So when will there be a referendum on criminalizing meat eating?

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

What about chicken?

Odd one here, but I would avoid chicken. Few indigenous types eat chicken and we didn't until around the second world war, when chickens were far easier and faster to raise as a protein source. Think about it, a happy live chicken gives you free meals every day, kill it and you eat once. I also read an interesting study on I think it was Native American folks and the differences in health between those who stayed on ancestral lands and those who moved to the cities. One thing was noticed that a major change in their diet was they started eating chicken in the cities and their health declined. I reckon the link is tenuous and hard to pin down, but personally I would avoid chicken. Plus the chickens we get in the supermarket are barely out of the egg and force fed grains to bulk them up. In France for example their chickens are much older, basically adults and the flesh is more yellow too. Plus I have major issues with how chickens are generally raised. Yes I'd eat a chicken that was three years old that spent its life scratching the dirt eating bugs, but not some couple of month old force fed corn proteins surrounded by skin "chicken".

Wild pigeon, turkey and such fine.

folamh

PucaMama wrote: »

Nothing puts me off the vegetarian diet/ lifestyle quicker than the over bearing, egotistical attitude of people like the op.

As a fish/meat eater, I've personally encountered far more self-righteous meat-eaters than vegetarians. FOR EVERY BURGER YOU DON'T EAT I'LL EAT THREE HAHAHAHA. AMIRITE? HAHAHA.

folamh

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What are your canine teeth for? Oh yeah, that'd be tearing flesh.
Conversation over.

Tearing tough foods, not necessarily flesh.

ThinkProgress

LoTR wrote: »

1) Not eating meat is less expensive than eating meat. The biggest populations on the planet are, or for the majority of history used to be, largely vegetarian - India, China.

2) I have type 1 diabetes, which means I can not have much carbs at all - and yet I make do perfectly on a vegetarian diet.

3) The human population is indeed out of control and spiraling to levels that will exhaust the planet's resources very rapidly. Surely the solution is not adding more fuel to the fire until everything collapses?

1) It's not - like I said meat is far more satiating... look at the countries who lack enough meat in their diets. Frail / skinny / malnourished. (most live on rice or some alternative - that's not optimal for human health)

Look at the time cost of producing your veg / vegan produce... don't forget, time is money too!

2) Most veg / vegan diets consist of high carb foods.

3) So turning the world's available space into crop fields is the way counter this problem? You really think your diet is something sustainable for 7 billion people? (with optimal health - not just living on rice?)


If there was a viable alternative, that I felt also gave optimal health... I'd be all over it like Lion on a water buffalo!

That solution does not exist... and you have not convinced anyone that it can in the future.

blatantrereg

I think it makes sense to separate health effects from ethical concerns.

Obviously vegetarian diets and omni diets are both entirely viable from a health perspective. It's possible to have a healthy or unhealthy diet within either. I do think that over-consumption of meat is intrinsically unhealthy.

Environmental benefits from a vegetarian diet in the UK are typically about a 20% reduction in carbon footprint, or 33% for vegans. Source for this info is The Guardian. I think the figures are likely to be similar for Ireland (similar imports involved - a vegetarian diet is likely to involve more imported food in our climate). This is significant but not as massive as I imagined it to be before reading up on it.

There is a huge range in the conditions of farmed animals. Farmed animals do include dairy cows and layer hens. I think it's important to look at yourself first, before preaching about something. I think it is hypocritical to criticise unless you are vegan.

Earthlings is horrific. Only time I remember turning a film off (temporarily) because it bothered me too much - at the bit where

they throw the dog into the trash compactor

. That particular part had nothing to do with animal farming and just conveyed the notion that people are horrible really.

bnt

Not entirely clear what the OP wants. He/She/It is under no obligation to eat meat and has always been free to be a vegetarian. Is that not enough, or is the idea to ban meat-eating for those of us who aren't vegetarian? Is so, that's a patronising idea that goes against the current liberal trend of letting people be who they are.

Wibbs

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I'm not a vegetarian, nor am I endorsing it. I'm just stating facts about the earlier Paleo diet that the Neanderthals and Early modern Humans followed.Hope that clears some stuff up.

Actually it doesn't as you're not "stating facts" at all. "Early humans" were not grass eaters for a start. We and they simply couldn't digest it. Neandertals most certainly weren't grass and veggie eaters. Their dietary profiles are almost identical to wolves. They made Inuits look like vegans. But even there depending on where they were living they also ate some (root)veggies and grains. And as I've pointed out so called paleo diets varied across locations, climate, time and sub species of human. That's what made us so successful, our adaptability.

One advantage back then(but not now of course) with meat was if you move into a new territory as a human, where the climate and flora and fauna are different, is that you may have to experiment on which flora you can safely consume, but animals are safe to eat from the off. They're also always in season and fresh as you've just speared it. If we had been herbivores back then we would have found it hard to migrate into new territories and the very early pro to hominids who were herbivores stayed in Africa. The first one we know of to get out of Dodge was Home Erectus(no sniggering at the back) and they were fond of their steaks. Transplant a specialised herbivore to say county Meath and it's likely going to starve to death, drop a lion into county Meath and it's gonna grow fat, but the local population will dwindle.

csallmighty

If we had to stop killing animals tomorrow what would be the plan of action after? How do we compete with the billions of other animals after the same food source?

folamh

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR

Br0tip: Just because we've evolutionarily adapted to post-agricultural foods like grains, doesn't mean they're optimal for our health. It just means that we can survive on them, not necessarily thrive. This is evidenced by the comparative lack of nutrients and vitamins in post-agricultural foods, as well as the presence of phytates in them (compounds designed to prevent access). I'm sick of people thinking they've debunked paleo eating by showing how our ancestors adapted to eat grains. It's not a health criterion.

As a very rough rule of thumb, the more ancient a food is in our history of consumption, the healthier it likely is for humans to consume.

That said, it's all a spectrum of better choices and worse choices, rather than a binary of good choices and bad choices! I'll eat me a nice big bowl of Neolithic quinoa over a Wispa bar.

Shenshen

Free Hat wrote: »

Is ethically more just to eat fish as opposed to animals do you think?

I think that's where the question of sustainability comes in - some of our seas are already heavily overfished to the point of some species being at the point of extinction.

Do we really need to do that? Is that really vital for us?

ThinkProgress

folamh wrote: »

Br0tip: Just because we've evolutionarily adapted to post-agricultural foods like grains, doesn't mean they're optimal for our health. It just means that we can survive on them, not necessarily thrive. This is evidenced by the comparative lack of nutrients and vitamins in post-agricultural foods, as well as the presence of phytates in them (compounds designed to prevent access). I'm sick of people thinking they've debunked paleo eating by showing how our ancestors adapted to eat grains. It's not a health criterion.

As a very rough rule of thumb, the more ancient a food is in our history of consumption, the healthier it likely is for humans to consume.

That said, it's all a spectrum of better choices and worse choices, rather than a binary of good choices and bad choices! I'll eat me a nice big bowl of Neolithic quinoa over a Wispa bar.

The reality is, we have an expanding population - there is one rule for those in the developed world, and another for those in the underdeveloped world.

Find me a diet that is A) optimal for health kind to the animals and planet C) sustainable for 7 billion + people.....? Because that's basically the only way some of these peta / greenpeace types will ever be truely happy!

But those goals are not aligned together. The poor need to fed, and kept alive... the rich (or less poor) want to be well nourished for optimal health.

You can't feed the world on veg / vegan diet... unless you're talking rice... which I guess is technically achieving that goal. But at what cost to health / environment etc?

The reality of what some people want is just not achievable right now!

folamh

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The reality is, we have an expanding population - there is one rule for those in the developed world, and another for those in the underdeveloped world.

Find me a diet that is A) optimal for health kind to the animals and planet C) sustainable for 7 billion + people.....? Because that's basically the only way some of these peta / greenpeace types will ever be truely happy!

But those goals are not aligned together. The poor need to fed, and kept alive... the rich (or less poor) want to be well nourished for optimal health.

You can't feed the world on veg / vegan diet... unless you're talking rice... which I guess is technically achieving that goal. But at what cost to health / environment etc?

The reality of what some people want is just not achievable right now!

I agree, but you're talking about an ethical/environmental criterion, whereas I was exclusively talking about a health criterion.

MRnotlob606

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually it doesn't as you're not "stating facts" at all. "Early humans" were not grass eaters for a start. We and they simply couldn't digest it. Neandertals most certainly weren't grass and veggie eaters. Their dietary profiles are almost identical to wolves. They made Inuits look like vegans. But even there depending on where they were living they also ate some (root)veggies and grains. And as I've pointed out so called paleo diets varied across locations, climate, time and sub species of human. That's what made us so successful, our adaptability.

One advantage back then(but not now of course) with meat was if you move into a new territory as a human, where the climate and flora and fauna are different, is that you may have to experiment on which flora you can safely consume, but animals are safe to eat from the off. They're also always in season and fresh as you've just speared it. If we had been herbivores back then we would have found it hard to migrate into new territories and the very early pro to hominids who were herbivores stayed in Africa. The first one we know of to get out of Dodge was Home Erectus(no sniggering at the back) and they were fond of their steaks. Transplant a specialised herbivore to say county Meath and it's likely going to starve to death, drop a lion into county Meath and it's gonna grow fat, but the local population will dwindle.

Early Meat-Eating Human Ancestors Thrived While Vegetarian Hominin Died Out
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/early-meat-eating-human-ancestors-thrived-while-vegetarian-hominin-died-out/
I think this can reconcile our conflicting view.

fussyonion

I LOVE MEAT.
If God didn't want us to eat cows, he wouldn't have made them so tasty.
Get a life!

Shenshen

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The reality is, we have an expanding population - there is one rule for those in the developed world, and another for those in the underdeveloped world.

Find me a diet that is A) optimal for health kind to the animals and planet C) sustainable for 7 billion + people.....? Because that's basically the only way some of these peta / greenpeace types will ever be truely happy!

But those goals are not aligned together. The poor need to fed, and kept alive... the rich (or less poor) want to be well nourished for optimal health.

You can't feed the world on veg / vegan diet... unless you're talking rice... which I guess is technically achieving that goal. But at what cost to health / environment etc?

The reality of what some people want is just not achievable right now!

Can you produce enough meat to feed 7 billion people on it, though?

I'm vegetarian myself, but I feel the best way forward globally speaking would be a varied diet. Some meat and fish occasionally, but majority vegetable based. It would be the easiest diet (a lot of people would indeed struggle to come up with a vegetarian or even vegan diet that would not leave them short of some nutrients), and it would be the most sustainable.
I think problems only arise when 7 billion people want to eat like rich Westerners and have meat or fish 3 meals a day, 7 days a week. And some for snacks.

blatantrereg

folamh wrote: »

Br0tip: Just because we've evolutionarily adapted to post-agricultural foods like grains, doesn't mean they're optimal for our health. It just means that we can survive on them, not necessarily thrive. This is evidenced by the comparative lack of nutrients and vitamins in post-agricultural foods, as well as the presence of phytates in them (compounds designed to prevent access).

Phytates are accompanied by phytase, which partially neutralises the antinutrient effect of it. Informed preparation can further reduce it. Soaking, baking, leavening all reduce phytate content. Fermentation is less common, but is particularly effective. [Personally I very much like tempeh, which is fermented soy, but it is not easily available in my area, even though tofu is.]

Some phytic acid is beneficial as it has anti-carcinogenic effects and also can dispose of heavy metals that have been consumed as I recall. The fact that vegetarians and vegans typically avoid nutrient deficiencies demonstrates that phytic acid does not pose a massive problem with regard to vegetarian nutrition.

You're wrong that there is a comparative lack of nutrients in post agricultural foods. Oats and lentils are particularly dense in a wide range of nutrients for example, including some which people sometimes only think of as being in meat.

folamh

Yes, use ancestral preparation methods like soaking/sprouting if you must eat grains. Fermentation is the bomb. Soy is the devil for North Europeans, but fermented veggies like sauerkraut and kimchi for the win. Also fermented milk (kefir) will give your gut a potent boost of friendly bacteria.

Haven't heard that oats and lentils are nutrient dense. I've read the exact opposite, actually. But I'm always eager to falsify. Can you link me to corroborating information?

pconn062

I am a recent convert to vegetarianism. I've been having some difficulties in recent times with the way we rely on meat so much as part of our diet. I researched the topic and decided to make the choice to cut meat out on a trial basis to see how it goes. However I am determined not to become a preachy veggie, I think people need to inform themselves on the topic and make their own decisions.

If people researched the topic and knew the details behind modern factory farming and the way in which the majority of meat is produced (especially chicken and pork), I imagine many would reconsider their current position. The way industrialised farming has removed any compassion from animal husbandry is truly shocking. Sure, it makes for rough reading (and viewing if you wish) but it is the reality of modern farming and meat production. I think Paul McCartney's line still holds true "if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian". *


*Hope this doesn't sound too preachy!

Wibbs

folamh wrote: »

Br0tip: Just because we've evolutionarily adapted to post-agricultural foods like grains, doesn't mean they're optimal for our health.

"br0tip" I never said they were.

This is evidenced by the comparative lack of nutrients and vitamins in post-agricultural foods, as well as the presence of phytates in them (compounds designed to prevent access). I'm sick of people thinking they've debunked paleo eating by showing how our ancestors adapted to eat grains

Again I didn't. Indeed I noted how the farmed grains were very different to the grains we ate before modern farming came along. I "debunked" paleo diets by saying that most of the veg and some of the fruit recommended as "paleo" simply didn't exist back then. The red meat was very different too(far leaner). Fish(non farmed) shellfish, properly free range eggs, nuts and berries in season, wild meats, like venison type stuff and some root tubers would be about the only food items available today that are close to "paleo". EG if someone is eating leafy veg and stuff like broccoli because it's somehow paleo, yet avoiding grains because it's not, it's a bit daft as both are just as farmed and mutated. Yes, it is again as I said far healthier than your usual modern junk food processed crap but in reality it's about as Palaeolithic as the steam tractor.

As a very rough rule of thumb, the more ancient a food is in our history of consumption, the healthier it likely is for humans to consume.

I'd agree there F, especially when it comes to proteins. EG like you as a northern European I avoid soya based stuff like the plague and not just because of it's pseudo hormonal profile(which is dodgy enough, especially for blokes). Cool if your of east Asian ancestry as your folks have been eating the stuff for two thousand years(and in smaller quantities), but it's an incredibly novel protein for the European gut. The adaptions we have made and made by winnowing out those who couldn't consume them were mostly adaptations to new proteins in the diet such as found in milk and some grains. We had to adapt to them, yet here's a novel protein that's only been in the western diet for just under a generation. Not for me.

That said, it's all a spectrum of better choices and worse choices, rather than a binary of good choices and bad choices! I'll eat me a nice big bowl of Neolithic quinoa over a Wispa bar.

+1000

nc19

LoTR wrote:

Seeing as you like referendums so much, and like "setting things right," I am just wondering when you will have a Yes/No referendum on whether brutality, depravity, torture, and the horrific killings of other sentient beings is something the Irish people will continue to support and strongly engage with, or stand up against?

Go away

blatantrereg

folamh wrote: »

Yes, use ancestral preparation methods like soaking/sprouting if you must eat grains. Fermentation is the bomb. Soy is the devil for North Europeans, but fermented veggies like sauerkraut and kimchi for the win. Also fermented milk (kefir) will give your gut a potent boost of friendly bacteria.

Haven't heard that oats and lentils are nutrient dense. I've read the exact opposite, actually. But I'm always eager to falsify. Can you link me to corroborating information?

lentils

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=52

also lentils are particularly good for satiety and are recommended for controlling obesity. There are published research papers about this specifically.

oats

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5708/2

Fermented soy is an excellent food. Unfermented soy is particularly high in phytic acid alright. As far as I recall sprouting is not as effective as soaking and cooking with regard to reducing phytate content.

ThinkProgress

Shenshen wrote: »

Can you produce enough meat to feed 7 billion people on it, though?

I'm vegetarian myself, but I feel the best way forward globally speaking would be a varied diet. Some meat and fish occasionally, but majority vegetable based. It would be the easiest diet (a lot of people would indeed struggle to come up with a vegetarian or even vegan diet that would not leave them short of some nutrients), and it would be the most sustainable.
I think problems only arise when 7 billion people want to eat like rich Westerners and have meat or fish 3 meals a day, 7 days a week. And some for snacks.

Nope, that's why I said there is one rule for the poor and another for the rich (or less poor).

What we eat depends on our goals and our economic environment. Feeding billions of poor hungry people is only about survival. To feed them a veg / vegan diet that is cheap, highly nutritious and kind to the world... is near impossible imho.

That's why this debate is never just about morality.

Is it morally ok that we feed the poor people of the world on things like rice. Leaving them hungry and malnourished?

Ok they're not eating meat, but they're malnourished because they don't have access to more varied (and expensive) foods sources!

They are a great example of unhealthy vegans / vegetarians.

Dan_Solo

I don't know anybody who doesn't know full well how meat gets to the table. It's a delusion that everybody would turn vegan "if they only knew". They know. They don't.

folamh

Paleo's supposed to be an ideal to strive toward, not something that's negated by not emulating exactly. Most of us are sleeping in 8-hour blocks and exposing ourselves to artificial light, after all. And eating big sweet fruit rather than small bitter wildberries. And yeah some foods such as broccoli are fairly new, but the critical thing is that they have a similar nutritional composition to old veggies. The fact that modern humans don't emulate it perfectly doesn't really constitute "debunking paleo".

folamh

blatantrereg wrote: »

lentils

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=52

also lentils are particularly good for satiety and are recommended for controlling obesity. There are published research papers about this specifically.

oats

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5708/2

Fermented soy is an excellent food. Unfermented soy is particularly high in phytic acid alright. As far as I recall sprouting is not as effective as soaking and cooking with regard to reducing phytate content.

Before looking at these I'd just say that satiety is not necessarily a metric of health! Snickers bars can be very satisfying. And weight management isn't necessarily a health metric either. Some of those Weight Watchers products have nasty ingredients. But thank you for the links, I will have a look.

Shenshen

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Nope, that's why I said there is one rule for the poor and another for the rich (or less poor).

What we eat depends on our goals and our economic environment. Feeding billions of poor hungry people is only about survival. To feed them a veg / vegan diet that is cheap, highly nutritious and kind to the world... is near impossible imho.

That's why this debate is never just about morality.

Is it morally ok that we feed the poor people of the world on things like rice. Leaving them hungry and malnourished?

Ok they're not eating meat, but they're malnourished because they don't have access to more varied (and expensive) foods sources!

They are a great example of unhealthy vegans / vegetarians.

I think it's morally dubious to feed anybody anything - what they want to eat should be up to each individual.

The only thing we should be giving people is choices. And as much information as they need in order to make an informed choice.

folamh

Shenshen wrote: »

I think it's morally dubious to feed anybody anything - what they want to eat should be up to each individual.

The only thing we should be giving people is choices. And as much information as they need in order to make an informed choice.

Toddlers doe.

CK73

Apparently this will be when we evolve to the point where we have no canines or incisors in our mouths and replace them all with molars for grinding on vegetation. Until that day, we are encouraged to eat both meat and vegetation.

Shenshen

CK73 wrote: »

Apparently this will be when we evolve to the point where we have no canines or incisors in our mouths and replace them all with molars for grinding on vegetation. Until that day, we are encouraged to eat both meat and vegetation.

That argument always amuses me, in fairness.

There are quite a number of strictly vegetarian species out there who would have a right laugh at the pitiful excuse for canines us humans carry around in our mouths.

Next time you chew a piece of meat, try and do that with your canines

blatantrereg

CK73 wrote: »

Apparently this will be when we evolve to the point where we have no canines or incisors in our mouths and replace them all with molars for grinding on vegetation. Until that day, we are encouraged to eat both meat and vegetation.

encouraged by whom? To my knowledge the biggest authorities generally push cutting out meat and dairy. E.g.: The UN. This is with the notion of a sustainable food supply for a growing population in mind.
Almost everyone is perfectly capable of thriving on a vegetarian diet. (We could not thrive on a wholly carnivorous diet on the other hand.)