The breathtaking effect of cutting back on meat : Kathy Freston

[Mari333]

If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save:

● 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months;

● 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year;

● 70 million gallons of gas--enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare;

● 3 million acres of land, an area more than twice the size of Delaware;

● 33 tons of antibiotics.

If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would prevent:

● Greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.2 million tons of CO2, as much as produced by all of France;

● 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages;

● 4.5 million tons of animal excrement;

● Almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions, a major air pollutant.








http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/the-breathtaking-effects_b_181716.html

:popcorn:

[ensho]

1. yes

nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. What A Crock Of Shit. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

[Hun Joro]

115. Wow, you add so much to any discussion.....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

178. It's So Obvious WHY It's A Crock Of Shit.

If you can't see it, then I honestly feel for you LOL.

[devilgrrl]

147. Oh stop it!

:spank:

[omega minimo]

166. Deleted Sub-Thread

[sarcasmo]

220. Thank GOD, for the bailout.

[mistertrickster]

222. You're right. People have to eat something. Nobody burns petrol

harvesting, milling, and transporting wheat and flour?

The ovens to bake the bread require no fuel?

People need to eat and that means an impact on the environment, no matter how they do it.

[uppityperson]

225. Seems they are talking factory farming and transporting food around.

Neither of which deals with not eating meat for a day. I really hate it when they get their arguments confused like this.

[omega minimo]

232. If those items are used or result from meat production for one day's worth of product

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. So would all the beef cattle and pigs and chickens and so on just disappear?

No. FAIL!

[petronius]

14. I don't think these are daily total amounts (the water use # appears to

be far lower than actual daily livestock withdrawals, for example). It looks like she's assuming that livestock production would decrease by an amount equivalent to one day's consumption, which would only happen if people permanently reduced their annual intake.

It's the fundamental problem with feel-good ideas like a vegetarian day or a lights-out period or a no-gas day - you can come up with these huge numbers and convince yourself that there's been an effect, but usually you've just shifted consumption to another day or not used something that's already been produced...

[robinlynne]

183. plus we would use the water for the extra veggies we would need to feed ourselves.....

[yewberry]

184. Nope, because it wouldn't be needed to grow the feed

for all those cattle.

[omega minimo]

233. All or Nothing wins again!!1

:bounce:

[nichomachus]

29. Sheesh -- don't take it so literally

This is simply an illustration. I don't think the writer seriously believes that, but it's an illustration of the effects of eating meat on the planet. I think it makes a good point.

It's like the time when Bono was at a concert in Ireland and he was on stage clapping his hands. He said to the audience, "Every time I clap my hands, a child dies in Darfur." Someone in the crowd yelled, "Well, then, stop clapping your fucking hands."

[redqueen]

167. Gotta love the sense of humor in the audience there.

[omega minimo]

234. "it's an illustration of the effects of eating meat on the planet."

so odd that that has to even be explained.

Great Bono story :spray:

[NeedleCast]

4. Oy, this is so disingenuous

It assumes that if everyone went vegetarian in the US for just one day that all the livestock not consumed that day would "poof" out of existance. That's not how it works.

[Goblinmonger]

69. I think the point is to show

the impact of eating meat.

[NeedleCast]

137. But that's not what it does

Instead, it uses a hyprbolic and basically false argument to make it's point.

That's a poor way to show your point. I can make the argument that by killing all human or all animals we can reduce meat consumption to zero. That doesn't make ia good argument, even if it's true.

[Hawkowl]

129. Duh.

It is for illustrative purposes. If everyone gave up livestock eating forever, than multiply the gains by 365 for yearly savings (eventually yes, the livestock would go "poof" as you technically described).

There is nothing disingenuous IF you know how to read and THINK. Sadly, over the past year, It has become obvious that many DU'ers can do neither, certainly not simultaneously, and only occasionally convey intelligent comments via the written word.

[Systematic Chaos]

5. Bravo!

Boca Burgers f0r t3h w1n!!!

:applause:

[frazzled]

6. How do the animals hold their excrement for a day?

Fill me in on this one: how we save 4.5 million tons of animal excrement if we don't eat meat for a day. I'm stumped.

[bulloney]

8. Seems to me if you'd eat the animals ASAP, it's that much less poopin' they do.

[EOTE]

17. So are you saying this article is an endorsement of veal?

Awesome. The cafeteria downstairs makes a fantastic veal parm.

[patrick t. cakes]

212. less demand less supply.

pretty simple

[NV Whino]

7. So for one day

the cattle, sheep and hogs stop eating, drinking and defecating. Have I got that right?

[bunnies]

9. People will never give up their farmed meat.

:puke: You're brave for posting this.

[Mari333]

10. ....

'Globally, we feed 756 million tons of grain to farmed animals. As Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer notes in his new book, if we fed that grain to the 1.4 billion people who are living in abject poverty, each of them would be provided more than half a ton of grain, or about 3 pounds of grain/day--that's twice the grain they would need to survive. And that doesn't even include the 225 million tons of soy that are produced every year, almost all of which is fed to farmed animals. He writes, "The world is not running out of food. The problem is that we--the relatively affluent--have found a way to consume four or five times as much food as would be possible, if we were to eat the crops we grow directly."

[NeedleCast]

11. This has what to do with the emotional resonpse the OP is intended to produce?

"If we'd all just go vegetarian for one day..."

I'm not arguing that what you've said here is correct, but it has nothing to do with the OP.

[Mari333]

13. hey I just post the stories

just posted another little excerpt from it.
:) emotional responses on DU? say it isnt so...:)

[NeedleCast]

15. But the story is BS

Because none of those things would happen if "everyone in the US went vegetarian for just one day." It discredits the rest of the argument.

[Blue-Jay]

39. nevermind

[MineralMan]

20. Do you think you do a good service by posting nonsense?

Lots of people post lots of things. For example, there are all those stories about President Obama not being a natural born citizen. Would you post those? How about a few stories about the Bilderburgers or the Global Zionist Conspiracy? You could post those all day long.

Maybe some UFO stories? There are tons of them. Why not post those, too.

Why are you posting this nonsense? Think about what was written. Just a few seconds of thinking would demonstrate the absurdity of this piece of writing.

You can post tons of garbage that is information-free. What good will it do in putting forward whatever thing you wish to support?

