'Is Eating Red Meat OK, After All? Probably Not' (harvard.edu) 185
Remember last month when "an international collaboration of researchers" suggested there was no reason to reduce consumption of red meat? Here's a response from Frank Hu, chairman of the Nutrition Department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health:
The recent guidelines published in the Annals of Internal Medicine should not change existing recommendations on healthy and balanced eating patterns for the prevention of chronic diseases. Guidance to reduce red and processed meats is based on a large body of evidence indicating that higher consumption of red meat -- especially processed red meat -- is associated with higher risk of Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancers, and premature death.
While this guidance is supported by both national and international organizations, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization, consumers should know that the new guidelines were released by a self-selected panel of 14 members. Furthermore, when my colleagues and I closely reviewed the studies informing the panel's decision, we saw that their findings contradicted their guidance. In short, the three meta-analyses of observational studies actually confirmed existing evidence on the potential for health benefits when cutting back on red and processed meats. However, because they based their analysis on a measure of three servings of red meat per week, the effects of an individual reducing consumption appeared small. But if you consider that about a third of U.S. adults eat one serving or more of red meat each day, the potential health benefits of reducing consumption become much greater...
[N]utrition research is complex, and rarely do [its findings] reverse so abruptly. That's why it's so important to look beyond the headlines at the quality of the evidence behind the claims. Still, the publication of these new guidelines in such a prominent medical journal is unfortunate as it risks further harm to the credibility of nutrition science, eroding public trust in research as well as the recommendations they ultimately inform.
While this guidance is supported by both national and international organizations, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization, consumers should know that the new guidelines were released by a self-selected panel of 14 members. Furthermore, when my colleagues and I closely reviewed the studies informing the panel's decision, we saw that their findings contradicted their guidance. In short, the three meta-analyses of observational studies actually confirmed existing evidence on the potential for health benefits when cutting back on red and processed meats. However, because they based their analysis on a measure of three servings of red meat per week, the effects of an individual reducing consumption appeared small. But if you consider that about a third of U.S. adults eat one serving or more of red meat each day, the potential health benefits of reducing consumption become much greater...
[N]utrition research is complex, and rarely do [its findings] reverse so abruptly. That's why it's so important to look beyond the headlines at the quality of the evidence behind the claims. Still, the publication of these new guidelines in such a prominent medical journal is unfortunate as it risks further harm to the credibility of nutrition science, eroding public trust in research as well as the recommendations they ultimately inform.
Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything in moderation.
Keep your weight down.
And, remember, 50% of all cancers are due to bad luck.
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Everything in moderation" is a cop out. The real answer is "we have no fucking clue".
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everything in moderation" is a cop out. The real answer is "we have no fucking clue".
If you "have no clue", moderation is an excellent strategy. Same as in investing: you don't need a ton of research to know that diversification reduces your risk at little cost.
Re: (Score:2)
So how many cigarettes per day would you consider moderate ?
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Funny)
Two per fortnight. One extra in a leap year.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I remember reading that one cigarette per day may not actually be all that bad for you. The problem is that nicotine is so addictive that simply having one cigarette per day is almost impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. I don't know how these people an keep a straight face when they make these pronouncements of "eat more/less/none of " based on a "recent study". It's mostly bullshit in the same way that saying "don't get run over" is.
Avoid doing clearly dangerous behaviour on a constant basis, don't subsist on a food mono-culture, eat reasonable amounts most of the time, try and get a little exercise(and for most, really, a little is fine) and try and be nice to people because karma. You're dealt a hand at b
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
Stupid choices are stupid choices. But avoiding sugar and carbs, something I've had to do recently, isn't expensive. Merely annoying...especially when I keep being tempted by "try this, it's good".
Greens don't keep well, but green beans are easy. And frozen vegetable of various kinds. And a variety of canned fish. (Frozen fish are tastier, and of higher quality, but require more preparation.) Garlic and chili pepper aid a lot in making things palatable. Also lots of wheat bran and some wheat germ. (For breakfast try 4 parts wheat bran to one part wheat germ, add whole milk to taste.) Good swiss cheese is good, but harder to come by at a decent price than mozzarella.
