This thread is about all of the problems with all kinds of meat. Industrial meat production (characterized by overcrowding and abuse) in all countries is the problem.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
We must face facts - meat is the problem
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
'Promiscuous treatment of nature' will lead to more pandemics – scientists
'Promiscuous treatment of nature' will lead to more pandemics – scientists
Humanity’s “promiscuous treatment of nature” needs to change or there will be more deadly pandemics such as Covid-19, warn scientists who have analysed the link between viruses, wildlife and habitat destruction.
Deforestation and other forms of land conversion are driving exotic species out of their evolutionary niches and into manmade environments, where they interact and breed new strains of disease, the experts say.
'Promiscuous treatment of nature' will lead to more pandemics – scientists
Humanity’s “promiscuous treatment of nature” needs to change or there will be more deadly pandemics such as Covid-19, warn scientists who have analysed the link between viruses, wildlife and habitat destruction.
Deforestation and other forms of land conversion are driving exotic species out of their evolutionary niches and into manmade environments, where they interact and breed new strains of disease, the experts say.
Vegan diet can stop future pandemics
Environmental campaigner and author George Monbiot is leading a host of experts in urging the public to go vegan to prevent future health pandemics such as the coronavirus crisis.
Ten scientists and campaigners warned in an open letter in The Independent that factory farms and wildlife markets provide the perfect conditions for disease to thrive and transmit to humans
The letter has been signed by a host of scientific experts including Professor Andrew Knight, Director, Centre for Animal Welfare and Public Health Professional and GP Dr Josh Cullimore.
The letter too has been signed by the UK’s top barrister Michael Mansfield QC. He is joined by campaigners Elisa Allen, Director, PETA and Bella Lack, ambassador, Born Free Foundation.
Vicky Bond, Managing Director, The Humane League UK and Dominic Dyer, author and animal welfare campaigner, have backed the letter also
Environmental campaigner and author George Monbiot is leading a host of experts in urging the public to go vegan to prevent future health pandemics such as the coronavirus crisis.
Ten scientists and campaigners warned in an open letter in The Independent that factory farms and wildlife markets provide the perfect conditions for disease to thrive and transmit to humans
The letter has been signed by a host of scientific experts including Professor Andrew Knight, Director, Centre for Animal Welfare and Public Health Professional and GP Dr Josh Cullimore.
The letter too has been signed by the UK’s top barrister Michael Mansfield QC. He is joined by campaigners Elisa Allen, Director, PETA and Bella Lack, ambassador, Born Free Foundation.
Vicky Bond, Managing Director, The Humane League UK and Dominic Dyer, author and animal welfare campaigner, have backed the letter also
Meat-free future? Coronavirus exposes America's fragile food system
Meat-free future? Coronavirus exposes America's fragile food system
Americans are nearing a future where the nation’s beloved steak dinners, cheeseburgers and barbecue are under threat, if the world’s second largest meat processor is to be believed.
But for some critical observers, the crisis in America’s huge industrial meat production sector came as no real surprise. Will Harris, a cattleman at White Oak Pastures in southern Georgia, said he always knew a “trainwreck” would hit the factory farming industry.
In a country where people consume on average more meat each day than the government recommends, the Covid-19 outbreak is far from catalysing a meat-free America.
Instead, it’s exposing how fragile big meat’s supply chain is and making a case for smaller, more resilient models.
Meat-free future? Coronavirus exposes America's fragile food system
Americans are nearing a future where the nation’s beloved steak dinners, cheeseburgers and barbecue are under threat, if the world’s second largest meat processor is to be believed.
But for some critical observers, the crisis in America’s huge industrial meat production sector came as no real surprise. Will Harris, a cattleman at White Oak Pastures in southern Georgia, said he always knew a “trainwreck” would hit the factory farming industry.
In a country where people consume on average more meat each day than the government recommends, the Covid-19 outbreak is far from catalysing a meat-free America.
Instead, it’s exposing how fragile big meat’s supply chain is and making a case for smaller, more resilient models.
Appalling conditions in EU live meat export
EU's live export trade puts welfare of millions of animals at risk – report
EU's live export trade puts welfare of millions of animals at risk – report
The welfare of millions of cattle, sheep and goats exported from the EU is being put at risk by failings including heat stress, bad planning and a lack of information from the destination country, a new European commission report has found.
EU's live export trade puts welfare of millions of animals at risk – report
EU's live export trade puts welfare of millions of animals at risk – report
The welfare of millions of cattle, sheep and goats exported from the EU is being put at risk by failings including heat stress, bad planning and a lack of information from the destination country, a new European commission report has found.
It's time to dismantle factory farms and get used to eating less meat
It's time to dismantle factory farms and get used to eating less meat | Gene Baur
At the same time, the government is spending $200m per month to support the meat and dairy industries, while agribusiness lobbies for more stimulus money to return to killing as normal. Industrial animal agriculture harms people, animals and the earth, and it should not receive government bailouts. It should be dismantled and replaced. To put it bluntly: it’s time to get used to eating less, or no, meat.
It's time to dismantle factory farms and get used to eating less meat | Gene Baur
At the same time, the government is spending $200m per month to support the meat and dairy industries, while agribusiness lobbies for more stimulus money to return to killing as normal. Industrial animal agriculture harms people, animals and the earth, and it should not receive government bailouts. It should be dismantled and replaced. To put it bluntly: it’s time to get used to eating less, or no, meat.
if you bold it it must be true
Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate
if you bold it it must be true
Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate
Actually, no, the size or style of the text does not make it true.
But what we do see with your interesting, if silly, link, is that those who have had an entire profession as part of "Big Ag," will help their "cause." In the case of your author, he does so as a professor teaching those that will spend their lives in support of Big Ag, and who apparently posts an occasional BS White Paper for his industry buddies. His contribution helps deflect and distract with the goal of retaining the status quo. (You did review his CV, right?)
What you've posted here is an error-filled white paper in support of his profession . . . does anyone else see this same pattern in other industries, say, the fossil fuel boys and girls that have created some of the wealthiest companies on the planet?
Fortunately, at least some of his peers have called him out for using factually incorrect data--which, of course, was an accident, right?
When you review the facts we all hope you'll please stop clinging to the lies your parents taught you (and, frankly, all of our parents did the same), and that you'll cease posting this sort of inaccurate material here.
Thank you.
************************
First, let us begin with some accolades from the author's friends, those that profit from blowing the brains out of cows and that would really like to dismiss any environmental concerns about the slaughter of millions of animals a day:
https://www.drovers.com/article/scientist-who-debunked-livestocks-long-shadow
(Gee, do you think his papers will help him get some well-paid speaking engagements at those National Cattlemen's Association dinners too? UC Davis is a really big AG school and there is all sorts of back and forth to keep the gravy train running, planet be damned.)
Second, here's a Johns Hopkins professional analysis of his posted errors:
https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-04/frank-mitloehner-white-paper-letter.pdf
Key points [truncated]:
Dr. Mitloehner uses incomplete greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions statistics to downplay the environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
Dr. Mitloehner states that livestock production is responsible for 4.2% of U.S. GHG emissions; this calculation fails to account for several major emissions sources.
Dr. Mitloehner draws conclusions based on data that do not reflect the full life cycle of animal products, but goes on to acknowledge that Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods are the “gold standard” for accurately measuring livestock’s contributions to climate change.
Dr. Mitloehner confuses global GHG emissions with those related strictly to U.S. emissions.
Dr. Mitloehner focuses on GHG emissions and discusses resource use, without acknowledging the other ecological and public health impacts of industrial animal agriculture. He fails to account for agricultural runoff, air pollution, antimicrobial resistance, impacts to rural communities and workers, and other harms (4,5).
Dr. Mitloehner focuses on gains in efficiency per unit of livestock and fails to account for the scale of food animal production and the total environmental footprint of animal agriculture in the U.S.
We recognize that urgent and dramatic GHG emissions reductions are critical across all sectors, including transportation, energy, and agriculture; but even if emissions are dramatically reduced across non-agricultural sectors, if current trends in animal product consumption continue as projected, global mean temperature rise will more than likely exceed 2 degrees Celsius (6). Reducing agriculture’s environmental impact will require drastic cuts in meat and dairy intake, particularly among countries—like the U.S.—with the highest per capita levels of consumption. The typical U.S. citizen consumes meat, dairy, and eggs at roughly three times the global average,* to the detriment of human health and the environment (7).
Although the problem of climate change may seem beyond the ability of individuals to make a difference, adopting Meatless Mondays is an achievable way for most Americans to take a step toward reducing their environmental footprint.
As we work to reduce anthropogenic contributions to climate change, we call on all stakeholders to accurately interpret emissions estimates and employ the best available methodology to assess the environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
This statement was written by a team of researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, including Jillian Fry, PhD, MPH; Roni Neff, PhD, SM; Bob Martin; Rebecca Ramsing, MPH, RD; Claire Fitch, MSPH; Brent Kim, MHS; Erin Biehl, MSPH; and Raychel Santo.
Talking down to anyone who doesn't hold your views does you no favours, nor does attacking the author's motives. If you read up on the author, his research goals are to minimize emissions assuming livestock consumption increases. Of course "big ag" should be funding this so they can reduce emissions. 95% of his grants are from government anyway.
Anyway you've clearly missed the point. Forget ethics or health and anything else. You *boldly* stated 18% of GHG is from animal ag, and this author disproved that claim. The FAO, which is the source of the 18% claim, retracted their statement after his argument was made. So your statement is completely baseless.
The author responded to the johns hopkins claims about LCA Frank Mitloehner on Twitter. They seem to have not understood what LCA means.
I really encourage watching a talk by said prof. You might find you have more common goals than not.
I would love to watch a debate between both sides honestly. There's so much complexity to this topic.
Interesting to see the same climate denier tactics applied to try to minimize the damage of animal agriculture.
SilverString
Member
Humanity must take this chance to find a new 'normal' – and safeguard our planet
Humanity must take this chance to find a new 'normal' – and safeguard our planet
Climate risks and opportunities need to be incorporated into the financial system as well as public policymaking and infrastructure
There is a lot of talk about getting back to normal after the Covid-19 crisis is over. And yet normal – business as usual – is what has made our planet and our societies vulnerable to crises in the first place.
Normal means cutting down huge swathes of forest to plant crops. Normal means overgrazing livestock, destroying natural ecosystems at the expense of habitats for wild animals. Normal is driving climate change, which increases stress in wild species and their habitats and makes people more susceptible to zoonotic diseases (which spread from animals to humans).
Nature provides “ecosystem services” that are essential for life. Food. Water. Pollination. The very air we breathe. Ecosystem services are worth at least $125tn (£102tn) per year. This is about 1.5 times the gross domestic product of all countries, according to the WWF and Axa Report Into the Wild: integrating nature into investment strategies.
Scientists estimate that at least six out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people have spread from animals. More importantly, three out of every four new or emerging infectious diseases affecting humans come from animals. Zoonosis has its roots in elements from our current model of development, particularly in agriculture and mining, and in the way we develop roads and plan urban growth.
Humanity must take this chance to find a new 'normal' – and safeguard our planet
Climate risks and opportunities need to be incorporated into the financial system as well as public policymaking and infrastructure
There is a lot of talk about getting back to normal after the Covid-19 crisis is over. And yet normal – business as usual – is what has made our planet and our societies vulnerable to crises in the first place.
Normal means cutting down huge swathes of forest to plant crops. Normal means overgrazing livestock, destroying natural ecosystems at the expense of habitats for wild animals. Normal is driving climate change, which increases stress in wild species and their habitats and makes people more susceptible to zoonotic diseases (which spread from animals to humans).
Nature provides “ecosystem services” that are essential for life. Food. Water. Pollination. The very air we breathe. Ecosystem services are worth at least $125tn (£102tn) per year. This is about 1.5 times the gross domestic product of all countries, according to the WWF and Axa Report Into the Wild: integrating nature into investment strategies.
Scientists estimate that at least six out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people have spread from animals. More importantly, three out of every four new or emerging infectious diseases affecting humans come from animals. Zoonosis has its roots in elements from our current model of development, particularly in agriculture and mining, and in the way we develop roads and plan urban growth.
So what you are saying is your priority is to browbeat everyone else rather than take charge of your own food production.