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?
JessBbody
Posts: 523 Member
in Debate Club
Do documentaries, or reading health articles, books, etc., influence you when it comes to plant based eating?
Has any information that you've come across actually convinced you to eat less meat and dairy, for whatever reason appeals to you (ethical, health, etc.)?
About a month ago I watched 2 documentaries that were both advocating a plant based diet. They were both narrated by the same guy, but they both had different reasons for their claims.
The first was called What the Health and it was produced by Joaquin Phoenix (a huge vegan advocate). Its whole premise was that a plant based diet was the healthiest way to eat and that eating meat was a recipe for disease. It also emphasized the way animals are treated in factory farms and traditional animal agriculture, aside from just killing them.
The second was called Cowspiracy and it was produced by Leonardo DiCaprio (a known environmentalist). Its purpose was to show how animal agriculture is a huge burden on the planet and is contributing to climate change - more than even transportation.
I also watched a slew of short YouTube documentaries, such as The Weight of the nation, on obesity that also advocated eating less meat and more fruits and vegetables.
I understand that the two documentaries have their own agenda. They certainly weren't fair and balanced. But they did go some way in convincing me.
For example, they showed something that caused one expert to refer to cheese as "coagulated cow pus." I swear, since then I've found myself thinking of that often when I eat cheese. I also haven't eaten beef in a month.
I'm curious about the effectiveness of such agenda-driven information. I'm wondering if documentaries like this are actually reaching anybody, or if people just don't watch them because they don't want to radically change their diets. (Both of these are available on Netflix).
So I'm wondering, do these sorts of arguments influence you at all? Has anything you've seen or read caused you not to order a burger or have beans for protein instead of chicken? What are your reasons?
Has any information that you've come across actually convinced you to eat less meat and dairy, for whatever reason appeals to you (ethical, health, etc.)?
About a month ago I watched 2 documentaries that were both advocating a plant based diet. They were both narrated by the same guy, but they both had different reasons for their claims.
The first was called What the Health and it was produced by Joaquin Phoenix (a huge vegan advocate). Its whole premise was that a plant based diet was the healthiest way to eat and that eating meat was a recipe for disease. It also emphasized the way animals are treated in factory farms and traditional animal agriculture, aside from just killing them.
The second was called Cowspiracy and it was produced by Leonardo DiCaprio (a known environmentalist). Its purpose was to show how animal agriculture is a huge burden on the planet and is contributing to climate change - more than even transportation.
I also watched a slew of short YouTube documentaries, such as The Weight of the nation, on obesity that also advocated eating less meat and more fruits and vegetables.
I understand that the two documentaries have their own agenda. They certainly weren't fair and balanced. But they did go some way in convincing me.
For example, they showed something that caused one expert to refer to cheese as "coagulated cow pus." I swear, since then I've found myself thinking of that often when I eat cheese. I also haven't eaten beef in a month.
I'm curious about the effectiveness of such agenda-driven information. I'm wondering if documentaries like this are actually reaching anybody, or if people just don't watch them because they don't want to radically change their diets. (Both of these are available on Netflix).
So I'm wondering, do these sorts of arguments influence you at all? Has anything you've seen or read caused you not to order a burger or have beans for protein instead of chicken? What are your reasons?
4
Replies
-
Yeah, I don't watch "documentaries" produced by Netflix any more.
I won't ever go plant-based, it requires too much planning and there are pro/cons to every way of eating.
Are you here to promote plant-based eating? There are better ways to do it than grossing people out.15 -
I take them with a huge grain of salt...I'm not one to let something that has a very obvious and biased agenda influence me. There are plenty of legitimate, science backed sources on nutrition. Calling something "coagulated cow pus" isn't science...it's a play on emotion.
I eat a lot of plants because they are good for you and provide for numerous vitamins and minerals that go a long way in keeping one healthy. Most in the US could do well to eat more vegetables and fruit which is sorely lacking in what is often referred to as the SAD...that said, there isn't anything wrong with meat in and of itself...it's mostly that many people just don't get well round nutrition.16 -
Nope. Not even a little.