And when you are at home try a mixed greens salad with choice of vinegar...balsamic is good. A high quality hamburger is also good. These days that means low, but not super low, in fat. Don't burn the outside.
Nothing there is fancy, or expensive. Much is portable. When I was feeling fancy I made sweetener free brownies/cookies/whatever with lots of eggs, wheat bran, and ground nuts. And various spices. I don't bother much anymore, but I did for awhile. That was relatively expensive, and nut flours aren't cheap, but "relatively" doesn't compare to commercial food.
So expense is not an excuse. Time may be, though most of what I mentioned doesn't really take any longer. (I'm a lazy cook, though, so I only made "set it going and go off and do something else" food.)
FWIW, the original reason I started doing this was that my wife was on an EXTREMELY low salt diet. (Something like 1,000 mg/day. Celery was problematic.) Then I had to change the recipes again when I developed Diabetes. My goal was that after a hearty mean my blood sugar would be below 120. Usually I was able to manage that. The odd thing was it didn't end up taking any more time, and the costs dropped. Neither of us were vegetarians, but we also didn't go in for huge quantities of meat....more like oriental cooking, with lots of small pieces to flavor things. (Japanese or Cantonese, not Mandarin. But not really since that low a salt level meant no soy sauce. I invented spicing recipes. Usually a mix of spices, to enhance the flavor, which is how salt was traditionally used.)
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:4, Informative)
Carbs are not bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Unused carbs are stored as fat.
Unused fat is mostly shat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, carbs are simply energy for the human body. However most processed food that you can buy in these times contains way too much carbs while not keeping people satiated. So they tend to consume too many carbs if they just go after how they 'feel', and don't count calories and or carbs, or perform regular physical activities (preferably endurance sports like running, swimming, or cycling) . Which is what too many people appear to be doing given how widespread obesity has become.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the above poster's comment invisibly includes the missing phrase ", in moderation", but that's my interpretation. .
But, what you said about excessive carbohydrate ingestion is accurate and pretty much accepted as how it is
The problem with obesity today is alarming and unprecedented and unseen in recent history or maybe all of human history. This obesity epidemic seems really to have hit the 30 crowd hard, but not so much the older people. And many of these obese people are not just obese, but mor
Re: (Score:2)
I love wheat germ! My elementary school principal taught us in health class about how nutritious it is and how it is a good supplement and to sprinkle it over our cereal in the morning.
Live long and prosper ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"I wear the chain I forged in life," replied the Ghost. "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it."
War against meat (Score:3, Insightful)
Its cheaper to grow corn and process that into the thousands of boxed foods in the store. These days they can even make the box out of the corn.
It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And lack of grazing animals is also bad for the environment since it impacts the biodiversity.
The point is that herds have to be limited in size for an optimal result.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a very false assumption: none sad nothing about extinction grazing animals: they do exists without humans doing animal agriculture...
Re:It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:5, Informative)
How many horses roam the plains now that people no longer use them for labor?
You'd need a drastic reduction in the number of people to avoid the extinction of domestic animals that were no longer of use to people. (Even that might not work, as they've been bred to be useful, not to survive. But I suppose you could import some antelope of various types and bring back the bison.)
At the time of the US civil war it was figured that a person required 40 acres and a mule to be above poverty level at farming. Of course, it depends a lot on the quality of the land, and the best land has had cities built on top of it.
Complex systems resist simple solutions. But one simple solution that's always available is total failure. Dairy cattle would go extinct in two generations without human intervention. Beef cattle haven't been quite that specialized, but they're headed that way. There are almost certainly some small groups that haven't been specialized that way, but those are in small isolated locations. (Or outside the US, and forbidden import. India may well have lots of cattle that can fend for themselves.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but even Africa is finding their wild species going extinct. Still, they probably have local breeds of cattle. But I live in the US, and if they aren't re-wildable here, they aren't going to be a part of the solution here. I can't address Europe or the Scandinavian countries. Or even Canada. But they tend to have the same domestic animals that the US does. Perhaps they insist that the animals be less specialized, but I have my doubts. Still, small farms may maintain their own localized strains
Re: It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:2)
Re: It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:2)
Re: It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:2)
Coherence and contradiction...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I should have added "except in India".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's a very false assumption: none sad nothing about extinction grazing animals: they do exists without humans doing animal agriculture...