Post the truth. That works. Post something about the benefits of a vegetarian diet, supported by research, and link to the original research.

Don't post crap that's untrue.

[Mari333]

22. Ill check with you the next time I find an article on Huffpo

before I post. to make sure Im allowed.
I have no opinion on the article either way.

[MineralMan]

30. For pete's sake! Not everything posted on Huffington Post

is of value. You have no opinion on the article? Then why bother to post it at all?

Are you worried about not supplying your quota of bandwidth consumption for the day?

This article was nonsense. Posting it has no affect except to promulgate nonsense. Is that a worthwhile goal?

Again, why do you not post any of the many stories about Obama not being a citizen? That's out there on the internet? You do not post those because they are nonsense.

Think, then post.

Disclaimer: I am not a moderator here, nor do I have any control over what is or is not posted on DU.

[Mari333]

32. thank you for your concerns.

:popcorn:

[MineralMan]

35. I've noted your concern, as well, and offer my thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. These people can not read

The point is if everyone did one meatless day a week, the stated changes would occur. Those who are reading it as 'everyone stopped eating meat for one day out of all days' are being either obstinate or perhaps they just can not read.
As a proud omnivour, I applaude the article for talking about cutting back, where most veg activists are focused on the notion that everyone eat as they do, everywhere, and always.
A meatless day a week is easy and has gret impact.

[omega minimo]

65. The connection is in the OP

"1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year;"

[paulsby]

12. except that's a stupid argument

because as anybody who knows and studies famine and forced starvation throughout the world, the problem is NOT lack of food.

the problem is warlords, corrupt govt.s, warring tribes, etc. that purposefully deny the distribution of food.

there is not even CLOSE to a shortage of food. the issue is distribution.

fwiw, in the US, we to some extent, pay farmers NOT to grow food. for price stabilization, etc.

[VenusRising]

55. Your post made me think of the late great Phil Hartman.

His SNL skit as Clinton in the McDonald's talking about food being intercepted by warlords while he eats off everyone's tray. :rofl:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4169/saturday-night-live-clinton-at-mcdonalds

[MineralMan]

16. A complete crock! If everyone went vegetarian for one day,

it would have no effect whatsoever on any of those things. The livestock would still poop and pee and eat.

There's nothing wrong with vegetarianism. Nothing at all. It's a healthy lifestyle choice that many make.

There is much wrong with promulgating nonsense as information, though. That's especially true in this case, where all the information is incorrect. Is that a good way to sell the idea of vegetarianism? I think not.

Try again. This effort was a FAIL.

[TexasObserver]

138. If everyone lit just one little candle, what a bright world this would be.

Of course, the carbon emissions would be terrible, but that one little candle would change the world!

No? It wouldn't?

[yewberry]

18. Simple reconstruction: "If everyone were vegetarian, every day,"

The construction as it is is silly and leaves the option of ignoring the damage caused by our current industrial meat production system in favor of pointing out the basic flaw in the argument or just rofl-ing.

This just encourages the usual suspects to knee-jerk.

[bunnies]

19. Win! nt

[omega minimo]

66. The question is why the knee jerk reaction to simple concepts.

The mentality you're describing -- is that a result of "Teach to the Test" education, where folks reject anything they've never heard of before?

And why haven't they heard of this, since the research has been ongoing for decades?

It's more important to "pointing out the basic flaw in the argument or just rofl-ing" than to comprehend basic info, in order to have the "the option of ignoring the damage caused by our current industrial meat production system"


How twisted and lame is that? :wow:

Thank you for splaining it so clearly.

[yewberry]

101. I think it's a basic emotional reaction.

The damage caused by the standard American diet and our meat production system is pretty well-documented. Plain and simple, but there are lots of people who reject that reality. Even when good studies are presented objectively, some folks will ignore facts and respond with ad hominems ("You peta people aren't fooling anyone with this crap") or silliness ("In honor of this study, I'm going to have two burgers for dinner tonight!!1!").

I think the rejection is based on a need to protect their conception of Self. People, especially progressive people, want to believe that they are making good choices for everyone. No one wants to believe that he or she is contributing to a massive problem with their daily choices--it's so much easier to glibly reject the notion out of hand.

[omega minimo]

112. well you survived the Reagan years

well enough to articulate that very clearly and bravely. It's an indictment, not of the people affected by the brainwashing/propaganda/mindfu**ing of the past three decades, but of the Powers That Be that created such a toxic and insane climate.

What you're describing is getting people to twist in the wind, voluntarily.

And yes, to define and protect that fragile sense of self bombarded on all sides by BS.

How to sort it out? Easy!!

A blanket response for EVERYTHING!!




You've hit on a key point too.


"No one wants to believe that he or she is contributing to a massive problem with their daily choices--it's so much easier to glibly reject the notion out of hand."




That's what I have questioned as the All or Nothing thing, that hobbles people from doing something/anything and seeing the power in that. That seems like fear, like being fooled into fearing it has to be "massive" or nothing at all.

Thank you. :hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

216. The information in the OP is threatening to some people

and thus the over-reaction. It is understandable. Stupid, but understandable.

[WilliamPitt]

21. And a lot of thirsty, hungry animals, too.

Sounds kinda cruel.

[MineralMan]

26. STOP CRUELTY TO ANIMALS! KILL THEM ALL!

Remove the temptation.

[Warren Stupidity]

217. You could eat your pony.

Or you could like totally miss the point. It really is all up to you.

[Froward69]

23. And I could have two porterhouse steaks in one day!!

truth is "If everyone went vegan for one day" the animals are still on the farm and going to the slaughterhouse... So the totals you quote would only occur if everyone went vegan permanently.

besides I prefer Buffalo meat. it is far healthier for you than beef. 150 years ago there were TWICE as many Bison roaming the midwest as there are cattle today.

so much for those "Prevention" measures.

BTW that rat feces in my Hot-dog flavor it anyway. MMMM yummy.

[cobalt1999]

24. What if people stopped giving birth for one day instead?

What is the environmental impact of 350,000 humans born each day? I bet it's a lot more than one day's impact of farm animals.

[geegollygosh]

41. but it's a lot more logistically difficult.

[Marrah_G]

25. I respect your food choices.

I don't and won't share them, nor do I buy into what I consider propaganda, but I respect your right to eat in a way that falls in line with your belief system.

