Why is the 'eat less meat' message such a hard sell?

[nosmokes]

Eating is a political act. When you buy the fast food crap and the processed junk in the supermarket you're supporting the industrial agricultural model that is giving us calories, but is sorely lacking in nutrition, is torturing animals, mistreating workers, wreaking havoc on the environment and more.
--###--

original-vancouversun

Why is the 'eat less meat' message such a hard sell?

Eleanor Boyle, Special to the Sun
Published: Friday, October 31, 2008

Eating less meat is one of the most effective steps any of us can take to fight climate change, as Nicholas Read points out in his insightful article in The Vancouver Sun last week.

However, as he demonstrates, despite evidence that intensive meat production contributes significantly to global warming, and to further threats to public health and environment such as water pollution, most citizen and environmental groups play down the issue. They ask people to walk more and turn off lights, but usually steer clear of the meat question.

As an educator working on this issue, I can concur that the Eat Less Meat message is a hard sell, even for groups dedicated to sustainability.


Why the resistance? Both for sustainability professionals and for their audiences, some people understandably just don't want to eat less of foods they enjoy. Others consume animal products out of habit or convenience, or because they believe meat-eating conveys sophistication, or affluence, or virility.

But one key source of resistance to the Eat Less Meat message is a belief, even among some environmentalists, that food decisions constitute a sacred kind of "personal choice" that society cannot, or should not, seek to influence.

This argument doesn't stand up to analysis.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[Triana]

1. Same reason NOT driving an SUV and drinking less beer is, I guess. n/t

[johnaries]

2. Because it is NOT a political issue. It IS a personal choice.

Personally, if I were a vegetarian I would starve to death.

[wtmusic]

23. On an overcrowded planet unfortunately all choices are political

and becoming a vegetarian isn't the only option (cutting back helps).

[geomon666]

101. Here's a nice compromise.

Let's kill and eat humans. We'll satisfy our desire for meat and take care of that overcrowding problem. :)

[johnaries]

198. That's a Modest Proposal.

:rofl:

[leftofthedial]

263. SOylent Green......

It's people!!!!


Pass the stroganoff.

[live love laugh]

110. To say that people should stop eating meat to stop global warming is the

equivalent of saying that people died in Katrina because they refused to leave or that the market crashed two weeks ago because people took out mortgage loans.

This is another way to blame deregulation and governmental negligence on THE PEOPLE.

[KitSileya]

206. But the message isn't to stop eating meat.

It's to eat less meat - a message given to people in the industrialized world that would actually be healthy not only for the planet, but also for themselves.

[Marie26]

393. Are you sure about that?

How do you know it's healthier for them?

[yewberry]

211. I'm sorry, that just isn't a reasonable comparison.

Victims of Katrina made the choices they had to make in the face a terrible storm, and those choices were often based in economic and personal realities. Terrible, terrible things happened to the people all over the Gulf Coast through no fault of their own.
The market crashed for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, it seems that everyone is on the hook for that one.

This article simply suggests that people should eat less meat, and wonders why that is such an unwelcome discussion. It's no more offensive than suggesting that people should use bikes and public transportation when those are viable choices. There are personal and global benefits for anyone, regardless of class or race.

And this is not about blame, it's about letting people know that they might be able to make choices that are better for everyone.

Anyone and everyone can make choices that matter in this case. Eating less meat is better for everyone environmentally, saves money, and may be healthier for individuals.

In this case, everyone can and does make a difference.

[Lorien]

213. No it's not. Answer this question: would you like to slow down climate

change? Do you believe that it would be better that all of the people had some food to eat? Suggesting that people eat less meat is the equivalent of saying that the poor and middle class deserve a tax cut, not JUST the wealthy. It takes much more land and resources to make a calorie of meat than it does to make a calorie of grains, nuts, vegetables or fruits. Meat is far more destructive to the planet than automobiles, yet eating meat is somehow considered "sacred" while driving a Hummer is not. Odd, isn't it? We would rather have a burger and let the rest of the planet starve than make a healthier choice for dinner and allow land masses in other nations to feed THEIR starving people anything at all. And WE are supposed to be the compassionate ones who fight against environmental catastrophe and injustice! The cognitive dissonance on this issue never ceases to amaze me.When it comes to the politics of food, most liberals suddenly turn into libertarians.

One of the best cases for eating less meat was laid out by Jane Goodall:

http://commerce.janegoodall.org/store/image.php?productid=99

Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating takes readers from the early history of agriculture, through the mismanagement of crop farming, to today's genetically modified foods and the horrors of factory farming. Dr. Goodall reveals how every individual can make a difference by eating vegetarian and favoring restaurants and markets which use locally-grown, organic produce and goods. Goodall, McAvoy and Hudson’s writing inspire the reader to demand a systemic change - from improved labeling of organic foods to better water conservation. Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating is available in paperback, hardcover and audio.

[Marie26]

386. I'd love to be a vegetarian.

I prefer fruits & grains, & don't even like meat that much. But for me, when I tried a vegan diet, I just became weak, irritable & anemic. I've reluctantly concluded that our bodies need protein to function & meat is one of the best sources of that protein.

[leftofthedial]

3. because meat is good

and good meat is good for you

[Yes We Did]

212. Damned Straight!

Sorry, I have all the respect for vegetarians and vegans... but I love a good steak. I can honestly say I don't remember the last day I DIDN'T have some form of meat.

[Lorien]

218. Wrong. Is having a future good? Is the stavation of millions good?

Meat isn't at all good for the animals that provide it. Meat kills; there are links between cancer rates and meat consumption. My own father won't last long in this world because he loves meat so much. Nearly every meal he eats is all meat (mostly beef and pork); he's 200 pounds overweight, has diabetes, a pacemaker, and kidney stones. I'll lose him soon because he loves bacon more than life itself. It's fucking sick.

Here's a few more facts on beef:

FACT SHEET: DAMAGED HEALTH
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
DAMAGED HEALTH

Beef contains high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat and is frequently contaminated by chemicals and disease. Beef may be one of the more unhealthy foods on the market today.

* Nearly 70 percent, or 1.5 million of the 2.1 million deaths in the United States in 1987, were from diseases associated with diet -- particularly diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol, according to a U.S. Surgeon General's report.1
* Many scientific studies have found a high correlation between the consumption of red meat -- which is high in saturated fats and cholesterol -- and heart disease, stroke. and colon and breast cancer.2
* In 1990, the largest study ever done on the health effects of consuming animalderived foods confirmed the results of previous studies showing a high correlation between meat consumption and the incidence of heart disease and cancer. Participating reseachers followed the eating habits of 6,500 people living in twenty-five procinces in China.3
* The Chinese study found that Chinese consume 20 percent more calories than Americans, but that Americans are 25 percent fatter. That's because 37 percent of the calories in the U.S. diet comes from fat, whereas less than 15 percent of the calories in the rural Chinese diet comes from far. The study also found that 70 percent of the protein in the U'estern diet conies from animal sources and 30 percent from plants. In China, only 11 percent comes from animal products and 89 percent from plants.4
* The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Pediatrics are just a few of the medical, scientific, and professional associations that recommend a reduction in the consumption of red meat and other animal-derived foods and a shift to a more vegetarian diet.5
* Beef contains the highest concentration of herbicides of any food sold in America, according to the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. Eighty percent of all the herbicides used in the U.S. are sprayed on corn and soybeans, which are used primarily as feed for cattle. When consumed by cattle, the chemicals accumulate in their bodies and are passed onto consumers in finished cuts of beef.6
* Beef ranks second only to tomatoes as the food posing the greatest cancer risk due to pesticide contamination. It ranks third of all foods in insecticide contamination. Of all food on the market today, pesticide-tainted beef represents nearly 11 percent of the total cancer risk to consumers from pesticides, according to the NRC.7
* More than 95 percent of all feedlot- raised cattle in the United States are currently receiving growth-promoting hormones and other pharmaceuticals, residues of Which may be present in finished cuts of beef.8
* In order to speed weight gain, feedlot managers administer growth-stimulating hormones and feed additives. Anabolic steroids, in the form of small time-release pellets, are implanted in the animals' ears. The hormones slowly seep into the bloodstream, increasing hormone levels by two to five times. Cattle are given estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone.9
* In 1988, more than 15 million pounds of antibiotics were used as feed additives for livestock in the United States. The drugs were used to promote growth and fight the diseases which run rampant in cramped. contaminated pens and feedlots. While the cattle industry claims that it has discontinued the widespread use of antibiotics in cattle feed, antibiotics are still being given to dairy cows, which account for 15 percent of all beef consumed in the United States. Antibiotic residues often show up in the meat people consume, making the human population increasingly vulnerable to more virulent strains of disease-causing bacteria.10
* Veal calves are so sick that antibiotics and other drugs are routinely used to keep many of them alive until slaughter. Contrary to veal industry claims, no drugs have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in formulafed veal calves. Some of the drugs used routinely, such as sulfamethazine, are carcinogenic. Drug residues are often present in veal purchased by consumers.11
* In a 1985 report, the National Academy of Sciences announced that current federal meat inspection procedures are inadequate to protect the public from meat-related diseases, and recommended ameliorative steps which have never been adopted. Instead, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), working with the meat-packing industry, developed a new, experimental inspection system -- the Streamlined Inspection System (SIS)-- the goal of which is to increase online meat production by up to 40 percent.12
* The SIS virtually eliminates the role of the federal meat inspector by placing responsibility for carcass inspection on packing house employees. Federal meat inspectors no longer inspect every carcass on the production line; instead, they examine less than one percent of the carcasses.13
* Under the SIS, thousands of carcasses with pneumonia, measles, and other diseases, peritonitis, abcesses, fecal and insect contamination, and contaminated heads (called "puke heads" because they are filled with rumen content) are passing through inspection on their way to dinner tables across the country.14
* In 1990, federal meat inspectors from across the country flooded the USDA with affidavits describing major problems throughout the new SIS system. Recently, USDA inspectors sent a letter to the National Academy of Sciences raising concerns about the wholesomeness of the U.S. beef supply.15
* Recent discoveries have suggested a possible link between new cattle diseases and disease in humans. Bovine leukemia virus (BLV), an insect-borne retrovirus that causes malignancy in cattle and which can be found in 20 percent of cattle and 60 percent of herds in the United States, is suspected of having a causal link to some forms of human leukemia. BLV antibodies have been found in human leukemia patients and BLV has infecfed human cells in vitro.16
* Bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV), which was discovered to be widespread in American cattle herds in the 1980s, genetically resembles the human HIV (AIDS) virus and, like the AIDS virus in humans, is believed to suppress the immune systems of cattle, making them susceptible to a wide range of diseases and infections. Scientists have successfully infected human cells with BIV, and at least one study suggested that BIV "may play a role in either malignant or slow viruses in man." In 1991,the USDA stated that it does not yet know "whether exposure to BIV proteins causes human sera to... become HIV positive."17
* The beef packing industry has the second highest rate of injury in American industry -- three times the national average. Injury rates in some plants exceed 85 percent, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.18

FOOTNOTES

* <1> Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 1988. Pub. no. 88-50210.
* <2> George A Bray, "Overweight is Risking Fate..." in Richard J. Wurtman and Judith Wunman, eds. Human Obesity, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 45)0 (1987). 21; Gina Kolata, "Animal Fat is Tied To Colon Cancer," New York Times, December 13, 1990; Waiter Willett et al.. "Relationship of Meat, Fat, and Fiber Intake to the Risk of Colon Cancer in Prospective Study Among Women," New England Journal of Medicine, 333:24 (1990), 1663; J. Raloff, "Breast Cancer Rise: Due to Dietary Fat?" Science News, April 21, 1(1)90. 215; Ibid.. 302: Geoffrey Howe et al.. "A Conort Study of Fat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer." Journal of National Cancer Institute, 85:5 (March 6, 1991).
* <3> Jane E. Brody, ''Huge Study of Diet Indicts Fat and Meat," New York Times, May 8, 1990, C1.
* <4> Nanci Hellmich, "In Healthful Living. East Beats West," USA Today, June 6, 1990; Anne Simon Moffat, "China: A Living Lab for Epidemology," Science 248, May 4, 1990. 554.
* <5> Quoted in Dorothy Mayes, "3 Ounces Per Day," Beef, April 1989, 33; Quoted in K.A. Fackelman, "Health Groups find Consensus on Fat in Diet," Science News 137, March 3, 1990, 132.
* <6> National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Alternative Agriculture, 44; National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Regularing Pesticides in Food, 78. Table 3-20 to 22.
* <7> National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Regulating Pesticides in Food, 78-80, Tables 3-20 to 22.
* <8> Fred Kuchler et al. "Regulating Food Safety: The Case of Animal Gronth Hormones," National Food Review July-December 1989, 26.
* <9> Jim Mason and Peter Singer, Animal Factories (New York. NY: Harmony· Books, 1990), 51; Jeannine Kenney and Dick Fallert, "Livestock Hormone in the United States," National Food Review, July-September 1989, 22-23.
* <10> Mason and Singer, Animal Factories, 70, 83-84; FDA Veterinarian, ''Antihiotics in Animal Feeds Risk Assessment," May/June 1989.
* <11> Mason and Singer, Animal Factories, 81-89.
* <12> Quoted in commentary from Carol Foreman to Linda Carey, May 15, 1989, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Public Docket No. 83-008P, 53 Federal Register 48262, November 30. 1988, Public Comments on Food Safety and Inspection Service Proposed Rule on Streamlined Inspection System for Meat Safety, 5; Government Accountability Project. Fact Sheet on Streamlined Inspection System, August 16, 1989, 1.

FACT SHEET: GLOBAL HUNGER AND POVERTY
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
GLOBAL HUNGER AND
POVERTY

Beef production causes human hunger and poverty by diverting grain and cropland to support livestock instead of people. In developing countries, beef production perpetuates and intensifies poverty and injustice, particularly if beef or livestock feed is produced for export.

* Seventy percent of all U.S. grain -- and one third of the world's total grain harvest -- is fed to cattle and other livestock. At the same time, between 40 and 60 million people die each year from hunger and diseases related to hunger. As many as one billion suffer from chronic hunger and malnourishment.1
* U.S. livestock -- mostly cattle -- consumes almost twice as much grain as is eaten by the entire American population. Globally, about 600 million tons of grain are fed to livestock, much of it to cattle.2
* Two-thirds of all U.S. grain exports foes to feed cattle and other livestock rather than hungry people.3
* In Africa, nearly one in three people is undernourished. In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night. In Asia and the Pacific, 22 percent of the people live at the edge of starvation. In the Near East, one in nine is underfed.4
* Chronic hunger and related disease affect more than 1.3 billion people, according to the World Health Organization. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species -- more than 20 percent -- been undernourished.5
* Undernutrition affects nearly 40 percent of all children in developing nations and contributes directly to an estimated 60 percent of all childhood deaths, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development. More than 15 million children die every year from diseases resulting from, or complicated by, undernourishment.6
* If worldwide agricultural production were shifted fron? livestock feed to food grains for direct human consumption, more than a billion people could be fed -- the precise number which currently suffer from hunger and malnourishment.8
* Feeding grain to livestock is an extremely wasteful method of producing protein. Feedlot cattle require nine pounds of feed to make one pound of gain. Only 11 percent of the feed goes to produce the beef itself. The rest is burned off as energy in the conversion process, used to maintain normal body functions, absorbed into parts of the cattle that are not eaten -- such as hair or bones -- or excreted.8
* Cattle have a feed protein conversion efficiency of only 6 percent, producing less than 50 kg of flesh protein from more than 790 kg of plant protein. A feedlot steer consumes 2,700 pounds of grain by the time it is ready for slaughter.9
* Asian adults consume between 300 and 400 pounds of grain a year; three-fourths or more of the diet of the average Asian is composed of grain. A middle-class American, by contrast, consumes over a ton of grain each year, 80 percent of it through eating cattle and other grain-fed livestock.10
* Two out of every three people around the world consume a primarily vegetarian diet. With one-third of global grain output now going to cattle and other livestock, and with the human population growing by almost 20 percent in the next decade, a worldwide food crisis is imminent.11
* Three quaners of America's public western land -- covering 40 percent of the eleven western statss -- is leased to cattlemen at prices far below market value.12
* Nearly half of the earth's landmass is used as pasture for cattle and other livestock. On very rich grasslands, two and a half acres can support a cow for a year. On marginal grazing land, 50 or more acres may be required.13
* In the 1960s, with the help of loans from the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank, many Central and South America governments began converting millions of acres of tropical rain forest and cropland to pastureland for the international beef market. Between 1971 and 1977, more than $3.5 billion in loans and technical assistance went to Latin America for cattle production.14
* Many major U.S. corporations invested heavily in beef production throughout Central America in the 1970s and 80s, including Borden, United Brands, and International Foods. Other American multinational companies such as Cargill, Ralston Purina, W.R. Grace, Weyerhauser-, Crown Zellerbach, and Fort Dodge Labs, provided most of the technological support for the Central American beef industry, from frozen semen to refrigeration equipment, grass seeds, feed, and medicine. 15
* The beef industry in Central America has enriched the lives of a select few, pauperized much of the rural peasantry, and spawned widespread social unrest and political upheaval. More than half the rural families in Central America -- 35 million people -- are now landless or own too little land to support themselves, while powerful ranchers and large corporations continue to acquire more land for pasture.16
* In Costa Rica, cattle interests cleared 80 percent of the tropical forests in just 20 years, turning half the arable land into cattle pastures. Today, just 2,000 powerful ranchincg families own over half the productive land in Costa Rica, grazing 2 million cattle most of whose meat is exported to the United States.17
* In Guatemala, less than 3 percent of the population owns 70 percent of the agriculitural land, much of it used for raising cattle. Nearly one third of Guatemala's beef production was exported to the U.S. in 1990.18
* In Honduras, land used for cattle pasture increased from just over 40 percent in 1952 to more than 60 percent in 1974. Total beef production tripled between 1960 and 1980 to over 62,000 metric tons annually. In 1990, more than 30 percent of the beef produced in Honduras was exported to the United States.19
* In Nicaragua, beef production increased threefold and beef exports increased five and a half times between 1960 and 1980.20
* By the mid 1980s, Central America had 80 percent more cattle than 20 years before, and produced 170 percent more beef.21
* In Brazil, 4.5 percent of the landowners own 81 percent of the farmland, while 70 percent of the rural households are landless. Between 1966 and 1983, nearly 40,000 square miles of Amazon forest were cleared for commercial development. The Brazilian government estimated that 38 percent of all the rain forest destroyed during that period was attributable to large-scale cattle development benefitting only a few wealthy ranchers.22
* In developing countries, the poor receive no benefit from cattle ranching. Modern beef production is capital intensive but not labor intensive. The average rain forest cattle ranch employs one person per 2,000 head of cattle, or about one person per twelve square miles. By contrast, peasant agriculture can often sustain a hundred people per square mile.23
* Latin American countries are using more of their land to graze cattle, and to grow feed crops. In Mexico, where millions of people are malnourished, one-third of the grain produced is being fed to livestock. Twenty-five years ago, livestock consumed less than 6 percent of Mexico's grain.24
* When land in developing countries is used to produce livestock feed, much of it for export, less land is available to peasant farmers to grow their own food, and so less food is available. As a result, staple food prices rise, and the impact is mostly felt by the poor. In Brazil, black beans, long a staple food for the poor, are becoming more expensive as farmers have switched to growing soybeans for the more lucrative international feed market.25

FOOTNOTES

* <1> U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, WASDE-256, Tables 256-6, -7, -16, -19. -23, World Bank, Poverty and Hunger (Washington DC: World Bank, 1986), 24: Susan Oakie. "Health Crisis Confronts 1.3 Billion," Washington Post, September 25, 1989, A1.
* <2> USDA, Economic Research Service, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimares, WASDE-256, Tables 256-6, -7, -16, -19, -23; World Bank, Poverty. and Hunger. (Washington DC: World Bank, 1986), 24. For two times the entire American population see USDA figures. For third world grain production see World Bank report.
* <3> USDA, Economic Research Service, WASDE 256-6,-16.
* <4> World Resources Institute, World Resources 1990-91, 87; CTnited Nations World Food Council, "The Global State of Hunger and Malnutrition and the Impact of Economic Adjustment on Food and Hunger," World Food Council, Thirteenth Ministerial Session, Report by the Secretariat, Beijing, China, 1987, 16.
* <5> Susan Okie, Al.
* <6> Katrina Galway et al., Child Survival: Risks and the Road to Health; (Columbia, MD: Institute for Resource Development, 1987), 31.
* <7> David Pimentel. Food Energy And The Future of Society (New York: Wiley, 1979), 26. U.S Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, WASDE-256, July 11, 1991,table 256-6; World Bank, Poverty and Hunger (Washington DC: World Bank, 1986). 24. Pimentel estimates that a conversion of the present American grass/grain livestock system to a totally grass-fed system would free up in the United States alone about 130 million tons of grain for direct human consumption, enough to feed about 400 million people. Today worldwide, about one-third of the 1.7 billion metric tons of total grain production is fed to livestock, which would suggest, using Pimentel's rationale, that a totally grass-fed livestock system worldwide might free enough grain up to feed over a billion people.
* <8> M.E. Ensminger, Animal Science (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, 1991). 23, fig 1-25, 20.
* <9> David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, Fond Energy and Society (New York: Wiley, 1979), 58; Ensminger, 23:"Assuming a feeding period of 140 davs and a gain of 450 pounds in the lot, the total market weight (10501h) would represent 2.57 Ib of feed grain expended for each pound of gain (450 x 6 =2,700)."
* <10> Paul Ehrlich et al., Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 1977), 315: Ensminger 20, 27; Pimentel et al., " Energy and Land Constraints in Food Protein production." Science, issue 190; 754.
* <11> David Pimentel and Carl W. Hall, eds., Food and Natural Resources (San Diego: Academic Press, 1989), 38; Jack Doyle, Altered Harvest (New York, NY: Viking/Penguin, 1985), 288; Lester Brown et al., Stare of the World 1990 (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1990), 5, table 1-1.
* <12> Ensminger, 22; Lynn Jacobs, "Amazing Graze: How the Livestock Industry is Ruining the American West." in Desertification ControlBullerin. No. 17 (Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Program, 1988); Public Lands Ranching Statistics.l990 (Free Our Public Lands. P.O Box 5784, Tuscon AZ 85703).
* <13> Paul Ehrlich and Ann Ehrlich, The Population Explosion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 35; David Pimentel and Carl Hall, eds. Food and Natural Resources, 80.
* <14> Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources, U.S. Congress, OTA-F-214, March 1984, Forest Resources, 96-97.
* <15> Tom Barry, Roots of Rebellion (Boston: South End Press, 1987), 84.
* <16> Norman Myers, The Primary Source (New York: W.W. Nonon, 1983), 133.
* <17> Catherine Caulfield, "A Reporter at Large: The Rain Forests," New Yorker, Jan. 14, 1985, 79; Norman Meyers, 134.
* <18> Norman Meyers, 133; export and production figures from USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service as Summarized by Scott Lewis, "The Hamburger Connection Revisited," Rainforest Action Network, San Francisco, 1991.
* <19> Billie DeWalt. "The Cattle are Eating the Forest," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1983, 19; Export and production figures from USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service as summarized by Scott Leuis.
* <20> Meyers 133; Export figures from USDA.
* <21> DeWalt, 19.
* <22> Caulfield. 49; lames Parsons, "The Scourge of Cows." Whole Earth Review, Spring 1988, 43.
* <23> Caulfield, 80.
* <24> David Barkin and Billie DeWalt. "Sorghum, the Internationalization of Capital and the Mexican Food Crisis," paper presented at the American Anthropological Association meeting. Denver, November 16 1983. 16; acreage figures from Scott Lewis, "The Hamburger Connection Revisited..."; grain figures from Barkin and DeWalt. p16; Steven Sanderson. The Transformation ofMesican Agriculture (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
* <25> Associacao Promorora de Estudus da Economica, A Economica Brasil-eira e Suas perspectives. Apecan XXIX, 1990 (Rio de Janeiro: APEC. 1990). 5. FAO of the United Nations, Trade, Commerce. Commercio. 1989 Yearbook (Rome:Italy: FAO, 1990) Vol 43, 29; Femando Homen de Melo, "Unbalanced Technological Change and Income Disparity in a Semi-Open Economy: The Case of Brazil," in Tullis F. Lammond and W. Ladd Hollist, eds. Food, State, and International Political Economy (Lincoln:University of Nebraska, 1986), 262-275..

QUOTABLE QUOTES
HEALTH

"If you step back and look at the data, the optimum amount of red meat you eat should be zero."

-- WALTER WILLETT, M.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital,
director of a study that found a close correlation between red
meat consumption and colon cancer

"Usually, the first thing a country does in the course of economic development is to introduce a lot of livestock. Our data are showing that this is not a very smart move and the Chinese are listening. They are realizing that animal-based agriculture is not the way to go....We are basically a vegetarian species and should be eating a wide variety of plant food and minimizing our intake of animal foods....
"Once people start introducing animal products into their diet, that's when the mischief starts."

-- T. COLIN CAMPBELL, PH.D., of Cornell University, director of
a study of 6,500 Chinese that found a close correlation between
meat consumption and the incidence of heart disease and cancer

"The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of 'real food for real people,' you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."

-- NEAL. D. BARNARD, M.D., President, Physicians Committee
for Responsihle Medicine. Washington, D.C.

"When we kill the animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings."

-- William C. Roberts, M.D., editor ofThe American Journal
of Cardiology

"All red meat contains saturated fat. There is no such thing as truly lean meat. Trimming away the edge ring of fat around a steak really does not lower the fat content significantly. People who have red meat (trimmed or untrimmed) as a regular feature of their diets suffer in far greater numbers from heart attacks and strokes."

-- MICHAEL KLAPER, M.D., Medical Director,
EarthSave Foundation, Santa Cruz, California

"The thousands of people who have suffered food poisoning after eating beef will, no doubt, appreciate that their beef was aesthetically acceptable, even though it made them ill. 'Lovely to look at, dangerous to eat' is not a standard that is likely to help beef sales."

-- CAROL TUCKER FOREMAN, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
during the Carter administration, commenting on the inadequacy
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Streamlined (Meat)
inspection System (SIS)

"As happened with tobacco, health warnings about meat eating are multiplying, and awareness of the environmental effects of meat production is rising. Just as cigarettes lost their allure, meat is losing its social cachet in some countries. Food marketers in the United Kingdom estimate that 2 million people in that country are strict vegetarians. More important, the number of people limiting meat in their diets is rising rapidly. An estimated 6 million people in the United Kingdom dine on meatless meals most of the time."

-- ALAN B. DURNING AND HOLLY B. BROUGH, in Taking Stock:
Animal Farming and the Environment, Worldwatch Institute,
Washington, D.C., 1991

ENVIRONMENT

"An alien ecologist observing... Earth might conclude that cattle is the dominant animal species in our biosphere."

-- DAVID HAMILTON WRIGHT, PH.D., Emery University biologist

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and subdivision developments combined."

-- PHILIP FRADKIN in Audubon, National Audubon Society,
New York, New York

"Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, are what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you goin the American West you find hordes of ....They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows, and forests. They graze off the native bluestems and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Weeds. Even when the cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll smell it. The whole American West Stinks of cattle."

-- The late EDWARD ABBEY, conservationist and author, in a
speech before cattlemen at the University of Montana in 1985

"You can buy the land out there now for the same price as a couple of bottles of beer per acre. When you've got half a million acres and 20,000 head of cattle, you can leave the lousy place and go live in Paris, Hawaii, Switzerland, or anywhere you choose."

-- American rancher who owns grazing land in the Amazon,
descrihing the attitude of cattle colonists in the Brazilian rain
forest

"We got hooked on grain-fed meat just as we got hooked on gas guzzling automobiles. Big cars 'made sense' only when oil was cheap; grain-fed meat 'makes sense' only because the true costs of producing it are not counted."

-- FRANCES MOORE LAPPE , in Diet for a Small Planet

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter. What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

-- JOHN ROBBINS, author of Diet for a New America, and
President, EarthSave Foundation, Santa Cruz, California

HUNGER AND POVERTY

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

-- JEREMY RIFKIN, author of Beyond Beef, The Rise and Fall of
the Cattle Culture, and President of the Greenhouse Crisis
Foundation, Washington, D.C.

"A meat-fed world now appears a chimera. World grain production has grown more slowly than population since 1984, and farmers lack new methods for repeating the gains of the 'green revolution.' Supporting the world's current population of 5.4 bilion people on an American-style diet would require two-and-a-half times as much grain as the world's farmers produce for all purposes. A future world of 8 billion to 14 billion people eating the American ration of 220 grams of grain-fed meat a day can be nothing but a flight of fancy."

-- ALAN B. DURNING AND HOLLY B. BROUGH,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.

"There can be no question that more hunger can be alleviated with a given quantity of grain by completely eliminating animals . About 2,000 pounds of concentrates must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain (corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, etc.) eaten directly will support a person for a year. Thus, a given quantity of grain eaten directly will feed 5 times as many people as it will if it is first fed to livestock and then is eaten indirectly by humans in the form of livestock products...."

-- M.E. ENSMINGER, PH.D., internationally recognized animal
agriculture specialist, former Department of Animal Science
Chairman at Washington State University, currently President of,
Consultants-Agriservices , Clovis, California

"Changing eating habits in the North is an important link in the chain of events needed to create environmentally sustainable development that meets people's needs. The Beyond Beef campaign is an important step in that direction."

-- DR. WALDEN BELLO, Executive Director, Food First/The
Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco,
California

"Suppose food were distributed equally. If everyone in the world ate as Americans do, less than half the present world population could be fed on the record harvests of 1985 and 1986. Of course, everyone doesn't have to eat like Americans. About a third of the world grain harvest -- the staples of the human feeding base -- is fed to animals to produce eggs, milk, and meat for American- style diets. Wouldn't feeding that grain directly to people solve the problem? If everyone were willing to eat an essentially vegetarian diet, that additional grain would allow perhaps a billion more people to be fed with 1986 production."

-- PAUL R. EHRLICH AND ANNE H. EHRLICH, authors Of
The Population Explosion, 1990

"Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the Beef Cartel the biggest hog at the trough."

-- HOWARD LYMAN, Executive Director, Beyond Beef
campaign, former senior lobbyist for the National Farmers
Union

ANIMAL SUFFERING

"In my opinion, one of the greatest animal-welfare problems is the physical abuse of livestock during transportation.... Typical abuses I have witnessed with alarming frequency are: hitting, beating, use of badly maintained trucks, jabbing of short objects into animals, and deliberate cruelty."

-- TEMPLE GRANDIN, PH.D., internationally recognized livestock
handling consultant and hoard memher of the meat industry's
Livestock Conservation Institute

"For most humans, especially for those in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at meal time: we eat them....The use and abuse of animals raised for food far exceeds, in sheer numbers of animals affected, any other kind of mistreatment."

-- PETER SINGER, author of Animal Liberation, and professor of
philosophy at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

"The amount of meat lost each year through careless handling and brutality would be enough to feed a million Americans for a year.

-- JOHN MCFARLANE, Executive Director, The Council for
Livestock Protection, a meat industry organization

"I know, in my soul, that to eat a creature who is raised to be eaten, and who never has a chance to be a real being, is unhealthy. It's like...you're just eating misery. You're eating a bitter life."

--ALICE WALKER, author and poet

"in fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people."

-- RUTH HARRISON, author of Animal Machines

"Yet saddest of all fates, surely, is to have lost that sense of the holiness of life altogether; that we commit the blasphemy of bringing thousands of lives to a cruel and terrifying death or of making those lives a living death -- and feel nothing."

-- THE RIGHT REVEREND JOHN AUSTIN BAKER, Bishop of
Salishury, England, commenting on the cruelty of modern animal
agriculture

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."

-- RALPH WALDO EMERSON in Fate

FACT SHEET: ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEVASTATION

Cattle and beef production is a primary threat to the global environment. It is a major contributor to deforestation, soil erosion and desertification, water scarcity, water pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, global warming, and loss of biodiversity.

Deforestation

* Cattle ranching is a primary cause of deforestation in Latin America. Since 1960, more than one quarter of all Central. American forests have been razed to make pasture for cattle. Nearly 70 percent of deforested land in Panama and Costa Pica is now pasture.1
* Some 40,000 square miles of Amazon forest were cleared for cattle ranching and other commercial development between 1966 and 1983. Brazil estimates that 38 percent of its rain forest was destroyed for cattle pasture.2
* Just one quarter-pound hamburger imported from Latin America requires the clearing of 6 square yards of rain forest and the destruction of 165 pounds of living matter including 20 to 30 different plant species, 100 insect species, and dozens of bird, mammal, and reptile species. 3

Soil Erosion and Desertification

* Cattle production is turning productive land into barren desert in the American West and throughout the world. Soil erosion and desertification is caused directly by cattle and other livestock overgrazing. Overcultivation of the land, improper irrigation techniques, and deforestation are also principal causes of erosion and desertification, and cattle production is a primary factor in each case.
* Cattle degrade the land by stripping vegetation and compacting the earth. Each animal foraging on the open range eats 900 pounds of vegetation every month. Their powerful hoofs trample vegetation and crush the soil with an impact of 24 pounds per square inch.4
* As much as 85 percent of U.S. western rangeland, nearly 685 million acres, is being degraded by overgrazing and other problems, according to a 1991 United Nations report. The study estimates that 430 million acres in the American West is suffering a 25 to 50 percent yield reduction, largely because of overgrazing.5
* The United States has lost one third of its topsoil. An estimated six of the seven billion tons of eroded soil is directly attributable to grazing and unsustainable methods of producing feed crops for cattle and other livestock.6
* Each pound of feedlot steak costs about 35 pounds of eroded American topsoil, according to the Worldwatch Institute.7

Water Scarcity

* Nearly half of the total amount of water used annually in the U. S. goes to grow feed and provide drinking water for cattle and other livestock. Producing a pound of grain-fed steak requires the use of hundreds of gallons of water. Producing a pound of beef protein often requires up to fifteen times more water than producing an equivalent amount of plant protein.8
* U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a result of excess water use for cattle and other livestock. U.S. water shortages, especially in the West, have now reached critical levels. Overdrafts now exceed replenishments by 25 percent.9
* The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh water reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas, Texas, and New Mexico. In California. where 42 percent of irrigation water is used for feed or livestock production, water tables have dropped so low that in some areas the earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs and aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end of the last Ice Age.11

Water Pollution

* Organic waste from cattle and other livestock, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and agricultural salts and sediments are the primary non-point source of water pollution in the U.S.11
* Cattle produce nearly 1 billion tons of organic waste each year. The average feedlot steer produces more than 47 pounds ofmanure every twenty-four hours. Nearly 500,000 pounds of manure are produced daily on a standard 10,000- head feedlot. This is the rough equivalent of what a city of 110,000 would produce in human waste. There are 42,000 feedlots in 13 U.S. states.12

Depletion of Fossil Fuels

* Intensive animal agriculture uses a dis proportionate amount of fossil fuels. Supplying the world with a typical American meat-based diet would deplete all world oil reserves in just a few years.13
* It now takes the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of grainfed beef in the United States. The annual beef consumption of an average American family of four requires more than 260 gallons of fuel and releases 2.5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, as much as the average car over a six month period.14

Global Warming

* Cattle and beef production is a significant factor in the emission of three of the four global warming gases -- carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane.15
* Much of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is directly attributable to beef production: burning forests to make way for cattle pasture and burning massive tracts of agricultural waste from cattle feed crops. When the fifty-five square feet of rain forest needed to produce one quarter-pound hamburger is burned for pasture, 500 pounds of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.16
* CO2 is also generated by the fuel used in the highly mechanized agricultural production of feed crops for cattle and other livestock. With 70 percent of all U.S. grain production now used for livestock feed, the CO2 emitted as a direct result is significant.17
* Petrochemical fertilizers used to produce feed crops for grain-fed cattle release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Worldwide, the use of fertilizers has increased dramatically from 14 million tons in 1950 to 143 million tons in 1989. Nitrous oxide now accounts for 6 percent of the global warming effect.18
* Cattle emit methane, another greenhouse gas, through belching and flatulation. Scientists estimate that more than 500 million tons of methane are released each year and that the world's 1.3 billion cattle and other ruminant livestock emit approximately 60 million tons or 12 percent of the total from all sources. Methane is a serious problem because one methane molecule traps 25 times as much solar heat as a molecule of CO2.19

