Meat Free day

BraziliaNZ

Hi all. Paul McCartney was banging on about this lately, having a meat free day once a week. What are your thoughts on this? Would you do it? I think i'm going to do it myself, maybe tuesdays or so. I know it'll never happen, but i think the world would be a much better place if no one ate meat once a week, cutting down on emissions, overfishing etc.
I personally think it's unfair to think we can eat meat 2 or 3 times a day, when most of the world would barely eat it once a week. Thoughts?

Davei141

Thoughts? Don't take diet or life advice from Paul McCartney.

rubadub

Did anybody see the documentary on BBC last night? it was on about water used per gram of food, and then crude oil used per gram. IIRC greenhouse grown tomatoes used large amounts of crude oil relative to some other things. Meat used up huge amounts of water compared to veg.

Also the cynic in me would say McCartney has a vested interest in selling his veggie products, presuming he still has a hand in it. It would be like Mr. Galtee having a veg free day!;)

BraziliaNZ

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I know it'll never happen

Why not? It is not really difficult.

If you don't cook, you could use it as an excuse to try out recipes day.

Most Irish people could do with a good dosing of vegetables.

BraziliaNZ

Davei141 wrote: »

Thoughts? Don't take diet or life advice from Paul McCartney.

well he was just promoting it as an idea, he's not a guru of mine.

BraziliaNZ

Moonbaby wrote: »

Why not? It is not really difficult.

If you don't cook, you could use it as an excuse to try out recipes day.

Most Irish people could do with a good dosing of vegetables.

I would think that it's very difficult to change the eating habits of the Western World. We are used to having whatever you want whenever you want so even a little change like this would not suit most people.

corkcomp

im not a huge fan of Paul McCartney but in fairness he doesnt look anywhere near his age so he must be doing something right ...

Thoushaltnot

Actually, I first heard of this off the Veg Soc. here a few months back.

It's already up and running in Ghent on Thursdays, so it's not originally Paul McCartneys - he's just promoting it. Heres a link;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/13/ghent-belgium-vegetarian-day
And "In Germany they’ve taken this very seriously indeed, with the environment ministry advising people to cut out meat on all but special occasions."

And on the "Food, Inc." site, they were promoting "Meatless Mondays". In fact, it's as much a climate change issue as it is a vegetarian/anti animal cruelty issue and also an anti-cancer issue, as eating meat everyday has been linked definitively to developing cancer - especially processed, as opposed to fresh, meat.

A quick google of meat free day also refers to a meat free day in Poland to conserve scarce resources, though the article is a bit skimpy.

Whatever about the messenger, the message itself is a good one.

Blueskye

I think it's a great idea and don't understand how we can continue to consume as much meat and fish as we want without considering the consequences for our planet. I saw the programme on BBC with George Alagiah the other night and thought it was fascinating to see how much crude oil goes into growing a tomato, rearing lamb etc. We definitely need to change our thinking, how we live is just not sustainable.

Anyway, what's the big deal with not eating meat for one whole day a week?

jdivision

Just make ratatouille, it's easy and nice

brianthebard

Thoushaltnot wrote: »

Actually, I first heard of this off the Veg Soc. here a few months back.

It's already up and running in Ghent on Thursdays, so it's not originally Paul McCartneys - he's just promoting it. Heres a link;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/13/ghent-belgium-vegetarian-day
And "In Germany they’ve taken this very seriously indeed, with the environment ministry advising people to cut out meat on all but special occasions."

And on the "Food, Inc." site, they were promoting "Meatless Mondays". In fact, it's as much a climate change issue as it is a vegetarian/anti animal cruelty issue and also an anti-cancer issue, as eating meat everyday has been linked definitively to developing cancer - especially processed, as opposed to fresh, meat.

No it hasn't.

fatmammycat

I gave up eating meat a month ago after a lifetime of eating it, and honestly, it's not that difficult in this day and age when there is so much food at my fingertips. It just takes a little consideration and forward meal planning, but I have not found it a terrible imposition.

taram

brianthebard wrote: »

No it hasn't.

