sustainability of eating meat - Page 2

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by Anniebird 

Seconded.  As a recovering vegetarian, this book opened my eyes to how agriculture is not a sustainable model and is ruining the world's topsoil.  Grass-fed cows build topsoil.

Check out Cheeseslave's review of the book for a quick breakdown: http://www.cheeseslave.com/2011/02/14/book-review-the-vegetarian-myth/

Seriously? Driving a Prius for the environment?  It is somewhat troublesome that ad-branding factors that much into this person's standard for environmentalism and sustainability.  Consumerism and status cars (or any cars, for that matter) will not save the planet, but some grass-fed cows just might.

I will check out that book! In fact, I might just order it right now so I don't forget!

And I agree about the Prius comment :eyesroll:eyesroll It really felt like a punch in the stomach. Sometimes I feel like people are really starting to *get* it and then I hear something like that.

[Spring Lily]

Originally Posted by Toolip 

If your friend doesn't know about all of this, you might want to suggest some reading for her--Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan will explain it quite clearly! As a vegetarian, I don't think everyone should give up meat, but if a lot more people did and everyone else switched to sustainable meat, we'd be in a much better place, health-wise and environmentally.

I appreciate your response but your opinion is very subjective! (the bolded part especially) I don't think it is clear that vegetarianism (even at its best, local, etc...) is better for the environment at all. Perhaps even worse in some aspects.

Also, the TF forum isn't really a place where you will get much support for the idea that not eating meat is healthier

Apparently you didn't read the entire sentence. If you had, you'd see that what I wrote was "I don't think everyone should give up meat, but if a lot more people did and everyone else switched to sustainable meat, we'd be in a much better place...."

Perhaps you're assuming a bit much about vegetarians. Some of us are actually very reasonable and non-preachy. Please don't write off what I'm saying just because I said I'm a vegetarian. If you read what I wrote, you'll see it does agree with what others here are saying and it is not based on opinion, but real information. Also, in that post you'll see that I do believe it is better for farms to raise animals than be agriculture-only.

Also, just as an FYI, that Prius comment has been around for awhile, I believe it was started by PETA. If you look on their website you'll see an article about it. They are referring to the carbon footprint, I believe. I just googled the article for you:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/global-warming.aspx
That is probably where your classmate heard it. It's looking at part of the issue, but it's not taking into account the entire picture.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by Spring Lily 

Originally Posted by Toolip 

If your friend doesn't know about all of this, you might want to suggest some reading for her--Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan will explain it quite clearly! As a vegetarian, I don't think everyone should give up meat, but if a lot more people did and everyone else switched to sustainable meat, we'd be in a much better place, health-wise and environmentally.

I appreciate your response but your opinion is very subjective! (the bolded part especially) I don't think it is clear that vegetarianism (even at its best, local, etc...) is better for the environment at all. Perhaps even worse in some aspects.

Also, the TF forum isn't really a place where you will get much support for the idea that not eating meat is healthier

Apparently you didn't read the entire sentence. If you had, you'd see that what I wrote was "I don't think everyone should give up meat, but if a lot more people did and everyone else switched to sustainable meat, we'd be in a much better place...."

Perhaps you're assuming a bit much about vegetarians. Some of us are actually very reasonable and non-preachy. Please don't write off what I'm saying just because I said I'm a vegetarian. If you read what I wrote, you'll see it does agree with what others here are saying and it is not based on opinion, but real information. Also, in that post you'll see that I do believe it is better for farms to raise animals than be agriculture-only.

Also, just as an FYI, that Prius comment has been around for awhile, I believe it was started by PETA. If you look on their website you'll see an article about it. They are referring to the carbon footprint, I believe. I just googled the article for you:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/global-warming.aspx
That is probably where your classmate heard it. It's looking at part of the issue, but it's not taking into account the entire picture.

I did read what you wrote and I'm not writing you off. I don't think it matters if everyone or just more people give up meat. I'm not convinced that the advantage is there. It's all good. I'm not interested in a debate. I'm just looking for more resources.

As for PETA, it doesn't really matter what the original context of the argument was, I figured it was probably specifically about emissions. The person who was talking to me had no idea what it meat and was talking like driving a prius would help to grow new forests and feed starving children, like there was actually a benefit, not just less harm. That is the danger of oversimplifying these arguments (I think) because it gives people a tiny piece of information without showing the whole picture. And I know it's very prevalent.

[velcromom]

jeez there was so much wrong with that article... It makes no sense whatsoever to claim raising cattle that require plowing land with fossil fuel power  and fertilizing feed crops with petroleum products could possibly be "better" in any sense than raising cattle that don't require any of that. I am interested in the claim in the comments that healthy soil on which grassfed cattle graze can absorb much of the methane they emit.