Loss of Biodiversity

* U.S. cattle production has caused a significant loss of biodiversity on both public and private lands. More plant species in the U.S. have been eliminated or threatened by livestock grazing than by any other cause, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).20
* Riparian zones -- the narrow strips of land that run alongside rivers and streams where most of the range flora and fauna are concentrated -- have been the hardest hit by cattle grazing. More than 90 percent of the original riparian zones of Arizona and New Mexico are gone, according to the Arizona State Park Department. Colorado and Idaho have also been hard hit. The GAO reports that "poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of degraded riparian habitat on federal rangelands."21
* Unable to compete with cattle for food, wild animals are disappearing from the rangs. Pronghorn have decreased from 15 million a century ago to less than 271,000 today. Bighorn sheep, once numbering over 2 million, are now less than 20,000. The elk population has plummeted from 2 million to less than 455,000.22
* The government has worked with ranchers to make cattle grazing the predominant use of Western public lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has long favored ranching over other uses. BLM sprays herbicides over large tracts of range eliminating vegetation eaten by wild animals and replacing it with monocultures of grasses favored by cattle.23
* Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.24
* The predator "control" program cost American taxpayers $29.4 million in 1990 -- more than the amount of losses caused by wild animals.25
* Tens of thousands of wild horses and burros have been rounded up by the federal government because ranchers claim they compete with their cattle for forage. The horses and burros are held in corrals, costing taxpayers millions of dollars per year. Many wild horses have ended up at slaughterhouses.
* For several years, cattle ranchers have blocked efforts to re-introduce the wolf, an endangered species, into the wild, as required by the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

FOOTNOTES

* <1> Catherine Caulfield, "A Reporter at Large: The Rain Forests." New Yorker, January 14, 1985, 79.
* <2> Ibid, 49.
* <3> Julie Denslow and Christine Padoch, People of the Tropical Rainforest (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988), 169.
* <4> John Lancaster, "Public Land. Private Profit," Washington Post, A1, A8. A9; Lynn Jacobs, Waste of the West. Puhlic Lands Ranching (Lynn Jacobs: Tuscon. AZ, 1991). 15.
* <5> Myra Klockenbrinli, "The New Range War Has the Desert As Foe," New York Times. August 20, 1991, G4.
* <6> Frances Moore Lappe Diet for a Small Planet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1982), 80.
* <7> Alan Durning, "Cost of Beef for Health and Habitat," Los Angeles Times, September 21, 1986, V3.
* <8> Lappe, Dietfor a Small Planer, 76-77.
* <9> David Pimentel and Carl W. Hall. Food and Natural Resources (San Diego: Academic Press, 1989),41.
* <10> Sandra Postel, Water: Rethinking Management in an Age of Scarcity, Worldwatch Paper 61 (1984), 20.
* <11> Pimentel and Hall, 89.
* <12>M. E. Ensminger, Animal Science (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, 1991), 187, table 5-9: Based on analysis by John Sweeten, Texas A&M, for the National Cattlemen's Association, 1990.
* <13> Pimentel and Hall, 35.
* <14> Alan Duming, "Cost of Beef For Health and Habitat," Los Angeles Times, 3; Based on 65 pounds of beef consumed per person per year. The auto CO2 emissions comparisons come from Andrew Kimbrell, "On the Road," in Jeremy Rifkin, ed., The Green Lifestyle Handbook (New York, NY:Henry Holt and Co., 1990), 33-42.
* <15> Fred Pearce, "Methane: The Hidden Greenhouse Gas," New Scientist, May 6, 1989; Alan Duming and Holly Brough, Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment, (Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute), 17; World Resources Institute, World Resources 1990-91, 355.
* <16> Greenhouse Crisis Statistical Review, Sources: World Resources Institute, Rainforssr Action Network. U.S. Department of Agriculture. and Worldwatch Institute in U.S. News and World Report, Oct 31, 1988.
* <17> David Pimentel, "Waste in Agriculture and Food Sectors: Environmental and Social Costs," paper for Gross National Waste Product Forum, Arlington. VA. 1989, 9-10. Pimentel concludes that substituting a grass feeding livestock system for the present grain and grass system would reduce energy inputs about 60 percent.
* <18> Lester Brown et al., State of the World 1990 (New Yorer, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1990), 67; Fred Pearce, 38.
* <19> Fred Pearce, 37; Methane emissions from live stock from World Resources Institute et al. 1990-91. 346. Table 24.1; Cattle emissions as a per cent of livestock emissions from Michael Gibbs and Kathleen Hogan, "Methane," EPA Journal, March/April 1990.
* <20> George Wuerthner. "The Price is Wrong," Sierra, September/October 1990. 40-41.
* <21> Wuerthner, 40: Jon Luoma. "Discouraging Words," Audubon, September 1986,92.
* <22> Wuerthner, 41-42; Denzel Ferguson and Nancy Ferguson. Sacrcd Cows At The Puhlic Trough, (Bend. OR: Maverick Publications. 1983). 116.
* <23> Ferguson and Ferguson, 158; Lynn Jacobs, 237.
* <24> Keith Schneider, "Mediating the Federal War of the Jungle," New York Times, July 9. 1991,4E; Carol Grunewald, ed, Animal Activist Alert, 8:3 (Washington D.C.: Humane Society of the United States, 1990), 3.
* <25> Carol Grunewald, ed, Animal Activist Alert, 8:3, 3.

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html#4

[AngryAmish]

233. BUt we can agree that a nice smoked brisket is very tasty, right?

[Canuckistanian]

243. TLDR

Summarize.

[leftofthedial]

261. damn! I wish I had enough time to read more than the first tenth of that twenty-screen screed.

Vegetables are not good for the plants that provide them either.

The nature of life is that some life forms kill and eat other life forms.

I'm no fan of slash-and-burn so that some Bolivian peasant can raise a few cows for Mickey D. Neither am I advocating factory feedlots and slaughterhouses. I said "good meat."

Your response to me (from what I can tell) has two parts. One, it laments the taking of vertebrate life, but ignores the karmic consequences of killing other life in order to eat. That is hypocrisy. Two, it points out the evils of corporate meat, which is the equivalent of me attacking vegetarians because corporate farming uses chemical fertilizers and destroys family farms in order to fill up the little boxes of Bird's Eye in the freezer.

[Orsino]

313. It was great when we could get it, five thousand years ago...

...or five hundred thousand, which is why most of us still crave it. Eating as much of it as many/most Americans do is demonstrably bad.

[wtmusic]

4. Twice as much global warming gas damage

comes from livestock production as all transportation combined.

[Mojorabbit]

90. I have chickens

I don't eat them but they eat bugs and I give them laying mash. My granny let her chickens fend for themselves and they prospered. I can't see how if a good number of homes raised a dozen chickens or so esp for the eggs which are a great protein source that that would be terrible for the environment.

Factory farming on the other hand is abhorrent. Eat local.

[wtmusic]

94. Absolutely.

A reasonable approach. :thumbsup:

[rebel with a cause]

205. Zoning took away the rights of people to have livestock in town.

When I was a girl a lot of the people, including my family, raised chickens in our back yard. We also had a garden where we raised our vegetables during the summer. We then canned our vegetables. We gathered eggs every morning and we killed the chickens as we needed them until we got a deep freezer, and then we would raise a group of chickens to capon age and then kill and clean all of them and put them in the freezer for the winter. The whole family would work to pluck and clean the chickens to make them ready.

We also raised rabbits that my father would kill and clean for meat, or would sell them for extra money that we needed. I will not eat rabbit, haven't since about fourteen years old and raised some from birth, but have no problem with eating any poultry meat even though I had pet hens and such. My oldest sister's husband even had a horse or two in town, and at one time a goat and varied other animals. As long as they were kept clean and did not stink, no one ever complained. Now in this area, you can still garden but livestock is out of the question.

Back then we were by all accounts a European immigrant neighborhood although my family was not that. We were pretty self sufficient and only bought the things we could not come up with. My mother made most of our clothes, and we girls learned to make our own dresses as soon as we were about twelve or thirteen.

If you had a small piece of land on the outskirts of town, you usually either raised a couple of pigs or cows that you butchered for personal/family consumption and again as many vegetables as you could. The gardens were called victor gardens back then because that was the name given to them during WWII. Those were the good old days.

[Seldona]

123. Yes, and it is a travesty all that methane is going to waste.

What happens when a 100 head herd can provide enough electricity for the farm, as well as selling the rest back to the power companies? It's already being done here in Wisconsin. I've read that it is about $11k a month worth of power the farmer can sell back to the power companies, but I will admit Wisconsin's buyback rate is far too low.

http://www.agriview.com/articles/2007/03/15/dairy_news/producer01.txt

Soon we can get a significant portion of our electrical power from cow shit, and at the same time eliminate a large portion of methane, one of the worst green house gases, from going into the atmosphere.

That is if the government is willing to invest in the infrastructure required. It's one of the things I love most about Obama, his willingness to invest in green, and yes brown, power.

*Edited to add this article talks about much bigger farms, but I have been studying this issue for years, and the dollar figure I gave you was for a 100 head farm.

[Zhade]

142. Now THAT'S a great idea!

NT!

[Frank Cannon]

5. Because sometimes, there is just nothing better than a nice juicy...

succulent steak. With a baked potato and a vegetable on the side.

It tastes great. It just does.

I'm not saying we should all eat that way, but there are a lot of people that agree with that line of thinking, and you're never going to convince them differently. Ever.

[wtmusic]

16. Depends.

Depends if they understand the price that that nice juicy steak exacts on the environment. I haven't given up meat, but I've cut back for that very reason.

[DireStrike]

63. There is no cost to them.

Not that they can notice.

In the anti-global-warming environment, it's a little bit easier, people might just give a moment's consideration to the fuzzy way in which their meal choice affects the environment. But it's amazingly abstract for most people.

Perhaps even a guilty pleasure.

[wtmusic]

72. That's like saying that when people don't vote, there's no cost to them

Yet 120M people show up to vote anyway. Go figure.

It will be a challenge to get people to work together for the common good. But isn't that what makes a Democrat - it's not about just me? :shrug:

[DireStrike]

108. Yes, I suppose you're right.

Trying to build up enough energy to have it spill over to those around you... tough work, but important.

[AllieB]

6. In before the inevitable shitstorm.

:popcorn:

Everytime one of these vege-agenda threads appears, the dialogue turns nasty.

[Zhade]

151. So you're saying they have a vegenda?

:p

[nomorenomore08]

Whenever someone claims that this or that is a "political act," alarm bells go off in my head.

Makes me think that the speaker has coercion or control of others in mind.

[Hugabear]

12. Exactly. Eating meat is not a political statement

To try and make the argument that it is, is rather absurd.

[Goblinmonger]

41. So what else can we then logically throw into the category

of NOT a political statement?

Abortion?
Homosexuality?
Religion?

[Hugabear]

49. Eating meat is not a political statement. End of fucking story.

Sorry if you or anyone else wants to make it a political statement just to fulfill your agenda - so that you can then demonize anyone who chooses to eat meat. But the fact of the matter is that billions of humans eat meat with no further thought than how it will taste or fulfill their appetite. They're not eating meat because they want to make a statement.

It's a ridiculous concept. For it to be a political statement, the person doing the act has to be aware of the statement they're making. If I were to consume a steak dinner in front of PETA headquarters, then that would be a political statement. If I sit down after a long day of work to eat a chicken dinner, I'm not making a political statement. I'm making a statement that says "I'm hungry and I like the taste of chicken!"

[Goblinmonger]

52. Well, if you declare it the end of the fucking story,

then what else is there to say?

So if someone hates gays/blacks and doesn't KNOW that they are hating gays/blacks but just doing what everyone in their family has done for generations, that hatred isn't political? We'll just give them as pass on it? Or could we perhaps agree that some things are political when doing what they are doing are just ignorant fucks?

[Hugabear]

60. Once again, you're going to introduce a stupid comparison?

First you bring up slavery, now you bring up homophobia and racism. Nice try, FAIL.

So you're saying that when a family gets together for a meal, and meat is being served, that the family is making a political statement?

[Goblinmonger]

69. So you're saying

when a family gets togethr for a meal, sits down, and talks about how they won't hire an african-american because he's a damn darkie, THAT isn't a political statement?

What other things can we toss out of the political realm?

[cherokeeprogressive]

112. Would this be a family owned business? Who's the owner? Who controls the hiring?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Goblinmonger]

122. Who cares?

If what a family does around the table is inherently NOT a political issue, then their racism wouldn't be either. That is the logical conclusion of the post I resonded to. Of course, you and the person who made the post tend to ignore the real discussion when called on logical fallacies.

[uppityperson]

311. what if they weren't eating, or were eating veggie, and talking about political stuff?

It is the talk. Not the fact they are eating, or what they are eating.

[uppityperson]

310. The "talk" is political, not eating a meal.

wtf?

[Goblinmonger]

327. The decision to eat meat is a political act

there are discussions all of the thread about the imapact that meat has on the environment, hunger, rain forest, resource allocation, etc. It does more than just impact the individual.

[JVS]

359. zOMG! This means that by having a fish fry the parish of St. Aloysius is violating their 501c3!

:wow:

[Goblinmonger]

375. Actually,

a fish fry is better than a steak BBQ. Far less resources go into a pound of fish in comparison to a pound of beef.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

84. Did you just compare bigotry to eating a chicken dinner?

I hate my life :(

[superduperfarleft]

93. Oh, good.

Another "anarchist" who doesn't understand intersectionality.

[Goblinmonger]

97. You and I need to share a beer.

Or Black Russian in my case, but to each their own.

[superduperfarleft]

103. As long as it's vegan, I'm in.

:sucks back another PBR:

[glitch]

132. Let me in on that beer.

I think you may be wasting your time presenting logical arguments on a very emotional (and of course obviously political) issue. When the response is this emotional sometimes the best course is to accept that they will get it when they get it, or not.

[Goblinmonger]

96. Why can't people follow along

or is this just deliberate straw man creation?

I'm trying to figure out what is and isn't a political issue. If decisions you make while "sitting around the table" aren't political because those people aren't aware of the decision they are making, then is unintentional bigotry also NOT a political issue?

Clearly this is too difficult for people in this thread. Perhaps too much meat.

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. You are NOT trying to figure out what is and isn't a political issue. You declared EVERYTHING is.

[Goblinmonger]

114. No I didn't

The amount of strawmen here tonight is frightening.

At best, you can say that I have declared issues of race, sexual preference, and eating of meat to be political issues. I don't think I have talked about anything else. Three things are CERTAINLY quite a bit shy of "EVERYTHING."

Do you not think that the amount of environmental damage that is done by the decision to eat meat makes it a political issue or is global warming not a political issue (there you go, there's my fourth thing I have listed).

[Zhade]

155. You should address the example he gave, not the strawman you created.

Eating meat is hardly the same, or even close, to bigotry. Your example is a bit absurd.

[Goblinmonger]

160. I'm not saying it is the same as bigotry

My point is that, according to his logic, if someone is just doing something that comes naturally and is not aware of the possible political statement, that it isn't political. To me, that seems absurd. Plenty of people are bigoted without realizing that they are bigoted or even realizing the ramifications of their actions, but I doubt anyone here would say that bigotry is not political. So my point is that awareness of the political nature of what you are doing is not a necessity.

As to the political nature of eating meat, I think it has been made clear several times on this thread. The environmental ramifications of a meat-based culture are becoming more clear every day. The impact on hunger is pretty clear, too, given the amount of resources needed to create a single pound of beef. Finally, the water usage and pollution from meat production is pretty clear, as well. To ignore those things and obtusely say "I'm hungry for chicken" and not realize the ramifications of that choice does not make the environement and other ramifications go away. It IS political regardless of whether the people on this thread want to realize it or not.

[Zhade]

173. That's not what he said, though. He said it's not a political *statement*.

Without the intent to make such a statement, he's right.

[nosmokes]

82. Sorry but the choice of what you eat is political.

Probably nothing else we do on such a regular basis has a greater impact on the planet than how and where our food is produced, and that is simply a fact. It also impacts on worker's rights and corporate strength. How anyone can possibly say it isn't political means they simply haven't thought the modern food system through. Revel in your ignorance if you wish,but trust trust me, you're not making a liberal choice if you're eating meat like the average American.

[Hugabear]

231. So what about people who drive their cars to work every day?

Or for that matter, what about the person who drives a gas-guzzling beater car to work every day? Is that person not a "good liberal"? Are they making a political statement in their choice of transportation?

Does it matter if that person can't afford to buy a new hybrid vehicle, or if they live in an area that doesn't provide adequate mass transit? If they don't live close enough to other co-workers to make carpooling feasible?

Hell, I suppose you could make the case that every time I spend American currency, I'm making a political statement in supporting the capitalist system and banking industries. Every time I fill up my car with gas, I'm making a political statement by supporting Big Oil, right?

[nosmokes]

321. Yes, It all matters. It's up to each one of us to make the best choice we

have available to us. And almost every single one of us has a better choice available. Does it mean making a sacrifice? Yes. But that's life. That person who lives in an area w/o decent mass transit can start rattling cages about it, like I do, bike and carpool. There are always alternatives.

But all I was asking PIB, was that folks cut back a bit on their meat consumption, and maybe be aware of how and where it was raised so that maybe we can move away from those abominations known as CAFOs and start to to reform our industrial agricultural and processed food like substance system. I'm sorry if that is such a huge burden on your shoulders you can't even carry on a rational conversation about it.

[Lorien]

223. You are wrong:

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html#4

[cherokeeprogressive]

111. Masturbation. Mental or Physical.

[Goblinmonger]

115. So when someone makes an illogical

fallacious argument, it is the person who calls the user of faulty argument that is the person in the wrong? Interesting. Do you blame rape victims, too (there you go, the fifth issue I have mentioned--I have a long fucking way to go to list EVERYTHING though, I best get going)?

[cherokeeprogressive]

116. Correct. You best get going.

[Goblinmonger]

121. Interesting

how you completely ignore the issue at hand.

When someone makes a fallacious argument, is the person who calls that person on their faulting reasoning the person in the wrong? That seems to be the argument you are making. But of course, I'm sure you'll ignore it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

124. You are correct. I will. And, you best get going.

[Lyric]

207. No, homosexuality is NOT a political statement. It's a state of being.

To imply that it's anything else is both ludicrous and dangerous, because it implies that sexual orientation is inherently a choice. Political statements are choices made for ideological reasons. Homosexuality is neither a choice nor an ideology.

[Goblinmonger]

286. That is clearly not what I meant.

I am speaking of bigotry toward people in regard to their sexual orientation. Is that a political act?