Yes it has http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8202188.stm

corkcomp

taram wrote: »

Yes it has http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8202188.stm

in fairness, its not rocket science to know that processed + cured meats are not good for you, most of them contain a low % of actual meat and are full of salt and bad fats and other nasties, especially pork + ham products - thats what the article seems to be refering to ... A lot of parents probably give their kids sandwiches made from lunchroll (spelling?) and other crap which is what a lot of these articles are trying to discourage

thats a WHOLE LOT different to saying that all meats cause cancer, I seriously doubt proper unprocessed meats (chicken fillet, lean beef, turkey etc etc) would cause cancer, thats just sensationalist IMO

brianthebard

taram wrote: »

Yes it has http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8202188.stm

that's nothing like what the earlier poster said. it only refers to processed meat, not all meat and is nothing close to a definitive link.

Macha

And in fact, I have read that the impact that meat can have on your health also depends how the animal was raised. ie grass-fed beef is better than corn-fed beef.

Although admittedly, I'm not sure I can produce any research on that.

Having said that, no doubt many Irish people's diets would benefit from more vegetables and less processed meat (and the environment would benefit from less meat full stop).

El_Dangeroso

Wow, there's so much mis-information in this idea I just don't know where to start.

Is large-scale industrial production of meat through factory farming bad for the environment? Of course, but that is to ignore the fact that ALL industrial agriculture is bad for the environment. Just google the Aral sea to see what kind of damage large scale mono-crop farming does to the environment. Also most people don't know that the biggest man made source of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases is rice-paddy fields, but you don't see any celebrities telling us to go on rice-free Fridays.

Sustainable responsible meat farming is no more damaging to the environment than it has been for approximately the last 10,000 years.

In terms of Ireland, most agricultural land is non-arable, as in unsuitable for growing crops, so we rear cows sheep and pigs on it instead. Now if we don't eat meat as a nation, where do we get the rest of our calories from? We don't have enough arable land to grow our food so we would have to import it, adding more food miles.

I would much prefer eating grass fed beef produced by a farmer not 30 miles from where I live rather than rice produced in near-slave labour conditions 4,000 miles away in thailand.

Double-meat Mondays anyone?

Macha

I'm afraid, Temple_Grandin, that is not quite true

It is most certainly not the case in Ireland that animals are only farmed on land that cannot be used for crops.

Meat is one of the most water-intensive, calorie-intensive, energy-intensive and therefore carbon-intensive foods out there. It is much less carbon-intensive in Ireland because the cows are fed on grass but most are finished off on imported grain. But we also have to consider that there is a lot of meat imported into this country that is even worse for the environment.

Personally, I favour smaller multi-crop farms that involve animals as the manure can be recycled into crops, etc.

I don't think anyone could plausibly argue that eating more meat is better for the environment.

El_Dangeroso

I'm not arguing that eating more meat is better for the environment. I'm arguing that singling out meat consumption as a factor in GW is a straw-man argument. It is to say 'oh just stop eating meat' without qualifying it with 'if it is industrially produced in Brazil' which is what the arguement is based on, not locally reared livestock which as I mentioned before is more carbon efficient than imported grains.

Do you have a source to back up that arable land is used as pasture land in Ireland? Because that would be incredibly silly of the farmer given that the profit per hectare is much higher for producing crops than letting cows roam about on it.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I'm not arguing that eating more meat is better for the environment. I'm arguing that singling out meat consumption as a factor in GW is a straw-man argument. It is to say 'oh just stop eating meat' without qualifying it with 'if it is industrially produced in Brazil' which is what the arguement is based on, not locally reared livestock which as I mentioned before is more carbon efficient than imported grains.

Do you have a source to back up that arable land is used as pasture land in Ireland? Because that would be incredibly silly of the farmer given that the profit per hectare is much higher for producing crops than letting cows roam about on it.

Im not going to even get into the whole environmental debate but just to clear up any mis information on farming land, as taconnol correctly pointed out above, a major proportion of land used for meat + dairy farming in Ireland is arable + very good land which could be used for tillage if the farmer chose to do so .. in fact, much of the land in Ireland IS actually suitable for crop growing but if the main enterprise of the farmer is dairy or beef then they wont be growing tillage, period.. and if you check out current tillage related prices e.g. price per ton for cereals you might find that the return is greater from letting cows "roam about" (eating grass to fuel milk production!) ...

El_Dangeroso

Can I get a source on that? Apologies, I should have qualified my reasoning by mentioning that I was referring to cereal growing, not fruit and vegetables which are much less picky with the soil they are grown in, but in terms of getting adequate calories you would have to consume more cereals to get sufficient calories. The price of wheat, corn and other cereals has skyrocketed in recent years making it a much more profitable prospect. But I'm excluding various subsidies that exist for dairy and meat farmers, not sure if they apply to cereal growing?

The bottom line is that there is lots of land in this country that be used to raise sheep etc. that cannot be used for crops. If we don't use it for sheep, it would be useless and wasted land.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Can I get a source on that? Apologies, I should have qualified my reasoning by mentioning that I was referring to cereal growing, not fruit and vegetables which are much less picky with the soil they are grown in, but in terms of getting adequate calories you would have to consume more cereals to get sufficient calories. The price of wheat, corn and other cereals has skyrocketed in recent years making it a much more profitable prospect. But I'm excluding various subsidies that exist for dairy and meat farmers, not sure if they apply to cereal growing?

The bottom line is that there is lots of land in this country that be used to raise sheep etc. that cannot be used for crops. If we don't use it for sheep, it would be useless and wasted land.

Hi, my answer was also based on cereals. you were making the point that it would be silly to use arable land for grazing - well it happens in almost every farm in the country as current cereal prices are only 85 - 95 per tonne and the cost of production can be up to 80 so its a no brainer to use the land for grazing of beef and dairy cattle. BTW cereals are actually MUCH LESS picky about soil conditions than vegetables! apologies for dragging the thread slightly OT but I hate inaccurate info being posted!

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

Hi, my answer was also based on cereals. you were making the point that it would be silly to use arable land for grazing - well it happens in almost every farm in the country as current cereal prices are only 85 - 95 per tonne and the cost of production can be up to 80 so its a no brainer to use the land for grazing of beef and dairy cattle. BTW cereals are actually MUCH LESS picky about soil conditions than vegetables! apologies for dragging the thread slightly OT but I hate inaccurate info being posted!

Corkcomp, sorry to labour the point but can I get a source for any of the above?

I'm more than open to having my mind changed but It'll have to be backed up with some hard facts.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Corkcomp, sorry to labour the point but can I get a source for any of the above?

I'm more than open to having my mind changed but It'll have to be backed up with some hard facts.

TBH if you believe what you posted is accurate then your entitled to your opinion.. my post was for the benefit of other readers and is based on personal experience! If you think about it for a second, the majority of farms in ireland have cattle for either beef, dairy or both - many parts of the mid lands, east and south have hundreds of acrea of land that is arable so if what you were saying was accurate none of these arable blankets of land would have cattle out grazing on them!?

El_Dangeroso

Ok, calm down!

I actually wasn't saying there was no arable land that was occupied by dairy farming, but in order to get a decent return from crop farming you need to use massive combine harvesters, this means big flat stretches of land, which where I'm originally from (the golden vale) is in short supply despite good land quality.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Ok, calm down!

I actually wasn't saying there was no arable land that was occupied by dairy farming, but in order to get a decent return from crop farming you need to use massive combine harvesters, this means big flat stretches of land, which where I'm originally from (the golden vale) is in short supply despite good land quality.

more absolute rubbish .. sorry if it appears like im launching a personal attack but im responding to the post content.. as long as a combine harvester (or beet cutter, or potato digger etc) can fit into the field it doesnt really matter how flat it is .. do you have a source for all this mis-information or are you just pulling it out of thin air?? by mis-information I mean - skyrocketing cereal prices? tillage yielding a greater return per acre?

slightly O.T but i reckon we will see a lot more arable land being used for grazing going forward both due to falling grain prices, the collapse of the sugar beet industry in Ireland and lack of money in the EU for set aside subsidies (where farmers are being paid to let land idle and NOT grow cereals, due to over supply)

El_Dangeroso

I wasn't talking about potatoes or beets, I'm talking about wheat and corn and other cereals, there's a reason that we don't grow them in the golden vale isn't there? Traditionally the east and south is where cereals are economically viable to grow.

I once again re-iterate my point that livestock uses land that would otherwise be wasted due to it's topography or soil quality. If you feel like that's rubbish then you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but otherwise some references beyond your own meandering experience would be more valuable in convincing me otherwise.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I wasn't talking about potatoes or beets, I'm talking about wheat and corn and other cereals, there's a reason that we don't grow them in the golden vale isn't there? Traditionally the east and south is where cereals are economically viable to grow.

I once again re-iterate my point that livestock uses land that would otherwise be wasted due to it's topography or soil quality. If you feel like that's rubbish then you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but otherwise some references beyond your own meandering experience would be more valuable in convincing me otherwise.

parts of the golden vale have a very high percentage of tillage and grain farming (parts of north cork, limerick and other areas) - other parts, epecially west of the shannon dont contain as much arable land ...

Nobody is disputing that NON ARABLE land would be wasted if it were not used for livestock, I am not saying this is rubbish, I have made it very clear already which parts of your posts above I consider rubbish (But if it was unclear i can always clarify) what I disagree with is your point that famers dont use arable land for livestock ... also, you mention above that most land in Ireland is not arable and we would need to import grain products if we didnt consume meat. keep in mind there is a huge over supply of grain products in Ireland !!! -

Macha

And then there's the whole issue of overfishing. There is no question that we are eating too much fish.

El_Dangeroso

I think we eat too much of the wrong fish, ie endangered.

We need to branch out from the usual cod, plaice, salmon etc.

Macha

Um..I don't know.

I think that would definitely help. But I think that transferring our fish appetites over to other species will probably just cause similar problems with those species.

When you consider that fish stocks are collapsing world wide and much of the fish we eat is effectively stolen from the seas outside Europe, I think that the most sensible option is for us to eat less fish.

El_Dangeroso

I don't know, the ocean is pretty vast, and there are many many species that aren't even close to extinct. I think sustainable fishing is definitely possible.

Macha

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I don't know, the ocean is pretty vast, and there are many many species that aren't even close to extinct. I think sustainable fishing is definitely possible.

I'm afraid even the vastness of the oceans are no match for our appetites.

76% of the world's fisheries are already fully exploited or overfished. And each year billions of unwanted fish and other animals - like dolphins, marine turtles, seabirds, sharks, and corals - needlessly die from inefficient, illegal, and destructive fishing practices. Poor fisheries management is the largest threat to ocean life and habitats ... not to mention the livelihoods and food security of over a billion people.

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/

Can you believe wild fish are caught to be fed to farmed fish these days. The whole system is totally unsustainable.

There is no way around it: sustainable fishing is reduced fishing. And that means eating less fish and paying more for the fish we do eat.

El_Dangeroso

Yes but can't you apply the same reasoning to every finite resource on the planet? As in are you about to reduce your consumption of rice because of the methane production? Or would you drink less water because fresh water is in short supply in most of the disadvantaged areas of the planet?

The cold hard fact is that there are too many people on the planet and to be honest what we do in this country and indeed the entire first world does pales in comparison to the resources China and India are about to use up as they go through their own industrial revolution.

It's all very depressing..

Macha

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Yes but can't you apply the same reasoning to every finite resource on the planet? As in are you about to reduce your consumption of rice because of the methane production? Or would you drink less water because fresh water is in short supply in most of the disadvantaged areas of the planet?

If you're asking do I consider my impact on the finite resources of the world, then yes I do. I don't eat a lot of meat and most food that I eat is local and organic. Yes, I spend a larger percentage of my disposible income on food but that's because I'm not addicted to having lots of 'things' like most people I know, so it doesn't bother me.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

The cold hard fact is that there are too many people on the planet and to be honest what we do in this country and indeed the entire first world does pales in comparison to the resources China and India are about to use up as they go through their own industrial revolution.

That, I'm afraid, is simply not true. When measured per capita, the West and Ireland use far beyond their share and China and India use less. Looking at things on a country-level makes us look very good because we're a small country.

The more accurate measure is per capita. And when measured like this, China and India have a long way to go before they catch up with the likes of us.

Also, it is not the amount of people in this world but the amount of resources that each person uses up. The average Irish person uses up many times the resources of the average Indian person and this is what's not fair - and that's water, food, fish, meat, carbon etc etc.

El_Dangeroso

taconnol wrote: »

If you're asking do I consider my impact on the finite resources of the world, then yes I do. I don't eat a lot of meat and most food that I eat is local and organic. Yes, I spend a larger percentage of my disposible income on food but that's because I'm not addicted to having lots of 'things' like most people I know, so it doesn't bother me.


That, I'm afraid, is simply not true. When measured per capita, the West and Ireland use far beyond their share and China and India use less. Looking at things on a country-level makes us look very good because we're a small country.

The more accurate measure is per capita. And when measured like this, China and India have a long way to go before they catch up with the likes of us.

Also, it is not the amount of people in this world but the amount of resources that each person uses up. The average Irish person uses up many times the resources of the average Indian person and this is what's not fair - and that's water, food, fish, meat, carbon etc etc.

Well of course they don't use as much as we do now, but they are headed in that direction and hypocritical tut'tut-ing from the west isn't going to change that, take in to account that they collectively make up 1/3 of the planet's population and you will see that the consumption of the resources of Ireland and indeed the entire west becomes totally dwarfed.

I also buy local and organic where I can. My point is that my eating locally bred and reared meat is more environmentally friendly than eating rice from thailand and avacados from Isreal, which under this proposal isn't even considered.

The whole 'oh give up meat for one day and you'll help the environment' is at best deeply naive and at worst vegetarian propaganda.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Well of course they don't use as much as we do now, but they are headed in that direction and hypocritical tut'tut-ing from the west isn't going to change that, take in to account that they collectively make up 1/3 of the planet's population and you will see that the consumption of the resources of Ireland and indeed the entire west becomes totally dwarfed.

I also buy local and organic where I can. My point is that my eating locally bred and reared meat is more environmentally friendly than eating rice from thailand and avacados from Isreal, which under this proposal isn't even considered.

The whole 'oh give up meat for one day and you'll help the environment' is at best deeply naive and at worst vegetarian propaganda.

its no more propaganda than saying "eating locally bred and reared meat is more environmentally friendly than eating rice from thailand and avacados from Isreal"

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

its no more propaganda than saying "eating locally bred and reared meat is more environmentally friendly than eating rice from thailand and avacados from Isreal"

Hey at least I'm upfront about my propaganda :pac:

Macha

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Well of course they don't use as much as we do now, but they are headed in that direction and hypocritical tut'tut-ing from the west isn't going to change that, take in to account that they collectively make up 1/3 of the planet's population and you will see that the consumption of the resources of Ireland and indeed the entire west becomes totally dwarfed.

No, I don't think the West's extravagant overuse of resources is about to be outstripped by anyone, anytime soon. In fact, part of the reason China & India's intake of meat & dairy is increasing is our projected ideal of a civilised lifestyle, ie one with lots of meat and dairy. Plus, if we are going to allow them to raise their standards of living at all, then it's more vital than ever that we stop using up more than our fair share. BTW, Ireland has the highest C02 emissions of any European country (apart from Luxembourg, and that's a technicality) and the majority of our emissions come from agriculture so..I wouldn't be so quick to say that Irish agricultural products are so incredibly sustainable.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I also buy local and organic where I can. My point is that my eating locally bred and reared meat is more environmentally friendly than eating rice from thailand and avacados from Isreal, which under this proposal isn't even considered.

Oh wow, what assumptions are you making? Sustainable? Under what criteria? Measured how? I worked on measuring sustainable building materials a few years ago and let me tell you it is no mean feat to measure the sustainability of one product against another.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

The whole 'oh give up meat for one day and you'll help the environment' is at best deeply naive and at worst vegetarian propaganda.

Sorry but that is absolutely false. Try talking to Racenda Pachauri, chair of the IPCC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm

As a general rule, he is not wrong.

El_Dangeroso

taconnol wrote: »

No, I don't think the West's extravagant overuse of resources is about to be outstripped by anyone, anytime soon. In fact, part of the reason China & India's intake of meat & dairy is increasing is our projected ideal of a civilised lifestyle, ie one with lots of meat and dairy. Plus, if we are going to allow them to raise their standards of living at all, then it's more vital than ever that we stop using up more than our fair share. BTW, Ireland has the highest C02 emissions of any European country (apart from Luxembourg, and that's a technicality) and the majority of our emissions come from agriculture so..I wouldn't be so quick to say that Irish agricultural products are so incredibly sustainable.

Oh wow, what assumptions are you making? Sustainable? Under what criteria? Measured how? I worked on measuring sustainable building materials a few years ago and let me tell you it is no mean feat to measure the sustainability of one product against another.

Sorry but that is absolutely false. Try talking to Racenda Pachauri, chair of the IPCC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm

As a general rule, he is not wrong.

Is that statistic for Ireland's CO2 broken down into crops and livestock? Because otherwise it's a useless figure.

What assumptions are you making? What metric do you use for sustainability?

Also, China's meat intake is skyrocketing: In 1995, meat consumption was 25 kilograms per person, reaching 31 kilograms by 1999, 50 kilograms by 2000, and is 53 kilograms per person today. What magic crystal ball do you have that tells you this trend will reverse? Most cultures prize meat above all other foods and they buy as much as they can afford, it has nothing to do with western ideals, which is quite a patronising concept if you ask me.

It boils down to this, to live, people need resourses, these resources are finite and there will soon be too many people in the ratio to resourses, it's simple mathematics.

I don't need someone from the UN (a largely irrelevant organisation now) telling me how to think, I can make my own mind up thanks. I think most Irish people agree with me too as despite the recession people are still buying the same amount of meat they were before.

corkcomp

Really? I heard a Matt Cooper interview a few weeks ago and apparently meat purchases are down

brianthebard

corkcomp wrote: »

Really? I heard a Matt Cooper interview a few weeks ago and apparently meat purchases are down

The hotel industry was the one of, if not the largest purchaser of meat in the country and they don't have the guests any more, which means meat purchases are down.

Macha

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

What assumptions are you making? What metric do you use for sustainability

Is it too much to ask that you answer the question yourself before asking it of someone else? In terms of agriculture, I look at water usage, water pollution, use of fertilisers, pesticides, use of oil in heavy machinery and transportation, GHG emissions, ammonia and the impact on biodiversity.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

What magic crystal ball do you have that tells you this trend will reverse? Most cultures prize meat above all other foods and they buy as much as they can afford, it has nothing to do with western ideals, which is quite a patronising concept if you ask me.

Um, did I say the trend was going to reverse itself? If you think American ideals have no influence on global diets I suggest you have a look at Coke/Pepsi/McDonalds/Starbucks sales figures for Asia.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

It boils down to this, to live, people need resourses, these resources are finite and there will soon be too many people in the ratio to resourses, it's simple mathematics.

I'm glad we got onto that word 'need' - such an abused word these days these days when everyone talks about 'needing' this and 'needing' that when in fact what they mean is that they 'want' this and they 'want' that. To paraphrase Gandhi, the world has enough to satisfy everone's need but not everyone's greed.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I don't need someone from the UN (a largely irrelevant organisation now) telling me how to think, I can make my own mind up thanks. I think most Irish people agree with me too as despite the recession people are still buying the same amount of meat they were before.

First of all, he is hardly just 'someone' from the UN and it has become patently clear over this thread that he knows a damn sight more than you about sustainability. Dismissing the UN as you have is nothing short of risible and a lame attempt to attack the credibility of what is a most credible source. Do you also consider the IPCC to be irrelevant on matters relating to climate change?

I'm not really bothered what most Irish people think as they are hardly authorities on the question of the sustainability of meat but since you brought it up, any figures on meat purchases before and after the recession?

Lux23

I can go days without eating meat although I do really like it. Try a Veg stir fry with noodles or rice, if you fill it up with enough veg you won't miss the meat.

Khannie

corkcomp wrote: »

A lot of parents probably give their kids sandwiches made from lunchroll (spelling?) and other crap which is what a lot of these articles are trying to discourage

I wouldn't consider that stuff meat.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

despite the recession people are still buying the same amount of meat they were before.

I'm not. I eat a lot of protein and the cost of it is an issue for me. The cost per gram of complete protein is significantly higher for meat products than dairy. In short, I eat more cottage cheese, eggs and whey and less meat than I did before.

I think it's a fair point that there's quite a bit of land in Ireland that would go unused if there weren't sheep being reared on it. Maybe I should eat more lamb. Actually, I'm going to. My local butchers sell nice lamb. I just love beef though.

I must admit that I've been eating packaged meat a fair amount over the last while (out of convenience), but I'll probably cut that down a bit having read this thread. Surely there is decent quality packaged ham available though?

Dolbert

Khannie wrote: »

Surely there is decent quality packaged ham available though?

Lidl Black Forest ham ftw

rubadub

Dolorous wrote: »

Lidl Black Forest ham ftw

That is nice, they also have another one, I forget the name, but it is full ham slices in a pack with a green sort of backing. It is about €12 per kilo and what I like is each pack looks different! I am not sure if it is properly sliced from actual hams (many sliced hams which look "real" are still from reformed meat). I think it is real since it breaks into that odd shape and the fat on it looks "real", it is also very lean, you can sift through the packs and find one with almost no fat. The closest I have seen to it in tesco is about €30 per kilo.

Tar.Aldarion

rubadub wrote: »

Also the cynic in me would say McCartney has a vested interest in selling his veggie products, presuming he still has a hand in it. It would be like Mr. Galtee having a veg free day!;)

I think that company was sold? Not sure, they did change all their products after some sale a few years ago anyway.


I think I might try this idea a few days a week :pac:

Macha

Dolorous wrote: »

Lidl Black Forest ham ftw

There's your answer, if consumption of meat has remained steady: people are just buying cheaper, imported meat. Better for the environment? Not really.

Dolbert

I buy organic Irish meat when I can, along with cheaper meat from Lidl & Aldi (much of which is actually Irish). I simply can't afford otherwise & I don't think a guilt trip is fair in these cases.

Macha

Dolorous wrote: »

I buy organic Irish meat when I can, along with cheaper meat from Lidl & Aldi (much of which is actually Irish). I simply can't afford otherwise & I don't think a guilt trip is fair in these cases.

Um Blackforest ham ftw but most of their meat is Irish?

You are aware that cheaper meat is almost always worse for the environment?

Can you actually not afford it or is it that you choose to spend your money on other things?

Why not go for quality over quantity? Do you need to eat the amount of meat that you do?