 I've noticed that a lot of articles or news bits or commercials describing a product as "green" or "greener" are very adept at ignoring the manufacturing history of the product which in many cases, required a significant input of fossil fuel in one form or another, thus rendering the product's supposed "green" status rather questionable.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by velcromom 

jeez there was so much wrong with that article... It makes no sense whatsoever to claim raising cattle that require plowing land with fossil fuel power  and fertilizing feed crops with petroleum products could possibly be "better" in any sense than raising cattle that don't require any of that. I am interested in the claim in the comments that healthy soil on which grassfed cattle graze can absorb much of the methane they emit.

 I've noticed that a lot of articles or news bits or commercials describing a product as "green" or "greener" are very adept at ignoring the manufacturing history of the product which in many cases, required a significant input of fossil fuel in one form or another, thus rendering the product's supposed "green" status rather questionable.

Indeed! It makes my head hurt

[Spring Lily]

Originally Posted by Toolip 

I did read what you wrote and I'm not writing you off. I don't think it matters if everyone or just more people give up meat. I'm not convinced that the advantage is there. It's all good. I'm not interested in a debate. I'm just looking for more resources.

As for PETA, it doesn't really matter what the original context of the argument was, I figured it was probably specifically about emissions. The person who was talking to me had no idea what it meat and was talking like driving a prius would help to grow new forests and feed starving children, like there was actually a benefit, not just less harm. That is the danger of oversimplifying these arguments (I think) because it gives people a tiny piece of information without showing the whole picture. And I know it's very prevalent.

Funny, I thought that was something that we could agree on--minimizing the country's reliance of unsustainable, factory farming. I wrongly assumed you'd think it was better for people to eat no meat than factory farmed meat.

You asked for resources, that's why I posted the PETA article for you. So you could see the possible source for her argument. I came in here actually supportive of you in your dealings with this uneducated vegetarian, but I feel like you want to argue everything I say and I'm not interested in that, so I will bow out.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by Spring Lily 

Originally Posted by Toolip 

I did read what you wrote and I'm not writing you off. I don't think it matters if everyone or just more people give up meat. I'm not convinced that the advantage is there. It's all good. I'm not interested in a debate. I'm just looking for more resources.

As for PETA, it doesn't really matter what the original context of the argument was, I figured it was probably specifically about emissions. The person who was talking to me had no idea what it meat and was talking like driving a prius would help to grow new forests and feed starving children, like there was actually a benefit, not just less harm. That is the danger of oversimplifying these arguments (I think) because it gives people a tiny piece of information without showing the whole picture. And I know it's very prevalent.

Funny, I thought that was something that we could agree on--minimizing the country's reliance of unsustainable, factory farming. I wrongly assumed you'd think it was better for people to eat no meat than factory farmed meat.

You asked for resources, that's why I posted the PETA article for you. So you could see the possible source for her argument. I came in here actually supportive of you in your dealings with this uneducated vegetarian, but I feel like you want to argue everything I say and I'm not interested in that, so I will bow out.

we must be really misunderstanding each other

[CherryBomb]

This article is looking more at conventional farming practices and veg*nism, but I still that it raises some good points.  For the record, I believe it's better to eat factory farmed meat than to be vegan.  I can't afford 100% pastured meat, so I generally buy conventional beef and lamb (considered the "cleaner" conventional meats) and pastured chicken and pork (just bought 1/2 hog from the organic farm down the road, actually :) )

[CherryBomb]

I'd also point out that even conventionally raised beef is at least partially grassfed.  There are a lot of beef "factory farms" out here (you'd never guess, driving by, but they're considered to be).  Generally, the cows are on pasture until the last couple months of life, then they're fed at least 60% grain to bulk up for slaughter.  It just doesn't make sense, cost wise, to put beef cows fully on grain, when they can be consuming grass from unfarmable or unused land for free.  And lambs are generally done similarly to beef cattle, pastured at the start, then finished in feed lots to bulk up.

[Toolip]

right. that's my understanding too, that "factory farmed" cows are part-time on a pasture, at least.

And that's what this has been making me wonder too. even in the worst cases of meat eating (well, just conventional meat anyway) I'm not sure that it's fair to say that it's beneficial to be a vegan. The pro-veg arguments seem to come from a emissions point of view and don't take the whole picture into account.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by CherryBomb 

This article is looking more at conventional farming practices and veg*nism, but I still that it raises some good points.  For the record, I believe it's better to eat factory farmed meat than to be vegan.  I can't afford 100% pastured meat, so I generally buy conventional beef and lamb (considered the "cleaner" conventional meats) and pastured chicken and pork (just bought 1/2 hog from the organic farm down the road, actually :) )

I like that article. I think it brought up great points.