I eat the correct amount of calories (most of the time) and a high protein, high fiber, varied, and moderated diet. That is as far as I can bring myself to care about food. Nitpicking food is a good way to not pay attention to all the other ways that health can be improved.
I believe that if every person that worked at having an overall healthy lifestyle ate red meat several times a week there would be a study that "proved" that red meat was linked to good health. However, because there have been so many reports about how certain types of food (I used red meat as an example) are bad for you the people engaged in a healthy lifestyle avoid them. It is, imo, a chicken and egg scenario.
Documentaries are inflammatory and controversial to keep people watching which results in profit. They are not a public service.
10 -
cmriverside wrote: »Yeah, I don't watch "documentaries" produced by Netflix any more.
I won't ever go plant-based, it requires too much planning and there are pro/cons to every way of eating.
Are you here to promote plant-based eating? There are better ways to do it than grossing people out.
I'm not here to promote plant based eating. I don't even eat plant based. I'm just saying that I've been influenced by these documentaries and I'm curious to know if information like this has affected anyone else.
I didn't think my post had the tone of having its own agenda. The cheese thing is just one thing that has stuck out in my mind. I am not trying to gross anyone out.10 -
I have been vegan for about fourteen years.
I do not think that alarmism about the health consequences of animal products is a sustainable way to promote veganism. I think the consequences of people feeling misled and/or lied to wind up causing more harm to the cause of veganism over the long term, which is why I try to be as fact-based as possible when it comes to the nutritional claims that I personally make.
I am dubious that disgust about animal products is a sustainable approach to promoting veganism. For every person who is turned off cheese by an "expert" describing it as pus, there are going to be many more people who realize that isn't true and therefore question all claims made by those advocating for veganism.
People don't like being lied to and they don't like it when people try to alarm and scare them.
Some animal foods are gross to my eye. But some plant foods are too. This is irrelevant to whether or not it is appropriate to eat them. Same with the health consequences. Some animal products do appear to be detrimental to health when they're eating to excess. But some plant foods fall into that category as well.
These documentaries do appear to be reaching a wide audience, but many of the people seeing them are being completely turned off by their unreliability.
18 -
Now go watch a documentary on the carnivore diet and you'll be convinced you should eat nothing but meat.
Get info from unbiased sources using controlled studies, not unproven, anecdotal claims from someone that stands to gain by your conversion.12 -
I find them vaguely interesting when they're not being ridiculous, but they don't affect me. I have various conditions that mean that I've had to eliminate a lot of common fruits and vegetables from my diet. Not willingly; I'd love to eat a nice pear instead of dessert, and I'd love to have a good bean soup for lunch, and a nice plate of beef with broccoli for dinner, but I don't want to live in the amount of physical misery I'd endure if I actually consumed those things. So being vegetarian or vegan is off the table until the gods decide to rewire my liver and my guts.2
-
Nope. And with ALL DOCUMENTARIES, there always seems to be bias. There are few out there that actually give equal time to both sides.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Not much of an expert if they think cheese is made from pus.
That idiotic statement would make me switch off the telly. If they assume such low intelligence in their viewers don't you find that offensive OP?
As a family we have taken steps to reduce our meat consumption but on environmental grounds and not frankly mental grounds such as presented by the zealots you have been watching.
And those environmental grounds also extend to severely limiting or excluding plant-based foods that are produced in wasteful and unsustainable ways (some soya production and palm oil for examples).9 -
ugh. Don't get me started on soy, palm oil, corn, and other monocrops.
