Less meat is good for us and the planet - why are politicians shy to say so?

[cinematicdiversions]

The case for cutting meat consumption is so compelling that you would think politicians would be less shy about making it. Yet while campaigners warn with increasing urgency that global livestock production is accelerating climate breakdown and causing devastating damage to nature and human health, governments remain reluctant to tackle meat-eating.

Industrial livestock systems designed to extract ever greater commercial value from farmed animals have repeatedly been shown to depend on cruelty to animals and the armies of workers processing them.

Animal foods have been long promoted as superior as the source of “complete” protein, containing in one package all the amino acids we need for the body’s building blocks. Plant food that only contained some of them, or needed to be eaten in combination to obtain all of them, was seen as inferior.

Protein deficiencies are rare in developed countries and most of us, including vegetarians, eat much more than we need. Yet the cultural preferences persist.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2021/sep/30/less-meat-is-good-for-us-and-the-planet-why-are-politicians-shy-to-say-so

The full article is a good one. Honestly, it is a little pollyannnish. We have yet to eliminate slavery from our food supply (Cough Thai fishing vessels Cough).


For example, a farm in Spain might supply oranges to a distributor who then on-sells to a grocery chain in the UK and a grocery chain in Australia. The Australian and British customers may ask the distributor to complete a questionnaire. The distributor will need to ask its farmers what the status ogf their indentured workforce. – including the farm in Spain. The farm in Spain may not be able to use slaves for production that goes to those distributors.

[msongs]

1. farm lobby, meat lobby, strictly corporate sell out over any health/moral reason nt

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Well, yeah. Less meat would be good for many reasons, but the huge...

infrastructure growing and processing meat is an enormous force. Add to that the overall cultural acceptance of a meat based diet and changing things won't be easy. Or even possible.

[Bluepinky]

3. Beef industry is very powerful and "owns" the politicians in many US states.

Beef production is more devastating to produce, environmentally, than chicken or pork. The beef lobby pays off a lot of politicians, which is why you won’t hear them say that meat isn’t good for us or the planet.

[Raine]

4. Lobbyists with plenty of money to spread to politicians. 😡 nt

[MFM008]

5. i think

Beyond Meat type products are cutting into their profits a bit, as they go more mainstream.

[Sympthsical]

6. Because it's the culinary equivalent of Carter's "wear a sweater"

Of course it was a sensible, correct thing to recommend to help with the energy crisis.

But no one wanted to hear it.

Mix in that vegetarianism and veganism have seeped into the culture wars somewhat. Eh, many politicians don't want the headache. It's not politically popular to tell people to sacrifice something they enjoy.

Catholics barely manage that no meat on Fridays thing when the Pope himself told them to do it. Politicians ain't gonna make a dent.

[Champp]

7. This week: 50th anniversary of Diet for a Small Planet

The author has come out with a new edition.

The 50th-anniversary edition of the extraordinary bestselling book that taught America the social and personal significance of a new way of eating—one that remains a complete guide for eating well in the new millennium—was released September 21st.

This edition features a new introductory chapter, simple rules for a healthy diet; a streamlined, easy-to-use format; delicious food combinations of protein-rich meals without meat; hundreds of wonderful recipes, and much more

https://www.smallplanet.org/diet-for-a-small-planet