Vegitarians, Vegans and other Blood Thirsty Hypocrites

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vegitarians, Vegans and other Blood Thirsty Hypocrites

    G'Day Fella's,

    A good mate of mine, sent me this and I thought you might enjoy the read!

    Enjoy
    Homer

    The Conversation
    Search

    * Academic rigour, journalistic flair
    * Latest ideas and research
    * From the curious to the serious

    1. Arts + Culture
    2. Business + Economy
    3. Education
    4. Environment + Energy
    5. Health + Medicine
    6. Politics + Society
    7. Science + Technology

    Follow Topics

    1. Explainer
    2. Nelson Mandela
    3. The Ashes
    4. Trans Pacific Partnership
    5. Direct Action plan
    6. Disruptive forces
    7. World Chess Championship
    8. Cities

    16 December 2011, 6.34am AEST
    Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands

    The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could…
    Author

    1.
    Mike Archer AM

    Professor, Evolution of Earth & Life Systems Research Group at University of New South Wales

    Disclosure Statement

    Mike Archer AM does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

    University of New South Wales does not contribute to the cost of running The Conversation. Find out more.

    The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, ACU, ANU, Canberra, CDU, Curtin, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, JCU, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle, QUT, Swinburne, Sydney, UniSA, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS and VU.

    *
    Lecturer in Environmental Humanities

    Faculty/Department: Arts & Social Sciences, School of Humanities Salary: A$90,126 - A$106,246 per year (plus 17% employer…

    More University of New South Wales Jobs
    Where experts find jobs
    Being vegetarian saves cows' lives, but threatens the future of other sentient creatures. nunro

    The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.

    Renowned ethicist Peter Singer says if there is a range of ways of feeding ourselves, we should choose the way that causes the least unnecessary harm to animals. Most animal rights advocates say this means we should eat plants rather than animals.

    It takes somewhere between two to ten kilos of plants, depending on the type of plants involved, to produce one kilo of animal. Given the limited amount of productive land in the world, it would seem to some to make more sense to focus our culinary attentions on plants, because we would arguably get more energy per hectare for human consumption. Theoretically this should also mean fewer sentient animals would be killed to feed the ravenous appetites of ever more humans.

    But before scratching rangelands-produced red meat off the “good to eat” list for ethical or environmental reasons, let’s test these presumptions.

    Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

    * at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein
    * more environmental damage, and
    * a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

    How is this possible?

    Agriculture to produce wheat, rice and pulses requires clear-felling native vegetation. That act alone results in the deaths of thousands of Australian animals and plants per hectare. Since Europeans arrived on this continent we have lost more than half of Australia’s unique native vegetation, mostly to increase production of monocultures of introduced species for human consumption.

    Most of Australia’s arable land is already in use. If more Australians want their nutritional needs to be met by plants, our arable land will need to be even more intensely farmed. This will require a net increase in the use of fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and other threats to biodiversity and environmental health. Or, if existing laws are changed, more native vegetation could be cleared for agriculture (an area the size of Victoria plus Tasmania would be needed to produce the additional amount of plant-based food required).

    Australian cattle eat mostly pasture, reducing their environmental impact. chris runoff

    Most cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture. This is usually rangelands, which constitute about 70% of the continent.

    Grazing occurs on primarily native ecosystems. These have and maintain far higher levels of native biodiversity than croplands. The rangelands can’t be used to produce crops, so production of meat here doesn’t limit production of plant foods. Grazing is the only way humans can get substantial nutrients from 70% of the continent.

    In some cases rangelands have been substantially altered to increase the percentage of stock-friendly plants. Grazing can also cause significant damage such as soil loss and erosion. But it doesn’t result in the native ecosystem “blitzkrieg” required to grow crops.

    This environmental damage is causing some well-known environmentalists to question their own preconceptions. British environmental advocate George Monbiot, for example, publically converted from vegan to omnivore after reading Simon Fairlie’s expose about meat’s sustainability. And environmental activist Lierre Keith documented the awesome damage to global environments involved in producing plant foods for human consumption.

    In Australia we can also meet part of our protein needs using sustainably wild-harvested kangaroo meat. Unlike introduced meat animals, they don’t damage native biodiversity. They are soft-footed, low methane-producing and have relatively low water requirements. They also produce an exceptionally healthy low-fat meat.

    In Australia 70% of the beef produced for human consumption comes from animals raised on grazing lands with very little or no grain supplements. At any time, only 2% of Australia’s national herd of cattle are eating grains in feed lots; the other 98% are raised on and feeding on grass. Two-thirds of cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture.

    To produce protein from grazing beef, cattle are killed. One death delivers (on average, across Australia’s grazing lands) a carcass of about 288 kilograms. This is approximately 68% boneless meat which, at 23% protein equals 45kg of protein per animal killed. This means 2.2 animals killed for each 100kg of useable animal protein produced.

    Producing protein from wheat means ploughing pasture land and planting it with seed. Anyone who has sat on a ploughing tractor knows the predatory birds that follow you all day are not there because they have nothing better to do. Ploughing and harvesting kill small mammals, snakes, lizards and other animals in vast numbers. In addition, millions of mice are poisoned in grain storage facilities every year.

    However, the largest and best-researched loss of sentient life is the poisoning of mice during plagues.

    With its soft feet and low water use, kangaroo is a source of less ecologically damaging meat. No Dust

    Each area of grain production in Australia has a mouse plague on average every four years, with 500-1000 mice per hectare. Poisoning kills at least 80% of the mice.

    At least 100 mice are killed per hectare per year (500/4 × 0. to grow grain. Average yields are about 1.4 tonnes of wheat/hectare; 13% of the wheat is useable protein. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef.

    Some of this grain is used to “finish” beef cattle in feed lots (some is food for dairy cattle, pigs and poultry), but it is still the case that many more sentient lives are sacrificed to produce useable protein from grains than from rangelands cattle.

    There is a further issue to consider here: the question of sentience – the capacity to feel, perceive or be conscious.

    You might not think the billions of insects and spiders killed by grain production are sentient, though they perceive and respond to the world around them. You may dismiss snakes and lizards as cold-blooded creatures incapable of sentience, though they form pair bonds and care for their young. But what about mice?

    Mice are far more sentient than we thought. They sing complex, personalised love songs to each other that get more complex over time. Singing of any kind is a rare behaviour among mammals, previously known only to occur in whales, bats and humans.

    Girl mice, like swooning human teenagers, try to get close to a skilled crooner. Now researchers are trying to determine whether song innovations are genetically programmed or or whether mice learn to vary their songs as they mature.

