• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

...
In that same vein, please ensure that the food you eat is not produced from cattle herds that are over-grazing dry grass lands, and that the rivers around the factory farm where your pork products were produced do not smell like pig's muck.

...and that your bananas don't come from Nicaragua, and your organic veggies weren't fertilized with manure from an industrial feed lot, and your rice isn't... ad infinitum. Thing is, living in the U.S. pretty much all our economic activity sucks for somebody--not just our consumption of meat.
 
Last edited:
Well, nations don't eat anything, people do.

Hmm...I haven't been around threads you participate in enough to know if that was just a flash of your sense of humor, or are you the pickiest of nitpicks...so I won't respond in any other way than simply stating people=nations.

And looking at people's life expectancy in developed nations, nutrition there must be pretty sustainable, no?

I can't see how that would be relevant regarding the OP. A good diet is not enough to make the life expectancy of whole nations (:)) grow. Besides, the problems in the developed nations related to eating too much are a true downside to how easy eating has been made. However, all this has nothing to do with the articles of the OP. You can not find a reasonable argument against the need to cut down on (not quit) global meat consumption, or if you can, I'd really like to hear it.

I'm a proponent of consuming less of everything, not only meat. Some people here have stated that overpopulation is the big issue regarding food. I agree to some extent, but still have to wonder how much less of a problem it would be if only there'd be some limit to how much an individual would be allowed to consume. Of course there are billions of people who haven't even skimmed the possibilities of modern mass-consumption yet...I shudder to think of the consequences of them getting to the consumption rate we're in now.

Good, because I won't change anything based on anybody's attitude.

Great! That's in common for us, then.

I don't get it. You let live others as they wish as long as their lifestyle is convenient for you?

Well, not exactly. I don't regard just myself as a measure. I rather like to look at the big picture. As most people, I wish for the behavior of people not to pose a threat for the well being of other people, and I am ready to step in if I see this threat taking place.

So as long as you keep your consuming habits such that there can not be shown a reasonable correlation between them and the needless suffering of other people, fine by me. But if you would eat at McD's every day (not saying you do), I'd find that as something worth commenting on (not trying to stop you doing it, but simply commenting and offering you something to think about).
 
Last edited:
A good diet is not enough to make the life expectancy of whole nations (:)) grow.

I disagree with that. A good diet will make a major differance in life expectancy, since it will stave off some diseases, particularily in children, and greatly reduce chances of epidemics, wheater because of reduced immune capability of a starving individual, or because people on a good diet will be (able to be) more selective with their food, and consequently less likely to obtain a disease from there.
A differance on the order of 10 years wouldn't be unexpected.

McHrozni
 
I disagree with that. A good diet will make a major differance in life expectancy, since it will stave off some diseases, particularily in children, and greatly reduce chances of epidemics, wheater because of reduced immune capability of a starving individual, or because people on a good diet will be (able to be) more selective with their food, and consequently less likely to obtain a disease from there.
A differance on the order of 10 years wouldn't be unexpected.

McHrozni

Thanks! I'd be happy to accept that. Any reference?
 
Thanks! I'd be happy to accept that. Any reference?

Sure, but I hope I won't have to spend more than 2 seconds looking for one.

Will this do?
http://www.westpac.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/ECCE/Advocacy_letters/NUTRITION.pdf

It's a UNESCO publication about child mortality as a result of malnutrition, apperantly. Child mortality is one significant factor in low life expectancy, so I think this covers part of the problem, certainly enough to make the entire argument believable, no?

McHrozni
 
By the way that was a statistic I read in a recent article for watermelon biofuel (in the article they cited that 20% left on the fields and suggested to use it as biofuel instead) so take it with a grain of salt.

Knowing what happens from home (ok not the US, but I guess it would be the same) is that nobody take them, because unless the farmer explicitly say it is "free" to be taken (as it sometimes happen, saw it a few weeks ago for a corn field on my way home, and sometimes on potatoe field) there is no way to know whether you are stealing something which the farmer will later harvest (with possible legal repercussion), or if this is refuse you can get for free. As a result it mostly rot there.

That's bad. I wonder if a partial solution to at least some hunger could be using the food that's already available more ethically. Why would farmers prefer to leave things to rot than to put signs up announcing that people can come in and take them, or selling them off cheaply at local markets?

I once heard an excerpt on the radio from the book Grapes of Wrath, written by an American author about conditions during the Great Depression. The excerpt was about how lots of people were starving, and out of work so they didn't have money to pay for much, and yet food was actually destroyed, so the corporations that controlled farming wouldn't have to sell it off cheaply, and prices could stay high. I wonder if that kind of thing sometimes goes on nowadays.

