivore nutrition. But comparing it to vegan RD advice is stretching it (IMO) unless you are looking at advice from decades ago when veganism first started to have some adherents. Maybe 1950? I'm guessing (hoping) RDs have had training in the vegan diet by now. Carnivore? Probably not.

What benefits to a carnivore diet I do you believe I oversold? I know I mentioned that I feel somewhat better doing it in terms of intestinal health, but not hugely so.

And what potential downsides did I downplay (besides the 1 in 227 or 300 who unfortunately builds up too much iron in their blood) for the typical person eating only animal products? I mentioned it was boring to me...

Why would a properly trained RD need to have carnivore-specific training? They're trained in human nutritional needs and how to access diets. Even if they never encountered a specific way of eating before, they'd be able to determine whether or not a proposed plan would meet general human needs, as well as any specific needs an individual may have related to lifestyle/medical conditions.

The only way an RD wouldn't be able to help plan the diet without special training is due to your argument that human nutritional needs actually *change* when they eat all meat or mostly meat (that they don't need things like fiber, that certain vitamin needs change) and I haven't yet seen anything that has convinced me that this is true. I know you genuinely *believe* it to be true, but I don't think it has been studied enough for anyone to be that confident about it.

Exactly. RDs are not trained in carnivore because it is very unusual. I doubt it will ever be mainstream. I doubt it will even hit the popularity of veganism, which makes sense. Most people do not need to eat carnivore so why bother.

I'm hoping carnivore will be studied more. So far, there has only been one long term, year long study and that was on two men who lived a carnivore diet healthfully for a few years in the Arctic but no one believed them. They lived in a hospital for one year and had all food monitored to prove it was not unhealthy. They were fine with no deficiencies to be seen.

Shawn Baker, a carnivore athlete of a couple years, has put together a website called n equals many, to try to start the data collection and raise interest in learning about the diet. They do need more data.

For things like vit. C we know that you don't need as much when not eating carbs. For fibre, people obviously live well without it; the misconception that a lack of fibre causes colon cancer is slowly going away. My guess is that most RDs would be pushing vitamin C and fibre supplements despite the small bit of science , and lots of anecdotal experience, that is out there that shows it isn't needed. Most RDs seem to still think that people should limit saturated fat- that would be a problem here.

In the end, most vitamins and minerals are more bio available in animal products so less seems to be needed.

Really, there isn't a lot that an RD could recommend on a carnivorous diet beyond eat organ meat. Maybe to avoid processed meats and nitrates... or get seafood a couple of times a week?

If there has only been one long-term study and that was of just two men, I'm not sure if we can conclude that we need less vitamin C on a carnivore-style diet. That's my point. Most of the people I've seen arguing that nutritional needs are fundamentally altered in people who eat in this way seem to be arguing from anecdote or personal experience.

RDs typically won't, and shouldn't, give dietary recommendations based on very small studies or anecdotal experiences. I'm not sure how they would be trained in this type of diet, as you're recommending, when there are so few resources available for anyone who is approaching this from the science-based nutritional POV.

Right. There was Steffanson and his one year study, otherwise it is just anecdotal, looking at people who ate carnivore in the past (Inuit, First Nations, Mongols), and those few who do it now (Masai young men, those who turn to it for health reasons). But, none of those groups have deficiencies. Perhaps if they live off pork rinds and bacon, but most aren't doing that. People eat carnivore for decades and are fine.

As I mentioned earlier, Shawn Baker created nequalsmany and had hundreds try the diet for three months. Hopefully that will be enough to start being data and not just anecdotal experiences.

On the flip side, there is zero evidence that the RDAs should be applied to those who eat carnivore. There's just an assumption that the RDAs applies to everyone regardless of sex, genetics, age, culture, or often health.

