Not sure a pig farmer has the best perspective on this. I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly, etc. The land has enough natural rain-fall and grasses that grow on it to sustain sheep/cattle where there would otherwise be nothing but a fire hazard come the dry season (California).
In this one and perhaps not common scenario, I think eating meat from these sources, slaughtered humanely, is reasonable. This obviously is not enough meat even for locals in my area to be having burgers daily, so a huge reduction in meat consumption is needed even if one wants to continue eating meat 'responsibly'.
This article unfortunately does not mention that grass-fed meat has different omega-3/omega-6 ratios than factory farmed, and eating smaller quantities of grass-fed meat is healthier than larger quantities of factory farmed. Not sure any meat industry person, even sustainable, is going to mention that cutting back from typical American consumption is a good thing.
> I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly, etc. The land has enough natural rain-fall and grasses that grow on it to sustain sheep/cattle where there would otherwise be nothing but a fire hazard come the dry season (California).
Australia has a huge cattle industry for similar reasons, lots and lots of space, but much of the land is not suitable for crops. Cattle will survive, but not many.
Anna Creek Station in South Australia is the size of Israel (!!!), and the land can only support like 10,000 to 20,000 cattle. If you look at photos of Anna Creek Station you'll know why, it's mostly arid, almost desert-like. You can't grow any crops there.
Eating higher quality meat will always be healthier than factory farmed lower quality, quantity needn't be part of that statement; it's what else you eat that causes problems, not unprocessed, high quality meat.
"Ditching meat isn't the answer", "Writing meat off completely is taking the easy way out", by someone who runs "a small, family-operated pig farm", and writes about how "beneficial and rewarding" sustainable farming can be. I'm not sure if they notice they make their living killing pigs.
Another point: in the sentence
>Commercial meat production got to be the monster it is because corporate interests monopolized the market and began seeing animal life as a commodity — something to be produced and traded at the lowest cost possible, at the expense of the environment, animal welfare and working conditions for farmhands.
it seemed very odd—grotesque, even—to include "working conditions for farmhands" in the 3 main costs of seeing animals as just commodities, in a purportedly enlightened article. And animal welfare seems to come a distant second to the effect on the environment—by which I think they mean, having horrible factory farms everywhere etc.
Putting human well-being above animals in work, sustenance, and sustainability is not odd or grotesque. Animal welfare secures the future of humanity, which seems enlightened to me, though the author doesn't engage in that pretense or emotional language.
Animal welfare doesn't move people who want their Big Macs and don't have to think about how it got to their mouths.
Climate change, pandemic risks, and antibiotic resistance are the main existential risks of animal agriculture. That's why I don't eat meat: because it's immoral to put others and yourself at unnecessary risk.
It's like FF ICEs: there's no innovating our way out of something that's fundamentally irredeemable.
No one has to eat meat. It's a choice, be it laziness, willful ignorance, or selfishness.
Maybe reducing meat consumption is a good middle ground? Red meat especially seems to have known health risks but even ignoring that the inhumane raising of animals for mass automated slaughter necessitated by huge meat consumption is very much worth addressing as is the climate impact.
I really cannot wait to see lab grown meat or plant based meat become credible alternatives - I am not holding my breath but I am moderately optimistic for a breakthrough.
> I run a small, family-operated pig farm in Upstate New York.
Article has the same feel as a fossil fuel company defending natural gas or something. Obviously this is a smaller farming operation than most fossil fuel companies which probably means their GHG emissions aren't huge, but still a vested interest in the status quo.
I've slowly transitioned to chicken once a week or less and no mammals at all. It's great! A lot cheaper and still lots of tasty options — plus tons of restaurants are making it increasingly easy to order vegetarian.
Look at any argument for dealing with climate change and you’ll find which lobby or interest the person or group belongs to. Nobody wants to change, but they all want climate change to stop or slow down. This is going to be the biggest failing of humans in the 20th and 21st centuries, endangering many more humans than several COVID-19-like pandemics put together and the existence of many other species. And it’s not because of lack of warning or time.
I agree. Just saying "it's not my fault, it's the others: they are the culprit, not me" is what led us here. Without reducing meat consumption (and many other actions), the crisis won't go away
I don't like this fact: but it seems there's nothing more nutritious for many human geno/phenotypes than meat IMO.
It seems the world is waking up to this. And as such, farming is waking up to using more sustainable, health promoting methods (e.g. ditching factory farming).
The folks at beyond-meat & various institutions will tell you it's 'unhealthy', but I've never been healthier than when I'm eating mostly meat.
The crux of this seems to be that ditching meat isn't a silver bullet and we can make meat consumption less environmentally damaging and consume less meat without abandoning it.
But there are no silver bullets anywhere, so the point does not impress at all. It doesn't really detail great reasons to not make this one of the less-than-silver bullets.
At what point do we all just stop kidding ourselves and admit that the “answer for climate change” doesn’t exist?
Yeah it’s been a fun ride and all, but we’ve got a HUGE bill coming due over the next 2 or so generations. There’s probably nothing we can do to change that.
Definitely true that we're going to and already feeling the effects of climate change.
I also hear a kind of despair and giving up in your comment (maybe you feel it's just "the truth"?) but I know that attitude can be dangerous. It's like sitting in a house on fire and saying "why bother to run? my life is already ruined and there's nothing I can do to change that."
There are lots of plans and good shots we have at limiting the effects of global warming to 1.5C provided we take collective action. My favorite effort is the one at Rewiring America[1] which gives really actionable advice for both consumers and policy makers: electrify everything (cars, heating/cooling, stoves, driers, etc) and power it all by renewable electricity. They show in a pretty straightforward way that this will actually save us all money, eliminate the most significant carbon emissions, create jobs, and give us better standards of living than we currently have with fossil fuels. It's pretty inspiring and gives me a lot of hope which is necessary in difficult times.
Something the anti-meat people might forget is that the majority of plants by weight is going to be cellulose which is something indigestible by humans. You can feed some animals with the waste plant material (or with plants that can be grown more efficiently than human edible ones) and then eat them. The flexibility here gives you options and options are important for maximizing efficiency.
The artificial meat market still hasn't been able to address the adverse health effects of isoflavones, and other adverse health effects of phytoestrogens. I'm not referring exclusively to endocrine disruption[5]. There's lots of sources showing negative effects on the brain[1][2][3][4]. These 'impossible meats' are not a good solution.
I've heard all of the "eat the bugs" rhetoric regarding addressing the protein needs of a growing third world. Why not address the issues of unsustainable overpopulation first?
First off, no one is going to argue beyond/impossible meat is necessarily healthy, but these two brands (currently leading the artificial meat market) contain just a small percentage of the isoflavones content found in soy-based products like tofu.
Moreover, the negative late-life cognitive effects ("brain shrinkage") referenced by your second source are just as likely correlated to a lack of B12 and DHA (both vital for brain health) not present naturally in soy but are easily supplemented via other plant-based sources. In fact, lots of modern tofu products are enriched with one or both. The uncontested health benefits of tofu when compared to meat far outweigh the single flimsy correlational 30-year study concluding "tofu shrinks your brain!".
Also just worth noting, you cite four references showing negative effects of isoflavones on the brain, but 4 is about thyroid health, 5 is about reproductive health.
Mentioning overpopulation is a sure way to get downvoted here. Somehow the local crowd prefers to see the planet densely covered with salad to pack as many Homo Sapiens as possible. I am not sure why or what for...
[+] [-] windlep|4 years ago|reply
In this one and perhaps not common scenario, I think eating meat from these sources, slaughtered humanely, is reasonable. This obviously is not enough meat even for locals in my area to be having burgers daily, so a huge reduction in meat consumption is needed even if one wants to continue eating meat 'responsibly'.
This article unfortunately does not mention that grass-fed meat has different omega-3/omega-6 ratios than factory farmed, and eating smaller quantities of grass-fed meat is healthier than larger quantities of factory farmed. Not sure any meat industry person, even sustainable, is going to mention that cutting back from typical American consumption is a good thing.
[+] [-] a_bonobo|4 years ago|reply
Australia has a huge cattle industry for similar reasons, lots and lots of space, but much of the land is not suitable for crops. Cattle will survive, but not many.
Anna Creek Station in South Australia is the size of Israel (!!!), and the land can only support like 10,000 to 20,000 cattle. If you look at photos of Anna Creek Station you'll know why, it's mostly arid, almost desert-like. You can't grow any crops there.
[+] [-] frabbit|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pl-94|4 years ago|reply
Only a very small portion of earth is not able to generate a forest when left alone
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] canadianfella|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] loceng|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yesenadam|4 years ago|reply
Another point: in the sentence
>Commercial meat production got to be the monster it is because corporate interests monopolized the market and began seeing animal life as a commodity — something to be produced and traded at the lowest cost possible, at the expense of the environment, animal welfare and working conditions for farmhands.
it seemed very odd—grotesque, even—to include "working conditions for farmhands" in the 3 main costs of seeing animals as just commodities, in a purportedly enlightened article. And animal welfare seems to come a distant second to the effect on the environment—by which I think they mean, having horrible factory farms everywhere etc.
[+] [-] tpoacher|4 years ago|reply
If a medical professional made a medical suggestion based on their expertise, would you summarily dismiss it because they've got skin in the game?
Should we stop listening to vegan-positive arguments coming from vegans too?
[+] [-] readflaggedcomm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dua2020|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FuckButtons|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notriddle|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matthewmorgan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doggodaddo78|4 years ago|reply
Climate change, pandemic risks, and antibiotic resistance are the main existential risks of animal agriculture. That's why I don't eat meat: because it's immoral to put others and yourself at unnecessary risk.
It's like FF ICEs: there's no innovating our way out of something that's fundamentally irredeemable.
No one has to eat meat. It's a choice, be it laziness, willful ignorance, or selfishness.
[+] [-] nayuki|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blinkingled|4 years ago|reply
I really cannot wait to see lab grown meat or plant based meat become credible alternatives - I am not holding my breath but I am moderately optimistic for a breakthrough.
[+] [-] spaetzleesser|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Glench|4 years ago|reply
Article has the same feel as a fossil fuel company defending natural gas or something. Obviously this is a smaller farming operation than most fossil fuel companies which probably means their GHG emissions aren't huge, but still a vested interest in the status quo.
I've slowly transitioned to chicken once a week or less and no mammals at all. It's great! A lot cheaper and still lots of tasty options — plus tons of restaurants are making it increasingly easy to order vegetarian.
[+] [-] AnonC|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericffr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elevenoh|4 years ago|reply
It seems the world is waking up to this. And as such, farming is waking up to using more sustainable, health promoting methods (e.g. ditching factory farming).
The folks at beyond-meat & various institutions will tell you it's 'unhealthy', but I've never been healthier than when I'm eating mostly meat.
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theonemind|4 years ago|reply
But there are no silver bullets anywhere, so the point does not impress at all. It doesn't really detail great reasons to not make this one of the less-than-silver bullets.
[+] [-] paulcole|4 years ago|reply
Yeah it’s been a fun ride and all, but we’ve got a HUGE bill coming due over the next 2 or so generations. There’s probably nothing we can do to change that.
[+] [-] Glench|4 years ago|reply
I also hear a kind of despair and giving up in your comment (maybe you feel it's just "the truth"?) but I know that attitude can be dangerous. It's like sitting in a house on fire and saying "why bother to run? my life is already ruined and there's nothing I can do to change that."
There are lots of plans and good shots we have at limiting the effects of global warming to 1.5C provided we take collective action. My favorite effort is the one at Rewiring America[1] which gives really actionable advice for both consumers and policy makers: electrify everything (cars, heating/cooling, stoves, driers, etc) and power it all by renewable electricity. They show in a pretty straightforward way that this will actually save us all money, eliminate the most significant carbon emissions, create jobs, and give us better standards of living than we currently have with fossil fuels. It's pretty inspiring and gives me a lot of hope which is necessary in difficult times.
[1] https://www.rewiringamerica.org/
[+] [-] AnonC|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mLuby|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sproketboy|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 1270018080|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] livinginfear|4 years ago|reply
I've heard all of the "eat the bugs" rhetoric regarding addressing the protein needs of a growing third world. Why not address the issues of unsustainable overpopulation first?
[1]http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/soyiso/...
[2]http://rense.com/general3/soy.htm
[3]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428
[4]http://thyroid.about.com/cs/soyinfo/a/soy.htm
[5]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443604
[+] [-] causasui|4 years ago|reply
Moreover, the negative late-life cognitive effects ("brain shrinkage") referenced by your second source are just as likely correlated to a lack of B12 and DHA (both vital for brain health) not present naturally in soy but are easily supplemented via other plant-based sources. In fact, lots of modern tofu products are enriched with one or both. The uncontested health benefits of tofu when compared to meat far outweigh the single flimsy correlational 30-year study concluding "tofu shrinks your brain!".
Also just worth noting, you cite four references showing negative effects of isoflavones on the brain, but 4 is about thyroid health, 5 is about reproductive health.
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Glavnokoman|4 years ago|reply