Wrong! Grass and ruminants co-evolved. Grass relies on grazing animals to thrive. Introducing ruminants to the boundary of desertification areas reverses the desertification process.
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually....grass fed beef produces, as a byproduct, managed environment for a variety of other species.
Better yet range grass fed beef produces a high variety of other species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:4, Informative)
Really? You need a citation for the idea that open land is good for wildlife?
Well, luckily, There's a government study for that [usda.gov]. Turns out as long as ranchers are careful not to overgraze, the oak savanahs of Western Oregon and the sagebrush rangeland of Eastern Oregon are home to a variety of wild species that would not exist if these areas were paved over by urbanization.
Re: (Score:2)
besides that "the study" have almost 40 years, US != world, you know...
Re: (Score:3)
Range fed, yes. Grass fed, I'm a lot less sure. I've seen some pretty plain pasture land. Grass fed beef can be raised as a part of a crop rotation scheme that involves lots of plowing, fertilizers, and insecticides.
Re: It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:2)
Bollocks.
What is bad for the environment is lame ass humans going for the fastest/cheapest way to make money. That itâ(TM)s also bad for humans weâ(TM)re barely catching onto that part.
Re: (Score:2)
And the corporate farming for the food to replace the meat is just as, if not worse, for the environment for factors like soil erosion and pollution of our rivers with herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
plant-based food (the alternative), from agriculture, is bad (or worse) for the environment than animal agriculture? What are you smoking?
"Free range" grazing of livestock essentially involves putting said livestock in an area with food and letting nature be nature. With the exception of the methane issue (which is significant), there's very little impact on the environment. Grass and scrub regrows--fertilized by the manure--other plants (and the animals that come with them) grow freely, and the rangeland supports a very diverse biome.
And when those livestock are slaughtered, virtually nothing is wasted. A cow, for example, not only produc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you don't have children? Nephews? And the children of other people (fuck them)?
so egoistic...
Re: (Score:2)
I have no children that I know of....
Thank goodness for Pro Choice and girls that have been "good sports".
Re:It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:5, Informative)
If you are going to spit out an unhinged screed, at least get the basics right.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not pretend the younger generations are any better.
Re:It's for health of the PLANET... (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, the average Millennial's lifestyle is highly subsidized.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/say-goodbye-millennial-urban-lifestyle/599839/ [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I gather this has all been done before. After the invention of hydrogenation, they had an organised PR advertising campaign to stop people eating lard and get them to switch to the industrial replacements. Now they figure they can do the same with pea protein and build a huge global market. Tie it in with the vegetarian ethical belief system, and chuck in some climate change. Honestly, when scientists and doctors actually revert to a more species appropriate diet, they are amazed at how well it works for re
Re: War against meat (Score:2)
Trivialities and meat obsessions of meat (Score:2)
I eat gods, and will not die.
Red meat is not a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Visit your local church. They'll give you the details.
Or if the mainstream starting point doesn't work for you, you can start here. [gnosis.org]
Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."
And metaphorically speaking, or rather as a literalizing metaphor... yes, at first.
Wrong often (Score:4, Insightful)
People would have been better off disregarding news-media-reported nutritionist advice for the last 50 or 60 years.
Re: (Score:3)
This is probably the best one-line post I have seen on /. this year.
The problem with mass media nutritional advise is not that it is always wrong. Individual articles almost always have something in them that is actually right. But then they botch the whole story with either bad assumptions or bad conclusions or both.
The media consumer wants a very nice "always true" easy-to-remember sound bite that they can repeat and sound knowledgeable and wise. And, of course, they will always be receptive to s
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, the summary seems to indicate that the headline is oversimplified to the point of being wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. As a science, nutritional sciences are much more of a problem than a benefit, at least when you take the media-transformation into account. They do not seem to be doing to well on actual dependable results otherwise either, although there are some.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the ONLY problem is the media transformation, at least if you count in that the various people who extract parts to push their own dietary theories.