But I know that carnivore needs aren't published in a journal and most people won't see the anecdotal evidence or the rare study. I expect RDs won't give advice, or good advice, on how to do carnivore, which was my point up thread. They would give advice based on what they are taught, which may not all be applicable to a carnivore. Their advice on carnivore should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

There is zero evidence that standard RDAs should be applied to people who eat cruciferious vegetables at every meal. Or people who eat gluten free. Or people who are vegan or pescatarian or people who don't eat orange foods. This is a very silly line of thinking, basic physiology is more or less the same between individuals and that doesn't change because of your Very Special Diet. And thank god that our physiology doesn't change too much, otherwise a medication that works wonders for one person could be literal poison for someone else! I don't understand the desire to think that nutrition and health has to be a very personalized thing based on your genetics and birth order and zodiac sign and whatever else. There are special considerations for certain diagnosable medical conditions like celiac, allergies, kidney disease etc but everything else is mostly preference.

I agree that there is zero evidence that RDAs should apply to everyone on every diet, but I think that is not what you actually meant to say.

I agree that most people set up their diet by preference. I personally don't think that is the best way to design a diet. I love baking from wheat flour, and would eat it if I could, but I can't so I don't. I love eating sweet foods but it isn't good for me so I don't do it often. I tolerate meat okay, but it makes me feel my best so that's what I mostly eat.

I suppose I could say that I eat this way because I prefer feeling this way.

I think physiology can vary widely between people. Gender, age, genetics and health have a large effect on how we react to meds - pharmaceutical companies know this and develop a variety of drugs to do the same things, some of which work better than others for some people. Just look at statins.

The same goes for food. I could eat toast and feel sluggish and hungry in an hour, a migraine and stomach ache might happen or I might have an arthritis flare up. Someone else might eat toast and feel awesome.

Individuals are individuals, IMO. That's why "YMMV" is commonly used around here. There are a few food truths, but eating as a carnivore being bad for the average person is not one of them. It's benign or helpful in terms of health.

laurenq1991 wrote: »

The carnivore diet, especially the trend to eat tons of beef when on the diet, is environmentally irresponsible and unsustainable. I've seen people on the carnivore diet try to sidestep the issue by claiming that grass-fed beef is good for the environment but a) factually it isn't, b) if everyone ate like this (which we can assume most adherents of the carnivore diet would see as ideal, as going by the zerocarb group on Reddit, many of them think carbs are actually harmful to human health) the planet could not sustain it, and c) something like 99% of beef in the US comes from factory farms. Even if they switched to other meats it would still be too much of an impact on the environment. Experts say that we will have to drastically reduce our current level of meat consumption to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

Human beings have been able to thrive as a species in part due to our omnivorous diet that allows us to adapt to a wide variety of environments. There's a reason why so many apex predators are endangered, while the most common animals tend to have a varied diet. Maybe it's controversial to say it, but at this time in history, the carnivore diet is not an adaptationally advantageous diet for the environment we are currently living in. The zerocarb claim that carbs are unhealthy also has no factual basis, given that the majority of human societies have eaten diets with significant amounts of carbs and thrived. Maybe there are some rare people with a huge amount of food allergies or something who can only eat meat, but for the vast majority of people a balanced diet is fine.

Because modern agriculture is better for the environment?

I think grass fed cattle where I live, near the Rockies in Canada, is environmentally sound. Bison live on the grasslands for a reason. Agriculture, and clear cutting or turning over the soil every year is not environmentally smart. Then again, feed lots and growing Barley or corn for feed and waste pools are not sound practice either. Your argument is not factually based. Experts also point out how modern agriculture is harmful too.

I think carnivore can suit some people very well. I've been mostly carnivore since the spring to address some health issues. It works for me. I think mostly carnivore, with seasonal produce, could makes sense for many. I also think that mostly plant based with local animal products can also work well for many people. I also think vegetarian can suit some people very well.

I live in Canada. Warm summer weather lasts three months. Beyond that time there is very little plant foods unless we rely on environmentally friendly planes and trucks to bring it in. highly processed and refined carbs last longer but those are not healthful foods compared to animal products and fresh produce. The First Nations, Inuit, Mongols and other cultures did quite well without agriculture or much plant foods.

