# How being vegetarian does more harm to the environment than eating meat



## Big Don (Feb 13, 2010)

*How being vegetarian does more harm to the environment than eating meat
*


  By  Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 12:26 AM on 13th February 2010
Daily Mail EXCERPT:

It is a claim that could put a dent in the green credentials of vegetarians: Meat-free diets can be bad for the planet.

Environmental activists and vegetarians have long taken pleasure in telling those who enjoy a steak that livestock farming is a major source of harmful greenhouse gases.

But research has shown that giving up meat may not be as green as it seems. 

The Cranfield University study found that switching from British-bred beef and lamb to meat substitutes imported from abroad such as tofu and Quorn would increase the amount of land cultivated, raising the risk of forests being destroyed.

Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed, the report, which was commissioned by the environmental group WWF, found.

The researchers concluded: A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to  supply the UK.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 13, 2010)

damned if you do and damned if you don't.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 13, 2010)

seasoned said:


> damned if you do and damned if you don't.


Might as well order the ribs.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 13, 2010)

Don't forget the bacon Don.
Bacon and eggs is what God wanted breakfast to consist of.
Lots and lots of it.


----------



## Steve (Feb 13, 2010)

It's not whether you eat meat or not.  It's whether the meat or veggies are grown in a sustainable way.  The way corn and soy are grown in the USA is no better than how we raise cows, pigs and chickens.  

This is another example of hiw you can bend the "facts" to support any position.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 13, 2010)

I think the point is that it's often difficult to consider all the factors that make your meat and veggies sustainable.  For example one will hear that to be sustainable you need to eat locally-grown produce, but then an article will suggest that it's more environmentally damaging because it produces more carbon dioxide to transport those little amounts locally than it does to transport a huge boatload of stuff together.  

You can't possibly know all the details of how you got your food unless you raise it yourself.  Eat your meat AND veggies, people.  Omit what you don't want to eat, but don't browbeat others for eating it.  That's a dick move.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 13, 2010)

Big Don said:


> *How being vegetarian does more harm to the environment than eating meat*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They can use the land that once housed all the Livestock.:soapbox:


----------



## Steve (Feb 13, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I think the point is that it's often difficult to consider all the factors that make your meat and veggies sustainable.  For example one will hear that to be sustainable you need to eat locally-grown produce, but then an article will suggest that it's more environmentally damaging because it produces more carbon dioxide to transport those little amounts locally than it does to transport a huge boatload of stuff together.
> 
> You can't possibly know all the details of how you got your food unless you raise it yourself.  Eat your meat AND veggies, people.  Omit what you don't want to eat, but don't browbeat others for eating it.  That's a dick move.


Good points but it's healthier for sure to eat locally produced, responsibly cultivated food.   And I've never heard or seen anyone assert that eating local food is less "green". I'd have to see some numbers to back that claim up.  

At some point, you're right in that there's some faith involved.  But my general rule is to hit the local farmers market when possible and eat protein that's onlly, best as I can tell, had one bad day.  Their last.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Feb 13, 2010)

Although I'm not a vegetarian, I don't eat red meat or poultry, only fish and raw foods with some rare exceptions in terms of processed foods.
I'm not telling anyone this is the way to go, I'm just stating it to let everyone know where I'm coming from.

The biggest problem with red meat is the way it is raised.

My main point though is that many vegans don't eat tofu or processed foods.
The bulk of my diet comes from unprocessed, raw foods.

The post is misleading, it's not eating vegan that's not green, it's eating tofu.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 13, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Might as well order the ribs.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 13, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Good points but it's healthier for sure to eat locally produced, responsibly cultivated food. And I've never heard or seen anyone assert that eating local food is less "green". I'd have to see some numbers to back that claim up.
> 
> At some point, you're right in that there's some faith involved. But my general rule is to hit the local farmers market when possible and eat protein that's onlly, best as I can tell, had one bad day. Their last.


 
Here's one article.  I'm not saying that eating local food is the wrong way to go, I just hate it when people adopt a lifestyle choice and start complaining that the alternatives are not only bad but Morally Bad (tm).  It's like, "Yes, I see you over there.  You're a wonderful human being.  Now lemme enjoy my genetically mutated KFC chicken chunks in peace."