    “Hoping to prepare them for an ethical oversight” Nikkita Archer

    Baby mice left in the nest sing to their mothers — a kind of crying song to call them back. For every female killed by the poisons we administer, on average five to six totally dependent baby mice will, despite singing their hearts out to call their mothers back home, inevitably die of starvation, dehydration or predation.

    When cattle, kangaroos and other meat animals are harvested they are killed instantly. Mice die a slow and very painful death from poisons. From a welfare point of view, these methods are among the least acceptable modes of killing. Although joeys are sometimes killed or left to fend for themselves, only 30% of kangaroos shot are females, only some of which will have young (the industry’s code of practice says shooters should avoid shooting females with dependent young). However, many times this number of dependent baby mice are left to die when we deliberately poison their mothers by the millions.

    Replacing red meat with grain products leads to many more sentient animal deaths, far greater animal suffering and significantly more environmental degradation. Protein obtained from grazing livestock costs far fewer lives per kilogram: it is a more humane, ethical and environmentally-friendly dietary option.

    So, what does a hungry human do? Our teeth and digestive system are adapted for omnivory. But we are now challenged to think about philosophical issues. We worry about the ethics involved in killing grazing animals and wonder if there are other more humane ways of obtaining adequate nutrients.

    Relying on grains and pulses brings destruction of native ecosystems, significant threats to native species and at least 25 times more deaths of sentient animals per kilogram of food. Most of these animals sing love songs to each other, until we inhumanely mass-slaughter them.

    Former Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Michael Kirby, wrote that:

    “In our shared sentience, human beings are intimately connected with other animals. Endowed with reason and speech, we are uniquely empowered to make ethical decisions and to unite for social change on behalf of others that have no voice. Exploited animals cannot protest about their treatment or demand a better life. They are entirely at our mercy. So every decision of animal welfare, whether in Parliament or the supermarket, presents us with a profound test of moral character”.

    We now know the mice have a voice, but we haven’t been listening.

    The challenge for the ethical eater is to choose the diet that causes the least deaths and environmental damage. There would appear to be far more ethical support for an omnivorous diet that includes rangeland-grown red meat and even more support for one that includes sustainably wild-harvested kangaroo.

    Thanks to many colleagues including Rosie Cooney, Peter Ampt, Grahame Webb, Bob Beale, Gordon Grigg, John Kelly, Suzanne Hand, Greg Miles, Alex Baumber, George Wilson, Peter Banks, Michael Cermak, Barry Cohen, Dan Lunney, Ernie Lundelius Jr and anonymous referees of the Australian Zoologist paper who provided helpful critiques.
    Sign in to Favourite 384 Comments

    * Republish
    * Email
    * Tweet1388
    * Share9.2k
    * Reddit this!49

    Tags

    Animal welfare, Vegetarianism, Ethics, Kangaroos, Cows, Meat
    Related articles
    Nt88rjpq-1386300085 6 December 2013 Will your next phone be Fair Trade? 5gqfqwsr-1385681573 29 November 2013 Rare earths and our insatiable appetite for digital memory 29 November 2013 We can all get along, despite our differences Pm7vxfgq-1385445019 28 November 2013 Encryption ethics: are email providers responsible for privacy? 6hgk4fjv-1384191707 12 November 2013 Touch screens help monkeys relax
    Sign in to Favourite

    * Republish
    * Email
    * Tweet1388
    * Share9.2k
    * Reddit this!51

    Want to follow The Conversation?

    Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.
    Email address
    ✔ Spinner
    Australia au United Kingdom uk
    Help us have better conversations — donate
    Join the conversation
    384 Comments sorted by
    Oldest Newest

    Comments on this article are now closed.

    1.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Alex Holcombe

    logged in via Twitter

    These calculations all appear to be done "per kilogram of useable protein", as if the only reason we eat is to get protein. This skews the calculations to favor meat over vegetable matter like wheat.
    Anyway, the collateral damage to animals that this article describes highlights the fact that monocultural factory farming is almost never good for the environment. I am happiest when eating from my garden.
    almost 2 years ago report
    2.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Carlos Caceres

    Reader, Materials,

    Well done. Very sensible figures. So there is no free lunch for anybody in the future, not even for vegans. We need these numbers to have a proper conversation on this most important issue.
    almost 2 years ago report
    3.
    Wil B

    B.Sc, GDipAppSci, MEnvSc, Environmental Planner

    We have a few hectares, where we run sheep for our own meat. I can confirm from my own situation that there is absolutely zero chance of substitution across from meat animals to cereals or other edible plants in my area. No one does it, and it's not because of socio-economic reasons, it's due to physical constraints.
    almost 2 years ago report
    4.
    Paul Rogers

    logged in via Twitter

    Nice try, and some good points re mice and men, and spiders, (I've known a few nice arachnids), but I would like to see a published paper, peer review and a wider canvas.

    Lets include a full environmental life-cycle analysis, with an 'ethical eating' arm and let's see how it all pans out.

    Anyone done this?
    almost 2 years ago report
    5.
    Derek Bolton

    Retired s/w engineer

    Good article, but the body-count figures as given may be misleading. Converting to arable has a one-off high body count, whereas pastoral has an ongoing one. In the extreme, you could exterminate a species and amortise the count over eternity!
    This shows that population level is also important: a lost opportunity for a new individual is not completely different from the death of an existing one.

    The deal we have imposed on farmed animals is that in return for their own untimely deaths we will maintain the line of their descendants (or those of close relatives). In strict Darwinian terms that's not such a bad deal. The real downside is that it often comes at the expense of species we don't use. And it would appear from this article that that cost (in Australia at least) can be higher for veg than for meat.
    almost 2 years ago report
    6.
    Wil B

    B.Sc, GDipAppSci, MEnvSc, Environmental Planner

    I don't think that this article grapples with methane production from ruminants. Mentioning kangaroos doesn't quite cut it.

    Happily however this significant issue appears to be amenable to research.
    almost 2 years ago report
    7.
    Nick Pendergrast

    PhD Candidate in Sociology at Curtin University

    Raising the issue of other animals being killed in the production of plant-based foods is important. However, why isn't the solution focussed on reducing this problem, rather than just "giving up" and eating animal-based foods which inevitably lead to other animals being killed?

    Saying that sometimes other animals are killed in the production of plant-based foods so therefore we should eat animal-based foods which inevitably leads to the killing of other animals seems to be similar to saying that lots of people are killed in car accidents anyway, therefore it is acceptable to deliberately run over people in our car because we enjoy it.

    Why not exclude the products that directly involve the killing (and domestication, exploitation, confinement etc) of other animals, and work to improve the production of plant-based foods that do not have to inherently lead to the killing of other animals?
    almost 2 years ago report
    1.
    James Jenkin

    EFL Teacher Trainer
    In reply to Nick Pendergrast

    I agree Nick.