7 -
Since documentaries like these are empty entertainment at best and propaganda at worst, no I am not swayed to different paths thanks to this crap. My focus is lowering my carbon footprint, and supporting my local economy while eating the diet that benefits my body best and that is not plant based.6
-
It’s not a doc, but Okja made me think twice about eating animals. I still do eat animal meat (I’d say I eat about 75% vegetarian), however whenever possible I try to buy it from local farmers who do not run factory farms. Easier said than done though5
-
Personally, I think shifting my thinking based solely on propaganda is a slippery slope to low intellectual standards and generally poor cognition. Any "documentary" that calls cheese "coagulated cow pus" without any counterbalancing factual material is propaganda, IMO.
Generally, these are advocacy pieces, and should be seen as such. They're trying to sell us something, not to educate.
Before you assume I'm a shill for Big Meat: I've been ovo-lacto vegetarian since 1974 (yup, over 46 years). My initial reasons for adopting that way of eating had to do with resource utilization, and a general ethical sense that decent developed-country people try to reduce the many unavoidable harms they create in a challenged (and mostly poorer) world. starting with the things that are individually easiest for them (so will vary by person - vegetarian was part of my "easy" - might not be for others, and that's fine).
Vegetarians or fully plant based eaters can get good nutrition, and it's not hard, but it does require slightly more attention than it takes for omnivores. That said, most omnivores - if surveys are to be believed - would be better off nutritionally if they ate substantilly more plants than the average person does now. (From what I've read, it's statistically unusual to reach the minimal "5 servings a day" recommendation. Yes, some people do, and some omnivores exceed that . . . so there must be some statistically counterbalancing folks out there getting nearly none. That would be bad, nutritionally.)
So, my opinions: Would it be better if the average person ate more plants, and less of something else? Yes, for varied reasons. Should everyone stop eating meat or other animal foods? Not essential, IMO. Is meat-eating unhealthy? No. (That idea seems ridiculous to me, from an evolutionary perspective.) Should we collectively be trying to reduce the environmental and other deleterious impacts of modern meat production practice? Sure, that would be a good thing, and would apply to not just meat, but other food production, goods production, etc
Do these specific Netflix "documentaries" - the ones you mention and other similar ones - influence my thinking and eating? No. I try to educate myself about issues around the food I eat, and the impacts of its production methods, and take reasonable steps in my personal behavior accordingly . . . but advocacy pieces are not a great source of education, IMO. Kind of the reverse.
Do well-researched factual articles, and especially research studies or careful balanced investigative reporing influence my thinking? Sure, I hope so. About plant based eating specifically or uniquely? No. Many food
production methods cause harm. So do other aspects of our developed-world lifestyles.
It's trendy to demonize meat, and Netflix is notorious for delivering the long-form version of clickbait.9 -
Personally, I think shifting my thinking based solely on propaganda is a slippery slope to low intellectual standards and generally poor cognition. Any "documentary" that calls cheese "coagulated cow pus" without any counterbalancing factual material is propaganda, IMO.
Generally, these are advocacy pieces, and should be seen as such. They're trying to sell us something, not to educate.
Before you assume I'm a shill for Big Meat: I've been ovo-lacto vegetarian since 1974 (yup, over 46 years). My initial reasons for adopting that way of eating had to do with resource utilization, and a general ethical sense that decent developed-country people try to reduce the many unavoidable harms they create in a challenged (and mostly poorer) world. starting with the things that are individually easiest for them (so will vary by person - vegetarian was part of my "easy" - might not be for others, and that's fine).
Vegetarians or fully plant based eaters can get good nutrition, and it's not hard, but it does require slightly more attention than it takes for omnivores. That said, most omnivores - if surveys are to be believed - would be better off nutritionally if they ate substantilly more plants than the average person does now. (From what I've read, it's statistically unusual to reach the minimal "5 servings a day" recommendation. Yes, some people do, and some omnivores exceed that . . . so there must be some statistically counterbalancing folks out there getting nearly none. That would be bad, nutritionally.)