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 13, 2010)

The study states that it is the environmental repercussions from the regular consumption of PROCESSED MEAT SUBSTITUTES used by some vegetarian-wannabees that negates any environmental benefit of giving up cattle or lamb.

Interestingly, the study lumps chickpeas and lentils in with tofu and soy products as being "processed foods."  Hopefully the readers of this post will understand that chickpeas and lentils are naturally grown legumes and are not highly processed.

So if you eat TofuDogs and buy VeggieBurger mix thinking you're doing the environment a service, know that the environmentally-conscious vegetarian/vegan consumes as many foods as possible which _have no labe__l_ (processed foods available in bulk bins don't qualify).  Try making your own oat patties for burgers or assembling your own recipe for falafel.

Hence, the massive acreage that is currently used to feed and/or house food animals can be used to grow other products healthier in greater quantities for the world.

Toodles.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 13, 2010)

Here's the thing,we don't have rodent teeth. We have canines to RIP meat, we are not meant to be herbivores, our enamel is too thin for that. We're omnivores.


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 14, 2010)

SensibleManiac said:


> Although I'm not a vegetarian, I don't eat red meat or poultry, only fish and raw foods with some rare exceptions in terms of processed foods.
> I'm not telling anyone this is the way to go, I'm just stating it to let everyone know where I'm coming from.
> 
> The biggest problem with red meat is the way it is raised.
> ...


You've got it.

I don't dig the whole meat substitute things (most of them taste like crap anyway). Rather have me another portion of fruit/veggies.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 14, 2010)

I often substitute meat with other meat


----------



## JDenver (Feb 14, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Here's the thing,we don't have rodent teeth. We have canines to RIP meat, we are not meant to be herbivores, our enamel is too thin for that. We're omnivores.



I might disagree.  Most of your teeth are molars.  You don't have any real 'ripping' teeth.  Compare your mouth to that of a dog.

Also, your digestive tract is definitely not made to properly handle red meat.  Yes, you can do it, but it isn't optimum.  Hey, I'm no preacher, I eat chicken and fish and such, I'm just saying.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 14, 2010)

JDenver said:


> your digestive tract is definitely not made to properly handle red meat.


 
What does that mean? How so? Whats the logic?


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2010)

Here is somthing else "Those Damn Vegans" need to think about.

Yes, yes, it's wrong to kill that cow and wear its skin.  So much so that you substitute that leather in your coat and shoes with pleather, and dacron fur and chemically created man-made insulation in your winter clothes, etc etc.

At the expense of the destruction and poisoning of plenty of habitat that wildlife could be using.  Save a cow! Kill thousands of birds, squirrels and fish instead!  Woot!


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 14, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> What does that mean? How so? Whats the logic?



Long digestive tracts are found in most herbivores. The simplicity behind it is that it helps optimal nutrition.
While shorter digestive tracts such as found in carnivores are short to keep the distance to shedding it out as short as possible. So that it doesn't "rot" away. Plus also to minimize the surface of vowel tissue exposed to germs.

@CZ: I always wear cotton shoes. It was -7 yesterday night at 4 a.m., cold cold cold world.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 14, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> Long digestive tracts are found in most herbivores. The simplicity behind it is that it helps optimal nutrition.
> While shorter digestive tracts such as found in carnivores are short to keep the distance to shedding it out as short as possible. So that it doesn't "rot" away. Plus also to minimize the surface of vowel tissue exposed to germs.
> 
> @CZ: I always wear cotton shoes. It was -7 yesterday night at 4 a.m., cold cold cold world.


 
Thank you.
Does anyone have an unbiased source I can read up on this?


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 14, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> Long digestive tracts are found in most herbivores. The simplicity behind it is that it helps optimal nutrition.
> While shorter digestive tracts such as found in carnivores are short to keep the distance to shedding it out as short as possible. So that it doesn't "rot" away. Plus also to minimize the surface of vowel tissue exposed to germs.
> 
> @CZ: I always wear cotton shoes. It was -7 yesterday night at 4 a.m., cold cold cold world.


 
Why am I suddenly reminded of that creepy dude with the molestache who sells colon cleansing products on late-night tv?


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> @CZ: I always wear cotton shoes. It was -7 yesterday night at 4 a.m., cold cold cold world.



I used to work in fashion retail... 90% of our customer base didn't.  

Like everything, you will find people on both sides.  And my dead dead cow keeps me toasty warm *and* protects me from the pavement more than cotton... 







Hehe.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 14, 2010)

Personally I dont retain any guilt for being on top of the food chain. 

As long as the animal is raised and killed reasonably humanely, I have no issue with eating it or wearing it.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 14, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Personally I dont retain any guilt for being on top of the food chain.
> 
> As long as the animal is raised and killed reasonably humanely, I have no issue with eating it or wearing it.


 
I might disagree that primates at at the top of the food chain.

actually many carnivores eat primates and they'd eat us - and they do - if they get a chance.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 14, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> I might disagree that primates at at the top of the food chain.
> 
> actually many carnivores eat primates and they'd eat us - and they do - if they get a chance.


 
Physical strength doesnt put us on top, our intelligence, our creativity and our ability to coordinate effectively as a group does. 

Many carnivores have learned over the millennium to avoid concentrations of humans.


----------



## Steve (Feb 14, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Personally I dont retain any guilt for being on top of the food chain.
> 
> As long as the animal is raised and killed reasonably humanely, I have no issue with eating it or wearing it.



I actually agree with this sentiment.   I also believe that most of the meat that is sold in grocery stores is neither raised nor slaughtered humanely.  I also don't trust it to be raised cleanly, either.   While I can only trust the regulatory bodies and my own common sense, I'll stick with food (whether meat or veggie) that's grown or raised locally, cage/cruelty free and without hormones and the antibiotics necessary to keep animals alive while being raised in their own filth.  

I'm not a zealot for organic products in general with the exception of dairy.  I prefer organic veggies and fruit but I'm not militant about it.  It's not about morality for me as much as it's about basic nutrition and good health.  I strongly believe that the food I eat is better for me if it's raised without cruelty , cages or chemicals.


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 15, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Thank you.
> Does anyone have an unbiased source I can read up on this?



http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/959372412.Ot.r.html

compare this:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AnneMarieThomasino.shtml

with this:
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html
and with some textbook about animal anatomy/physiology.

Sorry that I can't provide you with more scientific work as most of the google searches gave opinions, not facts. If you really want scientific opinions, I suggest you buy a great book about it: http://veganfreak.com/  and especially this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570671036/qid=1049083934/sr=2-1/soystachecom-20 a great source of studies collected and published.

@ CZ: yeah, it's the only thing I hate about being vegan. Frozen toes.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2010)

Why does it have to be one OR the other? What about both sides being right for people who practises either? 
I'm happy eating meat, I'm happy that others don't, I don't see either being right or wrong frankly. 
I don't feel the need to defend my meat eating nor do I feel vegans and veretarians are wrong. It's just what suits you.

It would be nice if there was a lot more kindness around, it may make for slightly boring arguments or maybe more civilised ones?


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 15, 2010)

This thread is as far as I know very polite?

And it has to be one OR the other, because the defenition of the words people use to define themselves don't allow any room for "stretching". You can't label yourself vegetarian if you eat 1 steak a week. Same as it would be silly to label yourself meat-eater when you eat a complete veg-diet.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> This thread is as far as I know very polite?
> 
> And it has to be one OR the other, because the defenition of the words people use to define themselves don't allow any room for "stretching". You can't label yourself vegetarian if you eat 1 steak a week. Same as it would be silly to label yourself meat-eater when you eat a complete veg-diet.


 

Why label yourself?


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 15, 2010)

Because saying: I'm vegan is alot easier than saying. I don't eat veal, poultry, porc and any other kind of meat (including the wild hunt meat), nor animal storch, no anything with animal derivates like: Casein, Ghee, Albumen, Cochineal/Carmine, Oleic acid, Rennin/Rennet, Calcium Stearate, Gelatin , Glycerides (mono/di/tri), Stearic acid, Lecithin, Pepsin, also no fish. Besides that, no eggs, no diary. Also no leather shoes for me, no satin, no wool and no silk.

See how much time it saves me?
Plus I'm pretty comfortable with labelling myself. Doesn't harm me.