    'I care about sentient beings so I'll kill cows rather than marsupials' - WTF?

    If it was sincere then you'd stop eating vegetables altogether. It sounds like an excuse to me. 'Eating bacon and eggs is doing my bit for the environment' - yeah right.

    about 1 month ago report
    2.
    Ash Card

    logged in via Facebook
    In reply to James Jenkin

    Kangaroo would be I imagine. Presumably, until we reduce the harm caused to rodents etc. it would be better to eat meat if that's their angle.
    about 1 month ago report
    8.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author

    Gosh where to start ... so many errors, so little time. Let's start with land clearing.
    According to State of Environment report

    http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/145/index.html

    we have cleared about 100 million hectares since white arrival. How much do
    we crop? about 24 million. Live on in cities towns? 2 million. Add up the odds and
    sods and we find 70 million cleared to run sheep and cattle at the expense of a massive extinction cost ...

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691447…
    Read more

    Gosh where to start ... so many errors, so little time. Let's start with land clearing.
    According to State of Environment report

    http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/145/index.html

    we have cleared about 100 million hectares since white arrival. How much do
    we crop? about 24 million. Live on in cities towns? 2 million. Add up the odds and
    sods and we find 70 million cleared to run sheep and cattle at the expense of a massive extinction cost ...

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691447/

    So much for land clearing.

    Archer makes it look like cattle eat hardly any grain in Australia ... pure artifice ... just check any ABARE feed grain report, here's one, look at page 14

    http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/210141/abare-feedgrains-report.pdf

    How many tonnes of grain consumed by beef and diary cattle ... 6.4 million. How many
    consumed by us Aussie humans .. about 2 million. Quick quiz, which provides
    more protein in Australia, wheat or beef? Wheat 20g, beef 16g (per person per day, FAOstat).

    As for kangaroos? Anything is sustainable if hardly anybody does it. Kangaroos provide so little meat that it didn't even make the Australian year book last I checked. On top of which nobody likes it. They can't even sell that trifling amount locally, they can't even get rid of it in Germany with its population of 82 million and its reputation for liking stinking meat. They constantly need new markets because there isn't enough repeat business to shift the trifling amounts produced.

    And globally? How much of the world's meat is produced by pure grazing? About 8.4 percent (Livestock's Long Shadow UNFAO). Meat doesn't feed the world, it just gets in the way by diverting real food resources from people to livestock.

    How many times did Archer refer to protein? I lost count.

    Here's an IFPRI report on the causes of malnutrition in developing countries ...

    http://www.ifpri.org/publication/explaining-child-malnutrition-developing-countries-0

    Count the number of times the word protein appears. It's easy. ZERO.

    Nutritionists worked this out decades ago but the meat industry is a little slow to read the literature. People need food and clean water ... and it doesn't help having millions of cattle and sheep depositing rotavirus and cryptosporidium in water supplies in developing countries without good fencing. It makes children sick and amplifies the impacts of too little food. And when people burn cattle dung for fuel, their children get even sicker. And it doesn't help having cattle eating crop residues and lowering the productivity of the land that provides REAL food. The stuff that powers the world. And
    it isn't beef ... at just 1.4 percent of global calories its a huge player in environmental destruction, for almost no return ...

    Oh yes, and red meat still causes bowel cancer. It doesn't matter if its beef or kangaroo or pig meat. In fact, kangaroo might be even more potent because it has a higher heme iron content than beef.
    almost 2 years ago report
    1.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist
    In reply to Geoff Russell

    Geoff, you are citing figures and not understanding them at all. You don't crop 100% of cropping land annually.

    I won't address the rest of your Gish-Gallop. But I will say that red meat doesn't cause cancer, it increases your chances of cancer by 8-15%. Being overweight increases the chance of cancer by 30-35%. You are continually quoting numbers without context or understanding in your anti-meat campaign on The Conversation.
    almost 2 years ago report
    2.
    Paul Rogers

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    Tim, semantics from you about red meat and colorectal cancer I feel. Yes, cancer causes can be multi-factorial, but the epidemiology is pretty much established now that too much red meat consumption raises the risk of bowel cancer in the absence of confounders. Note the recent dietary guidelines from the NHMRC, suggesting men 'eat less red meat'.

    (Even so, a little crumb to the meat industry by suggesting young women 'eat more red meat'. What a nonsense that is -- as if young women with anywhere…
    Read more

    Tim, semantics from you about red meat and colorectal cancer I feel. Yes, cancer causes can be multi-factorial, but the epidemiology is pretty much established now that too much red meat consumption raises the risk of bowel cancer in the absence of confounders. Note the recent dietary guidelines from the NHMRC, suggesting men 'eat less red meat'.

    (Even so, a little crumb to the meat industry by suggesting young women 'eat more red meat'. What a nonsense that is -- as if young women with anywhere near a reasonable diet can't get sufficient iron, let alone haem iron from other animal foods.)

    Your next headache will be the accumulating evidence that red meat is causal (let's say contributory) for type 2 diabetes.

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;94(4):1088-96. Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB.

    "We estimated that substitutions of one serving of nuts, low-fat dairy, and whole grains per day for one serving of red meat per day were associated with a 16-35% lower risk of T2D."

    Our friends, Walter Willett et al, at the Harvard School of Public Health.
    almost 2 years ago report
    3.
    Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    It isn't me that says red meat causes bowel cancer, but the World Cancer Research Fund:

    http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/expert_report/index.php

    WCRF work rather like the IPCC in that they summarise research and publish reports once per decade. The 150+ scientists involved in the last report were very clear about what they take as evidence that one thing causes another and were quite clear that red meat and processed meat both cause bowel cancer. And yes, obesity is also listed as a cause…
    Read more

    It isn't me that says red meat causes bowel cancer, but the World Cancer Research Fund:

    http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/expert_report/index.php

    WCRF work rather like the IPCC in that they summarise research and publish reports once per decade. The 150+ scientists involved in the last report were very clear about what they take as evidence that one thing causes another and were quite clear that red meat and processed meat both cause bowel cancer. And yes, obesity is also listed as a cause not just of bowel cancer, but quite a few cancers. It's quite clear from the report that red and processed meats are bigger risk factors for bowel cancer than obesity. But for your overall cancer risk? That's more complex. I haven't done the calculations but I'm guessing obesity is a bigger risk factor because it causes more cancers. But perhaps Tim might reveal his source, if he has one (or more).