So, my opinions: Would it be better if the average person ate more plants, and less of something else? Yes, for varied reasons. Should everyone stop eating meat or other animal foods? Not essential, IMO. Is meat-eating unhealthy? No. (That idea seems ridiculous to me, from an evolutionary perspective.) Should we collectively be trying to reduce the environmental and other deleterious impacts of modern meat production practice? Sure, that would be a good thing, and would apply to not just meat, but other food production, goods production, etc
Do these specific Netflix "documentaries" - the ones you mention and other similar ones - influence my thinking and eating? No. I try to educate myself about issues around the food I eat, and the impacts of its production methods, and take reasonable steps in my personal behavior accordingly . . . but advocacy pieces are not a great source of education, IMO. Kind of the reverse.
Do well-researched factual articles, and especially research studies or careful balanced investigative reporing influence my thinking? Sure, I hope so. About plant based eating specifically or uniquely? No. Many food
production methods cause harm. So do other aspects of our developed-world lifestyles.
It's trendy to demonize meat, and Netflix is notorious for delivering the long-form version of clickbait.
Thank you for providing a cogent argument that isn't too insulting to my intellectual capabilities
I've heard from you and others here that Netflix "documentaries" are not reliable sources of information, and that's not the first time I've heard that. I'm wondering who these experts panelists are, doctors and environmental scientists, who are willing to put their names out there and make these claims, if they don't have their own studies and research to back them up.
Granted I haven't read the studies, but I've found that in my readings of psychology, there is almost always a study that will wholly refute another study trying to prove the opposite hypothesis. Maybe it's different for medicine and climate change.
I see the cheese thing stood out for a lot of people. Without going into detail of the visuals involved (so as not to "gross everyone out"), it had to do with the way the cows were handled and mistakes that can be made. I don't think that all cheese is, well, what I said. I think that must have been an exaggeration for dramatic effect. And probably by the worst propaganda pusher.
In any case my aim is to see if things like this actually influence people to change their eating habits. I wanted to know if the makers of these films are getting their message out. I've seen from you all that it doesn't, and they're not. Films like this are not to be trusted, you say.
I appreciate those of you who mentioned reducing meat consumption for environmental reasons. I admit that's where the second film "got" me the most. Since your knowledge came from more legitimate sources it gives me incentive to do further research before I cut out meat for the "wrong" reason, e.g. A Netflix film convinced me to do it.
Thank you, everyone, for your feedback.0 -
If you read multiples, and go to mainstream, trusted sources for summaries, there is a "weight of the evidence" effect. One wants to be looking for that "weight of the evidence", the consensus of the boring academic authorities (not the flashy marketers), and that sort of thing, IMO. There are hallmarks of who is truly trying to figure things out, vs. who is trying to support what they already believe.Personally, I think shifting my thinking based solely on propaganda is a slippery slope to low intellectual standards and generally poor cognition. Any "documentary" that calls cheese "coagulated cow pus" without any counterbalancing factual material is propaganda, IMO.
Generally, these are advocacy pieces, and should be seen as such. They're trying to sell us something, not to educate.
Before you assume I'm a shill for Big Meat: I've been ovo-lacto vegetarian since 1974 (yup, over 46 years). My initial reasons for adopting that way of eating had to do with resource utilization, and a general ethical sense that decent developed-country people try to reduce the many unavoidable harms they create in a challenged (and mostly poorer) world. starting with the things that are individually easiest for them (so will vary by person - vegetarian was part of my "easy" - might not be for others, and that's fine).
Vegetarians or fully plant based eaters can get good nutrition, and it's not hard, but it does require slightly more attention than it takes for omnivores. That said, most omnivores - if surveys are to be believed - would be better off nutritionally if they ate substantilly more plants than the average person does now. (From what I've read, it's statistically unusual to reach the minimal "5 servings a day" recommendation. Yes, some people do, and some omnivores exceed that . . . so there must be some statistically counterbalancing folks out there getting nearly none. That would be bad, nutritionally.)
