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

191–200 of 225 posts

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

#191

Post by at_compile_time »

waihtis wrote: post #178
sprucevoid wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> feel free to correct any errors in my claims What you say about mTORC1 is not supported by the leading academic researcher organizations in the field of nutrition. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the preventio…

Your linked paper doesn't reference mTORC1 a single time. Moreover, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has faced numerous criticisms about it's close ties to corporate groups such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Mars, and others.* It is fully within their interest to state "vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements" (a direct quote from your linked paper) as it supports the bu…

Interests aside, it is very important that everyone has B12 in their diet. Most people get it from animal products, so vegans need to be sure they're getting it from somewhere. Without B12, all of the health benefits of lower BMI, higher dietary fiber, and lower saturated fat and dietary cholesterol will be offset by higher stroke risk.

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

#192

Post by fredrikholm »

cfn wrote: post #182
fredrikholm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheers; you're right. 'En masse' wasn't sufficient in communicating what I wanted, which was to say "in large, repeated and undiluted amounts". > The problem is on the how and not on the what If we could realistically supply the entire demand for beef with cows grazing on fields on the same amount of land, without raising the price directly or by subsidizing the cost, I'd be all in. This is literally impossible as in…

Pretty much all the beef production is done in grazing fields as it is cheaper and less work. It is only the bulk up that is done in feed lots (1-3 months before going to the abbatoir). There is even pasture finished beef production where cows stay in the fields without feed until the end.

Is there any data on that?

I meet quite a bit of animal-activist types (by association) that 'expose' parts of the meat industry by taking jobs and secretly filming (as it's often illegal to do).

Most of the extreme horrors they've recorded are in slaughterhouses, but I have vivid memories of seeing cattle confined in small cages which fecal infected infections. Perhaps that's dairy production, as it doesn't affect the outcome (as much)?

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

#193

Post by exfatloss »

Renaud wrote: post #14
exfatloss wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, befo…

I think quite the opposite - a beef-only diet, very high in fat, is probably the evolutionary diet we're most adapted too. After all we only started cultivating grains about 10,000 years ago. It was large, fatty megafauna for hundreds of thousands of years before that.

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

#194

Post by exfatloss »

shortcake27 wrote: post #21
exfatloss wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> I think animal foods are very healthy There are countless studies showing a link between red meat and negative health effects, and there is probably no safe amount. Are you saying all the studies are wrong? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Those studies have been debunked. Current state of science is that there is no indication that reduction of red meat consumption would bring any health benefits.

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

#195

Post by vintermann »

dragonwriter wrote: post #186
vintermann wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no actual benefit to that, so I'm not sure it's the reason.

There are people who benefit from it; there’s no (or negative) net social benefit, but that’s true of lots of the things that motivate laws.

Who benefits from sex workers being marginalized?

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

#196

Post by vintermann »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #143
vintermann wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people who complain about rich environmentalists flying on private planes seem to be on the right. I don't quite get this: you aren't opposed to the existence of millionaires, are you? You already accept that some people, through their hard work or inheritance or whatever, are entitled to a larger share of material goods. Why shouldn't they also be entitled to a larger share of the total emissions we decide we c…

If you fly on a private jet, you atleast shouldn't come on a climate conference and tell poor people not to eat meat and drive their car.

Did you hear what I said at all? Yes, if you are a capitalist who believes in capitalism, you aren't hypocritical for doing that. It's not a position I agree with, but it's a consistent position, as far as it goes. As long as you pay for your emissions / compensate the rest of the world in the ways we have agreed to, you're in the clear. Someone will take up the slack for you, in return for payment.

(Those ways of compensation may objectively be pathetically inadequate, but so what? It was "voluntary" so it's good enough. That's how it works for everything else things in capitalism, so of course that's how it's going to be that way for emissions as well.)

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

#197

Post by dragonwriter »

vintermann wrote: post #195
dragonwriter wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who benefit from it; there’s no (or negative) net social benefit, but that’s true of lots of the things that motivate laws.

Who benefits from sex workers being marginalized?

People who exploit sex workers.

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

#198

Post by sprucevoid »

Tade0 wrote: post #179
sprucevoid wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with only reducing meat from cows and sheep is that other meat sources are still worse than plant based with regard to climate change and we're at a juncture where climate policy need to shift into full gear on all fronts. Not a time for half measures. Meat from chicken is also likely even worse than beef in terms of pandemic risk and perhaps also antibiotics resistance risk. In addition to that chicken m…

> Not a time for half measures. Now is exactly the time for half measures - radical options proposed in the past largely failed due to their simplistic view of human nature. We're actually getting there with electricity. Renewables - the very definition of a half-measure - are being deployed at a much higher rate than nuclear, which on the face of it is the ideal solution - but only in a world where megaprojects are…

> Now is exactly the time for half measures - radical options proposed in the past largely failed due to their simplistic view of human nature.

Not sure I understand. What are some examples of "radical options" in policy you think have been attempted and failed? What are examples of "non-radical" options you think there's evidence would yield better outcomes?

With "not the time for half measures" I meant that if only half measures are deployed now then it seems likely millions of humans, many from regions least responsible for climate change, will be harmed, killed or displaced.

The idea of pricing in costs is already very familiar to people in their everyday lives. There are social norms like "you break it, you pay" and various regulations that price in costs.

> Going vegan because climate change and animal suffering is going to be a hard sell.

Keep in mind the distinction between policy level and individual level. The policy suggestion was remove meat industry subsidies, price in externalities, subsidize plant based foods. On the individual level the best outreach approach varies case by case depending on where the recipient is at. Are you already vegan or in the process of switching to vegan? If not then feel free to lift any individual level objections or obstacles you personally have and we can discuss them.

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

#199

Post by nradov »

mejutoco wrote: post #122
mft_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s pretty good evidence that an unprocessed plant-based diet is the healthiest option. This is a good place to start: https://nutritionfacts.org/

For the benefit of other readers, the closest I could find in there to answer my question was: > Only one diet has ever been proven to reverse the progression of heart disease, our number one killer, and be effective in treating, arresting, and even reversing other deadly diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. And, that same diet—a whole food, plant-based diet—appears to be the most effective diet…

That is factually incorrect. Actual clinical research had shown that other diets can also be effective in reversing type-2 diabetes. That disease is primarily a matter of insulin resistance so the key point is to reduce carbohydrates. Whether the remaining nutrients come from plant or animal sources is largely irrelevant.

https://www.virtahealth.com/reversediabetes

Diets based on animal products have also been proven effective for weight loss. And the goal for most people isn't just to lose weight but rather to lose adipose tissue while retaining lean muscle; diets high in animal proteins tend to be a little more effective on that score.

https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1743-7075-4-23

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

#200

Post by Tade0 »

sprucevoid wrote: post #198
Tade0 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a time for half measures. Now is exactly the time for half measures - radical options proposed in the past largely failed due to their simplistic view of human nature. We're actually getting there with electricity. Renewables - the very definition of a half-measure - are being deployed at a much higher rate than nuclear, which on the face of it is the ideal solution - but only in a world where megaprojects are…

> Now is exactly the time for half measures - radical options proposed in the past largely failed due to their simplistic view of human nature. Not sure I understand. What are some examples of "radical options" in policy you think have been attempted and failed? What are examples of "non-radical" options you think there's evidence would yield better outcomes? With "not the time for half measures" I meant that if only…

> With "not the time for half measures" I meant that if only half measures are deployed now then it seems likely millions of humans, many from regions least responsible for climate change, will be harmed, killed or displaced.

Half measures is what's feasible. The measures you're proposing are not.

> Keep in mind the distinction between policy level and individual level. The policy suggestion was remove meat industry subsidies, price in externalities, subsidize plant based foods.

You're mistaken in the assumption that the majority will be willing to vote for this. Every point of yours is politically unpalatable.

Post reply on HN