Do I think carnivore is best for all? No, but I'd take it for better health over an entirely plant based diet any day. Ymmv.

nvmomketo wrote: »

laurenq1991 wrote: »

The carnivore diet, especially the trend to eat tons of beef when on the diet, is environmentally irresponsible and unsustainable. I've seen people on the carnivore diet try to sidestep the issue by claiming that grass-fed beef is good for the environment but a) factually it isn't, b) if everyone ate like this (which we can assume most adherents of the carnivore diet would see as ideal, as going by the zerocarb group on Reddit, many of them think carbs are actually harmful to human health) the planet could not sustain it, and c) something like 99% of beef in the US comes from factory farms. Even if they switched to other meats it would still be too much of an impact on the environment. Experts say that we will have to drastically reduce our current level of meat consumption to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

Human beings have been able to thrive as a species in part due to our omnivorous diet that allows us to adapt to a wide variety of environments. There's a reason why so many apex predators are endangered, while the most common animals tend to have a varied diet. Maybe it's controversial to say it, but at this time in history, the carnivore diet is not an adaptationally advantageous diet for the environment we are currently living in. The zerocarb claim that carbs are unhealthy also has no factual basis, given that the majority of human societies have eaten diets with significant amounts of carbs and thrived. Maybe there are some rare people with a huge amount of food allergies or something who can only eat meat, but for the vast majority of people a balanced diet is fine.

Because modern agriculture is better for the environment?

I think grass fed cattle where I live, near the Rockies in Canada, is environmentally sound. Bison live on the grasslands for a reason. Agriculture, and clear cutting or turning over the soil every year is not environmentally smart. Then again, feed lots and growing Barley or corn for feed and waste pools are not sound practice either. Your argument is not factually based. Experts also point out how modern agriculture is harmful too.

I think carnivore can suit some people very well. I've been mostly carnivore since the spring to address some health issues. It works for me. I think mostly carnivore, with seasonal produce, could makes sense for many. I also think that mostly plant based with local animal products can also work well for many people. I also think vegetarian can suit some people very well.

I live in Canada. Warm summer weather lasts three months. Beyond that time there is very little plant foods unless we rely on environmentally friendly planes and trucks to bring it in. highly processed and refined carbs last longer but those are not healthful foods compared to animal products and fresh produce. The First Nations, Inuit, Mongols and other cultures did quite well without agriculture or much plant foods.

Do I think carnivore is best for all? No, but I'd take it for better health over an entirely plant based diet any day. Ymmv.

Cows, just by existing, create huge quantities of methane on a daily basis. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas and methane production is a byproduct of cow digestion no matter where they live or what they are fed (and grass fed cattle may release more methane than grain fed btw). This is what people are referring to when they talk about the environmental load of a diet high in beef. I believe there has been some research into whether pastures can be managed so they sequester more carbon than the cows release but this takes a lot of very very deliberate management that your local farmers are certainly not doing. This is not saying that there are no issues with other forms of agriculture, but there is a special climate consideration with beef production. Yes ruminants are 'natural,' but they do need to be considered part of the equation when looking at humans total carbon output because we have domesticated and raised huge numbers of them. You can choose not to believe this but hey, you live in Canada so you'll probably get a nice mild winter climate as a result of climate change.

nvmomketo wrote: »

Because modern agriculture is better for the environment?

I think grass fed cattle where I live, near the Rockies in Canada, is environmentally sound. Bison live on the grasslands for a reason. Agriculture, and clear cutting or turning over the soil every year is not environmentally smart. Then again, feed lots and growing Barley or corn for feed and waste pools are not sound practice either. Your argument is not factually based. Experts also point out how modern agriculture is harmful too.

I think carnivore can suit some people very well. I've been mostly carnivore since the spring to address some health issues. It works for me. I think mostly carnivore, with seasonal produce, could makes sense for many. I also think that mostly plant based with local animal products can also work well for many people. I also think vegetarian can suit some people very well.

I live in Canada. Warm summer weather lasts three months. Beyond that time there is very little plant foods unless we rely on environmentally friendly planes and trucks to bring it in. highly processed and refined carbs last longer but those are not healthful foods compared to animal products and fresh produce. The First Nations, Inuit, Mongols and other cultures did quite well without agriculture or much plant foods.

Do I think carnivore is best for all? No, but I'd take it for better health over an entirely plant based diet any day. Ymmv.

You think grass fed cattle are environmentally sound but factually speaking, you're wrong. The environmental impact of cattle is not just from growing animal feed, but from the "emissions" produced by the cattle. That is why ruminants (not just cattle but also sheep and goats, although those are less commonly consumed in the US) have the biggest environmental impact. Also you can't possibly claim that all or even the majority of cattle are raised on grasslands, because that is simply not true. Even cattle that start out on grasslands are often transferred to feedlots to be bulked up before slaughter and fed grains. A lot of habitat is destroyed to grow animal feed. The Amazon is being clear-cut to grow soybeans not for people, but for cattle feed. Also since a grass-fed cow has to live longer to reach slaughter weight due to the lower calorie density of their diet, they actually require more resources and produce more emissions. There would not be enough grassland in the world to support the amount of cattle that would need to be farmed if there was no grain-fed cattle with current consumption levels, let alone if everyone adopted the carnivore diet.

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/grass-fed-beef-is-just-as-bad-for-the-environment-as-grain-fed/

Also where is the evidence that the carnivore diet is healthier for the majority of people? Most nutritionists say a balanced and mostly plant-based diet is overall the healthiest for people, and that has been the diet of most traditional cultures.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/ "A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention." "They also found carbohydrate-selective diets to be better than categorically low-carbohydrate diets, in that incorporating whole grains is associated with lower risks for cancers and better control of body weight."

There are many other studies that have similar conclusions, but you can look them up yourself. A vague "feeling better" on a certain diet is not empirical data (and the mind is a powerful thing, so it's possible the "feeling better" is just a psychosomatic effect.)

Also you say "Beyond that time there is very little plant foods unless we rely on environmentally friendly planes and trucks to bring it in. highly processed and refined carbs last longer but those are not healthful foods compared to animal products and fresh produce." It's like you forgot that legumes and whole grains exist, or chose to selectively omit them on purpose. Those are healthful foods that last for literally years. Nuts and seeds also last for a long time, as does dried fruit.

Some researchers have literally devoted their lives to studying the environmental impact of various foods, so how can you claim that you know more about it than they do?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

nvmomketo wrote: »

I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

A great deal would need to change if we were to grow cows/meat more sustainably. Could it be done? Sure. Will it be done in the near future? Doubtful.

A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy. But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-biggest-environmental-footprint-2015-9

This article has a chart comparing the carbon footprint of various foods and includes a breakdown of what carbon comes from production vs transportation. Rice barely charts compared to beef. Shelf stable items like rice tend to be transported by freight which has a pretty light footprint all things considered. Your intuition on this is wrong. Flat out wrong.

Yes, ruminants used to be wild in huge numbers, but there were almost no anthropogenic carbon emissions plus a lot more natural vegetation to sequester carbon. We can't support our current massive human population with a world that looks like it did in the 17th century. Cows, even the ' natural' cows your local farmers raise, are a product of human domestication and industrialization and thus must be counted as part of our overall impact. They exist because of us and so they are our responsibility.

I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.

When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.

happytree923 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

A great deal would need to change if we were to grow cows/meat more sustainably. Could it be done? Sure. Will it be done in the near future? Doubtful.

A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy. But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-biggest-environmental-footprint-2015-9

This article has a chart comparing the carbon footprint of various foods and includes a breakdown of what carbon comes from production vs transportation. Rice barely charts compared to beef. Shelf stable items like rice tend to be transported by freight which has a pretty light footprint all things considered. Your intuition on this is wrong. Flat out wrong.

Yes, ruminants used to be wild in huge numbers, but there were almost no anthropogenic carbon emissions plus a lot more natural vegetation to sequester carbon. We can't support our current massive human population with a world that looks like it did in the 17th century. Cows, even the ' natural' cows your local farmers raise, are a product of human domestication and industrialization and thus must be counted as part of our overall impact. They exist because of us and so they are our responsibility.

If all you are only looking at is carbon emissions, then it may be true. If you look at the bigger picture, with responsibly grown cattle, I think there is less impact in certain areas. I truly doubt that barley farming has less impact on the environment (chemicals going into the water, soil health and quality, soil organisms, carbon sinks, etc) than ruminants grazing on natural pasture land.

This article briefly discusses a book I've read on it some interesting points.
https://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2018/03/02/cattle-arent-actually-killing-the-planet-says-vegetarian-rancher/

I realize the world does not look like it did in the 1600s. But I do think food production could and should be changed. Cutting down rain forests to provide food for feed lots is just not smart. Destroying pasture land to grow feedlot crops is not smart either. Cattle do better in some areas than others. Raising them there makes sense.

Instead of fields of yellow canola (for a highly processed seed oil) or barley (for feedlots) near my home, I think more cattle ranches would be a smarter choice. Or even bison ranches.

I'm not saying that everyone should eat carnivore. I'm saying that cutting back on meat consumption in order to cut carbon emissions makes much less sense than using sustainable farming practices, and way less sense than reducing industrial, production, and transportation emissions. Going after cattle was a smart move by animal rights activists. IMO, it is the wrong thing to go after... Like going after pipelines to reverse global warming instead of going after reductions in the use of gas and oil by industry - the need for gas.... It makes about as much sense as reducing food production in an effort to get people to eat less.

I eat meat and don't feel bad about the fact that I am meant to eat meat. Domesticated cows may exist because of us, which is fine by me. I'll eat them along with bison and wild pacific salmon we caught while fishing and the geese my boys shot this hunting season. The meat we eat is from a small farm and from hunting. We butcher it. My meat consumption is relatively responsible and local. If you want to avoid eating meat, that is fine by me, it is your choice. You can eat more of the broccoli or Brussel sprouts that man somehow created from mustard plants.

We will need to respectfully disagree. As another poster said, you buy your groceries and I'll buy (or butcher) mine.

nvmomketo wrote: »

If all you are only looking at is carbon emissions, then it may be true. If you look at the bigger picture, with responsibly grown cattle, I think there is less impact in certain areas. I truly doubt that barley farming has less impact on the environment (chemicals going into the water, soil health and quality, soil organisms, carbon sinks, etc) than ruminants grazing on natural pasture land.

This article briefly discusses a book I've read on it some interesting points.
https://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2018/03/02/cattle-arent-actually-killing-the-planet-says-vegetarian-rancher/

I realize the world does not look like it did in the 1600s. But I do think food production could and should be changed. Cutting down rain forests to provide food for feed lots is just not smart. Destroying pasture land to grow feedlot crops is not smart either. Cattle do better in some areas than others. Raising them there makes sense.

Instead of fields of yellow canola (for a highly processed seed oil) or barley (for feedlots) near my home, I think more cattle ranches would be a smarter choice. Or even bison ranches.

I'm not saying that everyone should eat carnivore. I'm saying that cutting back on meat consumption in order to cut carbon emissions makes much less sense than using sustainable farming practices, and way less sense than reducing industrial, production, and transportation emissions. Going after cattle was a smart move by animal rights activists. IMO, it is the wrong thing to go after... Like going after pipelines to reverse global warming instead of going after reductions in the use of gas and oil by industry - the need for gas.... It makes about as much sense as reducing food production in an effort to get people to eat less.

I eat meat and don't feel bad about the fact that I am meant to eat meat. Domesticated cows may exist because of us, which is fine by me. I'll eat them along with bison and wild pacific salmon we caught while fishing and the geese my boys shot this hunting season. The meat we eat is from a small farm and from hunting. We butcher it. My meat consumption is relatively responsible and local. If you want to avoid eating meat, that is fine by me, it is your choice. You can eat more of the broccoli or Brussel sprouts that man somehow created from mustard plants.

We will need to respectfully disagree. As another poster said, you buy your groceries and I'll buy (or butcher) mine.

Unfortunately though, that is just not factually true. Again, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."

The rancher who wrote that book does not have any environmental science credentials.