[gollygee]

366. The issue is that it isn't any more political than tons of things everybody does that aren't perfect

We all drive cars. We all end up buying things made from far, far away in bad conditions. Nobody is perfect, and it's frustrating to have vegetarians say, "You eat meat therefore you are the problem." Eating meat might be ONE problem but it isn't the ONLY problem. There is no way to live on earth and not negatively impact the earth. I try to lighten my impact in many ways - one is by reducing how much meat I eat. I also use cloth diapers for my kids, use natural homemade house cleaners, use cloth bags to shop and cloth products instead of paper around the home, combine trips in the car, live close to where my husband works and close to the things I need, etc. The arguments you make against meat could also be used against people who live in Southern California and commute long distances and use water that isn't really available in that climate. I don't hear people railing against people who live in areas that don't easily sustain human life, like in deserts. But when it comes to this one issue, all of a sudden perfection is the only acceptable goal. You can be awful toward the earth in a hundred different ways, but don't eat meat and you're OK. And, conversely, you can work hard to help the environment in a hundred different ways, but eat meat and you're evil.

[Goblinmonger]

376. Nobody on here has said that eating meat is the ONLY problem.

There have been people on here who deny that it IS a problem. The point of the OP is to eat less meat. Not to cut it out completely, but to be conscious of the impact the decision to eat meat has. It is a contributing source to some of the world's problems and, as evidenced by this thread, MANY people do not what to admit that.

I am quite sure that we all do what we can. But for some reason, pointing out that meat is also a consideration causes people to go batshitcrazy.

[gollygee]

388. The level of self-righteousness is different when we start talking about meat

The thread is from somebody wondering why it's harder to sell this issue, and it's harder to sell because of the level of self-righteousness. You say it's just about eating *less*, but I promise if you read through here you'll hear about murder and torture and that kind of thing. It isn't really about *less* - it's about eating meat being murder, which means none.

[Goblinmonger]

397. I think it is interesting

that all of the blame is put on those that are vegetarian. You don't think it has anything to do with the reactions of those that eat meat, though? I, personally, don't eat meat for both environmental and animal rights issues. To me, the killing of the animals is an issue. I shouldn't be able to discuss that without being dismissed summarily as "self-righteous?"

[gollygee]

401. Again, the question was, "why is it a hard sell"

Meat eaters aren't trying to sell you anything. Meat eaters generally just want to be left alone and not get preached at.

[Goblinmonger]

406. I know this thread has kind of run it's course

but I toss this out there. It seems really odd to me that a board of progressives will pick and issue and say they don't want to hear how it affects resource allocation, the environment, and other issues that are generally seen as important on here. People don't have a problem saying how pissed they are at the Hummer/SUV driver for wasting resources but don't want to hear that there are similar impacts to their meal choice. Why would one preach at others for their waste of resources and then tell me to shut the fuck up about what one eats?

[gollygee]

407. I have been eating less meat

and I wouldn't doubt that most people here are eating less meat.

But it isn't really presented in the same way. The assumption with "drive less" is that we will drive some but it's a good idea to watch how much. That is not the assumption with, "eat less meat". It's more like "you're still a murderer but at least you're murdering less."

[Goblinmonger]

408. There are all kinds of reasons

that people become vegetarian (I am not a vegan). I initially started down the path for environmental reasons and that is still a big part of it. Not everyone who is a veg*n is there because of animal rights. Many are environmentalists. If someone on DU says that they want people to reduce meat consumption because it helps the environment, I will take them at their word until they prove otherwise.

[otherlander]

138. You might not *want* it to be a political statement.

But it unarguably has political effects.

[Zhade]

156. That's the disconnect. As the poster above correctly stated, it can't be a statement without INTENT.

NT!

[Goblinmonger]

168. Don't fall for the strawman, Zhade

I expect more from you. It was the response to the OP that said poltical "statement." The OP says "political act."

[Zhade]

175. PiB's words: "Eating meat is not a political statement".

There's no strawman, except for the one you created by attacking these words.

[Goblinmonger]

181. Read the OP

"political act" i.e. changing it to political statement is a strawman.

And the "we've been doing it for thousands of years" IS an appeal to authority. I'm dead on on the logic of this one.

[Zhade]

184. Um, the person who wrote "act" is not the same person who wrote "statement".

You're attacking one person for the words of another!

[Goblinmonger]

190. I'm saying that the person who has

on several occasions in this thread committed a strawman with MY arguments has done the same thing with the OP. The point of the OP is that it is a political ACT. The responder went off about it being a political STATEMENT even though that is not the wording of the person originally presenting the argument. That is textbook strawman. I know who said what and I'm accusing the correct person of a strawman. On all occasions that I have made the claim. Just look at the times they have changed what I said. Again, I'm dead on right about the logic of all this.

[Hugabear]

7. Humans have been eating meat for THOUSANDS of years

Whether it be obtained through fast food, grocery stores, neighborhood butcher shops, fishing or hunting, people have been eating meat in some form or another for thousands upon thousands of years. It's not something that we're going to give up rather easily.

I don't eat much red meat anymore, but I do love me some pork, chicken, and fish.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Humans have been involved in the slavery business for THOUSANDS of year n/t

[Hugabear]

14. Please don't tell me you're comparing SLAVERY to eating fucking meat

Or that other insipid argument comparing worshiping Jesus to eating meat. They're both stupid fucking comparisons.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Only on the level that an appeal to tradition

is a lame argument and a fallacy to boot, argumentum ad antiquitatem if you want the fancy latin to impress your friends.

[niceypoo]

143. Eating meat is tradition like drinking water is tradition

It is an absurd assertion

[Goblinmonger]

162. I guess I'm not sure the point.

Are you trying to say that we need to eat meat to survive? Because that just isn't true.

[MattSh]

224. Change the word "tradition" to "evolution".

Satisfied now??

If you believe in evolution, you must necessarily believe that diet is part of that picture. If you believe diet is NOT a part of the evolutionary picture, then you don't really believe in evolution, do you??

[Goblinmonger]

247. You do know we are omnivores, right?

We aren't carnivores. We can survive without meat.

I am amazed at the logical twists and turns people are doing on this thread to justify their eating of meat and to smack down those that choose not to.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Oh, and Catholics teach that they are eating the actual body of Jesus

when they take communion. Is that what you are referring to, because then Catholicism is like eating meat.

[wtmusic]

32. You're the one with the stupidass appeal to tradition.

Read and learn

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

[Hugabear]

35. Eating is hardly a tradition.

Humans are omnivores. We eat both vegetation and meat. We've been eating meat since prehistoric times.

That hardly classifies as a "tradition".

[Goblinmonger]

38. Your argument that we have been doing it

for a long time IS an appeal to tradition.

Add to that the fact that we don't NEED to eat meat to survive and you still have a right fallacy sitting there in your hands.

Next attempt to backpedal out of a fallacious argument?

[Hugabear]

43. You seem to fail to grasp what tradition is

Eating meat has been a survival necessity for tens of thousands of years. People ate meat because they FUCKING HAD TO.

What's next, are you going to claim that seeking shelter from the elements is simply a tradition also?

[Goblinmonger]

51. It is NOT a survival necessity NOW.

To say that we need to eat meat because we "had" to eat meat for a long time in the past is still an appeal to tradition. There is no medical/scientific reason that we need to eat it now.

There have been many humans that have had to survive on a meat-less diet for a variety of necessity reasons, too. What's your point? Why not make a REAL argument as to why we need to eat meat other than "the cavemen did so I will, too"?

[niceypoo]

150. Neither is pizza, ice cream or cobb salad....

You are making an absurd 'point'

[Goblinmonger]

164. MY point is absurd?

But saying that we should eat meat because we have as a species for a long time isn't? You might want to take a logic class.

[Zhade]

152. We've been breathing a long time, too, that's not exactly an appeal to tradition.

It's a basic statement of fact.

Oh, and where's the evidence to support the "fact" that we don't need meat?

[Goblinmonger]

187. So me comparing the political ramifications

of eating meat and bigotry is absurd, but comparing eating meat to breathing isn't?

It IS an appeal to tradition when your basis for the argument is that we have done it for years. Period. There was no other discussion from the poster as to why we should continue. Just that we have done it for years. No evidence that we HAVE to eat meat. No indication as to why it would be instictual. Just "we've been doing it for thousands of years." Appeal to tradition.

I haven't eaten meat for 17 years. Neither has my wife. My daughter never has. Neither has my son. He's starting middle linebacker for his middle school football team and won national wrestling last year. All sans meat. Either it's a miracle or we don't need meat. There are plenty of people living quite well without meat.

[Hugabear]

232. Well good for you.

That's nice that you and your family have decided to give up meat.

But don't you see that your attitudes towards meat eaters is just as condescending and "preachy" as the fundie who tells me that I'm going to hell because I don't go to church?

[Goblinmonger]

246. Read back through my responses to you

I have NEVER said that you should give up meat. NEVER said that you should cut down (though I have responded to others that that would be a good thing). My only responses to you have been about the form of your arguments NOT about meat (Zhade, this is another pretty clear example of a strawman from our champion here, come on, you can admit it).

I was disappointed when I read your other response to me and you didn't use the fundie label, but you came through for me here. When, exactly, have I been "preacy" to you about eating meat and have told you that you need to stop?

[wtmusic]

40. Many humans are omnivores

but there are millions of people who consume no meat at all (btw, I'm not one of them - but I consume a lot less than I used to)

[niceypoo]

144. Salad is MURDER!!

Kill and eat Vegans

[Zhade]

153. I love salad. But yes, technically it's killing for food too.

NT!

[Goblinmonger]

167. So apparently

mocking people on this forum for their ethical choices is now OK? I have said far less caustic things about Christians and had my posts deleted and been flamed heavily. But apparently vegetarians are still open game. I know, you're going to tell me to lighten up and it's just a joke and I'm being overly sensitive and ridiculous but when the shit gets laid on you over and over and over again because of the ethical/moral decisions I make about what I eat, it gets a little fucking old.

[yewberry]

197. Mocking vegetarians on DU is always okay.

Don't get worked up about it.

We're food nazi, nanny-state, carrot-killing weirdos to some here.

Yeah, it does get a little old, but don't expect any progress. Your choices don't mean anything to most of the folks here, and you should expect to be mocked endlessly.

We're stupid. We're nothing here.

But please, don't let it bother you. A few people might get it. Most won't, but heck, we're still here.

[Goblinmonger]

248. I should have

just walked away from this thread when I saw it initially. That would have been better for my blood pressure.

[NeedleCast]

391. If I give you some nails and a hammer

Do you think you can martry yourself on a cross somewhere?

[yewberry]

415. If I give you two hands and a flashlight

...wait, that's probably a punchline we'd be better off without.

Regardless of what you think, we're routinely attacked and frequently. Commiserating isn't off-limits, and I'm no one's "martry."

[slackmaster]

378. No

Mocking people for their poor interpersonal skills is OK.

Mocking people who indulge in logical fallacies to support a political agenda is OK.

Mocking people for generally being assholes is OK.

[wtmusic]

11. They've been worshipping Jesus for thousands of years too. nt

[Lorien]

222. People have been murdering one another over resources for thousands

of years too. Just because it's become a tradition doesn't mean that it works for any of us.

[AlCzervik]

8. i don't eat meat but it was more of a blood pressure issue for me.

i had a bacon problem so i stopped eating meat for a few weeks to see what would happen, got good results and have continued on. My choice, i'm the only vegetarian in my house.

[Mind_your_head]

9. People are stubborn - to a fault!

When one changes their diet by eating less meat, less (no) fast foods, more veggies, you REALLY DO 'feel better'!

Do your own 'experiment' and see for yourself! As the old TV ad said, "try it, you'll like it!"

Peace,
M_Y_H

[Wiley50]

13. Actually, the chant "No More Pork! No More Pork! " has become the rage at McSame rallys

Of course, lately it has often modulated in the frenzy into "Eat More Chicken! Eat More Chicken! "

[cliffordu]

15. If god didn't want us to eat meat, why did he make it taste like Hamburger??

[XOKCowboy]

17. It's hard to change thousands of years of human behavior

Humans are by nature and evolution omnivores. Throughout history our prime source of protein has been meat. It's like telling a bear that he can only eat berries and roots from now on. There will probably be some "resistance".

[gollygee]

18. I've been eating less meat

Part environment, part health. So it's worked here.

The problem is that some people make it an all-or-nothing thing. If you eat ANY meat, you're evil. That completely shuts off any listening from the would-be audience.

[Mind_your_head]

29. Yep, cutting down on meat consumption is all that is asked

it will have a HUGE impact, on the environment AND on the individual who will most likely enjoy better health.

People ARE omnivores. Many people "don't like to eat their vegetables" and are mostly carnivorous. Those people need to change their ways. Everything in moderation is a good rule to live by, imho.

[Zhade]

157. "cutting down on meat consumption is all that is asked" Oh, you can't be that naive.

Just read below.

[LeftyMom]

19. Because people are inherently selfish, and it takes a lot of education to overcome that.

:shrug:

[Hugabear]

54. And some of us don't like sanctimonious people telling us how to eat

I don't like it when fundies tell me that I'm going to hell if I don't go to church, and I don't like it when people tell me what a horrible and selfish person I am because I like to eat meat.

As I pointed out above, and was immediately attacked for doing so, humans have been eating meat since prehistoric times. It's not as if eating meat is some recent phenomenon.

[LeftyMom]

67. Yes, but this many people eating this much meat has serious consequences

The problem is that the problems created by that choice effect everybody, and not just you. Because we all suffer increased pollution, decreased water quality, etc from animal farming (and we all have to pay for it through both subsidies and later cleanup of pollution and treatment of health effects) we have an obligation to point out that these behaviors are destructive.

[Zhade]

158. So would you be satisfied with eliminating factory farming? Or did you want no meat-eating at all?

The latter's probably never going to happen.

[Goblinmonger]

171. I, personally, would be happy with what the OP called for

eating less meat. Doesn't it seem kind of absurd that so many people are going after the vegetarian crowd just because someone made the suggestion that meat consumption be reduced somewhat? You would think we asked for an end to it all. right now.

[Zhade]

179. Well, it's not like we haven't heard the whole "eat less but we really mean none" act before.

We know the derision behind asking us to eat less, as if we're smoking crack. It doesn't play well.

[uppityperson]

316. Define "less".

Do you mean eat less than 4 ounces of meat a day? Or eat no meat some days and a certain amount others? Or do you mean eat no meat?

How can anyone "eat less meat" discuss "eat less meat" unless there is more specifics as to what "less" means? Maybe I already "eat less". How the hell does anyone spouting "eat less meat" even begin to decide if I am or not?

Define "less".

[Goblinmonger]

328. an amount that as not equal to or greater than the current amount

If you eat X amount of meat in a week, then less would be (X - any amount of meat). Doing that would help on many various levels.

If every individual at less meat this month than they did last month and maintained that new level, benefits would be seen.

[Goblinmonger]

118. I don't like it when

people tell me to stop calling them faggot. And when those darkies get all uppity and say they deserve their rights, I can't help but tell them to get out of my business. And when my bitch tells me she doesn't want to make me my supper, I let her know that she should shut the fuck up and get to cooking.

But eating meat is somehow different because your caveman ancesters did it. Keep making that argument. It's really compelling.

[Hugabear]

234. Wow, your choice of comparisons is really telling

I compared vegetarians' attitudes to meat-eaters to a fundie's attitude towards "sinners". What do you do? You immediately chime in with the "faggot" and "darkie" response. My comparison has to do with moral issues, while the examples you list directly affect someone else.

Sorry, but my decision to eat meat does NOT affect you directly. Hell, you would never even know I ate meat unless I informed you!

[Goblinmonger]

249. Yes, your decision affects us all

It is about resources and the environment. That's like saying that your use of fossil fuels doesn't affect me and that I wouldn't not know that you used fossil fuels unless you told me. Sure, I don't know specifically what you use or don't use for fossil fuels. But the fact that you use them DOES affect me because it impacts the environment. Same with meat.

[Hugabear]

298. You're using a computer, aren't you?

Where does the electricity to run your house come from? Do you take a car to and from work? Can you tell me that you are 100% completely independent from fossil fuels?

[Goblinmonger]

304. THAT'S your argument?

Yes, we all use fossil fuels. Do you try to live a lifestyle that minimizes your use of fossil fuels and the impact of those on the environment? I do what I can. The decision to not eat less meat has an impact on the environment. Perhaps you do many other things to help the environment. I don't know. But to pretend that the decision to eat meat is not something that affects other people is just that, pretending.

[kenny blankenship]

20. Because people tend to walk away from control freaks, once they reveal themselves?

And it's really hard to sell a utopian idea to a person's back, as they walk away, middle finger extended?

[Edweird]

21. Where's the "Aw Jeez" guy? He's late.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

86. IDK, but I posted ASCII Headache man

[Goblinmonger]

99. Does ASCII Headache man

not realize the envirnomental impact of eating meat? Not realize the enormous amount of grain and water to produce one pound of beef? Surely even ASCII Man can realize that those ARE political.

[OKNancy]

22. I wouldn't mind being advised or campaigned to about eating

LESS meat. I think it would probably be a good idea. What I do mind is people saying that
I or anyone should eat no meat. It's the "should" part that bugs.
I know people have very strong feelings about this, but as of now, I will not give up
my BLT! A subtle and courteous campaign would win over a lot more people IMO.

[get the red out]

24. People believe that "eat less meat"

means "we are going to take your meat away forever". It isn't the same thing. People eat way too much meat for their health in our society, so if they ate less they would help the environment as well as their health. But people automatically interpret the idea of eating less as giving it all up.

[Zhade]

159. That's probably because some disengenous posters start with "less" and then move to "no".

Not referring to you, of course. : )

[flvegan]

26. I predict this thread will go places.

:popcorn:

[Goblinmonger]

30. Scary, dark places

that will not make me happy :P

[Hugabear]

39. Yep, by people like you who equate eating meat to slavery and religious rituals

You can't tell someone that their choice to eat meat is a political statement, and compare thousands of years of eating meat to slavery, and not expect a reaction.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

161. "I'm sure you can sound it out if you read it slowly." I thought you were better than this, GM.

That's a personal attack.

[Goblinmonger]

174. Yeah, it is a personal attack

because the guys being an ass. Any discussion of logical fallacies and the goalposts get shifted and the strawmen get built. It was an appeal to tradition plain and simple. You can clearly see that, can't you. So the guy can just admit and make a real argument, but instead he has to stick to the idiocy.

I'm tired of this the same way I'm tired of being shat on for being atheist. The OP asked for "eat less meat" and out they come.

[Zhade]

177. So that makes it right?

NT!

[Goblinmonger]

182. How many times do I have to have my argument

completely misstated and changed into something it isn't before I start getting alittle tired of it. Either the person doing so is maliciously doing it or they are slow on the uptake. Either way, it gets a little old. Probably doesn't make it right, doesn't make me wrong about the logic, etiher.

[Zhade]

185. You should probably be certain you're arguing with the right person, unlike above.

NT!

[Hugabear]

235. "Out they come"

The OP asked why it's so difficult to change people's opinions on eating meat. My response was merely to point out that eating meat is something that humans have been doing since prehistoric times, it's part of our evolution, so naturally something that ingrained isn't something that's going to be overcome easily.

The OP asked a question. I gave a reason. Then you came along with your militant anti-meat views and immediately began attacking me, bringing up all sorts of things like slavery, "darkie", "faggot", etc.

[Marrah_G]

364. These threads are always a source of amusement

:popcorn:

Think anyone from either side will have an epiphany?

[SoCalDem]

28. Fresh vegetables cost A LOT..and canned veggies taste pretty awful

People are "spoiled" by FAST..Millions of younger grown ups today, did not have role models who cooked from scratch, so they think everything comes from a drive up window or from a box, popped into a microwave..

Back when most communities were ringed by farmers, local produce was plentiful & cheap.. those communities are now ringed by foreclosed houses & asphalt, farmers long gone.

We now get to choose from $1.99 apples IN SEASON or $4.99 grapes flown in from Chile.. $2.99 tomatoes year 'round.

We have forever (at least for now:evilgrin:..) changed the way we eat, and it's killing us..and our planet:(

[Mind_your_head]

34. Gee, I would think there would be a LOT of fresh produce in South Cali? eom

[SoCalDem]

36. Amazing, isn't it?? We pay MORE for stuff grown right here

why? contracts to ship our stuff across the country? My mother used to brag about getting Calif strawberries for less that WE paid right here..:grr:..

This time of year apples used to be very cheap..same with oranges..not anymore.. we get grapefruit from FL & TX..melons from Mexico...tomatoes from AZ...

the CHEAPEST apples the other day at the store were Galas for $1.79 a pound..

[Mind_your_head]

56. I don't know that much about Southern Calif......

only been there a few times in my life, but my aunt/uncle live there. They grow QUITE A BIT on their little piece of property AND we purchased some great strawberries and such at little farmstands when we were driving around.

That's all I can say.

California is filled with a LOT of smart, progressive people. I trust they will 'do the right things'.....lead the population/country actually. California produces an extraordinary amount of foodstuffs/produce for the WORLD!

[SoCalDem]

61. Now that there are only the two of us, we don't buy much, and I don't shop that often

The only farmer's market I know of is a bit of a drive to another city..and at today's gas prices, it's not cost effective for me to go there, so I just pay the higher prices at the close-by store..and complain :)

[wtmusic]

48. We do, but it got ridiculously expensive

and it seems like we pay the same as less-agricultural areas of the country. Not sure why. :shrug:

[Zhade]

163. Yeah, and it's EXPENSIVE. What, you thought the poster was just making shit up?

NT!

[kestrel91316]

55. We pay closer to $3/lb for apples in season in my part of SoCal.

I guess if I drove way over to the Vallarta market I might find some for less.........but then there's the issue of driving miles for groceries when I have a Von's within walking distance. Sigh.

[alarimer]

62. And vegetables also contribute to global warming.

Most of them, as you note, are transported thousands of miles from where they are grown. What's that carbon footprint, I wonder? And they often require fertilizer or pesticides that are made from fossil fuels.

[SoCalDem]

65. Our local grocery added a "Local Organic" section..but it's almost comical

It's as if they searched for the UGLIEST, puniest fruit they could find.. pears the size of a golf ball, & shriveled leathery oranges that are hard as a rock.. the apples look like doll-house apples....and nothing under $3 a lb..

[LeftyMom]

79. But it takes several pounds of vegetable matter to produce one pound of meat.

Much more water too, and there's generally a great deal more fuel expended in transportation and storage, as well.

[Zhade]

165. SSHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! That's the dirty little secret behind the vegenda!

See, they neglect to realize that it's not what's eaten, it's the TRANSPORT OF NONLOCAL FOODSTUFFS that's the real problem!

[roody]

77. I stopped buying produce from far away. If it is not in season,

I'll wait until it is in season.

[LeftyMom]

87. Me too.

It probably helps that I'm allergic to the most common exotic (bananas) and live in California where most anything that grows in a temperate climate is available year-round. I very rarely eat any produce that was grown more than an hour or so's drive from my home, simply because I don't have to. I'd rather support local organic farms and fresher food tastes better, and is probably more nutritious as well.

The only real exception is oranges. A little over a year ago we put a tree in my Dad's yard, but until it starts producing I buy most of them. Unfortunately most of the commercial farms nearest me are in SoCal, so my orange juice habit involves a bit of a drive up the 5 or 99.

[Two Americas]

31. some factors

Those of us who have a background in agriculture or work in agriculture reject the arguments presented here about "calories, but is sorely lacking in nutrition, is torturing animals, mistreating workers, wreaking havoc on the environment" as well we should.

People in the general public reject the "addicted to fast food" and other regressive arguments that seek to blame individual behavior for social problems. People reject the "personal choice" model for effecting special change, and resent being lectured to.

People knowledgeable about th history of agriculture know that efficiently getting protein to all of the people is not s bad thing. Poor people must be fed, and they buy the most calories and protein they can with the resources they have. They don't have the luxury of making political or spiritual statements with their dietary choices. The propaganda that demands they do is politically reactionary and classist.

We have an unprecedented situation in the US today - the vast majority of the people in the general population are estranged from their food supply and are profoundly ignorant of the realities of feeding the population.

The subsidies for the meat industry, while important at one time, have outlived their usefulness. We need an overhaul and a restoration and increased funding of the public agricultural support infrastructure.

[plaintiff]

33. Oh, yeah...those cheeseburgers really make me sophisticated.

:eyes:

[Arugula Latte]

37. People don't care that animals are literally tortured. They don't care

that these intelligent pigs and cows cannot turn around or lie down, and are in excruciating agony their entire lives.

[Recursion]

44. *shrug* I buy direct from a rancher

Yes, it is possible to do in the city. I've seen the cows, pigs, and chickens. They're all grass fed and have plenty of room (the rancher is a Joel Salatin fan, for those who have read "The Omnivore's Dilemma"). The soil is improved by the ranching. There's a waiting list to get his deliveries so there's definitely a demand for it out there, we just need more farmers and ranchers willing to meet it.

[Arugula Latte]

46. Good. I wish more were like you.

[wtmusic]

45. They're starting to care.

http://www.yesonprop2.com/

[Enthusiast]

66. Most meat eaters would

like more humane treatment for animals. Hell, I would like more humane treatment for people. I'm an avid meat eater and I would like to ban all factory farms. You know, by placing a maximum on animal numbers and regulating conditions.

But stop eating meat? No way! Eating meat is our evolutionary history. This is part of what makes us human. We are predators. If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat it. Your choice.

[superduperfarleft]

80. The amount of meat consumed by the average american

is unsustainable without factory farms.

And those same "conscientious" omnivores probably eat at restaurants without a thought of where that dead hunk of flesh came from or how the animal that it used to be was treated.

So people who mock threads like this that aren't demanding you go 100% vegan tomorrow but just a reduction look pretty silly when they then say, "But some of my best friends buy meat from small-scale farms." (not saying you're doing this, just a general comment)

[SmokingJacket]

42. I'm convinced we will all eventually stop eating meat.

I don't think the planet can support it much longer.

That said, I do eat some meat. I try to eat organically, when I can afford it. I would be vegetarian if I didn't live with three meat loving boys/men. I've been vegetarian on and off my whole life, and I suspect I will be again soon...

The reason my boys/men are resistant to vegetarianism is that they don't think they will be satisfied by vegetarian foods. One of my sons has an attitude about it -- which he learned from his friends, not me or his father -- that only wimpy people are vegetarian... the other son will be vegetarian when he's older; I'm sure of it. My husband is happy to eat 5 vegetarian dinners a week, but really loves the 6th and 7th...

[flvegan]

50. Good post. Can I ask

the ages (roughly?) of your sons? I'm always curious about the theory of vegetarians being "wimpy" (or anything like that). I think your husband cutting back that much is very impressive.

[SmokingJacket]

149. My health conscious son is 11, the younger, attitude one is 8

The older one has never been a big fan of eating: he has a few foods he likes, and is very picky and kind of virtuous about the others: no hydrogenated oils, etc. He read "Chew On This," the kids' version of Fast Food Nation, which really encouraged these tendencies.

My younger guy is trying to stake out his own territory in our family, I think, so he says things like, "I'm a regular kid -- I hate vegetables!" etc. He loves sweets and meat. I don't want to fight with him, but every day is a series of negotiations about how much fruit and vegetables he has to eat and how much "junk" he can have. He grew up eating very little meat -- no red meat at all until recently -- and whole wheat everything, but has kind of rebelled. His favorite food is now "Pizza Pockets," which they serve in school. I let him get school lunch because he was throwing away the lunch I packed him and coming home starved every day.

You do what you can!!

[flvegan]

166. How incredible.

11 years old and already consciously thinking about his diet. Amazing.

I think that 8 is a tough age to be thinking about food like that. I hated veggies when I was his age, and had no idea about food.

[SoCalDem]

68. We have many non-meat meals..

Some nights we feel like pancakes:) or waffles:) or cheese & crackers & a salad..

We usually eat out twice a week, and the leftovers often provide 2 more "freebie" meals the next day..

I make a lot of soups & one-pan meals with rice or pasta. Often there is little if any meat in them:)

[Zhade]

170. HA! Wishful thinking that's highly unlikely.

People would probably turn to cannibalism first.

[flvegan]

191. Why would you suggest such an extreme shift?

We've evolved quite a bit. Evolving to a diet based on responsible, nutrition-based food seems like a logical step in time.

[Zhade]

210. Well, I consider the fantasy that people will stop eating meat entirely an extreme shift.

I just don't see it happening - it's likely none of us will, since if it ever happened (I doubt it), it likely wouldn't be in our lifetime.

I also reject your premise that your diet alone is the sole responsible, nutritious diet. You have yet to establish that as fact.

[flvegan]

204. Defensive much?

Let me know when you know shit about nutrition, Zhade. We've been here before, and you've never had shit to say.

[SmokingJacket]

257. I'm not talking about ten or twenty years -- I mean 50 or 100

Here's my guess how it will go down!

1. Meat becomes very expensive as the population grows and feeding the animals becomes pricier.
2. Cheap, lab-made meat comes in to replace live-animal meat in hamburgers and chicken products.
3. While real meat becomes more of an expensive, champagne-like indulgence, animal-rights consciousness slowly grows, as happened with fur.
4. Eventually meat-eating will seem exotic and somewhat gross, like hunting elephants or shooting moose from planes.

[NeedleCast]

395. In 100 years we'll probably have Star Trek like food dispensers

"Tea, Earl Gray"

[Gwendolyn]

53. Fast food is a cheap, filling meal for people who can't afford better.

Many people also have little clue about nutrition.

But anyone who's read "Fast Food Nation" or "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" must've cut down on meat consumption just a little.

[wtmusic]

83. It amazes me

that there has never been a fast-food veggie chain.

I'd be in there all the time.

[Gwendolyn]

129. Me too!

But to make a profit, most dishes would probably be "fast-foodized" as in batter-fried veggies, or veggies doused in some kind of plastics-based, faux-cheese sauces like the current ones do. :D

If some brilliant person started a chain of good, real-food veggie places tho, yeah, that'd be great!

[Yes We Did]

215. Sure there are...

At least there are here.

[DireStrike]

57. It takes effort.

Learning to cook is on par with learning to date. Not quite as scary, but just as hard.

Make eating less meat more convenient and people will do it.

[alarimer]

58. It is a much better idea to reform farming/agricultural practices

than to berate people for their choices. The simple fact is, burning fossil fuels adds way more CO2 to the atmosphere than herds of cattle or whatever. There are a lot of problems with factory farming, etc but you will get nowhere with this argument among people.

Growing vegetables and corn uses fossil fuels as well, especially in the shipping and transportation thousands of miles from the source. So ALL agriculture is suspect and evironmentally damaging.

[wtmusic]

64. Global livestock production is worse than all transportation combined

"Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

[upi402]

59. going more and more vegetarian everyday

But I worry that the kleptocracy will taint our specific food source. Like the organic spinach scare right after Ashcroft sounded the alarm about food terrorism upon his stepping-down.

[Mari333]

70. stopped eating meat years and years and years ago

dont miss it one bit. it was very easy. i gave up dairy products also, and eggs.
on the other hand, my biological family wont give it up. they are all obese, my little brother has had quadruple bypass and is only 40, my mom has had it also, my younger brother is on disability due to his weight..
i am the only one thats normal weight. all of my sisters are obese. i am the oldest, and the skinny oddball in the family.
i dont eat meat for many many reasons..not just because its environmentally dangerous, with the waste and mess of factory farming and agribusiness..or the hormones and chemicals in the meat, or the fact that we use so much feed for cattle that would feed far more people on earth..
but also the cruelty thats inflicted, in many large corporate factories, of how the animals are treated.
i do not judge others if they choose meat. thats their personal decision.
i think its a cultural thing for many people. my family's ancestors were european farmers and they ate huge meals. they still eat like their grandparents did, but dont work it off. maybe , in time, they will either start farming again or change their eating habits.
i guess i dont mind change. but i think a lot of people are afraid of it.
peace out.

[Poseidan]

71. people are short-sighted

While meat tastes good, humans should become herbivores.

[Quantess]

186. A plant based diet is healthiest. Not necessarily meatless.

For example, the Mediterranean diet is famously linked to longevity and good health. People in the Mediterranean region eat a lot of vegetables, unprocessed food, olive oil, and just a little meat.

[mbee]

73. I personally don't eat meat at all and I have no problem with

those who do, but I just wish all animals could be treated in a humane way. I don't think any living thing should have to feel pain.

[roody]

74. addiction

[rucky]

75. You'll have to pry my meat from my cold, dead colon. n/t

[TheFarseer]

76. meat is delicious, that's all

I'm not trying to be a dick, I just like chicken and an occasional steak.

It's an interesting question though - I am opposed to people driving around SUVs, but is my liking meat more legitimate than those people liking a big vehicle?

[Gwendolyn]

78. It can be in the sense that lean meat is a really good source of protein, zinc, iron,

and B12. An SUV isn't going to fuel your body or help your muscles repair themselves after hard physical labor or sports. There's that at least.

[BlooInBloo]

81. Because we don't like sickly-looking food nazis telling us what to fucking eat.

EDIT: Oh, and because bacon is GOOD.

[wtmusic]

85. Nope, no sickly bacon-eaters out there!

:rofl:

[LeftyMom]

89. I still want to know where all these sickly looking veg*ns hang out.

I never seem to meet any. :shrug:

[Lorien]

200. Ohh, I found some "sickly" vegans!

http://www.healthylivingnyc.com/includes/resize_article_photo.php?articleid=164

?v=0







and my personal favorite: my friend Julie:

[Lorien]

199. But killing the planet and starving millions for our taste buds is A-OK, huh?

Selfishness and greed can't be cloaked in libertarian individualism here. Some of us would rather not face a global war for a few scant remaining resources in the near future. And feeding cattle when we could be feeding human beings (like the Haitians who are forced to eat dirt) is indefensible. All the OP is asking is that we all eat LESS of the thing that's killing us!

[RadiationTherapy]

238. Those are two BRAND NEW thoughts I never heard before!

tres original!

[BlooInBloo]

332. (shrug) You want a dfifferent answer, ask a different question.

[RadiationTherapy]

377. What do you think about factory farming?

What do you think about malnourished women who cannot produce milk for a newborn?

[pitohui]

88. because we know from history what it was like when people ate less meat

their lives were ugly, brutish, and short

plus the harder we sell the high starch, high carb diet -- the fatter and sicker the population gets

many peoples have a genetics that require that they eat meat if they are to avoid diabetes, obesity, and the rest of the mess

you are asking people to sacrifice their bodies and their health for an UNproven result, which is too much to ask

if i give up eating meat, the world is not saved, i just get sick

[wtmusic]

91. Not for everyone

IMO though it's important that people know there is big environmental cost (few do). Then they can make an informed decision.

[BlooInBloo]

104. *nasty*, not "ugly", by the way.

[pitohui]

119. yeah yeah typo but you get the point

serfs who never got a bite of meat from year to year didn't have very nice lives that any of us would be willing to live or emulate

there is a soaring rate of diabetes in this country and it won't be addressed by continuing to push sugars and grains

the meat/dairy eaters are taller and live longer than people who ate subsistence diets, and in any case, people in america who eat a vegetarian diet aren't eating a subsistence diet, they are making up the calories lost by gorging on grains, rice, pasta, and sugar -- they are not saving the world, they are harming their bodies for an unproven result and based on their religious beliefs hoping to influence or even force me to do the same

[undergroundpanther]

355. I get sick too

I can't handle shit-loads of carbs.I don't eat bread,rarely eat potatoes. I can't get protein from soy,body won't absorb it,and allergic to many kinds of beans, they come out the other end in 15 minutes after alot of pain.I can't do vegetarian if If want to be healthy. I think there are others like me.My main health issues are a spine injury and psych and a bit overweight,but no cholesterol ,sugar or other health problems.

My sister ,she went vegetarian,she still is, and she is sick alot,she gets bronchitis. Every time I see her she has it, or a sinus infection or something or she is getting over an infection.She got nerve damage and her skin began to react and form eruptions where her nerves were getting messed up.She changed her diet for emotional and political reasons.Her immune system is fucked up now,She has irritable bowel,badly,and she is overweight about as much as I am.
She has more physical health issues due to sickness,diet,and the body trying to cope than I do.

[G_j]

92. of my

a lot of people can't even deal with the idea of eating LESS meat. Well excuse me!
How about driving less, turning the lights off, recycling your garbage?
Same approach as eating less meat.

And even suggest it is a political issue, and you are a food nazi.
From some responses, if I didn't know better, I might begin to think eating meat makes people unreasonable and unable to read.
I can't believe how few even address the fact that OP was talking about eating LESS meat.

[wtmusic]

95. You aren't a recycle nazi, are you?

So many nazis, so little time ;-)

[aikoaiko]

98. Because meat tastes great. Even raw meat tastes great.

But BBQ is like paradise in my mouth.

[BlooInBloo]

100. mmmm.... carpaccio....

[Name removed]

102. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brettdale]

105. The eat less meat idea is hard to sell because

Porterhouse steak tastes so yummy!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TKolmsi]

106. I think that it is often

hard to do the things you know are good for you. And for some reason the smell of cooking meat (sorry to offend anyone) lights something up in my brain in a way that veggies just don't do.

[AtomicKitten]

107. Vote YES on Prop 2.

thank you

[leftupnorth]

109. "Bacon tastes good, porckchops taste good". n/t

[Quantess]

117. I guess people enjoy being obese and unhealthy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

125. So EVERY meat eater is "obese and unhealthy"? Or just those who eat more than you'd allow?

[Quantess]

169. No, I was responding to the *fast food* aspect. I'm an omnivore.

I eat meat. Meat can be a healthy part of a balanced diet, definitely. Greasy burgers, deep fried & processed meats, and hot dogs, are definitely unhealthy. But so are french fries.

Tidbit: A Popeye's biscuit has more calories than a piece of Popeye's fried chicken! Sad, because I love their biscuits. I eat one on rare occasions.

Anyway, I thought this article was about fast food. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[vanderBeth]

130. I was vegetarian for a while and I became pretty unhealthy. :(

I'm neither.

[Quantess]

180. I thought the thread was about fast food meat, which is gross.

Meat can be healthy.

I had a friend who said she gained weight when she stopped eating meat, because she started eating a lot of cheese and deep-fried vegetables instead.

Personally, I like to eat meat, but maybe not as often as the standard American diet. And, I love the fake meats! Fake meats are improving all the time. Fake meat sausages are better than the real thing, IMO. But a steak is delicious a few times a year, too.

Glad to hear your health has improved.

[vanderBeth]

301. Okay, Sorry

I didn't mean that and I definitely don't support eating fast food meat/processed meat. I lost weight because meat was probably the worst thing in my diet. Looking back, it was pretty stupid because I always had problems with keeping on weight and since I had never eaten much dairy, I was living off a lot of food that was mostly water.

I now eat mostly fish or sometimes chicken.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

383. This is not atypical.

It's partially because vegetarians, especially recently converted ones, rely more on carbohydrates and sugars than do their protein-eating omnivorous counterparts. This is especially true because when one eats out, your vegetarian options wind up being some sort of sandwich, or a pizza, or just a plain old salad that is entirely uninteresting because little effort is put into them at most restaurants. It's also true because fresh produce spoils (duh) so unless you are able to grocery shop at least every other day, you're more reliant on lasting foods like breads and pastas and less reliant on typically freezer-friendly meats.

Honestly, if anyone wants to go vegetarian, they should do so armed with a nutritionist that can tell you the ins and outs of how to do it right. Otherwise, you wind up fatter not eating meat than you do going without it.

[krispos42]

203. I've been overweight my entire life

So I have no basis of comparison to being "healthy and fit".

Working out bores me to tears and I have an irrational dislike of fruits and vegetables dating back from when I was little and, as my mom described it, just decided one day I didn't like them anymore.

:shrug:

I don't do anything physical except work, which involves a mixture of movement and waiting but little in the way of sustained motion or heavy lifting.

In my off time I'm sleeping or on here or with my kid.

My joints don't hurt, my cholesteral,libido, and BP are good, I have no chronic medical conditions except for piss-poor uncorrected eyesight and the beginnings of a receeding hairline.


I'm okay with myself.

[smiley_glad_hands]

120. I eat meat because I'm hungry. eom

[guardian]

126. because meat tastes good n/t

[wildflowergardener]

127. meat

Sorry - not going to give up meat. I'd starve since I hate vegetables and only recently have learned to tolerate anything other than corn and can eat a bit of lettuce. I would think that a better thing would be to lobby for more humane treatment of animals and I am sure people would make a choice to support that if they could. The problem is, in the city, I don't know any way to know where your meat does come from. But I'm still not going to stop eating it - though I do think it is a good idea to cut down on fatty meats - just for health reasons.

Meg

[BlueGADawg]

128. I read the book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by

Barbara Kingsolver and I can say it definetly changed my family's eating habits. I will never give up meat (I am an Ironman triathlete and I just can't get all the protein I need from dairy and soy, but I also just love a nice steak or burger :)) but now I raise my own chickens and buy my beef from a local grass fed only farmer about 2 hrs away. The chickens are only for eggs (my wife drew the line at butchering her own chickens). We also enlarged our garden by eliminating about 1/2 our grass backyard. We ate fresh local veggies, eggs and meat all spring and summer and we even learned to can veggies so we can have them in the winter (which thankfully is short here in Atlanta). I really hate going to the grocery store now and buying something knowing it's been trucked halfway across the world. We try to eat things only when they are in season. We definetly eat less meat now and what we do eat is free ranged and raised on a natural diet. You can still eat meat responsibly with a smaller impact on the environment. I can still embrace my inner carnivore!

[Lisa0825]

133. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[cureautismnow]

131. On 4/15/08, I watched a live pig's throat slit while hanging by its feet...

The poor, helpless animal wiggled around, while its blood, gore, and guts spewed to the ground until its life was no more. I haven't eaten a piece of dead flesh since. :puke:

[Zhade]

183. Sounds like bullshit - guts aren't going to spew from a slit throat.

Nice try at propaganda, but you failed.

[cureautismnow]

236. It was nasty stuff spewing from that throat.

I linked to the video from DU. Guts don't necessarily have to be from the abdominal region of the body.

Guts - 2plural : the inner essential parts <the guts of a car>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guts

Certainly you're not suggesting that the jugular vein is NOT an inner essential part of the body?

It was not a pretty sight. IMHO, it's perverse and barbaric animal cruelty. If you think it's alright to slaughter other animals to devour their flesh, that's your business. But I'm sure you and others of your kind could think of more humane ways to end their lives than by slitting their throats. No?

You fail at basic human compassion for other defenseless living creatures.

[Sheepshank]

322. Visitng grandma on the farm. frequently....

...one realizes more clearly the circle of life....and witnesses the food chain in action.

[femrap]

134. I have lowered my meat intake....

I only eat range free chicken. I rarely eat pork...if so...again, the pig got to root around in the dirt. Same for cattle.

My body seems to crave protein....and cheese or eggs just doesn't do it. Meat stops my hunger. I can eat carbs and really never get full...which is very bad for my health.

I wish I didn't like beef so much, but I absolutely love it. I eat it maybe once a week. As a child I lived on a farm and the cattle used to stampede me and I would end up sitting in a tree or on a fence until someone would come and get me. Maybe that's why I love beef so much. Too bad the vegetables and fruits didn't attack me.

As I write this, I realize no one gives a rat's ass about my diet.

[dysfunctional press]

135. "Eating is a political act..."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
pretentious morans make me laugh.

[otherlander]

139. Well, where do you think your food comes from, genius?

You think that the factory farms don't have lobbyists with major influence over the government? You think environmentalism is just buying funny lightbulbs and driving a smaller car? You think that the means of mass agriculture- using pesticides, tilling the soil, and choosing to disregard crop rotation- don't have a HUGE effect on the environment? You think the fuel used to transport crops halfway around the world is good for air quality? You think that the wages of fruit and vegetable harvesters aren't effected by trade deals? You think that your government doesn't support the people who assassinate farm union organizers? Realizing that food is the most vital thing you can possibly spend money on, you still think that who you financially support with that money and what you create a market demand for is an apolitical act?

[dysfunctional press]

188. oh great...ANOTHER one.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

thanks, i needed that!

btw- here's where i shop for meat...
http://elburnmarket.com/



and a good share of our vegetables come from our garden.

everything else comes from one of the several larger chain stores in the area.

[otherlander]

309. Okay, so you try to pick your food wisely

for whatever reasons. That doesn't seem to justify laughing at- in fact, it seems to support- the obvious fact that it is a choice you make with political effects.

[dysfunctional press]

414. eating is NOT a political act- it's about survival.

nt

[Hugabear]

237. Where does YOUR food come from?

Is everything you eat or drink 100% local? Even if it is local, does the farmer bring it to the market in a horse-drawn carriage?

Check out post #62. I can't help but notice that neither you nor Goblin has responded to that.

[Goblinmonger]

280. OK, here's my reply

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the transportation of non-meat and meat from origin to store is exactly the same. I don't know if it is or isn't. You claim it is, so I'll go with that.

Even with that being the case, meat loses in this comparison. The amount of water and vegetable that it takes to create a pound of meat is startling. The allocation of resources toward meat while people starve is ridiculous. The impact to ground water from meat production is also far worse than non-meat. Add in the destruction of rain forest for the production of beef and the scenario gets even worse for meat. To say that the comparison is just about transporting the finished product to the store is wholly not accurate.

And this argument has been made, more eloquantly, on this thread.

[otherlander]

333. A few points

1. The point of my post was not to imply that my eating habits were better than those of QuestionAll. That is not something that I assume to be true. Rather, the point was to note that our food choices obviously have political effects, and laughing at someone for stating that obvious fact is rather, well... dumb.

2. There are several issues effected by food choices: The carbon footprint of production, the suffering of animals, the sustainability of land use, the wages of workers, and the carbon footprint of transportation. Eating plant food rather than animal food addresses the first two problems, but not the last three. Overall, it does less damage and is therefore a beneficial choice.

3. To answer your question, I get most of my food from the campus dining hall. I assume most of it is neither local, fairly traded, or organically grown. However, I choose to eat only vegan food because it addresses the first two issues listed in my second point. At this point it would be impractical and unaffordable to join a Community Supported Agriculture project, but once I graduate and start working full time I plan to do so. The vegetables and fruits would be locally and sustainably grown and harvested by well-paid people, thus addressing the last three points as well as the first two.

4. Getting the bulk of one's produce from CSA's or the organic section of a farmer's market is a good way to address all of the issues listed above. But for people who don't have the money or time to do this, simply basing one's diet around plants rather than animals and buying organic food when possible/affordable is a good first step.

5. The fact that simply eating plants instead of animals is not as good as eating local organic plants is not a reason to criticize people for being vegan, which is several steps above eating factory-farmed meat. Rather, if you think that people who do this are not doing enough, it is a reason to join a CSA and become a vegan.

6. Don't talk about me and Goblinmonger in the same sentence. He wouldn't like to see you doing that. He dislikes me because I like certain Christian progressives too much.

[Goblinmonger]

176. I'm awaiting your witty retort

to otherlander's point about how it IS political. I'm not expecting much, but hope you give it a shot.

[dysfunctional press]

189. could it possibly be? third time's a charm...?

:shrug:

huh. not even a chuckle.

maybe next time.

[flvegan]

192. You won't get one.

When you recognize the names, it's like a passive Ignore.

[apocalypsehow]

196. The content of your posts is invariably dumb. Any "retort" would be superfluous. n/t.

[Goblinmonger]

289. You clearly have NOTHING

and that is why you only post bullshit invective.

[glitch]

136. Good article, thanks for posting.

edit: Triana had the answer in Post 1. Entitlement is a curse, IMO.

[MH1]

137. Good alternatives aren't convenient and/or aren't known by most people.

A good alternative to meat has to taste good (to someone used to eating meat), contain a decent amount of well balanced protein (8 amino acids in roughly the correct proportions), and have an equivalent cost to a meat meal.

Then, you have to make it accessible to the person grabbing a quick bite at lunch, or buying an "insta-meal" at the supermarket. A good cook with a bit of time can put something together in the kitchen that meets those criteria without too much trouble, but how many of us cook most of our own meals anymore, at least anything that takes more than 15 minutes to prepare?

I think when tasty non-meat alternatives are made available to people, they can sell. But the profit margin isn't there and the sales need time to build. So fast food joints generally don't bother.

I think pushing people to do something when a) they have no clue HOW to do it without personal sacrifice and b) the ultimate amount of personal sacrifice is unknown to them and therefore scary

is a counterproductive waste of time.

Better to bring great vegetarian protein dishes to your pot lucks. Then people might eventually catch on.

(I've been a quasi vegetarian / low meat consumption person for a LONG time. I could probably be a complete vegetarian if it wasn't so damned inconvenient.)

[flvegan]

140. Sigh. It's because eating is a pleasure source now.

I love the "ate meat for thousands of years" argument. Yeah, it was about survival, not pleasure. I can't remember the last time a family held an event based on putting gas in the car. That's what food is. Fuel. But, it's been bastardized into a pleasure center. That's a big reason why so many people are obese.

On top of that, the average person doesn't know shit about nutrition. Not really their fault, though. You eat how your parents fed you. Nutrition isn't taught in school. Hell, the average doctor wouldn't know general nutrition if it bit him/her in the ass.

[JanMichael]

240. You're right about the average MD. Nutrition is a non-starter.

Also I made the comment the other day that if I had to (I.e. survival depended on it)I'd kill, prepare, and eat an animal without too much pause. That's a no-brainer.

But since that is most definitely not the case in this time and place (thankfully) I choose to not eat meat for several reasons.

First the industry as a whole sickens me. The way animals are factory farmed and killed is plain wrong. Hell pigs can be as good of a family member as a dog, they act just like them. I never ate dogs...I wouldn't even if they were "free range" and "organic" cocker spaniels. Which is one of the many reasons that the free range/organic argument fails to convince me that I just must have some steak tartar.

Plus toss in the insane damage to the environment and voila! I'm a vegetarian.

Also the fitness argument is pretty weak as I'm in as good a shape now as when I was eating all sorts of meat. Weight training isn't hurt nor is my general energy level. And I'm not consuming nearly as much cholesterol.

[Zhade]

141. You have to ask this when produce is five times as expensive as cheap meat?

Seriously? It's not obvious?

Since humans will likely *never* go completely vegetarian, the answer lies in new farming methods, including cloned/nanobred animal flesh.

[eridani]

145. Seems to me to be a far easier sell than asking people to give it up entirely

I'm gradually coaxing my born-again carnivore DH to go lower on the food chain. He's buying it, though neither of us will probably ever give up meat entirely.

[LiberalPersona]

146. If less people eat meat

then that's more people eating fruits and vegetables. More demand for fruits and vegetables means there will have to be land raised to plant new crops and more poisonous chemicals like pesticides will be used. All it will do is shift us from one form of planet damage to another.

[Phoonzang]

147. The first one I've seen bring up this point. n/t

[flvegan]

193. Oh, brother.

You do realize that the demand for crops to FEED the livestock that gets slaughtered for meat is already treated this way, right? AND that it takes several pounds of vegetation to raise one pound of meat.

Logical failure, but thanks.

[Lorien]

195. Animals used for meat consume far more plant life than humans do

beef production is the NUMBER ONE cause of rain forest destruction.THIS is done to the Amazon, for the benefit of U.S. beef consumers:



You can feed five humans or one cow. The choice seems pretty clear to me.

[Norrin Radd]

226. Vertical farming is a potential solution:

http://www.seriouseats.com/2008/06/in-videos-dickson-despommier-interview-colbert-report-vertical-farming.html

[wtmusic]

270. Good point.

And if there was no Iraq war, defense contractors wouldn't have a much of a market, and thousands, maybe millions of hardworking Americans would be thrown out of work.

You're like me...I like to look at the bright side of things. :-)

[Freddie Stubbs]

148. Because meat tastes better than meat substitutes

[El Pinko]

154. I don't eat because it's virile or cool or to be un-PC...

...I eat it because it tastes good and because a vegan diet is less healthful than one with REASONABLE amount of meat in it.

Look at what the vegan diet did to poor Lori Petty.


1992

2008

By the same token, I also don't go wolfing down 40 oz. steaks at Ruths Chris or those stupid "Baconator" burgers.

Moderation in all things.

It is true that a lot of Americans could probably stand to cut their meat consumption by about half and still get adequate protein.

It is also a fact that the average American eats between 3500 and 4000 calories per day - double what we ought to be eating. We need to cut down on our meat, corn, sugar, etc. our consumption of food in general.

All foods have an environmental impact.



I think the problem is that there are shrill vegan puritans who insist that everyone follow their lifestyle and not eat meat at all, but other than our doctors, there really isn't much of a societal imperative to cut down on meat consumption.

It's difficult to approach it without coming off puritanical. I think reducing meat consumption is a laudable goal, but it needs to be approached the right way, and the folks who don't eat meat need to come to grips with the fact that the 95% of people who DO eat meat perhaps HAVE considered the ethical considerations of eating animals, but are still okay with it. So many vegans come off so high-and-mighty.

[Goblinmonger]

194. Couldn't possibly be that

in the first picture she is 30 with movie makeup and in the second picture she is 43 with what appears to be very little makeup. No, that's not it. It's the vegan thing.

[El Pinko]

209. She's actually 45, but she looks 55.

And a lot of vegans look haggard and wan like she does, just like a lot of people who eat too much meat and other crap are obese and look like hell, too.

Like I said - moderation, the happy medium.

Petty (who I happen to like very much) could stand to have a fish fillet now and then.

And most Americans could do with a lot fewer burgers.

[JVS]

258. OMG! She went from being 29 to being 45!

[El Pinko]

264. 45 looking like 55.

NT.

[elleng]

172. We don't think of eating as a 'political' act,

and largely, it isn't; its a natural fact of life.

[Goblinmonger]

178. Eating isn't

but what you chose to eat may very well be. Reread the posts above that explain the political ramifications of meat.

[apocalypsehow]

217. Get lost. n/t.

[Jim Sagle]

202. 'cuz meat RRRRAWWWWXXXXXX!!!!!

[undergroundpanther]

208. Because it is FASCIST to use the state to control lifestyle choices

Op says...
But one key source of resistance to the Eat Less Meat message is a belief, even among some environmentalists, that food decisions constitute a sacred kind of "personal choice" that society cannot, or should not, seek to influence.

Nazis in Germany Said:
"Your body belongs to the nation!"
"You have the duty to be healthy!"
"Food is not a private matter!"
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artproctor.html

Hitler said:

"In relation to the political decontamination of our public life, the government will embark upon a systematic campaign to restore the nation’s moral and material health. The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end."