I would never ask you to eat animal products and if you were to come to my home I would make sure the menu fit your diet. Also if I came to your home I would have no problem enjoying whatever vegan dishes you had prepared.

[geegollygosh]

27. Yes, the original arguement is flawed, but the point remains...

That meat is not environmentally friendly.

I eat meat. But only a few times a week. It's not really about everyone becoming vegetarian, it's about realizing that your food choices have a very real environmental impact.

[cobalt1999]

31. The point really shows there are too many people on the planet

7 Billion people are not environmentally friendly.

We've been eating meat for 1000's of years. The only factor that has changed is how many humans are now on the planet.

[geegollygosh]

33. True, but unless a significant number of people are willing to remove themselves from the planet...

we need to adapt to our current situation as best we can. Which means eating less meat than our ancestors did.

Reducing population growth is also a priority.

[cobalt1999]

62. Willing or not; it's going to happen and soon.

Reducing population isn't ALSO a priority, it is the MAIN priority.

[geegollygosh]

64. Feel free to be the first "willing" then. As for me, I'm going to adjust my living habits...

so that some of those "not willing" don't have to suffer because I wanted to eat meat with every meal.

[cobalt1999]

78. That's your choice to make.

I make mine.

Just pointing out the elephant in the room. It's not meat, it's population that's the real problem. Most people don't like to discuss that as your responses indicate. So be it.

[ContinentalOp]

192. Wrong. It's not population, it's consumption.

There are plenty of resources on Earth to sustain our population. We just use those resources poorly. But it's a lot easier to advocate population control and eugenics than cut back on your beloved Big Macs huh?

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. Actually, that would be eating less meat than our grandparents did.

Before about 4 generations back people only ate a fraction of the meat we do today. Very few people sat down to eat a 16oz steak - they diced that pound of beef into stew and ate it for a week.

[geegollygosh]

142. Fair enough, but I think grandparents and great gparents count as ancestors, also

That was who I was referring to, anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. Fair enough - being an archeology enthusiast when I think of ancestors

I tend to think a LOT further back. And I get uncomfortable thinking of people who still have living relatives who remember them, i.e., my mother's grandfather, as being 'ancestors' - that's just 'family'.

[geegollygosh]

200. Yeah, you're right. It was the wrong word to use.

[RaleighNCDUer]

203. Not necessarily wrong - just open to misunderstanding.

:toast:

To our ancestors - and their descendants.

[bigwillq]

176. Great post.

I agree with you 100 percent. :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

67. well put.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

179. Yes, The OP Argument Is Tragically Flawed. But So Is Yours.

Eating meat is not only fine, but also a quite natural thing for humans to do. We are genetically engineered for eating meat and meat is a requirement of our diet. Eating meat is perfectly acceptable and your environmental theory is tragically flawed.

See, it's not meat eating that's the problem. It's over population that's the problem.

[yewberry]

185. ^...blithely ignoring the fact that per capita consumption is going up...

Your opinions re: eating meat aside, you're missing the fact that meat production and consumption are both on the rise globally.

Given that reality and the reality of our numbers, how can we not support the idea of making small changes like not eating meat one day a week? And what's your action plan for your theory (points deducted for Swift derivatives)?

[omega minimo]

186. we aren't "genetically engineered for eating meat" Large Carnivore digestive tracts are much shorter

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

190. Yes, We Are.

Try and learn the difference between herbivores and omnivores sometime. Oh, and while you're at it, tell me how humans, if in a day not as technologically advanced as we are now, would get all the sufficient vitamins they needed from plants alone. Ohhhhh, they can't?

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

191. Deleted Sub-Thread

no one said "plants alone"

[ContinentalOp]

193. Meat is not a requirement of our diet. Are you really that misinformed?

And anyone who harps on and on about "overpopulation" (i.e. an advocate of population control and eugenics) while ignoring our gross overconsumption is the worst kind of anti-environmentalist crackpot. I mean hell, if we killed off half of the world's population we could all drive Hummers as well without worrying about air pollution or gas prices.

[geegollygosh]

199. I wasn't arguing that it is unhealthy or unnatural for humans to eat meat...

I think it's totally natural, although not necessary. We're omnivores. We can eat pretty much anything organic, and historically we have.

I said that it is environmentally unsustainable because we do have an overpopulation problem on this planet. Our population levels are already too high to support our current lifestyles. It's a two part solution-- you work for a long term solution (reducing global population growth), but you also realize that it's already a problem and not one that's ever going away, unless you're advocating for letting everyone in developing nations starve.

In light of that, we need to make adjustments for this new situation. Which at present, means curbing the amount of meat we consume. Overpopulation is a problem, and it has made eating meat a problem. Refusing not to adapt to new conditions is never a good idea.

[Believing Is Art]

211. Here here,

I gave up meat a long time ago but when people talk to me about it, I never advocate going totally vegetarian. I've seen a lot of people try. They give up in a week or so and go back to their old meat-every-meal habits.

It's pointless to argue "If everyone went vegetarian for a day," but there would be an argument for "If everyone went vegetarian for one day a week, every week." No one likes to talk about the impact of the livestock industry because the love of meat knows no party bounds.

edit for spelling

[uppityperson]

226. Meat is fine. Factory farming is not.

The meat production system and other factory farming systems are the problem. Raise your food locally, on a small scale, both meat and veg, and this would have a very real environmental impact

[JDPriestly]

28. Cows would die out like the buffalo. I'd miss the cows.

Horses haven't completely died out because they are beautiful and can be ridden. But what in the world would happen to cows?

Besides, while many of us have cut back on meat in recent years, there are a lot of us for whom meat is a necessary part of the diet. I tried eating a vegetarian diet and, much as I love vegetables, I soon became tired all the time.

Also, vegetarians and vegans can easily develop a serious shortage of certain components of the vitamin B complex. The consequences are really bad. Vegetarianism for everyone will not work. It is unhealthy for many.

[RebelOne]

34. The buffaloes did not die out.

They were killed off by white settlers and hunters.

[cobalt1999]

44. I think his point is that the people saw no value in them, thus the buffalos were killed

Cows have no real value beyond the meat and milk they provide, so they'd be killed/die off too.

[geegollygosh]

45. The ancestors of domesticated cattle were never native to the Americas anyway

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Bos_taurus.html

[uppityperson]

227. Buffalo were killed BECAUSE of their value.

Kill the buffalo, remove the food source of the local people and voila! You can put in the railroad and take over the land!

[bunnies]

36. Since you care so much about cows -

I'm sure you dont buy your meat from the cruel meat industry, right? You go out of your way to get meat from non-tortured cows as anyone who cares about them would...

And vegetarians and vegans need not ever lack *any* nutrient when on the proper diet. Seriously.

[RaleighNCDUer]

121. Really.

How many of those nutrients have to be imported from overseas, because they are not available to this climate? If this bean that provides this vitamin, replacing what you could get from meat, must be imported from Africa, isn't that just as bad for the environment?

[ContinentalOp]

194. Oh really? Can you name one of these exotic beans that we are unable to grow in the U.S.?

:eyes:

[villager]

37. The responses to the OP showing the externalized/social costs of industrial meat production

show that even for many DUers, meat addiction is as fearsomely hardwired into their systems as heroin, meth, and nicotine are for other people...

[jsamuel]

46. lol

right...

[villager]

173. as the snarky "lol" reply further underscores...

n/t

[Marrah_G]

50. Hi- My name is Marrah and I am a Meataholic.

[8 track mind]

228. Hello, Marrah. ;) n/t

[omega minimo]

68. could be the meat or addiction to being "powerless" and not having to take responsibility for action

[Marrah_G]

71. yeah, that's it .........

We bow to your superior intellect, OM.

Please forgive us for not being one of the more evolved and special humans.

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

79. you need to get a grip

[Marrah_G]

96. And you need a reality check.

Woohoo.... we could do this all day!

[villager]

174. also true: "There's not a damn thing I can do about where my food dollars go!"

I am helpless -- helpless I tell you! -- to affect any change when it comes to buying food!

[omega minimo]

175. "I have no control over corporations controlling my gov't so I must buy more and more of their crap"

"to keep the economy going!!!" :patriot:

[flvegan]

38. Excellent point, but poorly worded at HuffPo.

It *should* say, "If every one were vegetarian, each day the US would save/prevent..." followed by the data.

I think that even if folks choose to not eat a meatless diet, each day that they may choose vegetarian food is a good move.

[ContinentalOp]

195. Well actually, no. Then the numbers would be 365 times what they said. -nt-

[HamdenRice]

40. Despite the vitriol you received, your post isn't that off, if you modified it as follows

"If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save "

should be:

If everyone who eats meat regularly, went vegetarian for one extra day per year without adding another meat day elsewhere, and if that reduced consumption became permanent, and was translated to lower demand, and producers reduced production accordingly rather than maintaining production and simply reducing prices or increasing exports ... annual savings in resources might be ...

Regular meatless days, along the lines of Catholic meatless Fridays, would indeed lower demand.

[Mari333]

43. i just cut and pasted from the article

I wish it had been written more succinctly, but even I figured out what the authouress meant. I expected vitriol, but I just find it amusing.
:popcorn:

[ContinentalOp]

196. Yes, I suppose that is a better way to write it...

if you're trying to get the message across to pedantic fools who can't understand a simple thought experiment.

[Bill McBlueState]

42. If you started with,

"If 164,000 Americans cut their meat consumption in half for ten years..."

then the rest of the numbers would be exactly the same, and one of the more common complaints upthread wouldn't be valid.

But whatever -- anyone who's not obtuse can see the point you're making.

[grace0418]

47. So livestock would stop eating, pooping and farting?

I'm all for vegetarian diets, but that makes no sense.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. This post made me stop eating meat. I've thrown all the frozen porterhouses and filets

in the garbage.

Oh wait. It's April Fool's Day. Never mind. I think I'll barbeque me and the Ms. a couple of yummy filets today!

[ddeclue]

49. I want a pony...

BBQ pony that is..

:P

[MindPilot]

51. What about the pets?

Unlike humans who can extract nutrients from almost anything, dogs and cats have to eat meat.

[flvegan]

53. That's not true.

I'm not going to get into the vegetarian cat topic (as it's something I'd not do...have a meatless cat food) dogs most certainly can be vegetarian, even vegan. They, like us, are omnivores.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. The posit is nonsense - and does not spur anyone to go veggie.

A more rational argument would be statistics on the same order for the effect of every American eating six or eight ounces less of meat every week - two fewer burgers, or a dozen wings - something people could relate to.

It is an easily measurable amount, and people could actually act on it and produce the results cited.

[Marrah_G]

57. That is a far better arguement

Talking about ways to cut back and/or go organic are far better ways to approach this topic.

Just from conversation on Du I have cut back on the meat we eat and have tried to use organic meats whenever possible. I noticed the organic/free range types of meat taste so much better that you are satisfied with much less anyway.

Conversations on Du have also led me to start my own garden and cut down on energy costs in a number of ways.

There is a right way and a wrong way to get your point across and the posts trying to guilt people into going vegan are, in my opinion repelling more people then they are attracting.

[omega minimo]

61. You're saying people can't relate to the info, measure how to act on it, produce some results

on their own without it being presented in a certain way for them, as it they're too chuckleheaded for the concept, so it's all or nothing?

Some of us believe people aren't that stupid or helpless.

Although the all or nothing argument allows too many to stay in denial by scoffing, pretending they can't make a difference and wimping out.

[Marrah_G]

70. No- he is pointing out that people don't react well to flawed data used as propaganda

Or bullying types of posts that talk down to others as though they are somehow superior or use thinly veiled attempts at guilting people into thinking as they do.

[omega minimo]

74. he can speak for himself. I reflected his words. You reworded entirely for him. As if he is helpless

as for your fing insults, you can back off.

Your petty projections are another way to avoid the issue and the impications that he posted, that people need info presented in a certain way or cannot "relate," think or act for themselves.

Drop the attitude.

[Marrah_G]

95. Sorry- you don't get to give me orders.

Your approach on the topic of meat eating is always one that does more damage then it ever helps.

If you were as superior as you pretend to be, you would not have to be told that.

[omega minimo]

102. how bout affirmations?

calm down.


"always" :wow:



mg, you do need to get a grip. untwist the knickers. thank you.

[Marrah_G]

105. I am completely calm- not sure why you would think I have anything in a twist.

Just letting you know that your approach on the topic pushes people away.

[omega minimo]

117. whereas your flames are completely constructive

:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. No, i'm saying that people are too smart to be taken in by blatant bullshit.

"going vegan for a day" is nonsense. The results are nonsense. The entire argument is nonsense. A person going vegan for a day is not going vegan. The entire population going vegan for a day would have virtually no effect on any of the stats claimed.

You don't get action out of bullshit arguments. They see a bullshit argument and dismiss it.

OTOH, present an action plan and THEN you can get action. Only action gets results, and that is what we are after, isn't it?

Which is more likely to get action?

If EVERYONE gave up meat for a day we would save 100 BILLION gallons of water.

or

If you ate just 8 ounces less of meat a week, you would save 500,000 gallons of water over a year.

The first is hypothetical fantasy. The second is an action plan, an easily doable plan.

[omega minimo]

99. "They see a bullshit argument and dismiss it."

Okay. Your points are well taken.

It's odd though that people look at something basic and common knowledge that -- food choices and food production have significant environmental impacts -- and need to react to it, see it as "a bullshit argument and dismiss it."

What's the point of that?

An action plan sounds good.

"Only action gets results, and that is what we are after, isn't it?"

Yes but an action plan isn't necessary for people to get the concept, look at their own options, consider changes and take action on their own, is it?

"The first is hypothetical fantasy. The second is an action plan, an easily doable plan."

The first is an illustration of human food choices impacting the planet. It's odd that so many want to shoot it down for semantic reasons and shift off the points we may agree on.

The second is something your figured out for yourself. Other folks are smart enough and maybe motivated enough too.

:thumbsup:

[slutticus]

54. Just for one day? Is that true? I could do that.

[leftofthedial]

56. We should all swear off vegetables and fruit too!

Just think of the savings then!

[Marrah_G]

58. You first !

[bunnies]

59. Yeah. They sure do eat, fart and piss a lot.

Oh and all those antibiotics! :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

132. And think of all the water we could save if we all quit drinking water!

[12string]

60. I've done my part

Next month will mark 34 years without meat.I would like to add that the number one reason for groundwater pollution in the U.S. are chicken and beef production.Also the number one reason for depletion of the rainforests is for beef production for the U.S.

[flvegan]

73. I'm always impressed

by folks that have been veg*n for that long of a stretch of time. It's so very easy now, but I don't think it was this easy even 20 years ago.

[omega minimo]

63. and people would be healthier eating less/no meat

:thumbsup:

[rd_kent]

72. Have you ever tried a tofu steak? NASTY! Gimme my Ribeye!!!!

Soylent green is made from people! And what a load of horseshit this list of "savings" is.

[Goblinmonger]

77. If everyone in the US was a vegetarian

do you deny that those numbers posted in the OP would not be reality.

I admit that the wording is poor, but that doesn't reflect on the numbers.

[rd_kent]

81. Idiotic argument!

IF, and thats the word you used, If everyone was avegetarian.......
Gimme a break! If cows could fly...... If, If If. This is reality, welcome aboard. We eat meat here, because thats what we are designed to do. We are hunters who killed animals and ate them. As we got smarter, we realized that a nice side salad or a potato goes nicely with the meat.

[Mari333]

84. speak for yourself :)

:)
:popcorn:

[rd_kent]

88. I was speaking for myself. You jumped in uninvited.

[Mari333]

91. okie dokie!

Ill uninvite myself then. :)

[rd_kent]

100. ok, buh bye

Thanks for playing. Please come again! :)

[Goblinmonger]

114. You don't see the difference between

everyone eating a vegetarian diet and cows flying? One is possible and the other isn't. We aren't carnivores. We can live without meat quite nicely. What this linked article is showing is that your decision to eat meat because you find it tasty has great environmental impacts. You, for some reason, choose to ignore and/or dismiss that.

[rd_kent]

140. No, they are the same

Getting everyone to eat vegetarian is just as impossible as cows flying. Actually, cows may evolve wings one day, so I guess THAT is a more plausible scenario.
I do understand the evironmental inpact of my choices, so I try to eat locally grown foods (and meats). Instead of trying to get me to change my eating habits in order to have a better environmental impact, perhaps we could just stop having so many offspring that add to the overall increasing consumption of resources. If everyone limted themselves to 0 or 1 child, wouldnt THAT have a bigger impact that going vegan?

[ContinentalOp]

197. Uh oh, another eugenecist.

Yes, let's cut back on the number of humans in the world so that you can stuff your face with another fucking hamburger. :puke:

[MineralMan]

164. Everything humans do has great environmental impact.

There's no getting around that. There are, I don't know, 7 billion of us on the planet. A hefty portion of the world's population eats little or no animal protein. Most of that group lives in the third world, as I'm sure you're aware. And even they make large impacts on the environment.

Like a lot of people, I've reduced my intake of animal protein, but have not, and will not, cut it down to nothing.

As with religion, you're more than welcome to be a vegan if that's your choice. You're not welcome to insist that I do so. I eat animal protein in moderation because it is good for me. I have been a vegetarian, and was for several years. It did not agree with me for health reasons. So, I eat animal protein now, in moderation, and am doing much better.

I understand the environmental arguments, certainly. Yet, I imagine that you also use animal products in your life, even if you do not eat them. It is difficult not to do that in today's environment.

Do as suits you best. I will do the same.

[Goblinmonger]

172. I am fine with all of that.

What gets to me is the emotional response to just ignore and reject the environmental impacts of eating meat. It is worse on the environment than a non-meat diet. Do I use animal products? As you say, of course I do. And, like you, I do my best to keep that to a minimum or have it be not at all if possible. But come to grips with what you are doing is all that I am reacting to. I do things that aren't environmentally sound but I don't sputter and say it isn't true. I try to do better.

[ContinentalOp]

198. Oh, B.S.

"A hefty portion of the world's population eats little or no animal protein. Most of that group lives in the third world, as I'm sure you're aware. And even they make large impacts on the environment."

Take a look at India's per-capita energy consumption vs. ours. The problem is consumption, not population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

[omega minimo]

144. that's a joke, right?

[Hissyspit]

189. "Designed?"

[bunnies]

82. Indeed. Soybeans = nasty. Rotting flesh = yummmmm.

Interesting logic. :thumbsup:

[rd_kent]

85. Uh, I dont eat rotting flesh, and I didnt say soybeans were nasty!

I said tofu was nasty. Perhaps you should re-read my post, add a grain of salt, and start again.

[Mari333]

87. tofu is soybeans.

and its mighty tasty when cooked well.
:)

[bunnies]

90. Sweety, tofu is made of soybeans. And meat is rotting flesh.

Or - rotting muscle if you prefer. Does that make you happy?

You do realize that the decaying process begins the minute the animal dies... dont you? :shrug:

[rd_kent]

97. Wow, lets take it to the extreme.....

For the record, I love soybeans, I hate tofu 'cause it tastes nasty(to me).
Rotting, freshly killed, aged, whatever! Apply heat and Im eating it. Meat is good. Good for you (yes, it is) and damn tasty.
Now, these are MY opinions, feel free to disagree. If youre not going to eat that steak, may I have it?

[bunnies]

107. You may eat all the rotting flesh you like.

:hi:

[rd_kent]

109. Great, thanks for your permission

:9 :applause:

[bunnies]

118. You're welcome.

:rofl:

[Rebubula]

128. Mmmmmm...rotting meat

I love dead animals when they are grilled properly.

Images of rotting corpses or maggot infested meat does not dissuade me from eating a juicy steak or a nice Pork loin.

The view from the top of the food chain is delicious.

[RaleighNCDUer]

127. And rotting veggies are so much better than rotting meat, doncha know. nt

[MineralMan]

169. And, if controlled, that process improves the flavor and

nutritional qualities of the meat.

You do realize that tofu is made using a similar process of decay, do you not? Fermentation is part of the process of tofu-making. Fermentation is the modification of an organic product via the use of microorganisms.

If you wish to avoid decay, you will eat your soybeans cooked fresh in water. All other soy products are the product of fermentation.

You can find wonderful descriptions of tofu-making on the internet. Just google it.

[cobalt1999]

170. Science bores her.

I doubt she wants to learn that her understanding of the world is wrong anyway.

[NeedleCast]

177. You realize the decaying process begins in vegetables in pretty much the same manner

don't you?

[cobalt1999]

94. Soybeans don't rot?

I guess you were going for the emotional vs. accurate statement.

An intellectually honest statement would be:
Rotting Soybeans = nasty. Rotting Flesh = yummmm.

[rd_kent]

98. Thank you!

I appreciate the support!

[bunnies]

113. good try!

Problem with that is that fruits and vegetables dont start rotting the minute they are picked. And when eaten they are actually still alive (see "living food diet") - Meat, on the other hand, is DEAD and decaying. The decaying process triggered by the death.

[cobalt1999]

125. LOL

You obviously don't know any science.

Microbiological consumption (or rot) occurs on all of our foodstuffs. Molds, yeasts, and bacteria associated with the surface or inside of the fruit & vegetables cause rot even while on the tree/vine/stalk.

:rofl:

Read something more than veggie conversion propaganda if you want to debate this with me.

[bunnies]

130. Let me try this again in a way that maybe you'll understand.

So you can save yourself the humiliation of thinking youre clever and or smug...

Veggies dont start dying the moment they are picked. Veggies are therefore, by default, NOT rotting. Meat, on the other hand, starts rotting the moment the animal is killed. Meat is therefore, by default, always rotting.

Get it now, Einstein? :shrug:

[cobalt1999]

139. Well, I can see someone needs to go back to school

"Veggies dont start dying the moment they are picked. Veggies are therefore, by default, NOT rotting" :rofl:

I'm certainly more clever and scientifically educated than you if you believe that rot only occurs when fruit & vegetables have been picked after a long time

If you want to learn, I'll suggest a few beginner microbiology books for you. Until then, :rofl:

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cobalt1999]

149. Hey, you actually got something right!

"being picked has NOTHING to do with when a vegetable starts to rot" Give her a big hand folks, she got it right.

Actually the rotting process really starts is when the ethylene production in a plant rises, usually when fruits or nuts are nearing the ripening process. From that point on, it's a race between rot and a plants natural defenses against the micro feeders.

At the time a fruit or vegetable is ripe, the balance is tipping toward the invaders and rot begins to win the battle. Slowly at first but inevitable. Even if a fruit or vegetable isn't picked, it will rot right on the tree/vine/stalk. So, see? You were right.

Meat rots at death due to the same slowing and stopping of the defense mechanism. Instead of a natural defense mechanism, people use refrigeration.

The fact is, by the time a steak and vegetable are on your plate, the vegetable may or may not be more consumed by the fungus, molds, bacteria than the steak depending on many factors.

I'm sure all that science bored you though.

[omega minimo]

154. and meat continues to rot in the lengthy human intestinal tract

[cobalt1999]

158. Technically, EVERYTHING you eat continues to rot until it's broken down

Meat, fruits, vegetables. So? Do you want a lesson on the human digestive system, processes and enzymes?

[omega minimo]

159. loading your tract with rotting animal flesh or veggies. your choice.

[cobalt1999]

160. Hey, you are catching on. They are BOTH rotting. Very good!

You are also right that it is my choice, and I thank others to stay the hell out of my intestinal tract.

[omega minimo]

163. your flaminess is catching on. Look out!!!

[cobalt1999]

168. I can handle it.

I've got the professional and educational background to run circles around most of these "arguments" plus a "go to the mat" attitude for any fool that wants to try.

[omega minimo]

171. the flaminess doesn't do you credit then.

[Goblinmonger]

75. By all means, let's all focus on the poor wording choices

of the original article rather than focus in on the fact that the decision to eat meat does have environmental and social impacts.

[bunnies]

86. Thinking is difficult.

Must be why so many are choosing not to do it. :eyes: Fuck the Earth and all that. Who cares whats left for future generations. Gimme mah meat and wrap it in plastic! :banghead:

[Mari333]

89. yes, theres a whole lot of GRRRRR posts.

I find them telling.
and amusing.
:popcorn:

[bunnies]

93. Totally.

The "I dont eat rotting flesh" one almost made water come out my nose. Goes to show how much thought people actually put into what they shove in their mouths.

