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

The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 225 posts

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#11

Post by lexa1979 »

If they really read both pieces of papers, they'd read the footnote 53 in the final draft, detailing what the IPCC is calling a "sustainable healthy diet".

"53 ‘Sustainable healthy diets’ promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and well-being; have low environmental pressure and impact; are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable, as described in FAO and WHO. The related concept of ‘balanced diets’ refers to diets that feature plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, as described in SRCCL"

Is Scientist Rebellion a lobby ? Who's pushing an agenda here ?

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#12

Post by anonyfox »

No matter where you stand (some meat eaters tend to become extremely emotional on this):

The fact that the scientific results and recommendations get utterly censored like this before publication makes me really angry.

It’s somewhat fine for me if people/governments choose to ignore or argue against these results after publication, but this is just absurd… and is then used from people all over the world to point to „see, even scientists say it’s fine!“!

We must find a way to eliminate this lobbying/corruption, rather soon! Meanwhile, of course a vegan diet is better for the environment and renewables/green energy should be a top priority, and yes every bit counts, and if everyone would agree and do this instead of arguing we would have solved the issue already.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#13

Post by choeger »

Tade0 wrote: post #8
alphabetatheta wrote: post #5

I'm actually surprised how much dairy products contribute to global warming. It's only veganism that really cuts down on carbon emissions.

Not really. I looked at the different scenarios and we would probably do fine on chicken and cheese in terms of water consumption, CO2 and land use. Pork is where it starts being risky. Beef, lamb etc. are the most problematic parts.

This. There needs to be a pyramid in top of the food pyramid. Beef is not bad per se, it just shouldn't be your weekly meat.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#14

Post by Renaud »

exfatloss wrote: post #4
hdhrufjdi wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think this is good?

I think animal foods are very healthy and the CO2 emissions/environmental effects of cattle are usually overblown. One "study" I saw claimed cattle used 1000000x more water than grains. But they counted the rainfall on the entire grazing area as consumed by the cattle, which is obviously nonsense. It goes back into the cycle. (As does the water the cattle consume, of course.)

> CO2 emissions/environmental effects of cattle are usually overblown.

Methane production from cattle is not a blip. Whatever statistic you pick, it's one of the major contributing factors to agricultural emissions.

We tend to consume too much meat. The US in particular is the top consumer of meat per inhabitant, like 300% more than the recommended meat consumption for a healthy diet (about 100g/day of red meat, before cooking).

So you can argue that an omnivorous diet is healthy, but we clearly over-produce meat and over-eat it by a very large margin.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#15

Post by choeger »

alphabetatheta wrote: post #5

I'm actually surprised how much dairy products contribute to global warming. It's only veganism that really cuts down on carbon emissions.

I often wonder, how much double counting goes into these stats. Of course, dairy currently relies on fossile energy often. But how much of it is attributed elsewhere as well? Diesel, for instance, is often also attributed to big oil companies like shell. Cows are slaughtered and sold as meat at some point - is the dairy CO2 emission subtracted here? I don't think so.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#17

Post by vegetablepotpie »

It really does feel like we’re living in bizzaro world. If you want to make recommendations based on evidence, make sure it doesn’t impact the profits of powerful groups.

Many negative things we see in public policy stem from this fact. Lack of right to repair, lack of broadband in America, lack of cyber security in corporations, US tax law.

Maybe you like your meat. That’s fine. You can make decisions for your self, but we should at least be able to acknowledge the impacts of those decisions.

I think the solution is to blanket ban corporate speech. It really is different than individuals speaking and we need to acknowledge that.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#18

Post by klipt »

Tade0 wrote: post #8
alphabetatheta wrote: post #5

I'm actually surprised how much dairy products contribute to global warming. It's only veganism that really cuts down on carbon emissions.

Not really. I looked at the different scenarios and we would probably do fine on chicken and cheese in terms of water consumption, CO2 and land use. Pork is where it starts being risky. Beef, lamb etc. are the most problematic parts.

Isn't beef bad because cows release methane, but feeding cows seaweed can mitigate that?

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#19

Post by shortcake27 »

choeger wrote: post #13
Tade0 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I looked at the different scenarios and we would probably do fine on chicken and cheese in terms of water consumption, CO2 and land use. Pork is where it starts being risky. Beef, lamb etc. are the most problematic parts.

This. There needs to be a pyramid in top of the food pyramid. Beef is not bad per se, it just shouldn't be your weekly meat.

I’m not sure if you responded to the wrong comment or what because the parent is referencing environment impact but you’re referencing health impacts.

From an environmental point of view, there’s a linear relationship between your consumption of beef and environmental impact. There is no amount of beef that is good for the environment.

From a health point of view, it’s debated, however there are more studies that show red/processed meats having negative health effects than neutral or positive effects. Of course, you can cherry pick the studies that align with your beliefs, but the prevailing data, evidence, and research show beef actually _is_ bad per se.

Note: there is no nutrient (that we know of) that you can only get from beef and no other food source. So it isn’t necessary to include it in your diet.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-bee...

Post reply on HN