I found the excerpt and other bits like it that I heard on a website:

The decay spreads over the state, and the sweet smell is a great sorrow on the land. Men who can graft the trees and make the seed fertile and big can find no way to let the hungry people eat their produce. Men who have created new fruits in the world cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten. And the failure hangs over the State like a great sorrow. ...

The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people come from miles to take the fruit, but this could not be… And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit – and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains.

And the smell of rot fills the country.

…Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out.

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificates – died of malnutrition – because the food must rot, must be forced to rot.

The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

(John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, pp. 362-363).
 
BN about slaughterhouse : yes it is dirty, but as the number of food poisoning going on, you have a better chance in the first world to get a salmonella poisoning from products with milks or from salad.

That is what i wanted to say before checking my fact :P bad me.

Then I tryed to do some fact checking, but I am not getting any more info than this :
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm
and this :
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/food_poisoning/stats.htm

So I am not so sure, except that I would try to avoid some type of sea food :P.

But frankly you are killing animals. I do not expect that to be CLEAN as opposed to pull a legumes out of the soil and washing it.
 
@BN yes, that is why a lot more farmer today just put a inscription "feel free to take it" or similar at their field more and more, but as usual the hunger problem is a distribution problem. It rots HERE in the first world, because not much people want it (yes I know we also have hunger here around but bear with me), whereas in other part of the world, those who might want it do not have access to it.
 
@BN yes, that is why a lot more farmer today just put a inscription "feel free to take it" or similar at their field more and more, but as usual the hunger problem is a distribution problem. It rots HERE in the first world, because not much people want it (yes I know we also have hunger here around but bear with me), whereas in other part of the world, those who might want it do not have access to it.

I wonder what more could be done about it than already is.
 

Hey, thanks. Something like I could expect. As I said, a healthy diet plays a part. But without clean water, immunization and sanitation it will go only so far.

As a side note, I don't see UNESCO (or any other source) suggesting as a necessary part of a healthy diet, that children (or anyone else) should be fed meat on every meal, daily. Which is what the OP's about.
 
BN about slaughterhouse : yes it is dirty, but as the number of food poisoning going on, you have a better chance in the first world to get a salmonella poisoning from products with milks or from salad.

That is what i wanted to say before checking my fact :P bad me.

Then I tryed to do some fact checking, but I am not getting any more info than this :
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm
and this :
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/food_poisoning/stats.htm

So I am not so sure, except that I would try to avoid some type of sea food :P.

But frankly you are killing animals. I do not expect that to be CLEAN as opposed to pull a legumes out of the soil and washing it.
No, killing animals can't be expected to be clean. But safety practices could probably improve, for one thing.

One reason vegetables can give people food poisoning is because the manure used to add nutrients to the soil sometimes contains the bacteria that causes it.

I did some research on food poisoning in vegetable products. I discovered it's more common than I thought. (I first posted this stuff in another thread.) Anyone who worries about this stuff too much will conclude we're all doomed!

I'd be very surprised if it turned out that people were actually more likely to get food poisoning from vegetables than from meat; but it seems food poisoning from non-meat sources happens more often than I assumed:

I discovered that melons are a common source of food poisoning.

I had a look for information on what could cause food poisoning from melons. I first found this article about a pesticide that wasn't registered for use with melons that was found in some and that caused severe illness in some people.

I found another article, mainly about cantaloupes, called Melons are found to be cause of food poisoning.

Cantaloupe melons have been identified as a common source of food poisoning.

Scientists who studied records in the US and Canada identified almost one large outbreak caused by cantaloupes every year over a 30-year period, leaving 1,615 people ill, 57 in hospital and two dead.

I find it quite disconcerting that nice wholesome vegetarian fare could do that to people. But animals are implicated somewhere. :) The article goes on to advise:

It is believed that the problem lies in the rough skin of the cantaloupe being hard to clean, meaning that bacteria on the outside can contaminate the flesh when it is cut open. Consumers should avoid melons with blemishes and scrub them with a brush under cold water.

There's a bit more advice in this article called Avoid Food Poisoning with Melon

The article tells us that food poisoning from salmonella and other bacteria has been linked to melons, and if you cut right through the melon without washing and scrubbing the outside first, the bacteria can be sliced into the fruit.

They also add: be sure to refrigerate cut melon. Cut melon can be left out for up to 4 hours; after that, it should be discarded.

And here's another article. Honduran Melons Contaminated with Salmonella

So far 59 people have been sickened from 16 states and Canada.* 14 had to be hospitalized. The Salmonella Litchfield strain was found to be the likely source of the bacterial contamination.

