Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumDutch Government Tells Residents To Cut Down On ‘High-Carbon’ Meat Consumption
From Think Progress:
"...The Centre released its recommendations after nearly five years of studying the health and ecological impacts of an average Dutch diet. The new guidelines recommend that a person should consume no more than 500 grams (or a little over a pound) of meat per week. Of that, no more than 300 grams should be red meat, or what the Centre calls high-carbon. Instead, the guidelines recommend that people incorporate other sources of protein into their diets, from things like nuts or pulses...
"...Earlier this year, the United States briefly considered including sustainability in the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services updated dietary guidelines. During the early stages of creating the updated guidelines, the the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee a group of scientists responsible for coming up with recommendations for the guidelines suggested that sustainability might be an important addition.
"A diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet, the advisory committee wrote in its report. Current evidence shows that the average U.S. diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and energy use, compared to the above dietary patterns.
"...But when the guidelines were finally released in October of last year, sustainability did not make the cut. Environmental and food sustainability experts were quick to point a finger at the political power of the food lobby, which they argue had an outsized influence on the crafting of the guidelines..."
More at link:
daleanime
(17,796 posts)femmedem
(8,201 posts)I think most people
a) don't understand the link between diet and carbon footprint and
b) are looking for ways to reduce their own carbon footprint.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)within 5 miles of a hog farm knows only too well.
Personal steps are easy, we need to make systematic changes. No easy way forward, but is failure really an option?
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)A far more effective solution to our environmental problems is population stabilization.
I'm not condemning any attempts to help alleviate our situation. However, one problem is static, while the other is dynamic. Having fewer children is far far more effective than altering meat consumption, or any other static kind of behavior. If meat got up from the plate and produced more meat, then it would be different.
I've noticed over the years that posts like this one get less and less vitriol. We might be making progress.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)would be a good step.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)It's all how it's done, and no one wants to hint at culling the population, and so forth.
But reducing income inequality and increased health care access would go a huge way towards reducing the population.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Democracy Now did a bit on the US meat guidelines.... big Ag is a huge problem.