So, my opinions: Would it be better if the average person ate more plants, and less of something else? Yes, for varied reasons. Should everyone stop eating meat or other animal foods? Not essential, IMO. Is meat-eating unhealthy? No. (That idea seems ridiculous to me, from an evolutionary perspective.) Should we collectively be trying to reduce the environmental and other deleterious impacts of modern meat production practice? Sure, that would be a good thing, and would apply to not just meat, but other food production, goods production, etc
Do these specific Netflix "documentaries" - the ones you mention and other similar ones - influence my thinking and eating? No. I try to educate myself about issues around the food I eat, and the impacts of its production methods, and take reasonable steps in my personal behavior accordingly . . . but advocacy pieces are not a great source of education, IMO. Kind of the reverse.
Do well-researched factual articles, and especially research studies or careful balanced investigative reporing influence my thinking? Sure, I hope so. About plant based eating specifically or uniquely? No. Many food
production methods cause harm. So do other aspects of our developed-world lifestyles.
It's trendy to demonize meat, and Netflix is notorious for delivering the long-form version of clickbait.
Thank you for providing a cogent argument that isn't too insulting to my intellectual capabilities
I've heard from you and others here that Netflix "documentaries" are not reliable sources of information, and that's not the first time I've heard that. I'm wondering who these experts panelists are, doctors and environmental scientists, who are willing to put their names out there and make these claims, if they don't have their own studies and research to back them up.
Granted I haven't read the studies, but I've found that in my readings of psychology, there is almost always a study that will wholly refute another study trying to prove the opposite hypothesis. Maybe it's different for medicine and climate change.
You can find one study to support *anything*. What's the quality of that study? What are its limitations? Who has criticized it, and on what basis? What do the meta-analyses say? And so forth.
Any one study is a brick in a coherent wall of evidence . . . or just a brick lying around on its own. It takes more investigation to know which of those applies, in any given instance.
The cheese thing stood out because (1) you kinda emphasized it, and (2) it's one of those emotional-trigger things we've seen people mention before. Yeah, cows can have infections. They're overplaying it in the docs.I see the cheese thing stood out for a lot of people. Without going into detail of the visuals involved (so as not to "gross everyone out"), it had to do with the way the cows were handled and mistakes that can be made. I don't think that all cheese is, well, what I said. I think that must have been an exaggeration for dramatic effect. And probably by the worst propaganda pusher.In any case my aim is to see if things like this actually influence people to change their eating habits. I wanted to know if the makers of these films are getting their message out. I've seen from you all that it doesn't, and they're not. Films like this are not to be trusted, you say.
They do influence people to change their eating habits. There have been quite a few threads I've seen here where people have watched these "documentaries", believed them, and headed off in a new dietary direction. (I'm not saying the majority of people do this - but some, not super rare.)
There are other threads where people parrot what the docs and similar sources say, the milk = pus, "only human eat milk of other animals", and that sort of thing.
I suspect that when people change their eating pattern after watching a trendy video or two, it doesn't usually stick for life. That's just a guess, though, based on watching people and their eating behavior, over quite a span of life so far. (I'm 64.) Particularly in our teen and young adult years, we tend to try on a lot of different roles and lifestyles. Most don't last. A few do. New converts tend to exhibit a certain . . . religiousity.)I appreciate those of you who mentioned reducing meat consumption for environmental reasons. I admit that's where the second film "got" me the most. Since your knowledge came from more legitimate sources it gives me incentive to do further research before I cut out meat for the "wrong" reason, e.g. A Netflix film convinced me to do it.
How do you know how legitimate our sources are? I didn't see where any of us cited any. 😉 You don't want to fall for that either, yaknowhatImean?
I'd argue that when some source like these docs hooks you, it ought to raise questions or even red flags in your mind. If they hook you emotionally, do they have facts to back up their perspective? (Who disagrees, and what do they argue?) When sources trigger emotional responses in me, I feel suspicious, and check further. That emotional response makes me think I may be being played.