    Perhaps Tim, you can also contact WCRF and let them all know that they are mistaken and don't really understand anything about cancer and epidemiology and really should have consulted you before rushing into print and making fools of themselves.

    almost 2 years ago report
    4.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist
    In reply to Geoff Russell

    And you've only read the dot point summary rather than the entire report. Read the dietary report section with some open eyes. A lot of what I have been saying is mentioned in there. Also, while you are at it, read the "further research" section. Has an interesting point about causality and dose response being largely unknown.
    almost 2 years ago report
    5.
    Ben Heard

    Director, ThinkClimate Consulting
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    Tim... what the? It's a clear finding: causes cancer. All cancer is a matter of stochastic effect, but there is a pretty short list of foodstuffs that get the causation nod and red meat and particularly processed meat is one. This is what I mean in my comment below about longing for a meat advocate to write something decent and robust. Yet you all seem happy to dispute that which really can't be disputed.

    Oh, and as someone who has dealt with Geoff once or twice, underestimating him is a really bad idea. Just a tip.
    almost 2 years ago report
    6.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist
    In reply to Paul Rogers

    I'd invite you to actually read the full paper you cite Paul. You will actually find all sorts of problems with confounding of information (processed meats are treated as the same thing as meat, no weightings are given to increased BMI and caloric intake, etc). If you look through the data presented it takes very little to understand that the causal link is not the meat but the overall diet. The lowest quintile consumed 1000 calories less than the highest quintile, that alone will influence blood sugar enough to influence diabetes risks. Instead of treating the data as a linear correlation they actually needed to use multivariate associations to tease apart all the factors and give weightings.

    People at the diabetes forum have already discussed this paper:
    http://www.diabetesforum.com/diabetes-news/6194-here-we-go-again-red-meat-linked-type-2-a.html
    almost 2 years ago report
    7.
    Paul Rogers

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    Tim, I can see that you haven't read the diabetes paper if that's what you think. I have.

    Either way, do you think Hu and Willett and that team are going to make such a fundamental mistake, considering they are one of the best and most experienced teams of nutrition epidemiologists working in the field?

    " . . . after adjustment for age, BMI, and other lifestyle and dietary risk factors . . ."

    And I don't think that diabetes forum is worth quoting here. Frankly, it's embarrassing for you.
    almost 2 years ago report
    8.
    Paul Rogers

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    Sure, of course absolute causality and dose-response is unknown for red meat and colon cancer. That's the nature of prospective studies in this business. However, in the absence of such data, sensible policy needs to ensue.

    There are no randomised controlled trials for smoking and lung cancer, (at least I hope not!), but that does not prevent sensible public health policy. I distinctly recall the tobacco manufacturers arguing the point of lack of evidence of causality as well.
    almost 2 years ago report
    9.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist
    In reply to Ben Heard

    Ben, I'm not denying the links and the carcinogens in meat. What I'm having a shot at is the statement that eating any meat at all causes cancer. The relationship arrived at by the science is that a diet that has an imbalance and is high in red meat (high being a somewhat unknown quantity at this point) is increasing cancer rates.

    There is an important distinction there that gets lost in the anti-meat remarks.
    almost 2 years ago report
    10.
    Ben Heard

    Director, ThinkClimate Consulting
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    Mmmmm.... yeah, I guess, but I'm pretty sure I could have a shot at the statement that smoking causes lung cancer running very similar logic, but not many people seem to object to the claim.

    Don't worry too much about me Tim, I have my specialisations and this is not one of them, so I'll be backing off and watching. As a meat eater for 32 years and a vego for 6 months, these discussions interest me greatly. I'll see how you travel, but so far I have to say I'm not particularly swayed. I'm yet to see anyone shape up effectively in the meat corner, especially with Geoff in the ring, and Paul seems pretty switched on too. Frankly the last article on this (Richard England I think?) was so bad I cringed. Maybe you're the guy?
    almost 2 years ago report
    11.
    Paul Rogers

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    Continuing on, at home, Clifton (Baker Inst) reports this:

    Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011 Dec;13(6):493-8. Protein and coronary heart disease: the role of different protein sources. Clifton PM.

    "Meat protein is associated with an increase in risk of heart disease. Recent data have shown that meat protein appeared to be associated with weight gain over 6.5 years, with 1 kg of weight increase per 125 g of meat per day. In the Nurses' Health Study, diets low in red meat, containing nuts, low-fat dairy, poultry, or fish, were associated with a 13% to 30% lower risk of CHD compared with diets high in meat.

    Low-carbohydrate diets high in animal protein were associated with
    a 23% higher total mortality rate whereas low-carbohydrate diets high in vegetable protein were associated with a 20% lower total mortality rate."

    Common factor.
    almost 2 years ago report
    12.
    Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author
    In reply to Paul Rogers

    Mmmm ... dose-response ... can you get lung cancer from a single cigarette? I think the consensus among cancer experts is that if you got lung cancer from smoking then it was ALWAYS from a single cigarette. If you could only work out which one and not smoke it! Can you get bowel cancer from a single piece of red or processed meat? Anybody want to claim hormesis? If not, then the answer will be the same as for cigarettes. So much for the personal level, at a population level, the dose-response curve…
    Read more

    Mmmm ... dose-response ... can you get lung cancer from a single cigarette? I think the consensus among cancer experts is that if you got lung cancer from smoking then it was ALWAYS from a single cigarette. If you could only work out which one and not smoke it! Can you get bowel cancer from a single piece of red or processed meat? Anybody want to claim hormesis? If not, then the answer will be the same as for cigarettes. So much for the personal level, at a population level, the dose-response curve looks to my eye to kick up at 1 red meat meal per week and this is what the Cancer Council epidemiologists used to calculate the population attributable fraction of bowel cancer in Australia due to red meat a couple of years back ... these calculations were input into the WCRF process.

    Paul, Tim is fond of accusing people of not reading stuff. It's his standard response to disagreement. Quite rude really. Over on bravenewclimate, moderation would delete those parts of his post ... which would make them rather brief.

    almost 2 years ago report
    13.
    Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author
    In reply to Paul Rogers

    Full marks to Peter Clifton for going with the data ... it can't have been easy for somebody who has sold a million copies of a book telling people to eat 300g of meat protein daily to write that abstract. I'll need to get the full study. You've made my day Paul !
    almost 2 years ago report
    14.
    Paul Rogers

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Geoff Russell

    Geoff, I was thinking the same thing. Way to go Peter!

    I'll admit to only having read that abstract as well.
    almost 2 years ago report
    15.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist
    In reply to Ben Heard

    I agree, there are a lot of holes in this article's argument and meat arguments in general (pro and con). I actually asked a couple of my animal science professors from UWA to weigh in on The Conversation and write an article. Their response was that they had bigger issues to deal with, like actually doing the methane lowering research, figuring out which feeds lower methane and better rumens. Essentially they see a lot of these articles (pro and con) as tinkering with stats to support whichever conclusion you want to draw. Interesting take.

    On the lung cancer being a similar argument, yes I suppose. But we are talking magnitudes of order difference in the probabilities of cancer occurrence. We are also talking about an important nutritive source versus a recreational drug.
    almost 2 years ago report
    16.
    Ben Heard

    Director, ThinkClimate Consulting
    In reply to Tim Scanlon

    Well from me to them , they should pull their fingers out. I am a busy guy but found time to contribute a couple of weeks ago. Might it be that they are concerned that even if the methane issue could be addressed, on the sum total of issues animal agriculture still comes out as a bad idea? Just a thought.

    And no, in fact I find in everything Geoff Russell does he works up studiously from clear and transparent data into clear and transparent conclusions. His recent article on feeding 10 billion at Brave New Climate are two such good examples.
    almost 2 years ago report
    17.
    Evan Willis

    logged in via email @gmail.com
    In reply to Paul Rogers

    Paul,

    Forgive my lateness here but I wanted to point out that the Nurses Health Study data (and the follow ups data) was, as I understand it, obtained through habit based questionnaires. Even in my minimal grasp of scientific methodology this does not seem like a particularly efficacious method of discerning what is cause and what is correlation. By way of example, a quote from the study itself "[f]or both men and women, red meat intake was negatively associated with physical activity, but positively associated with BMI and smoking. In addition, a high red meat intake was associated with a high intake of total energy and a worse diabetes dietary score". These confounding variables would appear to complicate matters somewhat before we even look into the veracity, or reliability of questionnaires or the definition of what constitutes "meat" in the reporting structure of the questionnaires.

    Great discussion everyone. Pleased to have read it.
    almost 2 years ago report
    18.
    Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author
    In reply to Evan Willis

    No statistical study will sort out cause from correlation ... but you can quite effectively correct for "confounders" and such corrections (too many in my view!) are routinely made. Studies typically compare the quintile of highest (red) meat intake with the quintile of
    lowest after correcting for confounders. The most common tool is the Cox Proportional Hazards modelling. The statistical studies feed back to people working with petri dishes, rats and other "models" to try and establish mechanisms. The last step is testing with human subjects. The mechanisms of the red meat/bowel cancer link are extremely well established ... but, as with tobacco and lung cancer, there is always room for somebody to argue that causality hasn't been proven.
    almost 2 years ago report
    19.
    Paul Rogers

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Evan Willis

    Evan, you are correct to be cautious in interpreting prospective studies such as the Nurses Health Study for cause and effect relationships, even from such an experienced group as the Harvard School of Public Health team. Factors that help to confirm the relationship are multiple, independent studies and, in particular, a dose-response relationship, a tenet of toxicological assessment.

    However, the data on red meat consumption and colorectal cancer does not come from the Nurses Health Study only…
    Read more

    Evan, you are correct to be cautious in interpreting prospective studies such as the Nurses Health Study for cause and effect relationships, even from such an experienced group as the Harvard School of Public Health team. Factors that help to confirm the relationship are multiple, independent studies and, in particular, a dose-response relationship, a tenet of toxicological assessment.

    However, the data on red meat consumption and colorectal cancer does not come from the Nurses Health Study only. In the recent meta-analysis, 28 prospective studies of red meat and colorectal cancer were considered, and 21 studies (26 papers) included in the final analysis, including Asian studies. This is what they found:

    "Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk."

    "Conclusions: High intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer."

    In addition, the meta analysis by Chan et al does not seem to include the recent Japanese prospective study that found that, even in a country with low consumption, red meat seems to be related to colorectal cancer incidence.

    PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20456. Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Chan DS, et al. http://tinyurl.com/7do7rgq

    Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2011;20(4):603-12. Red meat intake may increase the risk of colon cancer in Japanese, a population with relatively low red meat consumption. Takachi R, et al.
    almost 2 years ago report
    9.
    Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author

    Let's just run a few more numbers. We export a lot of the red meat produced in
    this country. But lets make 2 huge and generous assumptions, that we keep it all here and absolutely none of it eats grain (currently as per my previous link, Australia's cattle eat almost twice as much grain as does the human population). That gives us about 3 million tonnes of grass fed red meat (beef + sheep) ... this works out to less than 550 Calories per person. So even with a vast area cleared, and many wildlife…
    Read more

    Let's just run a few more numbers. We export a lot of the red meat produced in
    this country. But lets make 2 huge and generous assumptions, that we keep it all here and absolutely none of it eats grain (currently as per my previous link, Australia's cattle eat almost twice as much grain as does the human population). That gives us about 3 million tonnes of grass fed red meat (beef + sheep) ... this works out to less than 550 Calories per person. So even with a vast area cleared, and many wildlife extinctions
    (see my previous link, and this one):

    http://150.229.72.10/nid/202/paper/RJ01014.htm

    and about 400 million hectares to graze, we would still be about 2500 Calories short of a food supply. That shows just how pitifully unproductive grazing is. We'd still need millions of hectares to grow real food. So Michael Archer and everybody else will
    be vegan for that other 2500 Calories.

    And what about the rest of the world? Brazil has followed our example and is just bulldozing and burning its forests and provides 9 million tonnes of beef (it exports
    about 2 of these) to provide its population with a stunning 153 Calories per person per day. Happily it also grows plenty of REAL food ... cereals provide about 1000 Calories.

    But it gets worse. I'm using production figures. Official advice is to cut plenty of those
    expensive calories off all theis beef before you eat it ... its called saturated fat and it causes heart disease. The amount of Calories actually consumed is rather less than these food supply figures.

    almost 2 years ago report
    1.
    Mark Robertson

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Geoff Russell

    A question, if you grow all this extra plant food in Australia, where will you get the extra water required from? Or will you be using water-efficient crops. Crop type you will be growing to feed everyone on a vegan or vegetarian diet has to be specified such that it can actually be produced within the limitations imposed by the physiology of the plants in Australia's climate. This does not include the increasing impacts of climate change.
    So basically I would be intrigued to know what are you going to grow, and can you make the numbers add up, based on the amount of water available in Australia per crop type and per climatic region. Which of course does not include factoring in the climatic variability that Australia is prone to in best of times.
    I do not know the answer to this, so would be interested if you have an answer given that you seem to be reasonable with numbers.
    almost 2 years ago report
    10.
    David Ulrich

    Tech

    What a load of Crap! First of all I am as sympathetic as anyone to the plight of mice however I have to point out that the only fields a mouse might be attracted to would be wheat or corn. Since both of those are harvested by machines which cut the stalks several inches above the ground. Any self respecting mouse would have no problem avoiding the harvester unless it is suicidal which it could be if it had to suffer through the drivel this article presents as reasons to eat cows.

    Of course the real reason to not eat cows and other animals is it is that eating them kills humans. Imagine how many lives could be saved if everyone adopted a healthy plant based diet. Diabetes, Cancer, Heart Disease, could all be dramatically reduced or eliminated.

    Not to mention the billions of rodents, insects and spiders which would be saved because marauding live stock would not be trampling them as they stomp around in their pristine rangelands.
    almost 2 years ago report
    11.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist

    I'm going to be a meat eater saying thankyou Mike.

    I'm also going to be a plant scientist in the agriculture industry saying thankyou Mike.

    We in the industry are widely aware of the reality of food production in Australia (and elsewhere). Unfortunately there is such a disconnect between agriculture and consumers that most have no understanding of the figures you have cited.

    I look forward to inevitable vegetarian backlash.
    almost 2 years ago report
    12.
    James Walker

    logged in via Facebook

    - pulled up at the description Peter Singer as 'renowned'. "Infamous" might be a better description.

    - anyone planning to try kangaroo meat for the first time, try a 1/4 mix of kangaroo 3/4 beef for stir fries, minces and so forth: the mix works well, and tastes like a very rich tasty beef as the kangaroo enhances the beef! Discovery of a friend of mine who feeds us regularly - scrummy!
    almost 2 years ago report
    13.
    Shirley Birney

    retiree

    Yes indeed where does one start?:

    1. Sheep and cattle have contaminated waterways throughout Australia including the Murray Darling Basin and the GBR

    2. In the driest inhabited country on earth, a lactating dairy cow consumes massive amounts of water. The dairy cow is impregnated every year. The sentient progeny is “waste” and sent to slaughter some 5 days after birth - around 700,000 bobby calves every year

    3. Livestock in Australia consume more antibiotics than the entire human population…
    Read more

    Yes indeed where does one start?:

    1. Sheep and cattle have contaminated waterways throughout Australia including the Murray Darling Basin and the GBR

    2. In the driest inhabited country on earth, a lactating dairy cow consumes massive amounts of water. The dairy cow is impregnated every year. The sentient progeny is “waste” and sent to slaughter some 5 days after birth - around 700,000 bobby calves every year

    3. Livestock in Australia consume more antibiotics than the entire human population

    4. In 2007 alone, intensively farmed pigs consumed 600 kilotons of wheat, 517 kilotons of barley and 71 kilotons sorghum

    5. Welfare-unfriendly gas-guzzling, polluting transport trucks carrying loads of livestock are a common sight on Australian roads with around 480 million animals transported across the country every year. Many of these journeys span thousands of kilometres, significantly adding to CO2 emissions

    6. In recent decades, some 2.7 million export livestock have been grown in Australia, compounding Australia’s ecological degradation, only to be thrown overboard from ships that pollute the environment including ports and people with lowest-grade carcinogenic bunker fuel and the carnage continues while children in poor countries are abandoned on the roadside to suffer a lingering death from starvation.

    7. Revered agricultural expert, the late Henry Schapper wrote:

    “Western Australia has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands. Whereas the land-use managers – whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold – are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least.”

    In fact I would suggest that Australia's rangelands were once in good shape before the introduction of hard-hoofed alien critters denuding the landscape and significantly contributing towards soil erosion and salinity and the loss of precious soil carbon, native vegetation, native habitats and indigenous animal extinctions.

    And who is picking up the billion dollar tab to address the critical issue of salinity that's munching its way through agricultural lands and infrastructure? The hapless taxpayer of course.
    almost 2 years ago report
    1.
    trevor prowse

    retired farmer
    In reply to Shirley Birney

    Shirley says-------
    5. Welfare-unfriendly gas-guzzling, polluting transport trucks carrying loads of livestock are a common sight on Australian roads with around 480 million animals transported across the country every year. Many of these journeys span thousands of kilometres, significantly adding to CO2 emissions
    There are only 100 million sheep in Australia so how could there be 480million being trucked around Australia. By the way , how are you going to transport all those nice vegies around without those unfriendly gas guzzling trucks
    12 months ago report
    14.
    Gideon Polya

    Sessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University

    An entertaining and provocative article by Professor Mike Archer. However some further key issues are outlined below..

    1. World Bank analysts have recently re-assessed the methane (CH4) contribution to man's global greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution on the basis that it is 72 times worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) on a 20 years time frame (as compared to 21 times worse on a 100 year time frame). On this basis they estimated that the revised annual global GHG pollution is 63.8 Gt CO2-e, 50% bigger…
    Read more

    An entertaining and provocative article by Professor Mike Archer. However some further key issues are outlined below..

    1. World Bank analysts have recently re-assessed the methane (CH4) contribution to man's global greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution on the basis that it is 72 times worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) on a 20 years time frame (as compared to 21 times worse on a 100 year time frame). On this basis they estimated that the revised annual global GHG pollution is 63.8 Gt CO2-e, 50% bigger than hitherto thought (41.8 Gt CO2-e) and that livestock contribute over 51% of the bigger figure (Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf ). Ergo, methanogenic livestock have to go.

    2. Unfortunately Dr Drew Shindell et al (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) have estimated that CH4 is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time frame when one considers atmospheric aerosol impacts (see Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009:
    Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716 ). One could then crudely estimate that our annual total GHG pollution might rise to about 74 Gt CO2-e with methanogenic livestock again contributing over 50% of the bigger figure. Ergo, methanogenic livestock have to go.

    3. The WBGU (that advises German Government on climate change) in “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” (2009) stated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade (2C) temperature rise the World can emit no more than 0.6 trillion tonnes of CO2 before reaching zero emissions in about 2050. Australia's high Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution rate means that by August 2011 it had already used up its “fair share” and is now stealing the entitlement of impoverished countries like Somalia and Bangladesh (see Gideon Polya, “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions”, Green Blog, 1 August 2011: http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-years-left-to-zero-emissions/ ). Ergo, methanogenic livestock have to go.

    4. Another approach to the dilemma for high per capita GHG polluters like Australia is the Climate Debt versus Climate Credit approach. While Australia's national debt may be relatively low its Climate Debt is a whopping $0.5 trillion (as compared to an annual GDP of about $1 trillion). Thus Thus, by way of key examples, the Net Climate Debt is $9.7 trillion (for the USA), $2.3 trillion (Germany), $2.1 trillion (UK), $0.5 trillion (Australia) and $0.5 trillion (Canada) whereas the Net Carbon Credit is $6.5 trillion (India), $2.3 trillion (China), $2.2 trillion (Bangladesh) and $0.9 trillion (Pakistan). Like Greece etc in the Current GFC, Australia has to urgently stop increasing its huge Climate Debt (see Gideon Polya, "Shocking analysis by country of Climate Debt of greenhouse gas polluters", Bellaciao: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21491 ; see also "Climate Debt, Climate Credit": https://sites.google.com/site/climatedebtclimatecredit/ ). Ergo, methanogenic livestock have to go. Eat Skippy instead.

    5. Setting aside Australian agricultural realities and the inequality of one pre-slaughter stunned 2000 kg cow versus the trauma of 20,000 equally sentient mice-like 0.1 kg mammalian creatures, consider the pain and trauma of 2 billion malnourished and hungry human beings due to the obscene First World grain for biofuel (see "Biofuel Genocide": https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/ ) and grain for meat. Thus conversion efficiency (kg grain to produce 1 kg gain in live weight): herbivorous farmed fish (e.g. carp, tilapia, catfish; less than 2), chicken (2), pork (4), and beef (7). In 2003, 37 percent of the world grain harvest, or nearly 700 million tons, used to produce animal protein. (see: Conversion efficiency (kg grain to produce 1 kg gain in live weight): herbivorous farmed fish (e.g. carp, tilapia, catfish; less than 2), chicken (2), pork (4), and beef (7). In 2003, 37 percent of the world grain harvest, or nearly 700 million tons, used to produce animal protein (see "Biofuel famine, biofuel genocide, meat & global food price crisis ": http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/05/biofuel-famine-biofuel-genocide-meat.html .Ergo, methanogenic livestock have to go.
    almost 2 years ago report
    1.
    John Nicol

    logged in via Facebook
    In reply to Gideon Polya

    Gideon,

    I would be most interested in finding out how you managed to produce a 2,000 kg Cow! I know that the livestock industry in Australia is one of our most efficient industries and that we surpass most of the world in this area - but I did not know that there would be commonly produced animals weighing more than three times what most heavy animals are when slaughtered.

    I would also recommend that you go through the details of my post explaining why the methane fro our livestock cannot cause increases in our Green House Gas emissions in soite of all the political fervour for removing red meat from our diet. If you could show me your calculations of the same process we could compare our numbers perhaps which would be a useful exercise. I would be interested to know where I have gone wrong in my calculation. Geoff Russel might offer to give you a hand as he seems to feel that I have made a mistake. Cheers, John Nicol
    almost 2 years ago report
    2.
    Mark Robertson

    logged in via Twitter
    In reply to Gideon Polya

    There was soem recent research on the microbes present in Tammar Wallabies which might have potential to solve the methane production problem. The microbes, Succinivibrionaceae bacteria, found seem to be responsible for lack of methane production in the Tammar Wallaby compared to ruminants. It's dramatically less.

    Obviously, the next step would be to see if inoculation of ruminants by this bacteria could be successful (no guarentee, they may not be adapted to the rumen and could just go extinct within the rumen; or they may detract from the animals quality of life, or cause disease in a non-adapted animal - all things are unknown in this regard ) and contribute to a dramatic reduction in methane production by ruminants across the world.

    Pope-et al. (2011) "Isolation of Succinivibrionaceae Implicated in Low Methane Emissions from Tammar Wallabies" Science 29 July 2011:
    Vol. 333 no. 6042 pp. 646-648
    almost 2 years ago report
    15.
    Ben Heard

    Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

    I don't know... every one of these "meat isn't that bad" articles I read seems to be so shoddy and full of weird assertions, it persuades me ever further of the merits of my very recent change to largely vegetarian diet. As a former meat eater and non-ethical vegetarian (which is to say ethics of animal products was not my driver) am I really supposed to give a damn about some plague mice in a whole world of suffering? Mice who will soon starve en mass as their little Malthusian cycle reaches it's inevitable conclusion once again? That is the weirdest attempt at reverse guilt I have ever heard. Then, as usual, Geoff Russell drives trucks through the holes in the argument pertaining to some very basic matters.

    Seriously, could a meat supporter please just write something robust to make my decision a little harder?
    almost 2 years ago report
    1.

    This is a highly recommended comment.
    Ian Colditz

    Research Scientist in Livestock Health and Welfare at CSIRO
    In reply to Ben Heard

    Phew, I hope that gets me off the hook then for my article https://theconversation.edu.au/what-is-the-value-of-an-animals-life-4412. My intent in the article was 2 fold: to attempt to create a broader conceptual framework for appraising the important questions on the quality of life addressed by John Hadley in this forum https://theconversation.edu.au/what-a-pain-the-ethics-of-killing-animals-humanely-1751 and, second to explore some of the potential consequences a change to current ethical positions…
    Read more

    Phew, I hope that gets me off the hook then for my article https://theconversation.edu.au/what-is-the-value-of-an-animals-life-4412. My intent in the article was 2 fold: to attempt to create a broader conceptual framework for appraising the important questions on the quality of life addressed by John Hadley in this forum https://theconversation.edu.au/what-a-pain-the-ethics-of-killing-animals-humanely-1751 and, second to explore some of the potential consequences a change to current ethical positions on animals might have. I trust my words were not interpreted as an argument for any particle position on the ethical question of eating meat, as they were not intended to do so. My position in the article would probably be considered within the discipline of ethics to have focused on consequentialism while Hadley’s I suspect would be characterized more as a deontological one. It would be great to hear a professional ethicist, say from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (http://www.cappe.edu.au/index.htm) or similar institute, if they haven’t already done so, comment on conceptual and work-a-day frameworks one can use for approaching ethical questions like this. Current commentary in The Conversation tends to focus more on technical information that might, or might not, help inform one’s ethical appraisal rather than on describing a robust intellectual approach to handling and integrating the information when making ethical choices. Presumably, the approach to ethic questions need not be issue-specific.

    For a lot of people the ethics of food is a non-issue. To the extent that it matters to them it is understood to operate within a legal and regulatory framework that achieves a similar level of compliance for production and sale of food as for most other human activities undertaken under legal and regulatory frameworks. As such, it deserves continual or at least regular monitoring and revision, and if that is going on, then matters are taken care of. In the language of ethics this probably aligns with the position called pragmatic ethics. For the consumer, the really important dimension of the food marketplace is that in addition to providing food that meets regulatory standards, there is a smorgasbord of products available to meet niche ethical aspirations of individual consumer groups: organic, biodynamic, slow grown, Halal, Schecita, GM free, wild caught, low food miles, farmer delivered, free range, heritage variety, Australian grown, no added hormones, fresh and so on. This “ethical smorgasbord” caters to the diverse ethical standards and aspirations of our multi-cultural society.

    There are probably 7 or so major domains of ethical concern about the food we eat, and other products we purchase. These relate to the ethics of:
    Capital (and business practices)
    Labour practices
    Environmental practices
    Animal Welfare practices
    Religious practices
    Genetic practices
    Organic agriculture (plus other practices)

    I’ve chosen these particular words to characterize the domains, as the first letters of the words provide the acronym CLEAR GO. This could be used in a voluntary food labeling system, say a daisy with white or green petals, to signify (green petal) when a product makes substantiatable claims that it exceeds minimum regulatory requirements in that particular domain. This system need not preclude the possibility for other (e.g. current) label claims but could provide a uniform flagging system to advise the consumer that, if they wish to pursue more information on the matter, the manufacturer or producer can provide that information, for instance through a smart phone app for scanning the product bar code or through a web site. Nutritional claims are not included in this schema.

    No central regulatory authority could manage a scheme like this, as the scope and diversity of ethical claims is immense. But ethical claims are currently managed through self-auditing organizations, so nothing need change in this respect.

    Some colleagues called this idea a brain spasm, and they were probably right.

  • #2
    Vegetarian - An old Indian word meaning lousy Hunter. :lol:

    Mick.

    Comment


    • fishphillott
      fishphillott commented
      Editing a comment
      Is anyone surprised?

    • Guest's Avatar
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Thank you Homer. Thats the first book I have read all year.

      Regards

      Doc

    • Guest's Avatar
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Lol I've heard that before and its pretty appropriate.

  • #3
    My old man used own a popular bakery/pie shop/cafe in Nimbin
    Every day the local feral unwashed Tafe students layabout worldchangers would come over and buy up all his delicious vegetable pasties.
    Because they loved the fact they could buy "vegan" takeaway
    He never bothered to tell the card-carrying treehugging vegans that the pasties were 25% mutton and the pastry was made with Lard (pigfat)
    [ul][li]Member:- SFP, SUQ, SSAA [/li]
    [li]Rimfire:- Savage MK II, FN 1926 , Liege 22Long, Win '04 , Lithgow 1B[/li]
    [li]Centrefire: - Mossberg 30-06 Sprg,270 win,Marlin 22-250[/li]
    [li]Handgun:- Ruger .357[/li]
    [li]Wishlist:- .22 Charger, 338WM[/li][/ul]

    Comment


    • #4
      Mate, I got about a quarter of the way through before I noticed how far there was to go. I'm gunna wait for the dvd to come out.

      Comment


      • Guest's Avatar
        Guest commented
        Editing a comment
        G'Day Fella's,

        You only need to read the initial part, the rest of it is all the Blood Thirsty Vegans, trying to justify what they do!

        I'll also try and locate the report who's findings show most Vegans have a history of eating disorders, and that Veganism was just the latest!!!

        Merry Christmas
        Homer

    • #5
      Simple rule: Every day, you've got to have some dead animal...
      Member of the Aunty Jack Firearm Appreciation Society - "Now be a good little Aussie and learn how to shoot or I'll rip your bloody arms off......and I will too!"

      "Have you tried unloading it then reloading it?" - Roy Trenneman on fixing firearm problems

      Comment


      • #6
        Does this actually belong in the hunting section?

        Comment


        • AUSSIE
          AUSSIE commented
          Editing a comment
          Self appointed intellectual elitists farting out their mouths as usual!

      • #7
        In the future MAN will have to survive mainly on a plant based diet because the cost of growing animal protein will become a lot more expensive than it is today!

        The other main aspect is that animal protein based diets are the main contributors to our our modern "diseases of affluence" (DOA),

        There are a lot of uninformed smarty pants comments here, but if you do some research it is easy to see why animal based diets are the major contributors to breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer - whch are our modern diseases of affluence.

        Diseases we get because we can afford to eat animal products every day!

        In rural communities in Asia, where animal based diets are rare; so to are the above noted chronic illnesses. And yet when we transplant that rural person into our modern western society, they soon develop DOA within the same generation.

        How stupid are we? We drink the milk of another species and in so doing we are the anly animal using milk after we are weaned off our mother's breast!
        Cow's milk is designed for baby cows! Not for humans! Remove milk (yecch!) from the diet of children and we will also remove a very high percentage of childrens' ilnesses! All men especially should remove milk from their diets because it plays havoc with our hormones and contributes to prostate cancer! With women the same applies as it reported that contributes to breast and ovarian cancers.

        When you contract a chronic illness you will understand better the value of removing ALL animal products from your diet!

        Milk from cows, unfertilised offspring from chickens etc! There really are better ways to get fats and protein than from the bodies of chemically laden animals!!



        PS Homer your comments re destruction of habital are juvenile and uninformed!
        "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived."
        Captain Jean-Luc Picard

        Comment


        • Guest's Avatar
          Guest commented
          Editing a comment
          Originally posted by 1960Python" post=40112
          In the future MAN will have to survive mainly on a plant based diet because the cost of growing animal protein will become a lot more expensive than it is today!

          The other main aspect is that animal protein based diets are the main contributors to our our modern "diseases of affluence" (DOA),

          There are a lot of uninformed smarty pants comments here, but if you do some research it is easy to see why animal based diets are the major contributors to breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer - whch are our modern diseases of affluence.

          Diseases we get because we can afford to eat animal products every day!

          In rural communities in Asia, where animal based diets are rare; so to are the above noted chronic illnesses. And yet when we transplant that rural person into our modern western society, they soon develop DOA within the same generation.

          How stupid are we? We drink the milk of another species and in so doing we are the anly animal using milk after we are weaned off our mother's breast!
          Cow's milk is designed for baby cows! Not for humans! Remove milk (yecch!) from the diet of children and we will also remove a very high percentage of childrens' ilnesses! All men especially should remove milk from their diets because it plays havoc with our hormones and contributes to prostate cancer! With women the same applies as it reported that contributes to breast and ovarian cancers.

          When you contract a chronic illness you will understand better the value of removing ALL animal products from your diet!

          Milk from cows, unfertilised offspring from chickens etc! There really are better ways to get fats and protein than from the bodies of chemically laden animals!!



          PS Homer your comments re destruction of habital are juvenile and uninformed!
          If you aren't trolling you obviously have a very poor education if you think eating any amount of animal product is harmful. Just because excessive consumption of things like red meat is harmful doesn't mean it is harmful in any amount.

          Milk can be detrimental, so can wheat and it is a plant, the idea that all animal products are harmful in any amount is moronic.

          Animals are always going to be part of the human diet and that will continue into the future, although for many the animals may be insects and other more efficiently produced animals.
      Working...
      X