Interesting...the only thing I wonder though, would there be enough water to grow plantbased food for everyone? Seeing as watershortage is already a big issue in many places on earth including regions in first world countries.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It might seem like that on the surface, but you're forgetting the water required to grow the grain for animal feed, and the water the animals themselves require. As pointed out in the article, a plant based diet has a minimal impact on the planet compared to a meat based diet.
Also think of the waste run off into rivers (hormones, antibiotics in animal feed.)
I havent forgotten that, I actually am decently informed on the cattle industry and what it takes to keep that going. However, I have no idea what it would take to cultivate plant based food for the entire world population, hence my question
I'm certainly not an expert on this subject, but as a vegetarian articles on such topics often catch my attention. For example:
Meat production requires a much higher amount of water than vegetables. IME state that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water whereas to produce 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water. source
Here's an interesting site that measures water requirements for a number of foods.
http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/
Examples:
However, nowadays I bet there are statistics to prove point about any opinion a person wants to defend. I am not claiming to be right on the subject of meat's impact on water consumption, water pollution, and global warming.
For me personally I get by fine without meat, but I'm cool with each person simply deciding if meat is right for him or her. It's been a very long time, but I do remember how good a crisp slice of bacon tastes ;-)
Thank you for informing me a bit, it does indeed seem it would be better to switch to a vegetarian diet, in terms of footprints and depletion of our resources anyway. As you said, there are so many researches and opinions that there are pros and cons everywhere.
Attempting to say meat is bad because industrial agriculture is destructive to life is mere conflation and is obvious to those with the benefit of reason.
I neither consider meat bad nor did I attempt to convey that notion.
Thephotoguide posed the question if we had enough water to switch to a plant based diet, and I responded that as I understand it a meat based diet requires an even higher water usage rate, and it also affect the quality of water (pig farms come to mind.)
I did not intend to put words in your mouth.
It does not require more water if it is properly fed natural foods for herbivores. Grain is not a natural majority food for most, if not all, large herbivores. The arguments in the above post are all founded in fallacy. Grain fed meat is resource intensive, because it is not part of the proper method for growing healthy food animals, nor are hormones or antibiotics. Once this is considered, the water for grain for food animals argument falls completely apart at it's base. From there he moves on to the human caused climate change nonsense which is a non argument as the temperature and CO2 charts have completely diverged in the past few years, demonstrating that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. The water consumption argument, based on erroneous premises, is unnecessary to refute, as already stated. Finally the health giving properties of vege diets are completely blown away by even a cursory glance at the data already gathered by the biochemists.
We are the humans that we are BECAUSE we eat healthy animal products. The archeological and anthropological records are clear. Herbivores are prey animals. Humans are omnivores.
"Grain fed meat is resource intensive, because it is not part of the proper method for growing healthy food animals, nor are hormones or antibiotics."
I agree and support the kind of system you are describing above. That would be a welcome change from my perspective. It would indeed solve many problems, environmental and ethical.
Unfortunately, that is a very far cry from where we are. The water consumption concerns might be erroneous if your vision were a reality. You've set up an anti-matter straw man. Do a google image search of pig farm pollution to see why some of us don't consider the water issue as unnecessary to refute.
I also agree with you that humans are by nature omnivores. I'm a vegetarian for my own personal ethical reasons, but not vegan. I don't have an issue with eating dairy products, supplementing with whey protein, or eating eggs. I concede that there are some nutritional problem areas for vegetarians, and they need to be aware of them.
On the other hand, the nutrition question you raised is far from settled,
"A 2003 report published in the “American Journal of Clinical Nutrition” analyzed six different studies to try to establish whether vegetarians live longer. The report found that low meat consumption decreases risk of death and increases life expectancy. In fact, research shows that reducing meat consumption can increase your life span by 3.6 years. The same report showed that societies with plant-based diets are more likely to live past 70 years of age." source
Although life expectancy is not a clear measure because vegetarians have healthy live styles and tend not to smoke.
Finally, I realize the strident virtue signaling vegan proponents can be a bit over the top. So can the paleo folks who think all vegetarians are wimps. Just remember, the bad ass silver-back gorilla is full paleo, except for ants, termites, and few bugs :-)
I hope your vision becomes reality, so I upvoted your comment.
There is no anti-matter straw man here. The system as we have it is atrocious, pig farms can be the very worst examples of this. Creating a new system that is equally unworkable is not an answer. The problems seem to stem from the economics and scalability of production animal farming within the environment of the regulatory capture revolving door between regulatory agencies and industry. This, I don't think can be fixed by getting rid of healthy animal products. If we are suggesting getting rid of poisonous animal products then let's do it.
The meat studies that are usually referenced never make a distinction between animals fed their proper diet, and animals fed pesticide laden grains and hormones and antibiotics. Do I think that people who eat poisonously raised animal products will die younger than they would if they avoided poison? Yes, I do. The difference between grass fed and grain fed lies in the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, as well as the many contaminants that come from feeding industrially raised grain to animals that need grass to be healthy. I haven't found many benefits to consumption of grain by cattle or humans, except they are yummy.
Thoughts?
That's a very interesting point you raise about the health benefits/dangers of industrial meat vs healthy animal products. No doubt your point is valid.
There are cows all around the area where I live. When you observe them when they are young, they are playful and energetic. They have a pecking order, and clear emotional attachments to each other. Perhaps friendships would be a stretch, but they have preferences.
It's been obvious to me for a long time that my vegetarianism will never be the norm. Sadly, I don't see expensive healthy meat becoming the norm either. The environmental impact of industrial meat is, from my perspective, a problem.
But I'm not a crusader, for me it is more a personal ethical decision. I sincerely hope you are able to get more folks to switch to healthy humanely raised meat.