That a few of us disagree with these docs, enough to post, is really meaningless. You'll probably get some believers who post on the thread, if they see it.Thank you, everyone, for your feedback.
Question everything. 😆5 -
I have seen video footage of how animals are tortured and abused on farms and that was enough for me to go plant based. I don’t believe any animals should be mistreated the way they are on most farms.16
-
Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!6 -
Personally, I think shifting my thinking based solely on propaganda is a slippery slope to low intellectual standards and generally poor cognition. Any "documentary" that calls cheese "coagulated cow pus" without any counterbalancing factual material is propaganda, IMO.
Generally, these are advocacy pieces, and should be seen as such. They're trying to sell us something, not to educate.
Before you assume I'm a shill for Big Meat: I've been ovo-lacto vegetarian since 1974 (yup, over 46 years). My initial reasons for adopting that way of eating had to do with resource utilization, and a general ethical sense that decent developed-country people try to reduce the many unavoidable harms they create in a challenged (and mostly poorer) world. starting with the things that are individually easiest for them (so will vary by person - vegetarian was part of my "easy" - might not be for others, and that's fine).
Vegetarians or fully plant based eaters can get good nutrition, and it's not hard, but it does require slightly more attention than it takes for omnivores. That said, most omnivores - if surveys are to be believed - would be better off nutritionally if they ate substantilly more plants than the average person does now. (From what I've read, it's statistically unusual to reach the minimal "5 servings a day" recommendation. Yes, some people do, and some omnivores exceed that . . . so there must be some statistically counterbalancing folks out there getting nearly none. That would be bad, nutritionally.)
So, my opinions: Would it be better if the average person ate more plants, and less of something else? Yes, for varied reasons. Should everyone stop eating meat or other animal foods? Not essential, IMO. Is meat-eating unhealthy? No. (That idea seems ridiculous to me, from an evolutionary perspective.) Should we collectively be trying to reduce the environmental and other deleterious impacts of modern meat production practice? Sure, that would be a good thing, and would apply to not just meat, but other food production, goods production, etc
Do these specific Netflix "documentaries" - the ones you mention and other similar ones - influence my thinking and eating? No. I try to educate myself about issues around the food I eat, and the impacts of its production methods, and take reasonable steps in my personal behavior accordingly . . . but advocacy pieces are not a great source of education, IMO. Kind of the reverse.
Do well-researched factual articles, and especially research studies or careful balanced investigative reporing influence my thinking? Sure, I hope so. About plant based eating specifically or uniquely? No. Many food
production methods cause harm. So do other aspects of our developed-world lifestyles.
It's trendy to demonize meat, and Netflix is notorious for delivering the long-form version of clickbait.
Thank you for providing a cogent argument that isn't too insulting to my intellectual capabilities
I've heard from you and others here that Netflix "documentaries" are not reliable sources of information, and that's not the first time I've heard that. I'm wondering who these experts panelists are, doctors and environmental scientists, who are willing to put their names out there and make these claims, if they don't have their own studies and research to back them up.
Granted I haven't read the studies, but I've found that in my readings of psychology, there is almost always a study that will wholly refute another study trying to prove the opposite hypothesis. Maybe it's different for medicine and climate change.
I see the cheese thing stood out for a lot of people. Without going into detail of the visuals involved (so as not to "gross everyone out"), it had to do with the way the cows were handled and mistakes that can be made. I don't think that all cheese is, well, what I said. I think that must have been an exaggeration for dramatic effect. And probably by the worst propaganda pusher.
In any case my aim is to see if things like this actually influence people to change their eating habits. I wanted to know if the makers of these films are getting their message out. I've seen from you all that it doesn't, and they're not. Films like this are not to be trusted, you say.
I appreciate those of you who mentioned reducing meat consumption for environmental reasons. I admit that's where the second film "got" me the most. Since your knowledge came from more legitimate sources it gives me incentive to do further research before I cut out meat for the "wrong" reason, e.g. A Netflix film convinced me to do it.
