• zlatiah@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thanks! Wowzers I’ve never heard of Nature Food, didn’t realize this journal had such a high impact factor. A few things of interest to me from the article…

      • Vegans are one standard deviation younger than heavy-meat-eaters and eat fewer calories… although they should have adjusted for the difference
      • This didn’t show on the fancy Monte Carlo simulation they did, but vegans emit much, MUCH less methane than any other group
      • Literally any group is significantly better than heavy meat-eaters, especially low meat-eaters or below

      The questionnaire they used to determine categories:

      • Do you eat any meat (including bacon, ham, poultry, game, meat pies, sausages)? (Vegans, vegetarians and fish-eaters respond ‘No’.)
      • Do you eat any fish? (Vegans and vegetarians respond ‘No’.)
      • Do you eat any eggs (including eggs in cakes or other baked goods)? (Vegans respond ‘No’.)
      • Do you eat any dairy products (including milk, cheese, butter, yoghurt)? (Vegans respond ‘No’.)
        And meat-eaters are divided by grams of meat eaten per day: <50 g/d, 50-100 g/d, >100 g/d. Apparently one patty from McDonald’s (Big Mac has two) is like 45 grams of beef so…

      I mean the conclusions aren’t anything surprising, cows are literally one of the major sources of environmental damage… But it does provide some way moving forward I suppose. I suspect banning steakhouses would have a much better impact than forcing everyone to be vegan lol

  • weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    i actually kinda like the impossible burger/beyond meat burger. But… somehow, plain old ground beef is like 1/5 the price. Seriously. The technology is supposed to use less farmland and produce less waste and all that… but it’s literally 5x the price at the supermarket.

    • pec@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Lentilles. Don’t use them to substitute ground beef, learn to use them and you’ll gladly reduce your ground beef consumption

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I hope it is only to pay off R&D and marketing using current monopolistic position. Also not having big market.

      We will see in five years.

  • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I think it’s closer to 90%, but 75%, for sure. Livestock farming is hugely more resource intensive than crop farming. And there are good plant based substitutes for the nutrition you get from livestock products.

    The environmental impact is what motivates me to eat plant based food over livestock based. Also the cruelty in industrial livestock farming. There are positive health benefits in removing livestock based food from your diet, but that’s actually a lesser motivator for me. I’m not strict about it by any means, but I take any opportunity to avoid livestock products when I can.

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      When we include refrigerating and preparation needed for meat, it probably goes well over 90%.

      Water usage is also big part of the problem.

      I get it that not everyone has to be vegetarian, but at least reducing meat consumption is important.

  • lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Doesn’t matter, simply won’t happen because pro-vegan supporters pay less than pro-meat supporters. Unless we’re talking Mosanto level, in which case they’re as dirty as the meat industry.

    • nickbrum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      But you will have a shorter life span and that will make up for it

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Cruise ships make up such a tiny percentage of overall emissions. They’re horrible on a individual level, but there just aren’t that many of them compared to other sources.

          Meat production on the other hand makes up something like 17-18% of ALL global GHG emissions.

            • lightstream@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Throwing freighters in there like that is a bit sneaky lol The amount of freighter traffic must dwarf that of cruise ships. Anyway, people on cruise ships are mostly not particularly rich. They’re pretty much just water-borne holiday camps.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    There sure is a lot of effort currently to distract from the fact that most greenhouse gasses are created from industrial sources & not individual diets.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I still don’t understand this logic. Every single product made is consumed by an individual or a business in a chain that eventually sells products to individuals.

        Industry exists to supply consumption, and the only customer is humans.

        • buwho@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          but when you dont regulate corporations they will exploit and destroy anything and everything to monopolize and capitalize to the fullest extent. its not that the consumption of meat is bad, from a responsible regenerative agroforestry standpoint raising animals can help your regenerative agriculture system. it is monoculture and monopolization of the industry, pushing out responsible small scale community providers etc. that produce in a more ecologically responsible way. not to negate that populations consuming a lot of meat daily do end up becoming a market for irresponsible producers that “need to keep up with demand” to continually profit.

          • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Meat is in fact bad, you have to grow plants to feed animals and the ratio of feed to meat produced is really really low, around 1:10 If you use those plants to instead directly provide nutrition to humans the ratio is 1:1

            Responsible meat production uses orders of magnitude more land, which there simply isn’t enough of if we wanted to replace our current meat consumption levels.

            Either we can reduce consumption, keep polluting, or look at some of these alternative technologies like lab grown meat.

    • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I agree, but it is important to note that is not the only source and cattle also consumes a lot of horizontal space where forests could be, so that also plays a role. It is never just one thing, but a plethora of intertwined problems.