I forgot: no cheese, no E-numbers coming from animal derivates. (http://www.food-info.net/uk/qa/qa-fi45.htm)


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> Because saying: I'm vegan is alot easier than saying. I don't eat veal, poultry, porc and any other kind of meat (including the wild hunt meat), nor animal storch, no anything with animal derivates like: Casein, Ghee, Albumen, Cochineal/Carmine, Oleic acid, Rennin/Rennet, Calcium Stearate, Gelatin , Glycerides (mono/di/tri), Stearic acid, Lecithin, Pepsin, also no fish. Besides that, no eggs, no diary. Also no leather shoes for me, no satin, no wool and no silk.
> 
> See how much time it saves me?
> Plus I'm pretty comfortable with labelling myself. Doesn't harm me.
> ...


 

Well unless I'm feeding you which I'm not it doesn't matter to me what you eat. I don't even see a reason why you should tell me what you eat and what you don't!


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 15, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> Because saying: I'm vegan is alot easier than saying. I don't eat veal, poultry, porc and any other kind of meat (including the wild hunt meat), nor animal storch, no anything with animal derivates like: Casein, Ghee, Albumen, Cochineal/Carmine, Oleic acid, Rennin/Rennet, Calcium Stearate, Gelatin , Glycerides (mono/di/tri), Stearic acid, Lecithin, Pepsin, also no fish. Besides that, no eggs, no diary. Also no leather shoes for me, no satin, no wool and no silk.
> 
> See how much time it saves me?
> Plus I'm pretty comfortable with labelling myself. Doesn't harm me.
> ...


 
I totally support you not eating all of that other soul-poisoning food...but no rennet? Come on, man, that's just being a food Nazi.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 15, 2010)

Believe me when Im eating my filet mignon, covered in bleu cheese with roast garlic, Im not thinking about anything else but how friggn good it tastes.


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 15, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Well unless I'm feeding you which I'm not it doesn't matter to me what you eat. I don't even see a reason why you should tell me what you eat and what you don't!



That's besides the point. You wanted a reason for labelling, I gave you one.  

@ Jenny: than I'm a foodnazi... Another label :uhyeah:


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 15, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> That's besides the point. You wanted a reason for labelling, I gave you one.
> 
> @ Jenny: than I'm a foodnazi... Another label :uhyeah:


 
I hope you know I was joking, sugar pie.  People are allowed to eat whatever they want to eat, and avoid whatever they want to avoid. I don't judge. It's actually nice to see people who have principles and stand by them, at some sacrifice to themselves. I think that is to be admired, rather than belittled. I tried to cut out meat once, from a desire to avoid contributing to inhumane food production practices, but I was too weak willed and quickly gave in to my desires.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 15, 2010)

Well, I'm not going to address the personal preference of vegetarians vs ominivores, because truthfully I don't care what you eat, as long as you don't preach to me about what I should eat.

And I'm not even going to address the environmental cost of pesticides, which is kind of obvious.

However, it takes about 4500 lbs of vegetable food to bring a steer to market size, and it only gives you about 450 lbs of meat (only a small portion of which is steak).  Not to mention waste and CO2.  So you could feed a lot more humans from that vegetable food than from that steer.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 15, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> Well, I'm not going to address the personal preference of vegetarians vs ominivores, because truthfully I don't care what you eat, as long as you don't preach to me about what I should eat.


 
Thats how i think. btw i label myself - im an omnivore. But i only like chicken and turkey. beef and steak tastes like cardboard to my taste buds.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 15, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> And I'm not even going to address the environmental cost of pesticides, which is kind of obvious.
> 
> However, it takes about 4500 lbs of vegetable food to bring a steer to market size, and it only gives you about 450 lbs of meat (only a small portion of which is steak). Not to mention waste and CO2. So you could feed a lot more humans from that vegetable food than from that steer.


 
I think that the real problem is the production of "cheap" meat, which tends to rely on all of the less savory aspects of mechanized agricultural practices, such as heavy pesticide use, inhumane husbandry and slaughter techniques, shipment over long distances from countries with fewer restictions regarding fair trade (for instance, Americans buy cheap beef from Mexico). If we all did as Steve suggests, and bought locally produced meat from reputable, small-scale farmers using humane practices and environmentally responsible farming techniques, that it would be a sound ethical choice for many of us. But Americans especially are used to cheap food. We get really pissed off when food prices rise, and we vote with our wallets. That box of chicken nuggets, or the burger from McDonalds, was not produced in a sustainable or ethical way, because the companies couldn't charge so little and make a profit.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I think that the real problem is the production of "cheap" meat, which tends to rely on all of the less savory aspects of mechanized agricultural practices, such as heavy pesticide use, inhumane husbandry and slaughter techniques, shipment over long distances from countries with fewer restictions regarding fair trade (for instance, Americans buy cheap beef from Mexico). If we all did as Steve suggests, and bought locally produced meat from reputable, small-scale farmers using humane practices and environmentally responsible farming techniques, that it would be a sound ethical choice for many of us. But Americans especially are used to cheap food. We get really pissed off when food prices rise, and we vote with our wallets. That box of chicken nuggets, or the burger from McDonalds, was not produced in a sustainable or ethical way, because the companies couldn't charge so little and make a profit.


 
You may not like government controls but here McDonalds has to use British and Irish beef from reputable farms and it has to be 'proper' beef no reclaimed stuff. Likewise the pork etc. This isn't because McDonalds is any more 'caring' here, it's what customers demand and the government backs up with legislation.
I've never tasted American McDs but they aren't bad here though I wouldn't call it cheap food.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 15, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You may not like government controls but here McDonalds has to use British and Irish beef from reputable farms and it has to be 'proper' beef no reclaimed stuff. Likewise the pork etc. This isn't because McDonalds is any more 'caring' here, it's what customers demand and the government backs up with legislation.
> I've never tasted American McDs but they aren't bad here though I wouldn't call it cheap food.


 
Governmental controls are intended to force people to do what they know they should be doing, but are too lazy or cheap or prejudiced to actually practice. In my opinion, governmental control should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to make society function while protecting the lives and liberties of the people. Everything else should be left up to the individual as a personal choice. In this case, however, the question becomes "Does big agribusiness, and all of the practices and techniques associated with it, positively or negatively contribute to society?" It is a complicated issue, because it has implications for human health, the environment, the economy, etc etc. Here in America, food companies will make their products from the crappiest stuff they can, while doing their damndest to convince you that they are feeding you nectar and ambrosia. I think that in the case of McDonalds and other companies, what I would like to see is *greater transparency* concerning the source of the food, quality compared to other sources, the handling, the nutritional value, etc, so that the consumer can make an educated choice. Pt a pamphlet containing all of that info right on the counter next to the ketchup dispenser. If people want to then eat crap, knowing it is crap, that is their own choice. This has been done to a certain extent with nutritional info, but it really should be extended to all aspects of the food production.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Governmental controls are intended to force people to do what they know they should be doing, but are too lazy or cheap or prejudiced to actually practice. In my opinion, governmental control should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to make society function while protecting the lives and liberties of the people. Everything else should be left up to the individual as a personal choice. In this case, however, the question becomes "Does big agribusiness, and all of the practices and techniques associated with it, positively or negatively contribute to society?" It is a complicated issue, because it has implications for human health, the environment, the economy, etc etc. Here in America, food companies will make their products from the crappiest stuff they can, while doing their damndest to convince you that they are feeding you nectar and ambrosia. I think that in the case of McDonalds and other companies, what I would like to see is *greater transparency* concerning the source of the food, quality compared to other sources, the handling, the nutritional value, etc, so that the consumer can make an educated choice. Pt a pamphlet containing all of that info right on the counter next to the ketchup dispenser. If people want to then eat crap, knowing it is crap, that is their own choice. This has been done to a certain extent with nutritional info, but it really should be extended to all aspects of the food production.


 
Yeah well thats us, the down trodden masses under the foot of the socialist government isn't that what you all think? 

We have the nutritional information in McDonalds (yes by the ketchup) as well as most of the food we buy. It gives all information as well as what the meat is whether reconstituted or not and it gives percentages of the ingredients. It's an EU thing, but also most EU people still buy fresh food and buy from local markets.
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/

If I buy a product from the supermarket such as peanut butter there is a big label on the back with allergy advice, then it says suitable for vegetarians then ingredients......
"Peanut (74%) dried glucose syrup, vegetable fat, salt."
Next is the nutrition
"100g contains energy 2290k/550k cal.  Protein 20.0g, Carbohydrate 34.2g (of which sugar s 15.2g) Fat 37.0g (of which saturates 6.5g mono-unsaturates 20.4g, polyunsaturates10.0) Fibre 5.3g, Sodium 0.2g, Salt Equivilant 0.5g, Each tablespoon typically weighs 15g."

It also gives the information of where the food was made/grown/reared and where packaged.

this type of information is available for just about any food now including what you will find in McDs. It's actually very simple, we have the choice to read or not, to buy or not. 

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/flash/eatwellflashlabel.swf


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 15, 2010)

I don't know about the UK or the US, but here in Canada McDs beef is really beef. However beef can come from a variety of inexpensive sources. Where do you think the older, inefficient dairy cows go? Thousands a week end up as burgers for McD's.
Does it matter? I don't know.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Yeah well thats us, the down trodden masses under the foot of the socialist government isn't that what you all think?


 
Have I ever said anything to make you think I believe that?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 16, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Have I ever said anything to make you think I believe that?


 

The first two sentences of your post says that.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 16, 2010)

Omigosh, Tez, PLEASE stop thinking every general, broad-scoping comment about socialist governments is a blatant attack on you and your country. It's not. Okay?

Topic:

There are a lot of laws in place to protects us from bad animal foods and they generally work - except how much the quality of animal-based foods has altered our physical well-being *in the USA.*  Corporations DO break laws in the interest of the bottom line - it likely happens every day except when the inspectors come.

That said ... I don't feel like I'm preaching veganism or vegetarianism by noting the global benefits of eating less flesh foods and - more specifically - factory farmed foods. I'm not judging anyone's eating habits - what you eat is your business, it's not up to me to tell you what's in your food.

We can have discussions about these things without people taking the statement "naturally raised beef is healthier than factory farmed beef" as a personal insult directed at them.

The article referenced in the original post is misleading to say the least. Again - wanna help the environment? Focus your meals around veggies and whole grains. 3/4s of your plate should be fruit or vegetables.  Any grain you consume should be a whole grain.  You can taste the difference between naturally, locally raised flesh and commercial factory-farmed flesh foods and animal products.

Have a glorious day!  TO EVERYONE!


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 16, 2010)

As a friend last night said at a hardcoreshow:
"I have the duty of informing you, but the choice to listen is all yours".
Especially once your realise how much people are ill-informed about what they eat.

@ Jenny: I know you was joking, I just played along


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 16, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> Omigosh, Tez, PLEASE stop thinking every general, broad-scoping comment about socialist governments is a blatant attack on you and your country. It's not. Okay?
> 
> Topic:
> 
> ...


 
Ok it'll just be every other post then! When people have stuff slamming liberals in their sigs and when people post so much hatred for liberals and blame everything on them it's hard not to get the message that socialists (which I'm not btw) which is what you mean by liberals aren't the best liked people. 
Besides my post was IRONIC not paranoid.


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2010)

Well, Tez, the thread was actually pretty friendly until you jumped in accusing everyone of being unfriendly and playing the victim. Sheesh. How did you manage to turn this thread into both a meatlover vs vegetarian AND a US vs Europe thread in just a couple of posts?

REcently, Washington has begun requiring that restaurants provide a menu that has nutriotional information on it at all places that sell food. I really like it. It's easier to say no to a large fry when you know that it has over 400 calories. That's not a socialist thing or a european thing. It just makes sense and I like it. That way, you don't get the chicken wrap that's been marketed as healthy, while unknowingly eating 400 calories per snack wrap and tons of sugar and fat.  Once again, it's about giving people real information and letting them make the choice.  I have no problem with someone eating a super sized meal and a giganto milkshake if they want.  But they should know exactly what's in it when they do.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 16, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Well, Tez, the thread was actually pretty friendly until you jumped in accusing everyone of being unfriendly and playing the victim. Sheesh. How did you manage to turn this thread into both a meatlover vs vegetarian AND a US vs Europe thread in just a couple of posts?
> 
> REcently, Washington has begun requiring that restaurants provide a menu that has nutriotional information on it at all places that sell food. I really like it. It's easier to say no to a large fry when you know that it has over 400 calories. That's not a socialist thing or a european thing. It just makes sense and I like it. That way, you don't get the chicken wrap that's been marketed as healthy, while unknowingly eating 400 calories per snack wrap and tons of sugar and fat. Once again, it's about giving people real information and letting them make the choice. I have no problem with someone eating a super sized meal and a giganto milkshake if they want. But they should know exactly what's in it when they do.


 
Really thats how you read it. Ok if thats how you lot feel I'll bugger off then.
One comment made tongue in cheek and its a sense of humour failure all round.
Have a nice life guys.


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Really thats how you read it. Ok if thats how you lot feel I'll bugger off then.
> One comment made tongue in cheek and its a sense of humour failure all round.
> Have a nice life guys.



What was meant tongue in cheek?   If I misunderstood then my bad, but I honestly don't see it. I don't know if I'm the only one who missed it or not, but from your reaction, it sounds like you just missed your mark.  So, what was jest and what was serious?  Reading through the thread it just looked like you stirred the pot up a little while claiming to do otherwise.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 16, 2010)

Tez.

I think we have gone around on this "liberal" thing of yours before. This is predominantly a US forum and thus we tend to refer to "liberals" in the US political sense...not the UK one.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 17, 2010)

When I chop the carrots, I like to make the lettuce watch.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 17, 2010)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> When I chop the carrots, I like to make the lettuce watch.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 18, 2010)

Tez, I said this:

"Governmental controls are intended to force people to do what they know they should be doing, but are too lazy or cheap or prejudiced to actually practice. In my opinion, governmental control should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to make society function while protecting the lives and liberties of the people."

And your response, based on those two sentences, was this: 

"Yeah well thats us, the down trodden masses under the foot of the socialist government isn't that what you all think?"

Honestly, I'm not sure how you made that leap. I used respectful language, and was careful to state that this was my own opinion. These statements could describe a socialist government as well. Presumeably, most citizens or subjects of a country led by a socialist government agree that the laws and statutes set in place are necessary for the functioning of society and the protection of the lives and liberties of the people. British people clearly feel that those laws pertaining to how restaurants source their foodstuffs are important and necessary. I feel that in my own country, I would rather the laws or regulations be pointed in a different direction, so that consumers are offered a wider choice, but provided with enough data to make an informed decision. We all know that we should eat cleanly and ethically. Britons seem to agree that they would prefer that restaurants such as McDonalds only provide clean options. Most Americans would probably resent that solution, not because they resent governmental interference, but because the food would be more expensive. 

I have no problem with how the British live their lives or run their country. It's your country, not mine. I have never thought of the British people as weak or downtrodden. I've never said a negative thing about socialists or liberals, in fact I have often referred to *myself* a liberal in discussions on MT.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 18, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> "Governmental controls are intended to force people to do what they know they should be doing, but are too lazy or cheap or prejudiced to actually practice. In my opinion, governmental control should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to make society function while protecting the lives and liberties of the people."


 


			
				tez said:
			
		

> "Yeah well thats us, the down trodden masses under the foot of the socialist government isn't that what you all think?


 
This thread isnt about socialism vs conservatism/liberalism/we you wanna call it

but i'd just like to say a few words about it. I'm a left winger (who agrees so much with what ken morgan writes that I sometimes forget he's a conservative, but then he'll say something regarding big or small gov or capitalism and it all reminds me again) 

but I think left wingers and right wingers are often at odds. why? Because they both have their own definition of what the word 'freedom' means. 

What does this have to do with crap food and such? Left wingers would believe it should be regulated because the blame does not rest squarely on the individual whether he eats crap food or not. It isnt always a choice. so we need protection, even from ourselves sometimes. Right wingers would generally say leave gov out of it its people's choice whether they eat crap food and choose to eat crap food and the capitalists that do it should not be regulated. it tends to be in right wing thinking, that gov should be small, they scorn welfare and things like that and think that its a person's choice whether they sink or swim and if they work hard enough anybody can make it.


----------

