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?

13

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    ZenDream wrote: »
    I stopped eating meat around 2011 although I still eat fish, eggs, and diary. As of late, I'm considering transitioning over to an entire plant based diet.

    Is this due to a specific documentary?
  • XxMinoXx
    XxMinoXx Posts: 9 Member
    I do not think that alarmism about the health consequences of animal products is a sustainable way to promote veganism.

    This. 100%.

    The best way to form your own opinion is to see all sides, and to do your research. I like watching some of those documentaries. They send me off on new avenues of learning, and I do eat a more plant-based diet because of the things I learned after watching them and doing my own research on the subject.

    I make my food choices based on Michael Pollan's three simple rules for eating... "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." If you can do that, weight loss dieting becomes a thing of the past and your choices will positively impact the environment while supporting local food producers. Win-win-win.
  • Mellouk89
    Mellouk89 Posts: 469 Member
    Not documentaries but I used to watch health and nutrition videos about veganism. I watched mostly Dr.McDougall, Michael Greger and other “experts” on the subject. While they sounded convincing, I don't see how I could apply all of that in my life. I have food intolerance to legumes, nuts, seeds and soy products. I would be very limited if I were to eat plant-based. On top of that I am not a very good cooker, or rather I have never learned how to cook properly.

    I don't even know what my meals would look like.
  • brianpperkins131
    brianpperkins131 Posts: 90 Member
    I find that foie gras tastes even better when one of the alarmist pseudo-documentaries from Netflix plays.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    XxMinoXx wrote: »
    I do not think that alarmism about the health consequences of animal products is a sustainable way to promote veganism.

    This. 100%.

    The best way to form your own opinion is to see all sides, and to do your research. I like watching some of those documentaries. They send me off on new avenues of learning, and I do eat a more plant-based diet because of the things I learned after watching them and doing my own research on the subject.

    I make my food choices based on Michael Pollan's three simple rules for eating... "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." If you can do that, weight loss dieting becomes a thing of the past and your choices will positively impact the environment while supporting local food producers. Win-win-win.

    To be fair, eating "not too much" of anything is just another way of describing weight loss dieting. "Too much" is, by definition, more than you need to sustain a healthy weight. The point is how we get there: for me, some form of conscious calorie control is necessary even when I'm eating plants exclusively.
  • amberellen12
    amberellen12 Posts: 248 Member
    Forks over Knives

    The China Study - book

    The Blue Zone

    Michael Pollan - 3 rules advice
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited November 2020
    figyello wrote: »
    Not a documentary, but Graham Hill's TED Talk about being a weekday vegetarian did motivate me to eat less meat. My family now eats vegetarian at least a couple days a week and it's not difficult. Eggplant parm instead of chicken, for example, and nobody even notices.

    Oh, I would notice...

    c66518a73dc2631e767c869f4e8df81a.png
  • angelexperiment
    angelexperiment Posts: 1,917 Member
    Yes it did. I did watch these and I went vegetarian for a year and vegan for a few months. I can’t sustain that type of diet long term. So I just try not to eat meat much if possible
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,399 Member
    None of them has really influenced my choices. "Documentaries" that are biased from the start are IMHO just as misleading as many of the voodoo doctors out there peddling woo. The whole picture is the whole picture.

    I do try to stay somewhat in touch with food sources and consequences. Small family farms die off due to lack of water and the worlds love for avocado's, but is that being reported by the plant based community? Likewise resource use of many foods, both plant and animal based, is just excessive. The impacts on the environment can be changed somewhat with food choices.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    figyello wrote: »
    Not a documentary, but Graham Hill's TED Talk about being a weekday vegetarian did motivate me to eat less meat. My family now eats vegetarian at least a couple days a week and it's not difficult. Eggplant parm instead of chicken, for example, and nobody even notices.

    Oh, I would notice...

    c66518a73dc2631e767c869f4e8df81a.png

    Even if you enjoy chicken AND eggplant, it's hard for me to imagine not being able to tell the difference between the two. They're completely different tastes and textures!
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Yes it did. I did watch these and I went vegetarian for a year and vegan for a few months. I can’t sustain that type of diet long term. So I just try not to eat meat much if possible

    To be fair, from your post history you were also often attempting to layer in additional restrictions on top of the veganism, such as vegan keto. The more restrictions you layer on top, the more challenging veganism is going to be.

    There is a learning curve with figuring out how to create meals with just plants given how many of us learned to eat and create meals, but after that curve is passed, many people find it to be quite sustainable.
  • RashadLavelle
    RashadLavelle Posts: 46 Member
    The Game Changers influenced me. I tried it out, and had high blood pressure and gained weight and severe bloating. No more vegan for me. The documentary or movie was inspirational though, but it just didn't resonate with me when I tried it out.
  • NigelNi35
    NigelNi35 Posts: 53 Member
    It may have discouraged me as I found them to be moralistic and extreme. When I watched Colin Beaven's No Impact Man where he stopped driving cars, stopped subscribing to magazines, no longer eating out, and forced his wife to stop wearing makeup for a year, he came across as an green nut. When I used to watched those organic food documentaries on LINK TV, those vegans had a higher-than-thou behavior towards us meat-eaters, like Americans are killing Mother Earth when all I'm doing is ordering a burger at Carl's Jr. I don't want to have anything to do with people with such a narrow world view.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    It may have discouraged me as I found them to be moralistic and extreme. When I watched Colin Beaven's No Impact Man where he stopped driving cars, stopped subscribing to magazines, no longer eating out, and forced his wife to stop wearing makeup for a year, he came across as an green nut. When I used to watched those organic food documentaries on LINK TV, those vegans had a higher-than-thou behavior towards us meat-eaters, like Americans are killing Mother Earth when all I'm doing is ordering a burger at Carl's Jr. I don't want to have anything to do with people with such a narrow world view.

    Are you turned off by any suggestion that some acts may be preferable to others in their impact to other individuals and society as a whole or is this something that is exclusive to discussions of environmental impact and veganism?

    I ask because most people implement some kind of standard of behavior -- holding that one act can be kinder or more responsible or more just than another act. All vegans do is apply this relatively common assessment to behaviors that involve animals (and all environmentalists are doing is applying this relatively common assessment to behaviors that impact the health of the earth overall).
  • NigelNi35
    NigelNi35 Posts: 53 Member
    edited December 2020
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of whether or not a person should eat meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans pontificate that most Americans are destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

  • NigelNi35
    NigelNi35 Posts: 53 Member
    edited December 2020
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited December 2020
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.

    What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?

    I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.

    To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat production. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

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

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment

    I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?



  • NigelNi35
    NigelNi35 Posts: 53 Member
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.

    What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?

    I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.

    To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

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

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment

    I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?



    That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
  • NigelNi35
    NigelNi35 Posts: 53 Member

    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.

    What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?

    I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.

    To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

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

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment

    I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?



    That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.

    So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?

    What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?

    I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.

    I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?

    I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    To whoever flagged my comment above, if you'd like to clarify what part of my post crossed the line, I would be happy to either clarify it or edit it.
  • NigelNi35
    NigelNi35 Posts: 53 Member
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.

    What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?

    I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.

    To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

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

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment

    I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?



    That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.

    So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?

    What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?

    I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.

    I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?

    I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.

    Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.

    It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.

    2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.

    Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?

    Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.
  • NigelNi35
    NigelNi35 Posts: 53 Member
    edited December 2020
    That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."

    The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage

    https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/

    Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html