If you look at the studies, most of the things currently being studied are very weak effects. The strong effects have largely already been noticed. So it's not surprising that slightly different initial conditions or testing protocols or ... well, conditions of the experiment (e.g. how many grams of meat in a serving) result in slightly differing con
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia tracks it back to WW2 [wikipedia.org], which is unsurprising since that's when a lot of nutrition research really took off (wanted to make sure the soldiers were well fed).
Correlation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correlation (Score:5, Interesting)
Overeating ANYTHING or eating processed anything is bad.
To be clear, cooking food is processing it, and we've been doing that since the pleistocene epoch. It was a serious benefit that may have allowed our brains to grow bigger.
Instead of saying "processed foods are bad," it's probably more accurate to say that foods mainly made of sugar and low-quality fat without many vitamins are bad. Or even more precisely, they don't have much good in them, like eating styrofoam.
Because actually, processed foods are very good. And bad. You can't know without more detail.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, too much salt is decidedly bad and low-quality processed stuff will often overdo it massively on the salt and sugar, because they are cheap.
Re:Correlation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, "too much" of ANYthing is "bad." That said, salt/sodium being bad has been entirely overblown. Current science shows that sodium isn't really a problem except for the very small portion of the population that has sodium sensitivity. If you don't fall into that category, and you probably don't, salt is fine in as much of a quantity as you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
The two food related words I wish we would come up with alternate terms for are "processed" and "organic." As you say, cooking is processing. So "processed" doesn't really mean much of anything. Same with "organic." All carbon-based matter is "organic." It was already a term with a definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frigging hate these damn studies spouted to make people stop eating how we've been eating for millennia.
You would think that this obvious fact would stop them but it doesn't and probably never will. If there was some basic literacy and logic test on nutrition that reporters would have to pass before they were allowed to report on nutrition studies it might help. But probably not because that test would probably be written by some committee in the USDA that still insists that lowering fat and cholesterol is solid dietary advice.
The other problem I see is on the peer-review side. As you pointed out the co
There is no "overeating"! (Score:2)
That is another one of those bullshit "study" things you hate. Actually a Coca-Cola sponsored one, but that is not an argument.
A healthy body automatically maintains energy homeostasis. Meaning, you feel full when you had enough.
The problem is that that system breaks when you have a Leptin resistance. Which you get from a bad digestive flora. Which you grow by eating too many simple (=processed) carbs (just like you said: too much and processed) and no branching and complex ones. (Like e.g. in onions, leek,
foo foo fluffy fucker (Score:2)
Such a strange American thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Here in Europe, nobody has ever heard of this. Nobody got the "too much red meat" joke that Al Bundy made back then, nobody talks about it today.
Nor does it make any sense whatsoever.
Strange. There are peoples who basically live off of "red meat" (what a silly term anyway) and salad, and they are fine.
I can only guess that the American diet of sugar, sugar, starch and sugar breeds a digestive flora unable to properly digest it...
Re: (Score:2)
May also be that in Europe, frying, say, beacon to a crisp is not usually done or that red meat is less often processed and when it is it is lower on the salt. Hence it may well be that red meat "American Style" is actually the problem here. Or alternatively, this is just one more quasi-religious stupid thing that Americans are so fond of.
Harvard killed millions of people (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/9/8003971/low-fat-dietary-health-goals-bad-science [theverge.com]
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/23/17039780/sugar-industry-conspiracy-heart-disease-research-mark-hegsted-harvard [theverge.com]
Re:Harvard killed millions of people (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they did not "kill" people. That is the first problem with the nutritional sciences: Their results are always styled as "this will kill you" and "that will kill you". It does not. It just has an influence on your overall life-expectancy and what matters is how large that influence actually is. For example, if eating red meat, even processed red meat, in reasonable quantities costs me, say, 3 months (expected), then I could not care less.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because I remember as a child in the 80's I consulted the fucking good pyramid and carefully followed government guidelines on what to eat.
Rubbish. People eat what's available, cheap, and tasty. Harvard has nothing to do with jack shit, this is sensationalist revisionist garbage.
Re: (Score:3)
As a child you didn't consult the dietary recommendations but the people who fed you did, ie the public school system which follows the Federal government dietary guidelines. If you would have spent 1/4 the time actually thinking it through you would have stopped writing you're spectacularly misinformed diatribe before you completed your first sentence.