Thus, fascism naturally leads to public health tyranny, which in turn requires extensive state powers. Such is the logic of political institutions and the growth of state power. The main danger of the present public health movement does not lie in its fascist roots so much as in its capacity to justify and call for tyrannical government power.

THIS is really Why the "Eat less meat" does not SELL.
Nazis hated fat,whipped creme "unhealthy habits".
Now meat is the hated substance and in American culture Fat phobia does damage to many people.Busybodies abound to tell anyone who is not"fit enough" thin enough or smoking/drinking whatever to not do it.
And the people don't care about the vegitarian lifestyle because some people do not want to be controlled that way.And as long as they can say NO to lifestyle dictators they will be free.

And BTW what is a "preventable death" We all will die..so WTF?

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/deathisinevitable/

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/proctor-lemieux.html

[roody]

214. Our government subsidizes factory farming.

[apocalypsehow]

221. Hitler was also a fanatical vegetarian - the beau ideal of the vegan movement.

I've heard tell that many radical vegans secretly admire him to this day - and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Lorien]

201. You have got to be kidding

worst. Straw man. Ever.

[apocalypsehow]

274. History tells us Hitler was a radical vegan, deal with it. n/t

[LeftyMom]

227. His favorite foods were wurste (sausages) and capon (game hens)

His cook wrote a book.

Anyhow, it turns out Der Fuhrer had a problem with flatulence. His doctors advised a vegetarian diet to treat it, which he apparently didn't follow through with. However, in a time of widespread famine it was politically useful to portray him as a bit of an ascetic for propaganda purposes.

[apocalypsehow]

277. False. He chose vegan as a conscious lifestyle, and wanted to impose it on others once he was done

conquering the world. About like most vegans today, truth be told. Deal with it.

[LeftyMom]

297. The word vegan wasn't even invented until after the end of WWII

So no, Hitler was not a vegan, because the word wasn't even coined until after his death. There were certainly vegetarians (mostly religiously motivated, some for health) before then, but he was not one of them. He frequently ate animal-based foods, and took daily injections of animal-derived medicines. Further, no source, even those which suggest he avoided meats in many of his meals (due to a sensitive stomach or some abdominal malady,) suggests he abstained from other animal products, such as dairy or eggs, and we certainly have enough pictures of the guy in leather.

Which is to say, Hitler was about as vegan as you are.

[apocalypsehow]

346. The facts continue to speak for themselves: Hitler = proud, crusading VEGAN. n/t.

[flvegan]

244. CONGRATULATIONS!!!

I really, really wish I could tell you for what I'm congratulating you. Alas, that would be against DU rules, deemed a personal attack.

[apocalypsehow]

278. Hitler was an enthusiastic vegan, who goose-stepped a radical food agenda with the best of them.

Deal with it.

[yewberry]

290. Post some proof

or acknowledge that these are lies and smears.

[flvegan]

295. Deal with being wrong. Twice.

[Goblinmonger]

329. Oh yeah, well Hitler was what you are, so deal with it.

Do you do that with your friends, too, because I bet you're a big hit if you do.

[apocalypsehow]

352. Hitler = proud archetype of the modern vegan movement as regards dietary choice.

Deal with it.

If you don't want to own it, quit imitating the tyrannical attitude.

[superduperfarleft]

245. Unbelievable.

(that you wouldn't be embarrassed that you posted something so mind-numbingly stupid)

More proof that meat causes brain damage, I guess.

[apocalypsehow]

279. It is a historical fact that every bit of that post you're responding to is 100% accurate.

Deal with it.

[superduperfarleft]

283. Now I know why you're not embarrassed -

You're a moron. Thanks for clearing that up.

And by the way, Stalin was a meat-eater.

[apocalypsehow]

347. Hitler's religion = vegetarianism.

Deal with it.

[Goblinmonger]

287. Pol Pot was a meat eater, too.

So was Mussalini. And Papa Doc. And Bush. And Cheany. Even if you are right about Hilter, you're losing.

[superduperfarleft]

292. This idiot clearly doesn't even know what a "vegan" is. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

351. Mussalini? Who was he? A Soprano Capo?

:rofl:

Methinks you mean Benito Mussolini.

:rofl:

Cheany? Was he the soda jerk on "The Brady Bunch"?

:rofl:

How do you know Pol Pot was a meat eater? I say he was a vegan -and with as much proof as you've offered to the contrary above.

How do you know Papa Doc Duvalier was a meat eater? I say he was a vegan - and with as much proof as you've offered to the contrary above.

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again..."

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

374. We're gonna play like that, huh? OK

How do I know they weren't vegans? Two reasons.

1. I have seen pictures of them all wearing leather, ergo not a vegan.
2. If even Drudge had hinted at a possible rumor of any one of them being a vegan, there would be douchebags on the internet saying they were and how that is a sign that vegetarianism is fascist.

[lightningandsnow]

262. FAIL.

[apocalypsehow]

281. FACT.

Deal with it.

[uppityperson]

318. Prove "many radical vegans secretly admire (Hitler) to this day".

[apocalypsehow]

349. See OP and subsequent fanatical, hysterical vegan hatred for any opposition to it. QED. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

350. Dupe. n/t.

[Marie26]

389. Yes! Godwin's Law! nt

[wtmusic]

267. What a joke

The state already controls enough of your lifestyle choices to make your head spin. If you ever thought about it.

[yewberry]

284. There is nothing fascist about asking people to consider different choices.

Asking people to recycle, ride the bus to work, or eat less meat does not make someone a Nazi, and it is not tyranny.

[NashVegas]

416. Beautifully Put

If we stopped eating meat tomorrow, what do we do with all the animals we will now be competing against for the earth's resources? Sterilize them? Who's going to pay for it?

They're going to die, people are still going to die. And the earth will still be over-crowded.

Technology and miracle cures have contributed to our collective decline in emotional skills; dealing with grief and tragedy is a skill we take great pains to avoid learning. I think that contributes to our tendency to turn everything over to the state.

[apocalypsehow]

216. Eating is no more a "political act" than rolling ones eyes is - and I'm rolling mine now.

Dumb, dumb OP.

[Goblinmonger]

250. Explain how the following two things AREN'T political in nature

1. Resource allocution and use.
2. Environmental damage

Oh, and apparently "get lost" is the new greeting on DU so

Get lost.

[apocalypsehow]

282. It's none of your business what I or anyone else eats, period.

So follow your own advice.

[Goblinmonger]

285. So you don't have an answer, then. OK. nt/

[apocalypsehow]

353. What my family puts on its dinner plate is none of your fucking business. Period.

Deal with it.

[JCMach1]

219. I don't support the politicization of my dinner plate!

Government can stay off of my good China, thank you.

[noamnety]

228. Resource allocations

are about as political as one can get.

[MonteLukast]

220. Protein.

What kind of diet's really been pushed hard in recent years? Low-carb diets.

Atkins aside, it really is healthier for most people to have a carb-protein ratio of 4:3... far from the approximate 5:1 the food pyramid pushed.

I'm one of those people who would have a hard time going animal-less. I simply feel better when I have a protein-dense (but not Atkins-level) diet. I'm more able to control my appetite, more satisfied, and clearer-headed.
That being said, I do like vegetarian foods (tempeh bacon is one of the best), and almost all of my animal protein comes from milk and eggs rather than meat.

I like the "caring carnivores" concept. The real villain is factory farming. Grass-fed cattle are well-known to be both healthier and have a smaller carbon footprint.

[votetastic]

225. Everybody agrees that the world is overpopulated

But it's not 6 billion, it's over a hundred billion.

Over a hundred billion farm animals are bred for meat/dairy/eggs. Obviously this takes a toll on the environment, and drastically accelerates global warming. Because of these billions of animals, we need to worry about water and fuel shortages.

We have more than enough plant food to go around, and we don't need to worry about too many humans if we lower our unnecessary farm animal population! We can see the end of world hunger, but we need to feed the humans and not the farm animals.

[TommyO]

229. Mainly because people don't like being told what to do.

I truly believe it's that simple.

[surrealAmerican]

230. It's too vague, and makes too big an assumption about ...

... current behavior. Like all those messages we get these days: "eat less meat", "exercise more", "watch less tv", "drive less", etc.
None of these will make a bit of difference without a genuine standard, and that means numbers. Face it, "eat no more than one pound of meat per week" means more and is easier to follow than "eat less meat".

[JanMichael]

239. Because people are selfish. nt

[Suspicious]

241. Because the human race has become a cancer.

And I don't exclude myself from that statement (although I am a vegetarian and have been for many years). We are selfish and greedy, and we want everything we feel we're entitled to, despite the consequences of taking it. Some of us are waking up to the error of our ways and are making efforts to correct our lifestyles.

The human race just keeps growing and growing, destroying other species and the environment we depend on for survival. Highly intelligent.

[lightningandsnow]

242. People are sick of being told what to do.

I'm not a meat fan myself. Never liked it, never liked the taste, it's not the greatest for the environment either. I still eat seafood, but no other meat.

I am, however, a member of team Yay Personal Freedom (which often prompts shouts of EVIL LIBERTARIAN from some people), and, honestly, whenever someone claims that an everyday, personal choice is a "political act" (How one eats, fucks, etc.), it usually is followed up by telling people how to eat, fuck, or otherwise live their lives. I'm all for encouraging people to eat less meat, however, people are really resistant to being told how to live their lives. Selfishness? Perhaps.

But, I mean, you really have to prioritize. What's more important? The "greater good" or personal liberties? I'm leaning slightly towards the side of personal liberties, but it's a highly debatable issue.

[lightningandsnow]

260. Clarification...

Being told to "eat less meat" isn't a form of coercion, and there's really nothing wrong with it - BUT a lot of people are resistant to being told what to do.

Also, having everything one does be a political choice is kind of scary.

[JVS]

251. Judging by this thread it has to do with bad salespeople who piss all over potential customers.

[slackmaster]

259. You've got that right, JVS

Telling people that if they don't buy your product they are bad people or politically naive or selfish has never worked very well.

[wtmusic]

266. Customers?

You aren't my customer, and I don't give a crap what you do. I give a crap what the bulk of socially-responsible people do.

[JVS]

273. Case in point.

[donco6]

300. So how do you convert someone from socially irresponsible,

to socially responsible?

Piss all over them?

How's that workin' for ya?

[wtmusic]

334. I can't

What I can do is try to inform people about the environmental dangers of eating meat, then if they still decide their own eating habits take precedence over global warming, at least they're doing it out of carelessness and not ignorance.

It's interesting that you regard an attempt to inform as "pissing on" someone. Personally, I regard complete carelessness about where your food comes from as akin to not picking up after your dog in the park, driving a Hummer, etc. Kind of like peeing on the rest of us.

[donco6]

342. I grew up on a farm.

I know exactly where my food comes from.

But when it comes to food, it's kinda like having to justify your life. I won't do it for anyone.

[Dorian Gray]

363. I thought the premise was to reduce

meat intake.

Now you're making it about the dangers of eating all meat.

In the last two years, I've significantly reduced my meat intake. I've changed my diet, I buy mostly locally, organic, and when I do eat protein (eggs/meat), I buy free range and organic. (It's difficult to buy locally raised chickens or fish in NYC.) But I have really reduced my intake, and I will be a proponent for doing so. My diet is much healthier today, and I feel better. And I try to keep in mind my impact on the environment while shopping.

And I will be happy to promote that type of shopping and eating.

I truly appreciate the buy less meme. What I don't appreciate is the "You are ruining the environment if you eat any meat." That message will turn most people off. And when I read something like that, I want to ignore the whole mess.

[Goblinmonger]

330. How about people that use logical fallacies

to prove their point that eating less meat isn't important? Clearly you give them more latitude, I guess.

[OnionPatch]

252. It's habit.

The "it tastes so good" argument is valid, but you can still cut way down on meat without giving up the really good stuff on occasion. I think the main impediment is habit. We are so use to meat as a cornerstone of our meals that many of us don't even know how to plan a meal without it. It takes a little work to figure out which meatless meals will be acceptable to your family and to learn how to make them. People are so busy all the time these days, it's inevitable that a lot of them will procrastinate on making these kinds of changes, even those they would like to.

[glowing]

253. It takes teaching people how to create meals that don't use meat..

It takes a menu on at a restaurant being over 50% veggie. AND have always eaten meat in this country... From back in the days of hunting. The reality is a little bit of meat here and there isn't all that bad... Its the portion size that is sucky, and the fact that many veggies are expensive.. Growing my own has saved me a bundle. A grocery store has to change the way the sell food... Mostly veggies and fruits.. and a variety would be nice. There is NO variety in many locations, and their are soooo many great produce and spices and herbs that we miss out on... for the love of money in corporate farming.

[slackmaster]

254. Because meat is an excellent source of protein, and it tastes great!

No deep mystery here.

Eating is a political act.

Bullshit.

[Bryn]

255. K & R

Eat less meat makes your poo smell less stink!

I am semi vegetarian, hardly eat meat except for chicken and fish once in a while. :hi:

Heavy meat eater's poo stinks...Eeeeeewwww!!

[Edweird]

308. There you have it. Vegetarians think their shit don't stink. Browbeating = unpopularity.

[natrat]

256. because the modern human is no more than a selfish consuming unit with no care

[El Pinko]

265. Like all other animals on earth...

NT.

[ensho]

268. because 'real men' eat lots of meat

whimps don't.

(anybody seen that guy on the current Survivor who thought he might die if he didn't eat some meat. he convinced the others in the group that he needed to eat more rice then them in order to survive and win them contests.)

[Edweird]

312. I'm a lineman. There are situations in my line of work where weakness = death or worse.

I don't know of a single vegetarian lineman.

You eat what works for you, and mind your own fucking business about my eating habits.

[ensho]

392. I could care less what you eat

non meat eaters are just as strong as everybody else.

[madrchsod]

269. as long as i have my canine teeth i`ll eat meat.....

[Tutonic]

271. Ha ha. That's right...ourteeth look a lot like a dogs or a bears right?

[anigbrowl]

276. More than they look like a cow's.

I don't eat a very high percentage of meat in my diet, but there are reasons my canines are sharp and pointy.

[Goblinmonger]

291. Have you looked at those teeth in the back of your mouth? n/t

[anigbrowl]

293. Yes, and?

I'm well aware that some are for biting and some are for chewing. My molars work just as well on meat as veggies, for that matter.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

272. Onew word.... BACON!

[Sparkly]

275. I don't eat meat -- never liked it.

What I hear all the time is, "How do you get enough protein?"

I think the meat industries have put a big scare in Americans about protein. It's crazy, because we don't have people dying of protein deficiency -- we have people dying of clogged arteries, obesity, high blood pressure and cholesterol, etc...

(For the record, I do eat some fish and dairy.)

[torbird]

288. Hard Sell? Maybe it's YOU

The message is what it is. The people pushing the message are too often holier-than-thou d-bags. Not to mention, the message is delivered in a very convoluted, silly way: when I eat meat, am I: torturing animals, destroying the planet, helping corporations, damaging my health, unwittingly funding Frankenscience? Which is it? Pick one. Talk about that ONE thing. (PS: I don't care about "animal torture" the way you mean it. Frankly, if we didn't eat them, cows and chickens would be utterly useless.)

So, in summation, it isn't a "hard sell" at all to ask people to consider eating less meat; it's hard for jerkwads and righteous buttholes to ask people to eat less meat.

[Locrian]

294. wow - hundreds of posts

And no mention (did I miss it?) of the REAL problem. And its not eating meat. We ate meat for millions of years. But, uhh, the population was about 10 million.

Yeah. Too many people. Made possible by cheap energy.

I know NOBODY wants to hear it (because there is really no solution). Except nature will find a way. It always finds a way to balance things out.

[Gwendolyn]

296. Basically, yeah. We're over crowding the earth.

Plus, a large percentage of us are over consuming on top of the over crowding...and not just flesh of cow or chicken either.

[ContinentalOp]

303. Actually the earth has more than enough resources to sustain any forseeable population explosion.

That is, IF we used our planet's resources more wisely. If Americans continue to consume at our current rate though we're all screwed. And yes, meat consumption is a massive part of the problem.

[cobalt1999]

317. Many UN and scientific reports disagree with you.

We ate meat for hundreds of thousands of years without any problems. Why is it a "massive problem" now? Simple, too many of us now.

[ContinentalOp]

331. Wrong. There are too many of us to continue our absurd habits of consumption.

Even if America were the only population on earth, our level of consumption would be unsustainable.

Eating meat is not a problem that has anything to do with population or lack of land. We could easily raze every forest and jungle on earth and continue to expand our meat production. After all, that's what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. You're saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" right? Burning coal was just as dirty hundreds of years ago. It's only the human population that's the problem, right? So if we could thin the herd a bit we could all go back to the golden age of Victorian London where everyone happily burned coal and enjoyed the lovely London fog.

Please think your argument through to its logical conclusion. If population is the problem, the only answer is population control (man-made disease, war, genocide, eugenics). As the biggest consumers in the world, we need to lead by example and curb our own excessive consumption of resources before we dare talk about curbing the population growth in other parts of the world.

http://www.livingonearth.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00004&segmentID=3
http://www.buckminster.info/Strategy/GrandStrategy.htm

[cobalt1999]

367. Exactly, there are TOO MANY OF US to continue our current consumption.

The seas are totally fished out and the entire commercial fishing industry is projected to collapse by 2040, and that's only by going after what used to be considered trash fish.

Agriculture has denuded much of the arable land in the world and we lose more each year due to unsustainable farming practices.

The world can't sustainably support our numbers. The only reason it has so far is we've been living of resources at unsustainable rates (like the oceans).

"If population is the problem, the only answer is population control (man-made disease, war, genocide, eugenics)." --- Population IS the problem. The end result will be starvation, disease, war, genocide, all of the above. Like it or not, when the oceans collapse & land is overfarmed, there goes the food supply for billions. It's going to be ugly.

"As the biggest consumers in the world, we need to lead by example and curb our own excessive consumption of resources before we dare talk about curbing the population growth in other parts of the world." --- We aren't talking about our use of energy. We are talking about food consumption. We don't eat that much more food that the guy living in Europe, Japan, or China. Yes, we DO need to talk about population growth.

[ContinentalOp]

398. Food consumption == use of energy. Haven't you even read the thread?

Do you think that the rainforests are being cut down for grazing land for cattle that is feeding people in India and China?