[omega minimo]

103. It's the meat talking

:evilgrin:

[Mari333]

104. guess it explains this

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/health/main4454397.shtml

[omega minimo]

119. i can't look at that - animal cruelty

[rd_kent]

146. MMMMM, bacon!

[Mari333]

148. yes, tastes better if a pig has had a rod shoved up its rectum

and then is beaten to death with steel rods. especially the piglets. slowly beat them to death with the steel rods. listen to them scream. enjoy your dinner.

[rd_kent]

153. Please stop!

Youre making me hungry!!!!!

[bunnies]

126. ....

:spray: You are what you eat! :hide:

[omega minimo]

136. .

bangmeat:banghead:head

[omega minimo]

122. it's a mystery

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5369857&mesg_id=5370619

[noiretextatique]

180. i am really having a hard time understanding these attitudes

i'm a cancer survivor, and my radiologist told me that reducing my intake of red meat would lower my risk of recurrence. eating lots of raw fruits and vegetables is just one thing i can do to make my body stronger and boost my immune system. of course there is the added plus of reducing my personal impact on the environment.
however, staying alive and healthy is a big motivation for me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. reducing red meat and limiting poultry in your diet isnt that hard

i think for a lot of people becoming a vegetarian is a huge deal but reduction doesnt have to be

for me, i would never want to be vegetarian. my culture is meat eating and its part of our identity. however culturally we have vegetarian days etc that i am not trying to recreat in my life

[closeupready]

92. Here's what I don't get about the 'save water' argument -

there is no water shortage in New England, nor, as far as I know, is there a lack of availability to existing supplies. So how is that a selling point??? It's not like there this huge reservoir that can store 100 billion gallons on the day the US goes veggie.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

106. Here in CA...

We have a very large cattle/dairy industry out in the Central Valley, that is naturally arid, and already has to bring in water through aquaducts.

Why are we wasting water -- water that could be used for other, more efficient food production or for habitat restoration -- in CA on beef production? :shrug: It's just not a smart use of resources.

[yewberry]

108. There are ongoing water shortages across the country.

New England and the midwest may currently be fine, but there are drought conditions elsewhere.

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/drought/nationalcondition.htm

[closeupready]

123. But I'm not getting precisely how going veggie will lead directly to a drought solution.

So say, for example, we go veggie. This means less water used for meat production/processing and more water available for other uses. That does not mean that in regions with drought, more rain will fall, obviously.

I guess what I'm getting at is are people dying or suffering due to the absence of water availability due directly to the meat production/processing activities, and if so, how? I understand what drought is and that some regions are experiencing this; however, it's unclear to me that livestock production and processing is directly to blame for drought, or the claim that if such industry shut down for a day, the drought would end.

[yewberry]

145. About half of our water use is dedicated to livestock production.

If the demand for meat were cut by half or a quarter, that would be a significant amount of water saved. CAFOs also compound the problem by creating lagoons of waste that can and do poison surrounding water sources.

I get that drought isn't like a typhoon or an earthquake. At the same time, though, it costs the US $6-8 billion annually--it's one the most expensive and far-reaching natural disasters. It kills crops and makes food more expensive. It creates loss of wetlands and animal habitats in general. Drought means more forest fires and wind/water erosion of soil.

Not good.

[closeupready]

157. Thanks. Much appreciated.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

120. California

[closeupready]

124. Right, but as I ask above,

are people suffering directly due to water overuse from the meat production/processing industry? That is, if such an industry shut down for a day, would the drought in CA end?

[omega minimo]

131. "if such an industry shut down for a day, would the drought in CA end?"

if you're taking the OP literally and asking your question literally, what do you think?

Is anything instantaneous?

OTOH

"...are people suffering directly due to water overuse from the meat production/processing industry?"

That's a good question. If you know anything about the water wars in the West, you'd know that's part of it. Allocation of water is Big Business.

[Scout]

182. if people would stop trying to live in deserts, there wouldn't be a water problem. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

218. There is also no (or almost no) meat production in new england

so obviously the local new england environment and economy would not be directly affected, other than perhaps an increase in non-meat produce consumption that would help the few remaining farms in the region and use a bit more of our abundant water supplies.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

110. One of these days...

people who claim to be pro-environment but somehow short circuit on this one issue will wise up.

Until then, keep posting! :hi:

[omega minimo]

134. could it be regional?

maybe those of us with more access to fresh produce and multicultural cuisines (lots of veggies with some meat mixed in) have different options than others in more meat and potatoes climes?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

152. I do think much of it is regional...

but more about regional food traditions than real access. (I think many of these food traditions grew out of once-upon-a-time limited access and storage issues.)

My Grandparents came from depression-era, poor farmers from Kansas and Oklahoma. They were hardcore meat and potatoes people, with fruit/veg as an "accent". Their food choies reflected the area and time they grew up in. Even when they made it to SF and they had ample access to fresh fruit and veg and ethnic cuisines, they ate their meat and potatoes, and canned fruit and veg until they died.

Modern access to food is so widespread in most of the country -- show me an American who hasn't had some access to even the most exotic kiwi these days. :D

[omega minimo]

165. good points.

:thumbsup:

[Blue_Tires]

116. k+r

[TexasObserver]

133. She left out the best part: Bacon prices would plummet!!

Because there's nothing in life more holy than fried bacon.

[Evoman]

135. I don't understand why people can't eat meat AND agree that it's environmentally destructive.

I eat meat...not a whole lot (mostly fish and chicken), but I eat it nonetheless. That does not mean that I get defensive when people bring up the environmental impacts. It is very true, and I am selfish for eating meat. I try to justify it by saying that I need the extra protein, and too many non-meat sources really aggravate my stomach and intestines if I eat too much. I also try to justify it by pointing out that my carbon footprint, apart from the meat aspect, is VERY small. But ultimately, I know what I'm doing IS bad for the environment, and I should aspire to vegetarianism.

Maybe one day I will get there.

[omega minimo]

141. beautiful. reasonable. personal. into those "grey areas" eh, Evoman?

:yourock:

[Evoman]

150. I just don't like bullshitting myself.

And am keenly aware that in those instances when I feel the most angry or defensive, those are the times I really need to stop and tell myself the fucking truth.

Even if I have to lie to others, there is no use lying to myself.

[omega minimo]

151. it's good to have options

the thread has helped me understand better the defensiveness and the All or Nothing attitude which prevents folks from looking honestly at their own options and impacts.

:thumbsup:

[Evoman]

156. I hope you include yourself in that understanding.

It's easy to see the unreasonable behaviour of other people, and a whole other thing to take an honest look at yourself.

[omega minimo]

162. "helped me better understand"

"...helped me understand better the defensiveness and the All or Nothing attitude which prevents folks from looking honestly at their own options and impacts."

Is incremental change or Do What You Can or If You Ain't Part of the Solution, You Part of the Problem, that foreign in these times?

It's hard to understand the All or Nothing attitude which prevents folks from looking honestly at their own options and impacts.

It's important because it disempowers people unnecessarily and impacts the individual and the whole community.

It's curious because it contributes to the defensiveness and weird anger seen on this thread.

Why?

There are some helpful and honest answers here.

It's avoidance, it's deflection, it's fear, it's confusion, it's powerlessness.

How did that happen?

How did people get convinced of their own powerlessness? To make a difference, even in a small way.

To take a run w/o an iPod or light a candle, even if it's not the right kind of candle.

Does the discussion board format contribute to reactionary assumptions, a tit for tat, shout it down kind of habitual response.

This thread helped me understand behavior I did not call "unreasonable" -- I was curious about the reasons. You judge if you want.

I don't subscribe to my own powerlessness.

You're right, that takes some honesty.

[Lisa0825]

161. Exactly my view!

I just started going about 80% vegetarian last month. I don't think I will ever give up meat completely, but I decided to change for health and environmental reasons. Some folks who modify their eating plans without going full-veg are calling themselves "flexitarian."

[Marrah_G]

181. I think we can !

That also doesn't mean we have to wallow in some conjured guilt some idiot on a message board is shoveling at us in hopes that if they just act douchebaggy enough we will come around to their side.

I've definitely changed some of habits slowly but surely in the years I've been on this board. I eat less meat, I try to buy organic when I can, I started a garden, I quit smoking, etc etc. But I won't stay silent when some blowhard with a delusion of superiority slings shit at people who don't live as they do. Do I tend to get bitchy about it? yup, I do.

[omega minimo]

187. Exactly. Do what works for you. It's not All or Nothing.

:thumbsup:

[geegollygosh]

202. Completely agree

I like to eat meat sometimes. But I don't deny that it's a bad thing to do.

[timtom]

188. I love the naysayers on this thread.

They are so predictable.

As Mad Magazine used to say "...the usual gang of idiots".

[flvegan]

201. Christ. There's so much stupid in this thread.

Some of the usual cast too, I see. :eyes:

[femrap]

204. End World Hunger....

Eat The Rich!

[fascisthunter]

205. I Swear The Pissy Replies to this OP are Amusing

and have nothing to do with specifics points the OP are making, which are good BTW. I love beef... but I have to agree with the points made above. Why not....?

The thread is full of defensive meat eaters. It was like this OP was going to result in a massive recall of all beef!

[omega minimo]

207. serious bacon withdrawals.......

[fascisthunter]

208. Thick sliced Canadian Bacon

I have not had good bacon in a long time. I admit it... I love meat.... but understand that need has consequences just like every other need. Sometimes need turns into greed.

[omega minimo]

210. all we need is balance

:thumbsup:

[flvegan]

209. Pathetically typical here.

[Sanctified]

206. So when is this Cattle and Poultry Rapture going to take place?

I want to make sure I eat lots of meat just before it disappears into thin air.

[kaygore]

213. Plus you feel so much better & cut your risk of cancer & heart disease

Read "The China Study"

[Ignis]

239. Seconded. It's a fascinating book, whatever you eat. (nt)

[Exultant Democracy]

214. Nooo another ploy to steal the well deserved double whoppers out of good americans

and their dangerously obese children's hands. Now lets all get in our hummers and drive to the ingun reservation so that we don't have to pay unamerican taxes to the U.S. government on our cigs.

[shadowknows69]

215. Shouldn't those of us who do give up meat get a refund somehow then?

[AllieB]

219. I agree we have to reduce our carbon footprint but

Becoming a vegetarian nearly ruined my health.

-Allergic to grains
-Allergic to soy and all legumes

Resulting in:
-high blood sugar to the point of diabetes
-high triglycerides
-IBS
-40 lbs ovewrweight despite exercising 6 days a week

I changed my diet to meat, fish, poultry, and veggies and reduced my cholesterol, raised my good cholesterol, lost weight and gained muscle, and cleared up my health problems. I do my part to eat locally-produced meat and poultry from small farms. I grow my own organic vegetables.

Some people thrive on the vegetarian diet, but others don't. It's a matter of body chemistry and genetics.

[omega minimo]

230. another great personal tale of what works -- or doesn't -- for you. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[AllieB]

236. I agree-everyone's body is different.

[omega minimo]

237. and at different times and stages

I eat mainly vegetarian and pay attention if my body is hungry for certain things (animal protein) and have chicken or fish (don't touch beef) as recently happened while healing a bone injury.

:hi:

[guruoo]

221. I tried it and lost weight, but also lost energy, strength, and endurance

in the process.

[yewberry]

223. Wow, not eating meat one day a week did that to you?

Sounds like you've got some serious health issues.

[guruoo]

224. That was over appx. six months of 'one days' eom

[Ignis]

231. Did you consult a nutritionist and change your diet?

Or did you keep the same diet and just removed the meat? The first is healthy, the second, not so much. :)

[guruoo]

238. I substituted non-animal sources of vitamins, minerals, and protein

in roughly the same proportions that was contained in the meat.

[AllieB]

240. Some people's bodies aren't meant to eat meat, others are.

It's not as simple as 'consulting a nutritionist'. I was a vegetarian for 10 years and it ruined my health-and I being advised by several nutritionists and doctors. Other people thrive on a vegetarian diet. See my post way above. Due to genetics, I'm one of those people that can't eat grains and legumes. I eat meat and poultry from small local farms and organic vegetables. I've never been healthier.

[anonymous171]

229. Finally a good reason for going vegetarian. nt

[Blue_Tires]

235. ttt

[BlooInBloo]

241. Anyone telling me what to eat can fucking go to hell.