There w
I just treat meat like a spice. (Score:2)
One small chicken nugget worth cut into bits is about my limit in a dish. Kind of like using garlic or ginger - too much takes away the other flavors. This is more like how, well most of folks in the world now treat meat, and have through history unless they had a bunch that was just about to rot.
I've certainly had larger portions when I eat out - but I don't find I get any special enjoyment from having more meat in a dish, and very much prefer cooking to restaurants.
In terms of flavor - meats DO perk up
Of course it's okay. (Score:3)
Do you see a massive public health epidemic that plagues the entire red meat eating world? Of course not, because it doesn't exist. There's a shitton of other things you should consider not eating before you worry your easily distracted mind with the thought of red meat.
Here's our best guess. (Score:2)
Still, the publication of these new guidelines in such a prominent medical journal is unfortunate as it risks further harm to the credibility of nutrition science, eroding public trust in research as well as the recommendations they ultimately inform.
Here's our best guess. As we learn new things, we'll most likely change our recommendations. And when we learn MORE things, they'll probably change yet again.
Life's hard and complex. Do your best, guess your best, and realize we'll ALL make misatkes. Not at all that "WE'RE" out to get "YOU", but realize that some people/companies/groups _are_. You'll make mistakes choosing and trusting there as well.
Try hard to have people earn your trust, don't just give it to them because they say so, it's the p
Meat as a minor meal ingredient, not a course. (Score:2)
I count many vegetarians and vegans among my friends in the triathlon community, though I've been unable to make it work for me. Meat is a great way to obtain key proteins and nutrients, it's primary virtues being simplicity, density and convenience.
That said, after running the numbers and talking with dietitians and nutritionists, it turns out that consuming a relatively small amount of meat can earn me all the benefits I need. I'm talking only a few ounces per week! I still need more protein, so to bri
I have stopped caring (Score:3)
Nutritional sciences are a low-quality research field that is struggling to produce any reliable results and that has screwed up time and again. Things told to the world as strong recommendations have repeatedly been found wrong, misleading, based on bad data or methods including the absolute beginners mistake of mistaking correlation for causation, and, yes, "found" by corrupt "scientists" in the pocket of some industry.
Hence, I am now going with the base, time-honored advice: Most things are o.k. to eat, if you make sure your diet is diverse and you do not have something that dominates. It is also perfectly fine to eat things you like, even if that happens to be fast-food or sweet or fat things, as long as they do not dominate. Eating things you like is an immediate quality-of-life win. Other than that, I will ignore the nutritional sciences until they have cleaned up their act. They seem to be doing far more harm than good these days, wit some people in outright panic whenever some new "recommendation" comes out.
personal observations (Score:2)
When I eat carbs I get fat and lethargic. When I eat only meat / fat I lose weight and get energy.
Calorie counting doesnt matter. I eat a lb of bacon at breakfast and I still lost 20lbs this last month. Cholesterol is fine.
I dont doubt some people cant eat meat but some of us thrive on it.
Eating less meat != eating no meat (Score:2)
Know Them By The Fruits they Bear. (Score:2)
And I still weigh a nice 205lbs at 11% body fat at 6ft 1in. I see others who only eat red meat and I see similar individuals.
And then I look at vegans and vegetarians. I see emaciated frames, wispy dispositions, and enough mental complexes to solve the California housing crises.
Drink your milk, eat your steak, and finish your veggies to flush it all out when it's done building up a strong foundation of strength.
()
SubjectIsSubject (Score:2)
Oh, fuck you. (Score:2)
Should you eat nothing but red meat, every single day? No, that would be dumb. Eat a healthy, balanced, omnivorous diet, get regular exercise, and be smart about these things and you'll probably be just fine. There's plenty of other things out there that will kill you dead that have nothing to do with eating red meat.
Re: (Score:2)
I will still eat red meat (Score:2)
I really enjoy a good steak. If a vegan tells me how horrible of a person I am because I am eating a steak, then I will make a scene on enjoying that steak. I am planning on going to the Antler restaurant in Toronto some day.
Re: (Score:2)
Health (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah yes, the devil called health. When it comes to food I've never heard more yelling about health ever before in history. Yet the same people are usually drinking ethanol or smoking, not getting enough sleep or regular exercise. So what is health to people really?
I view it as a large spider that sits right next to them. Its invisible until they look at it. And when it bites the fuck out of them, they yell and look at it for a brief moment, then move the exact distance of its fangs out of reach. Then look away and stay where they are.
So the bigger issue with meat isn't health effects, its environment impacts. Feed conversion ratios for beef are horrible. Pork is not much better. But chicken and certain farmed fish are a lot better. It would be far better for us all to focus not on dropping meat entirely but switching to more efficient production of it. This doesn't require waiting for lab grown stuff to be market ready either.
First they wanted to take away your car (Score:3, Insightful)
First the eco-fascists wanted to take away your car and mcmansion so you could move into a much more energy efficient community college dorm (hello, AOC and the Green New Deal). Next, they wanted to make you vegan. And now finally they're admitting that they want to take our pets [getpocket.com] away too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm what? (Score:2)
This guy thinks a third of adults eat red meat DAILY. Seriously I've never encountered a human being who eats beef every single day and I lived in cow country. There might be a higher number than I suspect who don't want ANY protein variety but at 37 my anecdotal evidence is likely a large enough sample to debunk a claim of 1 in 3 outright.
Re: (Score:2)
False, but it is a quick way to improve protein intake. My wife was vegetarian but switched back to meat consumption when pregnant and nursing babies. She just could not consume enough in her vegan diet to provide all she needed. This was her individual situation. Mileage will vary depending on an individual's metabolism.
Re:Removing meat = high end junk food. (Score:4, Interesting)
I heard a podcast by an Indian public health worker, and she said this is a myth. The culture dictates that you say you are vegetarian, but in reality most people are consuming animal products in one form or another. Also, where does the fertiliser come from for all those plants?
Re: (Score:3)
Even then, most Hindus in India publicly merely avoid cow meat. They still eat goat, chicken and so on. More extreme religious denominations do indeed demand that you declare that you're not consuming meat, eggs and milk, but this is indeed a declaratory issue, and is typically aligned with poverty. Meat is more expensive and in poor rural areas that form some of the more hardline Hindu heartlands, it's basically a combination of economic and religious realities.
The moment Hindu can afford meat (typically w
Re:Inhumane treatment (Score:4, Interesting)
Eating meat does not equate to support of inhumane treatment of animals. Healthy and humane livestock production are serious and important issues that are not dealt with by simply reducing meat consumption and increasing soy (for example). Plant based food production has a plethora of environmental and health concerns that similarly should not be ignored. Eating vegan does not equate to support for agricultural replacement of rain forests.
We consume a lot and there are a lot of us. No matter how we satisfy our needs, our methods of food production have a massive effect on the environment. Don't be thinking that tending soy, wheat, or rice is really any better than raising cows and chickens. You can argue that the cost of one is cheaper than the other, or that the food value energy efficiency is better but modern massive plant agriculture devastates insect populations, pollutes ground water, and damages soil.
My neighbors' cattle operation makes very localized and limited use of pesticides and medications. His fields are natural grass that are fertilized with composted manure. He almost never tills a field. Their cattle have a diverse genetic heritage and they work to keep it so. Contrast that with local canola production that depends on massive spraying of fertilizer and pesticides. The soil is tilled annually and the crop seed genetic diversity is suspect. It's genetics are patented and diversity is not part of the plan. They also consume a heck of a lot of diesel fuel throughout the production process.
The real issue is too many people on Earth along with the drive to increase production by any method without regard to the ethical and environmental consequences.
Re: Removing meat = high end junk food. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
B12 is made by a special group of bacteria, not fungus, not plants, not animals.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP was thinking of seaweed, rather than mushrooms. The form of B12 in seaweed, called pseudovitamin B12, is inactive in humans [nih.gov]. Also, bioavailability from eggs is extremely poor compared with bioavailability when consumed from meat, i.e. your body is almost 10x as effective at absorbing B12 in meat than in eggs.
Unfortunately, mushrooms aren't much better in that regard. You'd have to consume 50g of dried shitake mushrooms per day to hit
Re: Removing meat = high end junk food. (Score:2)