[cobalt1999]

405. Food consumption does not equal energy consumption.

We use much more energy per capita than other countries and much more per capita than we used to use. In some cases 30-40 times more energy than developing countries.

However, we are only consuming about 30% more calories than we used to (still too much as our expanding waist lines will attest). However, we can't consume 30-40 times more calories per capita than someone in India/China as it is almost physiologically impossible.

There is a limit on how much we can eat, there is little limit on how much energy we can consume, so you are wrong that food consumption is the same as energy consumption. The only statistic that matters is calories consumed per capita.

As for the rainforest, Brazil exports to China & the EU & the Middle East & Mexico. They ship worldwide, so yes, grazing land in Brazil is feeding people in India & China.

[cobalt1999]

307. Exactly. Too many people.

This was never an issue for hundreds of thousands of years because our numbers were much smaller. There are too many people on the planet.

Next step is rationing. Meat first, then other things next.

[ContinentalOp]

338. There is no simple "numbers" issue. You have to look at numbers in relation to consumption.

And our consumption is out of control. You acknowledge this yourself when you say "next step is rationing." It's a problem of consumption and the solution is to reduce that consumption. If we could successfully ration without starving to death then that would just prove that we are currently consuming far more than we need to survive.

[cobalt1999]

372. Our consumption is out of control because our population is out of control

"If we could successfully ration without starving to death then that would just prove that we are currently consuming far more than we need to survive." --- We are consuming more than the earth can successfully replenish.

There are only two ways to reduce consumption:

1) Rationing.
2) Reduced Population.


The problem is with rationing without population control is the population continues to grow as long as there is adequate food available to successfully have more offspring. Eventually, you have to ration even further (what goes after meat? Cheese/Dairy/Wheat). Then the population increases even further...eventually the population cannot be sustained even with the most strict rationing and collapse occurs. Happens in nature all the time.

[ContinentalOp]

399. Population growth doesn't have anything to do with the availability of food.

If you believe that it does, how do you explain that industrialized nations have lower birth rates than third world countries where food is less available?

[donco6]

299. Gosh, the weekly meat discussion.

[sendero]

302. Don't worry..

... the economics of eating meat will take care of the problem. Meat is going to get a lot more expensive in coming years, and people are going to, of necessity, learn to eat less.

[Tiberius]

305. DING we have a winner

This is exactly why I thought, when gas was cheap, that the gas taxes should've been radically increased. There's simply no other way to get people to change their behavior... it has to cost them more $$, period. Or they won't change.

Overall, consuming less meat, and less gasoline for that matter, is unquestionably better for the planet.

But that's not to say that I don't want to still have a nice steak every now and then, I'll just reduce my consumption.

[ContinentalOp]

306. This thread has shown me the solution to world hunger!

We can all dine on an infinitely sustainable supply of tasty tasty strawmen!

[busybl]

314. check the shape of our teeth

vegetarian animals have flat teeth.

[ContinentalOp]

337. Uh yeah, I have flat teeth too. How about you?

If you're missing your flat teeth you may want to rethink your current dental care! And as long as we're talking about anatomy, why don't you check out our intestines? All of the anatomical evidence pretty much points to use being built as herbivores.

[anigbrowl]

356. What, all of them?

You know that's not true. Our intestines aren't evidence of being vegetarians either; ruminants have much longer digestive tracts than humans, and our appendices have degenerated into vestigial organs. We have archaeological evidence of human meat-eating going back millions of years (tool marks on animal bones etc.).

People point to the vegetarian lifestyle of apes such as gorillas, while ignoring the fact that chimps (our closest relatives) include meat in their diet, as do other apes such as ourang-utangs. I'm fine with people advocating vegetariansim as a healthy lifestyle choice, but these pseudo-scientific arguments claiming we were 'meant' to be herbivores are bunk.

[Scout]

370. nope, we are predators

we have our eyes in the front of our head, unlike prey that have their eyes more on the sides of their head. our teeth are designed so that we can eat meat and vegetables.

we are omnivores, face it. we are designed to eat whatever we can that won't kill us ... whether plant or animal.

[uppityperson]

315. Define "less" as otherwise it is too vague to even discuss. Good lord what an faulty discussion.

Do you mean eat less than 4 ounces of meat a day? Or eat no meat some days and a certain amount others? Or do you mean eat no meat?

How can anyone "eat less meat" discuss "eat less meat" unless there is more specifics as to what "less" means? Maybe I already "eat less". How the hell does anyone spouting "eat less meat" even begin to decide if I am or not?

Define "less".

[Sheepshank]

319. not all foods are created equal..

I'd be surprised if wheat is grown at the same cost per square foot as lets say pineapple. So you say it costs more and is more damaging to grow meat...well all I can say is, "so?" Every single scrap of food has it's own cost. For those that don't like meat or eat limited amounts...well, that's nice. For those who have changed their eating habits to completely cut out animal proteins, good for you. As for me and my group, I'm of the opiion that vegans are generally and constatnly on the the hunt to find adequate vegetative replacement for animal protein. Nuts and soy do not carry the equivalent of all the various forms of amino acids found in animal protein. Since it seems that animal protein is a rich source of so many various kinds of amino acids, I'll just skip all the homework and research if you don't mind, and stick with what I like and what I'm willing to pay and extra buck or two for.

[uppityperson]

324. I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me since you didn't address what I wrote.

Saying "eat less meat" is too vague. What does "less" mean? This question is for the OP and for those who feel strongly about advising people to do some subjective yet undefined amount of something.

[Sheepshank]

325. you're right...was a general reply.

fwiw I agree that "eat less meat" is vague. I assume it was a like a general call to arms type of thing. Like, whatever you are doing, do less. Many already feel like they are doing less, many don't want to do less unless they know what less is. Others ...well, get off their dinner plate.

[uppityperson]

326. Well...it gives a lot of people chance to argue and take offense.

Why give specifics because being vague can let you take offense at anything. "I eat little." "How dare you eat any?" "I love steak" "murderer!" No matter what you say, you can be called wrong. What fun!

Welcome to DU.

[AccessGranted]

320. I can't afford meat anymore!

I am a vegetarian by force.

[anigbrowl]

357. But are you getting the nutrition you need?

This isn't the place to go into a lon discussion of various foods' nutritive value, but you have to eat a fair amount of non meat/dairy food to get the required amoutns of protein etc., and things like nuts aren't always cheap. No matter how little you have (and believe me, I know about trying to eat out of an empty pocket) you can fit some meat in if you judge you'd get more nutritional value. If you can't afford lean meat, by less tasty meat and learn to cook stews or other slow-cooking techniques that make it tender.

I'm not saying you must eat meat, but if you feel your diet is inadequate then you just need to learn some different shopping/cooking techniques.

[AccessGranted]

410. Probably Not But . . .

I've never eaten right, so too late now, but thank you. Just had a complete physical and I'm perfectly healthy.

[anigbrowl]

358. dupe

[busybl]

323. I'm eating less meat

because I can't afford it anymore

[Warren DeMontague]

335. Because people should worry about the stomach that is connected to their OWN mouth, not other ones.

People should worry about what their own bodies do instead of clucking, fretting and playing would-be czar over other people's personal choices.

Folks who try to run other people's lives are fucking tiresome, be they anti-choicers, gay hating fundies, or diet nannies.

[ContinentalOp]

336. Um...yeah. sure.

Except that people who point out that meat is bad for the environment are pointing out a simple, scientific FACT. We're not trying to outlaw meat. We're not trying to amend the constitution. So give me a fucking break.

Eating meat is bad for the environment. Deal with it.

[Quantess]

339. Thanks. I agree with you.

This is far less invasive than deciding to use Weed-N-Feed on your lawn.

Go ahead, keep on eating meat, just eat less!

[Warren DeMontague]

344. The question in the OP was "why is eating less meat such a hard sell?"

And I have attempted to answer that question.

Because when people stomp around finger-wagging at other people self-righteously over things like birth control, or consensual gay sex, or meat eating for that matter... generally the response they garner is "Fuck off".

Personally, I DON'T eat a whole lot of meat, barely any, in fact, and I don't eat any red meat at all-- for both health AND environmental reasons. But I also know that people who, for whatever reason, feel the need to preach at OTHERS about their behavior generally don't accomplish a whole hell of a lot.

Worry about your OWN behavior, that's my point. Don't think meat eating is good for the environment? Fine. Don't eat meat. Focus on what is on your own fork, not everyone else's.

Because lots of people find preachy folks fucking obnoxious. Period.

Deal with it.

[ContinentalOp]

402. I don't preach to people at the dinner table or anything.

But as the OP rightfully points out, this is a political issue and we're on a political discussion board. I see your point though. In the future I'll try to refrain from preaching against bigotry, war and so on as well. That "political correctness" "civil rights" nonsense is so obnoxious huh? :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

413. Do you think people eating chicken is morally equivalent to discrimination or war?

If you do, hey, that's certainly your prerogative, just as it was PETA's prerogative to draw a moral equivalence to chickens killed by Col. Sanders with Jews killed by the Nazis.

However, if that's REALLY what this is all about, why not come right the fuck out and say "I think chickens and fish should have equal rights as humans", and not bother dressing it up in convenient environmental 'concern'?

[1]

340. ha! great thread. so my vote? i love meat. i wish i could eat more meat...

last night 50 head of cattle broke through a gate and descended onto my property. my neighbor was out of town, and one cannot reroute that many back through a gate on his lonesome, so i locked them into my land and watched my adventitious guests consume the large amounts of clover that grows all over my property. (plus they attacked his hay barn and totally gorged on whatever they wanted.) ha!

they were in cow/calf heaven. cows love clover. and i think they secretly loved fucking with the boss man's hay barn.

i was going to mow that land one last time before winter anyhow. now i don't have too. the cows took care of it. they are eating machines.

plus all of that free fertilizer. cows are the mice of large animals.


neighbor came home. we got all of the cattle through the gate. and in a month or two my freezer will be filled with one of these fine creatures.

here, cattle do not do the feed lot "awful" experience. they live great lives and they are amazing creatures. happy, fun and with unique personalities.

but in the end they are not pets. they are food. and in the end, their end is humane.


i understand that is not the same for some of you. but! your experience is not the same for the rest of us. not all beef is feed lot beef. not all lives of cattle are awful. you people that live in these awful worlds have to work that shit out for yourselves.


some of us are experiencing this whole "circle of life" thing just fine...

[Withywindle]

341. I do what I can, regardless.

Hell yeah, I eat meat - I love it! But I try to buy locally and free-range whenever I can (around pay day) and I don't eat it every day.

A lot of these "suggestions" and "motivators" people offer just don't apply to me. I live in a city apartment and have no yard, so I won't be gardening for food any time soon. The flip side of that is, because I live in a city with high density, I haven't owned a car in 16 years because I don't have to! So my walking, mass-transit-taking, small-dwelling-living ass's carbon footprint is pretty low.

Health factors? Please. I'm borderline anemic, low blood pressure, hypoglycemic, prone to various vitamin deficiencies, and underweight enough that I'm not allowed to give blood (I'm 39 years old and my BMI is about 17, and it's sure as hell not because I don't eat!). I have the metabolism of a meth-addicted shrew. I need all the protein I can get. (Eating a whole jar of peanut butter late one night because of the cravings? Been there, done that.) it's hereditary - at least my weight usually consistently stays in 3 digits, whereas my mom has to really struggle to get up to that benchmark.

We are NOT all the same, and our nutrition needs are different.

[BlooInBloo]

343. Because bourgois vegetarians can't convince anybody of anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

345. Well, it's nice to know some things aren't going to change even after the election.

I'm sure DU will continue to have the same energy-sucking drag-out useless shit-flinging fights over meat eating, smoking bans, porn, etc. on a regular basis.

Wow, guess what, 340+ posts, and no one has convinced anyone else of a single fucking thing.

Nice to know there are some constants in the Universe. Olive Garden, anyone?

[BlooInBloo]

348. Oooh - haven't had a good porn battle for a long time!

[cobalt1999]

390. "and no one has convinced anyone else of a single fucking thing".

Very true.

Once the standard topics come out, people line up on their respective sides and start tossing shit at each other.

We're not as removed from the chimpanzees as we'd like to believe.

[librechik]

354. I can haz cheezburger--much stronger message n/t

[Chovexani]

360. Why can't you fuckwits let people eat in peace, is what I want to know.

Eating less meat will kill me. I have a severe iron deficiency among other health issues that preclude me from taking a vegetarian diet. And I have had several extremely self-righteous vegans presume to think they and the voices in their heads knew more about nutrition and my dietary needs than myself and at least four nutritionists.

And you know what? I'm sick to fucking death of privileged assholes lecturing people about eating junk food. Have you a) been to your local "hood" b) stepped inside said 'hood's grocery store? You are not going to see a lot of fucking tofu and organics. You'll be lucky if the fruit isn't rotten. Shit, in some of them you'll be lucky if there even is any fruit. For a lot of poor folks junk is all that's available that won't break the coin jar. The bodega on the corner is not going to have whatever trendy bullshit we're "supposed" to be eating this week. And you're more likely to find a McDonald's than a vegetarian restaurant.

You know what, I really don't give a shit what you put in your body. Be a vegetarian, be a vegan, that's cool. Hell, I support the fights against frankenfood and Big Agra and all that jazz. I'm against factory farming, I try to buy free range, hormone free meat and local stuff when I can. But you know what? I'm a member of that large segment of the population known as the Broke Ass community, and it's a privilege for me to even be able to make those choices when I can. Not everyone can. If my choice is between passing out and eating a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger off the dollar menu, I can haz muthafuckin cheezburgr.

The reason why this idea gets such resistance is because people like you just can't resist being self-righteous, judgmental assholes about it, and you can't take off your privilege blinders long enough to see that not everyone has the luxury to make the choice you made.

[lightningandsnow]

362. ...

:applause:

[JHB]

379. Indeed. When the Cons use "elitist" as a smear against us...

...the image they're conjuring up is precisely this sort of preachiness, and resentment against it is precisely what they're tapping into.

[gollygee]

369. This is a brilliant reply

My favorite part: If my choice is between passing out and eating a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger off the dollar menu, I can haz muthafuckin cheezburgr.

I think you're right that we can sometimes forget how privileged we are just to have choices available, like the choice to drive a fuel-efficient car. If your choice is the car you inherited from grandma or losing your job, you're going to drive whatever you got from grandma, no matter how much fuel it uses. If it's the fast-food dollar menu or nothing, you're going to eat off the dollar menu. What is sometimes declared "evil" can be simply necessary to survive for people who are struggling.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

371. "... I can haz muthafuckin cheezburgr."

:rofl:

And :thumbsup: for the post.

[T_i_B]

361. The moment you claim that "eating is a political act".....

....is the moment you lose the argument.

Do we really need idiotic threads like this on DU so near to a presidential election? Do we really need idiotic threads like this anytime come to think of it?

[Marrah_G]

365. They do provide a source of amusement

Which relieves alot of stress !

[Marie26]

394. Sure we do!

This is some cheap entertainment here.

[Odin2005]

368. Because the Northern European diet is traditionally rich in meat.

Which is typical, generally the farther you get from the equator the more important meat is in local diets because of the lack of fruits and veggies in the winter. On the other hand, as you get closer to the equator meat becomes less important but the diet gets more spicy, possibly because many spices seem to help keep food free of food-born parasites and pathogens, which are more common in the tropics because of the lack of a hard winter freeze.

[Nye Bevan]

373. It's in our genes

In caveman times there was no telling when the next successful brontosaurus hunt would take place, so we are genetically programmed to immediately eat whatever meat happens to be available.

[workinclasszero]

380. Cause meat tastes good?

I live in Kansas City, world famous for its BBQ.

Whatta ya gonna do?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

381. Whatever meat we don't eat will be quickly snapped up elsewhere.

Developing nations would almost literally kill to enjoy the access to meat that we have. If every American stopped eating meat, the only thing that would change is that it would become affordable to 2nd and 3rd world nations, whom would gladly consume it. If you want to change the environmental impact of meat consumption, you have to put into effect policies that mitigate the carbon footprint. Reducing consumption alone will NOT have any substantial effect.

I should also note, that this paradigm stands true for almost any environmental, or even social changes. You can attack the symptoms all you want, but if you don't cure the heart of the disease, it will not go away. Period.

[flvegan]

382. Come ON people! So close to 400 replies. Here, I'll help: PETA. Discuss.

[cobalt1999]

387. Going for the lock?

PETA is the magical phrase for the lock.

[Marie26]

384. Because it's not necessarily healthy?

Someone prone to diabetes needs a high-protein, low-carb diet to regulate blood sugar levels (read: meat & cheese). It's political & irresponsible when people start suggesting (or ordering!) dietary changes based on ideology rather than health, & especially when they're not doctors or they don't even try to take into account the effects of nutrition changes on the human body.

If you eat less meat, you'll probably end up eating more carbs to compensate. And for a significant portion of the population, a low-protein, high-carb diet leads to obesity, anemia, B12 deficiency, insulin resistance & eventual diabetes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

385. Because We're Meant To Eat Meat, Meat Is Yummy, And Because Calling It Political Is DUMB.

[NuttyFluffers]

396. since i'm a thread ninja, let me put this one out of its misery... it's because i love you all!

:+

ooga boogo smooga wooga, obama is gonna win.
party over here, party over there, w00t w00t!

you may now proceed to fling shit until you are tired. and because i am like the Giving Tree let me leave the parting gift of ammo.
:hurts:

it's because i care! :loveya:

[peppermintsunshine]

400. I always think of this concept:

You vote with your pocketbook. You also vote with the lust of your tongue.

[flvegan]

403. #400, Welcome to DU!

[peppermintsunshine]

404. Tank you, tank you verrry much

:hi:

[Evoman]

409. I refuse to be harangued by people who have kids.

Population control IS the problem. The meat industry is a result of population growth.

I understand...meat is not a good choice in todays world. It has huge environmental impacts, and eating less will help reduce that impact. But lets get real...it's a temporary solution. Even going completely vegan is a temporary solution.

We HAVE to start controlling our population, ESPECIALLY in the first world, because our kids consume WAY more energy than a multitude of third world nation children.

And the same people pointing at meat eaters, and our pathological denial of our effect on the world, refuse to accept that having kids is worse than eating all of the bologne in the world.

[gollygee]

411. I eat meat AND I'm pregnant

I must be going to hell.

[Toasterlad]

412. Because Most People Aren't Loony.

Edit: Can't BELIEVE this thread is still open. Chargrilled flamebait! :party: