Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#41

Post by xupybd »

Robotbeat wrote: post #12
kuratkull wrote: post #6

Not sure why the author doesn't mention the known (and gaining traction) solution: rotational grazing. It's a rather simple carbon-negative solution. You have a bunch of land, you divide it into paddocks, you rotate ruminants to fresh grass. The previous paddocks regenerate and bind carbon. Repeat. A large plot of land is able to bind carbon for decades. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rotational+grazing+carbon+negative

I sincerely doubt this fully compensated for methane emissions.

Methane emissions do drop when feeding cattle grass. It's what their guts are supposed to work with.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#42

Post by mediascreen »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #11
choeger wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. 275g per day is a huge average. Do you happen to know the median? I cannot agree with the cheese part, though. I think if you replace half of that meat consumption with cheese, it would be net positive for your health and the climate. Also one should not consider poultry equivalent to beef.

> 275g per day is a huge average Including food waste it's fairly reasonable. Commercial restaurants waste an amazing amount of food everyday.

Can a restaurant really afford to waste huge amounts of expensive meat every day? I thought their entire margin was based on minimizing expensive waste.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#43

Post by watwut »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #20
watwut wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are also healthier then average in 1960. We are more fat, but also less likely to miss one of important nutricients.

I'd love to see how you characterize Americans being healthier today than they were in 1960. Maybe you mean that life expectancy has increased from about 70 years to 78 years. However it looks like a lot of that is attributable to reduced infant mortality. In 1960, 0.91% of Americans had Type II Diabetes. In 2015, 7.40% of Americans had Type II Diabetes: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/long_term_tre...…

You literally picked exactly one disease and used it as argument why we are less healthy. And obesity is not even disease on itself. To can be obese and healtht. It just happen to have to do with the exact same disease you picked.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#44

Post by nobodyandproud »

fmajid wrote: post #32
nobodyandproud wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we can generalize that, because it depends on where the hunter-gatherer lived. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-t... It’s a three day sampling, but fruit and honey make-up a non-trivial portion of their caloric intake. Inuit diet, of course, was mostly fat and protein out of necessity

We only started eating vegetables 85,000 years ago. For the 2M years before that it was all meat diet: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate...

Your link indicates it’s a hypothesis, and not a widely -accepted PoV.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#45

Post by seanwilson »

atian wrote: post #4
meristohm wrote: post #2

This article is tough to read on mobile without sending to Pocket or something like that. Chimpanzees eat some meat, maybe 2-3% of their diet? We can do that, too. The long-term costs need to be included in meat production. Regulation that affects everyone seems important, so that we don’t get stuck appealing to and hoping for individual responsibility.

Chimpanzees brains also don't have the same energy demands. We also still don't understand the mechanisms behind rare diseases that are associated with vegetarian diets but also not considered from being overt malnourishment. We are far from ready from centrally advocating for plant-based diets. Seems like the best thing we can do and are doing is introducing more plant-based options on the market.

> We are far from ready from centrally advocating for plant-based diets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition#Positions_of_d...

"Positions of dietetic and government associations - The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[5][6] They indicate that vegetarian diets may be more common among adolescents with eating disorders, but that its adoption may serve to camouflage a disorder rather than cause one. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council similarly recognizes a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age,[7][8] as does the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[9] British National Health Service,[10] British Nutrition Foundation,[11] Dietitians Association of Australia,[12] United States Department of Agriculture,[13] Mayo Clinic,[14] Canadian Pediatric Society,[15] and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.[16] The British National Health Service's Eatwell Plate allows for an entirely plant-based diet,[17] as does the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) MyPlate.[18][19] The USDA allows tofu to replace meat in the National School Lunch Program.[20] The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics adds that well-planned vegan diets are also appropriate for older adults and athletes.[1]"

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#46

Post by NicoJuicy »

adriand wrote: post #34

Industrial agriculture is depleting the soil, abusing animals, polluting our water and significantly contributing to planet-destroying climate change. How about we start tackling the problem by ending subsidies and requiring meat producers to pay for what are currently treated as externalities. If meat eaters had to pay the real cost of their food, I suspect overall consumption would decrease far more than any campai…

The cause is overpopulation. Not agriculture.

Less people, less problems. More people, more problems. Just look at the world population since 1950

The current solution is more efficient agriculture ( ofc ) or finding better and viable alternatives

Forcing way more expensive meat is not a good option. Too many jobs will be lost at once and people will view it as an attack on their freedom. Nobody will want to make that decision and i don't think it's realistic to execute.

I'd like some research on this too. Since I remember young vegans from school to be unhealthy looking and needing vitamin supplements.

Even China added eggs and other things to the school diet, since they wanted to catch up on height with japanese people. They had positive effects within 1 generation.

Just 1 example: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/vegetarian-kindergarten-china-orde...

I'll let my kids eat meat and they can decide what they want when they are full-grown.

Ps. I've met countless of vegans being offended by these claims/observations, while they couldn't find any proof against it.

Joy... I invite you to debunk it. Please... Alter my POV with some evidence.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#47

Post by nobodyandproud »

fmajid wrote: post #32
nobodyandproud wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we can generalize that, because it depends on where the hunter-gatherer lived. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-t... It’s a three day sampling, but fruit and honey make-up a non-trivial portion of their caloric intake. Inuit diet, of course, was mostly fat and protein out of necessity

We only started eating vegetables 85,000 years ago. For the 2M years before that it was all meat diet: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate...

In fact, one of the conclusions was off: https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/07/beasley-acid-2015/

If anything, high acidity shows humans as scavengers rather than hunters.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#48

Post by baybal2 »

When I was living in Russia, back in early nineties, the family could've only eaten meat once in 1-2 weeks. For us, it wasn't much special to have a week without meat.

Later, I though we were well off to have it 1-2 times a week. It was just not part of the culture in the part of Russia we were, and it was, and I think still, considered simply wasteful, and irrational.

When I moved to Canada in 2009, the whole idea of eating mean not only every day, but multiple times a day was hard to digest.

In the end, I got used to this. I became rather fat.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#49

Post by dotsam »

nicbou wrote: post #33
jschveibinz wrote: post #3

We eat way more than we used to, and there are more people doing it. Per capita meat consumption in the US (poultry, beef, pork) in 1960 was about 170 lbs per year. Now it’s closer to 220 lbs per person per year. Cheese consumption has almost tripled since 1970. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st... Let’s all be heroes: Eat less (including meat and cheese), buy less, save money, improve your…

Considering we could not get people to wear masks to curb far more immediate problems, I find it difficult to take the initiative.

It does feel like an overwhelming task, but individuals can come together and our own actions do matter. We ended slavery: we can create huge positive change.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#50

Post by aaronbrethorst »

watwut wrote: post #43
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see how you characterize Americans being healthier today than they were in 1960. Maybe you mean that life expectancy has increased from about 70 years to 78 years. However it looks like a lot of that is attributable to reduced infant mortality. In 1960, 0.91% of Americans had Type II Diabetes. In 2015, 7.40% of Americans had Type II Diabetes: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/long_term_tre...…

You literally picked exactly one disease and used it as argument why we are less healthy. And obesity is not even disease on itself. To can be obese and healtht. It just happen to have to do with the exact same disease you picked.

OK, don't take it from me, then:

When we look at this year’s report, we see that we are living longer, but with an increasing burden of preventable chronic illness. In particular, our nation’s health is persistently compromised by risk factors such as sedentary behavior, obesity, and diabetes.

http://cdnfiles.americashealthrankings.org/SiteFiles/Reports...

So again: how do you define "healthier then average in 1960"?

Post reply on HN