The popular crusade against meat is one of the more misguided. Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant and the environmental impacts have been greatly exaggerated. See below: Regarding carbon: "removal of livestock in the US would only lead to a net GHG reduction of 2.6% in national emissions. Similarly, removing all dairy would lead to a reduction of just 0.7%. At the same time, both transitions woul…
> Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant Completely wrong
Probably exaggerated and imponderable, as it really depends on how you would rank such a thing. But it is really nutritious in that it packs a great density of protein and micronutrients.
Just when you think there is no hope for this planet and for humanity something slowly emerges seemingly out of nowhere. Fridays for future was one of those developments that caught me by surprise. Young people fighting for our planet while „angry white men“ claiming there ain’t no climate change. Or take the sudden surge of interest in everything veggy / vegan. In Germany there is a growing demand for vegan products…
Interesting, are there studies in climate change denial demographics?
Raising cattle can easily become a net negative to carbon emissions if cows are given slightly more space to graze and moved around more often. If all cattle were raised in this way there would be slightly less cattle production but a far more positive environmental impact than if we all switched to vegan "meat". https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grass...
That study seems to be comparing cropland to pasture. The problem is that the tradeoff is not between cropland and pasture, but pasture and forest. Eg: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed... Due to increasing demand for meat, we have people burning the forest and releasing all the carbon sequestered in the trees, and reducing the efficiency of the land as a carbon sink going forward.
And what undeniable value do forest provides?
I live in NZ where which still somewhat recently used to be covered in forests. There’s tons of pastures and forests certainly look nice (and native bush is just something else), but other than that I don’t know why forests so important? Properties with shading are more expensive here, but that also causes more issues with your rain water tanks.
This is the best news I've heard all week. The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people and not just dedicated vegans. Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, due to the amount of land required for cattle farming, and due to the surprising amount of methane emitted by cattle. (see the docu…
Are there stats to back up that non-vegans begin consuming more vegan based meals if they have the option? And I mean more than once. A consumer might try it but then go back to normal. At there good stats on repeat buying on a large scale?
I'd like to know that too. I've never tried fake meat, and have no desire to. If I want to eat meat, I want real meat. I don't trust industrially processed synthetic foods, and I'd think we'd have learned by now that they are not worthy of our trust.
Impossible meat with ketchup, mustard, lettuce, tomato, etc., tastes just like a beef burger to me. If impossible patties were cheaper than beef patties at the supermarket I would definitely buy them.
There's huge variance in prices where I live. Some grocery stores sell a pack of two for about $5. If you were buying sustainable beef from humanely-raised cattle you'd probably be paying that much, too.
It’s ambiguous what you mean by “cut,” but Taco Bell has cut their ground beef with soy based product for years. The biggest question is how far can meat preparations be diluted with fillers... I don’t think we have to eliminate meat to have a meaningful impact (e.g. a 50% reduction in meat consumption would cut about 3% of US greenhouse gas emissions.)
That's exactly what I mean by cut. As the filler gets better (which is certainly the long game for synthetic meats) you can keep upping the amount as long as the end user can't tell. You're very right about diminishing returns and not needing to eliminate meat fully though.
It's like boiling a frog with the intention of eating it before it jumps out of the pot.
I feel the price is still quite high for daily consumption. For example, 3 lbs of impossible ground meat is ~50$, so per pound comes in about ~16$ (data from impossible website). Real ground beef, even when you buy high quality will be around 7-8$ per pound.
This brand was tested by German magazine called "Öko-Test" on their ingredients. Also not for the first time. It got a BAD review again because it contains too much mineral oil in it (could have various reasons, packaging of ingredients or oily manufacturing machines) and 20g fat per 100g "meat".
So it's unhealthy on mineral oil (MOSH) which can easily accumulate in your body and fat percentage.
One of the sources which you can Google translate:
This is the best news I've heard all week. The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people and not just dedicated vegans. Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, due to the amount of land required for cattle farming, and due to the surprising amount of methane emitted by cattle. (see the docu…
I agree that this is important, and less meat consumption is good, but I am kind of upset that the entire American culinary experience is being reduced to "burgers, pizza, and fried chicken." I say that because most of the articles on meat alternatives are written from the perspective of "if only Americans can stop eating hamburgers!" First off, in terms of global solutions, that isn't going to fly. Try going to Ital…
As a fellow American, I also just eat a few hamburgers per year. I actually prefer non meat burgers to regular, though I love high quality meat (though I don't it it very often). I like to primary source stuff and can't find a hard, verified number in my limited Googling, but as far as I can tell our consumption is incredibly low compared to the per capita average (over a hundred per year, into the multi hundreds per year depending on region). The key is not to get people who are eating 2 per year down to 0, but to get people eating hundreds per year down to, I dunno, 10? Either way we can picture a sustainable economy in which high quality plant based meals are cheap, and then everyone gets their high quality meat meals less frequently and for an amount of money that is commensurate with their ecological impact.