Salmonella is a bacterium that usually lives in the intestinal tract of animals.* Food can become contaminated when it comes in contact with waste water or workers who don’t wash their hands.

Yuck.

Still, farm animals aren't all to blame.

I found an article just as disconcerting as the last one: Salmonella and E. coli bacteria found in “ready-to-eat” seeds.

Oh no!

Still, at least it's only a small percentage.

Seeds, such as sesame, sunflower, pumpkin and poppy, are frequently eaten as snack foods or incorporated into meals without further cooking. The study was therefore undertaken to explore the microbiological safety of these products as they would be eaten by consumers.

Between October 2007 and March 2008, 3735 samples of ready-to-eat seeds of different varieties were collected from retail premises including supermarkets, health food shops, convenience shops and market stalls. Overall, 98% were of a satisfactory or acceptable quality in microbiological terms, but 0.6% of samples were found to be unsafe due to the presence of Salmonella, which renders food unfit for human consumption. A further 1.5% were found to contain unsatisfactory levels of E. coli, which is an indicator of poor hygiene. ...

"When seed crops are grown they can be exposed to a wide range of bacteria from many sources including soil, manure, irrigation water, wild birds and animals. Seeds may also become contaminated during the drying process. The risk of human illness can be reduced for ready-to-eat seeds by hygienic manufacturing practices in the field, during harvesting and during processing of seeds."

I suppose that's how salmonella gets onto vegetables and nuts and things as well.

From an article called How does salmonella get into peanut butter? And can you kill it once it's there?

How does salmonella get into peanut butter?

Feces from some animal is a strong possibility. A leak in the roof, for example, caused one of the early outbreaks. How salmonella got into the water that was on the roof, no one knows for sure. Maybe birds, for instance, which accumulate around peanut butter processing plants.

And it gets worse!

An article called Raw tomatoes cause salmonella outbreak elaborates on the causes:

... But news of widespread food-poisoning outbreaks and bacterial contamination have become a familiar refrain in North America in recent years. In 2006, hundreds of people fell ill and some died after eating spinach that was tainted with E. coli bacteria. That same year, a Toronto couple were paralyzed after drinking carrot juice that was contaminated with a botulism toxin. In March, Canadian health officials had to launch a major recall of cantaloupe tainted with salmonella after dozens became ill in Canada and the United States. ...

Fresh produce has always been vulnerable to bacterial contamination, in part because it's grown outside and may come into contact with animals in the field or contaminated fertilizer, or be tainted by unsanitary handling.

Those weaknesses have been amplified in the past few decades by the explosion of industrial-sized farms and the proliferation of dominant companies who supply a large portion of the product available on store shelves. Those changes mean that instead of being confined to one area, contaminated products may be spread across the continent very quickly. In addition, it is often difficult for companies and health officials to determine the source of the outbreak and where the product was distributed, meaning that more consumers may be put at risk because the contaminated goods could remain on sale longer. ...

The issue of food traceability - knowing the current location of a product as well as where it came from and who handled it along the way - is one of the key elements to responding effectively to food contamination and preventing the spread of an outbreak. However, even though the food system has evolved into a global entity, officials have not developed effective systems to track the movement of food and minimize the damage of potential contamination, said Sylvain Charlebois, a marketing professor at the University of Regina. ...

And this sounds quite unpleasant! From an opinion piece called PR debacle for HFCS: Care for some mercury with your oatmeal?

After one set of scientists found mercury — yes, everyone’s favorite brain-impairing element — in almost half of commercial HFCS, another bunch of scientists decided to get specific and tested 55 common consumer products that use HFCS. And guess what? Almost a third of them contain mercury.

How did the heavy metal get in there? In making HFCS — that “natural” sweetener, as the Corn Refiners Associaton likes to call it — caustic soda is one ingredient used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. Apparently most caustic soda for years has been produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants, where it can be contaminated with mercury that it passes on to the HFCS, and then to consumers.

... At the top of the list: Quaker Oatmeal to Go, Jack Daniel’s Barbecue Sauce from Heinz, Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup, Kraft Original Barbecue Sauce, and Nutri-Grain Strawberry Cereal Bars. That’s all bad enough, especially considering no level of mercury is considered safe and that it’s especially toxic to growing brains — that is, the brains of the people consuming the highest levels of HFCS (children) and the brains of babies in utero. (See the figures in the report.) Worse: People at the FDA and USDA knew about the presence of mercury in HFCS and did nothing about it.

I looked for confirmatory information. A journal article describing the study findings about mercury is online here.