Thank you, everyone, for your feedback.
Doctors are just people. Yes, they're people who have received specialized training, but they're capable of having errors in their reasoning, making venal or financially motivated decisions, or just being wrong. Usually the answer to "But why would a doctor say [x] when it isn't right or can't be proven?" can be found in one of the above.
2 -
Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
The "someone" in this instance is an animal, but the argument will apply to anyone we decide we can kill to increase our own enjoyment of life or to make things more convenient for us. I understand the argument that we CAN treat animals humanely before we decide to kill them, what I don't understand is the argument that we have a moral obligation to do so. If someone's own interest in continued life is considered irrelevant in the face of our desire for their death, what is the moral significance of their suffering, pain, or distress in all other stages of their life?2 -
I would prefer to raise and butcher my own meat. That isn't possible for several reasons; therefore, I try to buy from local producers whose farms I can go look at. I live in an area where there are CAFOs around, and that's not how I want my meat to live, so I have to do some research on local farms. Ideally, I'd prefer them to be happy, with one bad day.7
-
The Game Changers is a compelling film for those who are on the fence and interested in the research without the gut wrenching film of suffering animals. For those who are not on the fence, you will find your reasons to support your beliefs.
1 -
No documentaries tend to have too much of an agenda instead of presenting objective facts and data.7
-
One year I was flying somewhere and watched “that sugar film” on the plane. It was a man who’s lady got pregnant and he decided to eat the average sugar intake of the average Australian and basically within 2 months had himself at pre-diabetic insulin resistance and had gained like 20kgs.
I’m a meat eater and always will be but for me it was a massive wake up call about the rest of my diet and how much filler foods are just crap food. I would say now veggies make up 85% of my diet3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)3 -
JessiBelleW wrote: »One year I was flying somewhere and watched “that sugar film” on the plane. It was a man who’s lady got pregnant and he decided to eat the average sugar intake of the average Australian and basically within 2 months had himself at pre-diabetic insulin resistance and had gained like 20kgs.
I’m a meat eater and always will be but for me it was a massive wake up call about the rest of my diet and how much filler foods are just crap food. I would say now veggies make up 85% of my diet
We can't just look at sugar intake, because you can eat 200g of sugar a day and still be lean, that's entirely possible. The guy gained all that weight because he ate more calories.
If he had decided to replace some calories with sugar while still eating the same number of calories he wouldn't have gained all that weight.6 -
Not a particular documentary but I just hear so much generally from friends, social media and news that I follow that eating a lot of meat is bad for the environment. I don't need to watch a graphic documentary to understand that.
So I have cut down my red meat intake (which is by far the worst), and I eat mostly poultry, fish and vegetarian meals. I'll occasionally have red meat if we are eating out or on holiday.
It works fine for me, I don't feel deprived and feel like I am doing my (very tiny) bit.2 -
Not a particular documentary but I just hear so much generally from friends, social media and news that I follow that eating a lot of meat is bad for the environment. I don't need to watch a graphic documentary to understand that.
So I have cut down my red meat intake (which is by far the worst), and I eat mostly poultry, fish and vegetarian meals. I'll occasionally have red meat if we are eating out or on holiday.
It works fine for me, I don't feel deprived and feel like I am doing my (very tiny) bit.
I think this is the thing for me. I have gradually moved to a more plant based diet because of environmental and social impacts. I do this for the same reason I try to minimise plastic use, recycle, and buy fair trade tea.
I cannot solve the problems, but I can make choices that have very little impact on my life and have some small positive consequences.4 -
Absolutely. "More plant-based" as opposed as exclusively plant-based.
I found nutritionfacts.org on youtube back in 2015, after having lost 85lbs. About 80% made sense and I quickly detected the agenda which makes the site name half truths, with cherry pickings here and there.
Still very relevant in my opinion and I learned a lot. If I have to define my eating would be flexitarian, with a lot of various veggies.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions