Why aren't more environmentalists vegetarians?

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

a veggie diet causes brain damage by depriving it of necessary compounds for healthy opperation. here's one reference and when i have time; i can find you more.

Simopolous, A. P. and Jo Robinson (1999). The Omega Diet. New York, HarperCollins. My previous book, a collaboration with Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos, devotes an entire chapter to the vital role that omega-3s play in brain function

the portion of the article below from the journal of nutrition shows the absorbable vitamins available through free range meat. vitamins not readily absorbed in other forms. this backs an earlier comment someone made.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, with one out of every two adults burdened by excess weight. To help trim the fat, Procter and Gamble has given us Olestra, "the no-fat cooking oil with the full-fat flavor." There are a couple of problems with Olestra. First, it cuts down on your body's absorption of beta-carotene and vitamin E. Second, it can cause "bloating, cramping, nausea, and loose stools or diarrhea."
Nature has given us a healthier alternative to weight control—eat meat from animals raised on fresh pasture. Meat from grassfed animals has about half the fat as meat from grainfed animals and significantly fewer calories. It also gives you a bonus supply of vitamins E, A, D, and beta-carotene.
Burton P. Koonsvitsky et al, "Olestra Affects Serum Concentrations of Alpha-Tocopherol and Carotenoids" J of Nutrition, Vol. 127 No. 8 August 1997, pp. 1636S-1645S.

How in the hell does this show that a vegetarian diet causes brain damage?! It does not mention vegetarianism. It says that ONE WAY to control your weight and ingest certain nutrients is to eat meat from pasture-raised animals. It does not say that this is the ONLY way, and it certainly does not say that vegetarianism damages your brain!

rebornFixer

hippiemom wrote:

How in the hell does this show that a vegetarian diet causes brain damage?! It does not mention vegetarianism. It says that ONE WAY to control your weight and ingest certain nutrients is to eat meat from pasture-raised animals. It does not say that this is the ONLY way, and it certainly does not say that vegetarianism damages your brain!

True enough ... But I am not aware of any studies which demonstrate that a meat-free diet is at all superior to a diet that includes an appropriate amount of animal protein. I am sure that if one compares vegetarians with people who eat steak four or five times a week, you'd see some health differences. People do not compare pure veg. diets with balanced diets that include meat, though.

Milestone

I'm an environmentalist.

I'm a meat eater.

Why?

Because I was born with teeth that were designed to eat meat.

It's nature.

hippiemom

reborncareerist wrote:

True enough ... But I am not aware of any studies which demonstrate that a meat-free diet is at all superior to a diet that includes an appropriate amount of animal protein. I am sure that if one compares vegetarians with people who eat steak four or five times a week, you'd see some health differences. People do not compare pure veg. diets with balanced diets that include meat, though.

Personally, I don't think it is superior. I think both are fine, it's a matter of personal preference. I'm certainly not making any health claims on either side. I tend to think that if you're eating a balanced diet of fresh, high-quality food, you're alright. I would prefer that people stay away from factory-raised meat for both health and moral reasons, but I see nothing wrong with eating wild or naturally raised and humanely slaughtered animals.

The studies are out there. I have neither the time nor the interest to dig them up, but when you have cancer everyone has advice. I've been given books and pamphlets and emails by half the people I know, all of them complete with studies showing why I should eat meat, or why I shouldn't. I've read enough of it to know that you can convince yourself of whatever you want to believe and find plenty of data to back it up.

sourdough

I'm an environmentalist and I eat way more meat than I should. Ideally I would love to become an (almost) full-time vegetarian, however, I admit I'm much too undisciplined to make the switch. I used to eat meat 3 meals a day and I'm now down to maybe 2 meals per week.

A high meat diet is incompatable with an environmental philosophy. The primary reason it there is a much higher footprint when you produce meat. Even if it is local and free range, the amount of land it takes to raise cattle/livestock and the amount of resource it takes to feed, transport, slaughter etc make it very inefficient compared to agriculture. That said, I don't think people should stop eating meat period, but drastically reduce their reliance on it as a primary food source.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Personally, I don't think it is superior. I think both are fine, it's a matter of personal preference. I'm certainly not making any health claims on either side. I tend to think that if you're eating a balanced diet of fresh, high-quality food, you're alright. I would prefer that people stay away from factory-raised meat for both health and moral reasons, but I see nothing wrong with eating wild or naturally raised and humanely slaughtered animals.

The studies are out there. I have neither the time nor the interest to dig them up, but when you have cancer everyone has advice. I've been given books and pamphlets and emails by half the people I know, all of them complete with studies showing why I should eat meat, or why I shouldn't. I've read enough of it to know that you can convince yourself of whatever you want to believe and find plenty of data to back it up.

eating commercial meat is bad for you and contains chemicals that increase the risk or growth of cancer. properly raised meat on the other hand is extremely healthy. point being that you must know what exactly is being tested and compared. if you're comparing commercial meat to a veggie diet; the veggie diet looks better in most cases. on the other hand; compare a diet of properly raised meat to a veggie diet and the nutritional benefits outweigh the veggie diet.

onelongsong

sourdough wrote:

I'm an environmentalist and I eat way more meat than I should. Ideally I would love to become an (almost) full-time vegetarian, however, I admit I'm much too undisciplined to make the switch. I used to eat meat 3 meals a day and I'm now down to maybe 2 meals per week.

A high meat diet is incompatable with an environmental philosophy. The primary reason it there is a much higher footprint when you produce meat. Even if it is local and free range, the amount of land it takes to raise cattle/livestock and the amount of resource it takes to feed, transport, slaughter etc make it very inefficient compared to agriculture. That said, I don't think people should stop eating meat period, but drastically reduce their reliance on it as a primary food source.

thus the need for balance. if the manure is used as fertilizer the cycle of nature is completed. veggies eat plants fed chemicals and dyed and ripened in a truck with etheline (sp?) gas. commercial veggies are no better than commercial meats.

surferdude

sourdough wrote:

I'm an environmentalist and I eat way more meat than I should. Ideally I would love to become an (almost) full-time vegetarian, however, I admit I'm much too undisciplined to make the switch. I used to eat meat 3 meals a day and I'm now down to maybe 2 meals per week.

A high meat diet is incompatable with an environmental philosophy. The primary reason it there is a much higher footprint when you produce meat. Even if it is local and free range, the amount of land it takes to raise cattle/livestock and the amount of resource it takes to feed, transport, slaughter etc make it very inefficient compared to agriculture. That said, I don't think people should stop eating meat period, but drastically reduce their reliance on it as a primary food source.

There's a lot of false assumption in what you've posted. Many farm raised animals get raised on land that could not be used for cultivating agriculture. So using this land for cattle is an extremely efficient use of this land. Many crops are not at all efficient in their use of water or other resources per calorie of food produced, and in fact use more water and othe resources and leave a larger environmental footprint than cattle per calorie of food produced. Most websites do it per pound of food and many vegetables have a caloric content per pound that make them ineffecient when judged per calorie. And humans need calories to survive and not pounds of food.

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

There's a lot of false assumption in what you've posted. Many farm raised animals get raised on land that could not be used for cultivating agriculture. So using this land for cattle is an extremely efficient use of this land. Many crops are not at all efficient in their use of water or other resources per calorie of food produced, and in fact use more water and othe resources and leave a larger environmental footprint than cattle per calorie of food produced. Most websites do it per pound of food and many vegetables have a caloric content per pound that make them ineffecient when judged per calorie. And humans need calories to survive and not pounds of food.

dude; you really know your stuff. i'd like to add that the hundreds of thousands of acres owned by the government can be used for grazing (open range) but not cultivated or irrigated for veggie production. the manure fertilizes the land replenishing nutrients taken by vegetation; increasing vegetative growth which purifies the air. once nutrients are taken from the land; the air purifiing vegetation won't grow. grazing on this land also reduces the risk of wildfire.

halv

Here's another article titled: MEAT CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE CHANGE, UN STUDY CONFIRMS

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

The evidence is overwhelming. I'm trying to find the link, but this same study mentioned that the meat industry contributes more to global warming than all the cars in the world combined.

halv

reborncareerist wrote:

Many vegatarians are nice wonderful people. Who happen to be misinformed ... Bad ideology, good people. I'll leave it at that.

Misinformed...really? Please don't hold back...enlighten us.

onelongsong

halv wrote:

Here's another article titled: MEAT CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE CHANGE, UN STUDY CONFIRMS

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

The evidence is overwhelming. I'm trying to find the link, but this same study mentioned that the meat industry contributes more to global warming than all the cars in the world combined.

eat more meat and get rid of all the animals faster.

rebornFixer

halv wrote:

Misinformed...really? Please don't hold back...enlighten us.

Other people in this thread have already done a fine job of that. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, in terms of health reasons and evolution of the human species. My contribution was to point out that eating meat does not have to translate into supporting the big meat industry, and onelongsong expanded upon the point.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I would recommend any Vegetarian to drink whey products like Optimal nutrition's 100 whey, and Dymatize elite whey. 2 best brands for the price. Health benefits through the roof, pure protein totally complete branch chain aminos. This stuff has THE highest biological value of any protein source (eggs, meat, soy... etc..)

http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/whey.html

If someone's too much of a vegetarian to drink whey then...oh well...good luck with that!!

btw...this stuff tastes really damn good considering. No exaggeration.

halv

reborncareerist wrote:

Other people in this thread have already done a fine job of that. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, in terms of health reasons and evolution of the human species. My contribution was to point out that eating meat does not have to translate into supporting the big meat industry, and onelongsong expanded upon the point.

Ok, that's fine. However, nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that the meat industry is quite possibly the biggest contributor to global warming on the planet. We can all quote reports about which diet is healthier, carniviore vs. omnivore, etc. I could argue all day with people who think non-human animals are here for us to exploit. Ethics aside, there's no denying the fact that a vegetarian diet is the number one thing any person can do to help reduce global warming and enviromental devastation.

sourdough

surferdude wrote:

There's a lot of false assumption in what you've posted. Many farm raised animals get raised on land that could not be used for cultivating agriculture. So using this land for cattle is an extremely efficient use of this land. Many crops are not at all efficient in their use of water or other resources per calorie of food produced, and in fact use more water and othe resources and leave a larger environmental footprint than cattle per calorie of food produced. Most websites do it per pound of food and many vegetables have a caloric content per pound that make them ineffecient when judged per calorie. And humans need calories to survive and not pounds of food.

Good points but GENERALLY meat production is more inefficient. I'm not saying that agriculture can be practiced poorly and have huge ramifications on the environment (aquifer contamination, wasted water etc) but many instances where livestock is raised on agriculturally inefficient land (ie brazil) are likely better off left untouched than logged or eliminated for food production. Once again, I'm not saying that we should all STOP eating meat but I think it may be a good idea to reduce the amount of meat that we consume. Meat can be produced responsibly but because of the great demand to produce it in the volumes that we eat it, we are using a lot of land that could be better used to produce it. Not sure if that was coherent

I think one myth about food production is that we need to produce more. The reality is that we do produce more than enough food to feed everyone but poor distribution and waste of food is what is allowing people to starve, but perhaps that is for another thread.

Urban Hiker

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I would recommend any Vegetarian to drink whey products like Optimal nutrition's 100 whey, and Dymatize elite whey. 2 best brands for the price. Health benefits through the roof, pure protein totally complete branch chain aminos. This stuff has THE highest biological value of any protein source (eggs, meat, soy... etc..)

http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/whey.html

If someone's too much of a vegetarian to drink whey then...oh well...good luck with that!!

It's okay, hemp has me covered. http://nutiva.com/

---

Environmentally, it's make much more sense to me to eat straight from the source. Go Veggies!!!!

http://www.petaliterature.com/images/300-VEG200.jpg

sourdough

halv wrote:

Ok, that's fine. However, nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that the meat industry is quite possibly the biggest contributor to global warming on the planet. We can all quote reports about which diet is healthier, carniviore vs. omnivore, etc. I could argue all day with people who think non-human animals are here for us to exploit. Ethics aside, there's no denying the fact that a vegetarian diet is the number one thing any person can do to help reduce global warming and enviromental devastation.

I wouldn't go so far as saying its the number 1 thing we can do, but I do agree that it is a significant factor in climate change.

onelongsong

sourdough wrote:

Good points but GENERALLY meat production is more inefficient. I'm not saying that agriculture can be practiced poorly and have huge ramifications on the environment (aquifer contamination, wasted water etc) but many instances where livestock is raised on agriculturally inefficient land (ie brazil) are likely better off left untouched than logged or eliminated for food production. Once again, I'm not saying that we should all STOP eating meat but I think it may be a good idea to reduce the amount of meat that we consume. Meat can be produced responsibly but because of the great demand to produce it in the volumes that we eat it, we are using a lot of land that could be better used to produce it. Not sure if that was coherent

I think one myth about food production is that we need to produce more. The reality is that we do produce more than enough food to feed everyone but poor distribution and waste of food is what is allowing people to starve, but perhaps that is for another thread.

why wasn't the enviornment being destroyed before the europeans came to america? if you think about; there were tens of thousands of buffalo roaming the country. add in all the deer; elk; moose and other animals; and the actual animal population is about the same. since elk; moose; and buffalo are larger than cattle; we're close pound for pound.
the difference is that there was a balance and man disrupted this balance. if animals are having a negative impact on the enviornment; it's because man did something to cause that situation. don't blame the animals.

onelongsong

another thought;

wouldn't the diesel burning tractors used to cultivate the land produce a bigger footprint than the animals?