Mercury cell chlor-alkali products are used to produce thousands of other products including food ingredients such as citric acid, sodium benzoate, and high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup is used in food products to enhance shelf life. A pilot study was conducted to determine if high fructose corn syrup contains mercury, a toxic metal historically used as an anti-microbial. High fructose corn syrup samples were collected from three different manufacturers and analyzed for total mercury. The samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations. ...

The FDA does analyze some foods for mercury through the ongoing surveillance program known as the Total Diet Study (TDS). The TDS, however, does not test all foods for mercury. Mercury is routinely detected by the TDS in fish, liver, and poultry because farmers routinely use fishmeal and/or fish oil as feed for certain livestock to include chickens, swine, dairy cows, and farmed fish. Animals that are fed fishmeal can bioconcentrate monomethyl mercury in protein
matrices that are then passed on to the consumer in the fat components of derived foods [15]. A list of the foods that were recently tested for total mercury along with the results of the analyses may be found at the FDA website [16]. In 2003, FDA tested 48 foods for mercury during the TDS and of those only three may have contained HFCS. Average daily US consumption of HFCS for the year 2007 was approximately 49.8 g per person according to the US Department of Agriculture website [17]. High-end consumers of beverages sweetened with HFCS could easily be ingesting more HFCS than the average person.

Yep, we're all doomed, clearly! :)
 
Last edited:
Hey, thanks. Something like I could expect. As I said, a healthy diet plays a part. But without clean water, immunization and sanitation it will go only so far.

Immunization is probably the least important of the three (or four) factors. Without significant portion of population travelling and exposing themselves to new and different diseases, it becomes much less important. This is the case in much of the world that experiences hunger. I think that clean water is the most important, followed by adequate diet and sanitation.

As a side note, I don't see UNESCO (or any other source) suggesting as a necessary part of a healthy diet, that children (or anyone else) should be fed meat on every meal, daily. Which is what the OP's about.

Hm, I can tell the differance between eating meat with every meal of every day, eating meat in a reasonable quantity (e.g. six meals per week) and not eating meat at all. Do I need to explain the differance, or do you see my point? :)

McHrozni
 
Immunization is probably the least important of the three (or four) factors. Without significant portion of population travelling and exposing themselves to new and different diseases, it becomes much less important.
McHrozni
Yeah, cuz nobody spreads diseases to each other, especially airborne ones. And nobody ever got sick if they didn't travel. I mean, you keep them babies in their cities, and they never ever died of whooping cough!

*rolls eyes*
 
Since we are in an industrial age, we are at a point where industrialized food is a necessity. It is not the only way to feed the billions, but an essential element. I've been reading Michael Pollan's The Botany of Desire, specifically about The Potato, and how a Peruvian tuber became a miracle vegetable, first for Ireland (well, probably for the Incas), then for Western civilization. And then I got to how-potatoes-are-farmed-now. Ouch.

Let's just say that there is a LOT of non-sun-water-dirt work in the making of our french fries.

I'm not sure "vegetarianism" is "the answer". Do we allow the predators to come back to keep all of the deer in check? I kinda like one local program here that donates hunted venison. And there is the whole Canadian goose population explosion.

And I thought the vegetarianism in a lot of cults contributed to a more passive population to manipulate. Though I don't have any science handy to support it. Lack of B-12? Iron? Dunno. Could be plain "poor diet".
 
Hm, I can tell the differance between eating meat with every meal of every day, eating meat in a reasonable quantity (e.g. six meals per week) and not eating meat at all. Do I need to explain the differance, or do you see my point? :)

Yeah, I see your point :).

But as an utterly healthy, sporty omnivore (vegetarian/vegan for 10 years until this summer) who has a small amount of meat average 2-3 times a week, six meals including meat a week seems too much to be necessary. I'm ready to be corrected on this one, though.

Of course the ecological impact of ones diet depends a lot on where you live and what kind of meat you eat. For example, in Finland an organic fanatic vegan might be responsible for notably more stress to the environment than a person having a diet of mainly locally grown meat.
 
He was talking about harm, not personal convenience. Was that a genuine mistake on your part or a deliberate distortion? What he said surely has to do with ethical considerations.
Right. Ethical behaviour is convenient for you.
 
Right. Ethical behaviour is convenient for you.

Not necessarily at all. And there was no suggestion you were thinking along the lines of ethics in your response. To use the word "convenient" implies that you think a person's uppermost concern is a selfish one. Use of the word harm implies a concern for the well-being of others.
 
Not necessarily at all. And there was no suggestion you were thinking along the lines of ethics in your response. To use the word "convenient" implies that you think a person's uppermost concern is a selfish one. Use of the word harm implies a concern for the well-being of others.
Often, the distinction is not that clear cut. People may assume "concerning" notions, because it gives them a personally convenient sentiment of moral superiority over others.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom