David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | Hysterical and Therefore Righteous »

September 26, 2015

Comments

rjmadden

Because using your own taxes to scold you from above and correct your preferences is what she thinks her job is.

Does anyone on the left remember the phrase 'public servants'?

David

Somewhat related, this may amuse.

Karen M

Bacon patches. On the NHS.

Jay

Bacon butties to be banned in caffs because the veggies leave smelling like an old pig and the sight of someone eating one will encourage The Children to take up bacon eating.

D. Cameron, MP.

Well, some people take their love of ham, bacon and other pork products too far. And I speak from experience...

mojo

The weirdos are coming out of the woodwork.

Sam Duncan

But remember: any talk of slippery slopes is just sensationalist scaremongering by Big Tobacco.

Fruitbat44

The labour Party had heard about the notion of being elected, but decided that it was much happier being in opposition . . .

Steve 2 - Stevement Day

"In addition to this there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England"

- George Orwell

David

there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together.

Heh. One of the things I like to think I’ve illustrated over the years.

R. Sherman

I note this sentence from Ms. McCarthy:

"There will be different viewpoints, there will be violent disagreements, but it’s about trying to listen to the evidence, approach things with an open mind – and I am very much prepared to do that."

Query how "listening to evidence" and having an "open mind" mesh with violent disagreements? Perhaps this sentence provides the clue:

"The constant challenging of the environmental impact of livestock farming is making me more and more militant."

Thus it would seem Ms. McCarthy wants people to listen to her evidence with an open mind or she'll beat the shit out of them.

Got it.

Timbo

"Jeremy Corbyn’s new vegan shadow farming minister"

"admitted she was a “militant” when it came to clamping down on meat consumption"

Beyond parody.

Sam

Meat should be treated like tobacco with a public campaign to stop people eating it,

Where's her public mandate? Does she really think the voters are crying out for this?

David

Does she really think the voters are crying out for this?

Like her new boss, I shouldn’t think Ms McCarthy is overly concerned with the preferences of the public.

mojo

No, she knows best and you plebs can stuff your opinions.

David

No, she knows best and you plebs can stuff your opinions.

It’s the socialist way.

See also this feat of stunning arrogance.

Jim

As a conservative I don't agree with government intervention in people's preferences, but seriously guys... Eating dead animals is the leading cause of heart disease, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke... If you don't put down the bacon, all the conservatives will die and leave the world to the socialist nanny staters...

Chester Draws

Eating dead animals is the leading cause of heart disease, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke...

No. The leading cause of all those things is genetic. (I will likely have heart issues as I get older, just as my father did, and both my grandfathers. Diet won't change that and, actually, neither will exercise.)

And, even then it isn't necessarily the meat as such. More often it is that a person who eats a lot of meat eats very badly in general - not enough fibre, too little fresh vegetables, too much fatty food. Added to that meat eaters tend to eat too much overall, so tend to be overweight.

A sensible balanced diet with meat in it isn't remotely unhealthy just because there is meat in it.

dicentra

Another amusing Twitter account @50NerdsofGray:

'I've been a very bad girl,' she said, biting her lip. 'I need to be punished.' 'Very well,' he said and installed Windows 10 on her laptop.

'Mmmm, let's play doctors,' she whispered. 'Alright,' he said. 'You be David Tennant and I'll be Tom Baker.' #doctorwho

'Harder!' she screamed, 'Harder!' 'Alright,' he said. 'What's the square root of nine times twelve divided by six point three recurring?'

Davers6

Down where tobacco has been grown and processed for generations in North Carolina I recall seeing bumper stickers saying "Tobacco is a Vegetable" ...so wouldn't THAT qualify it for vegan acceptance?

jones

I assume that comrade Kerry will be at least as militant towards even the idea of halal derived meat?

I'm just curious.

BlogDog

Eating dead animals is the leading cause of heart disease, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke

No. It's not.

Hal

The weirdos are coming out of the woodwork.

. . . coming out?!?!?

JuliaM

Ah, well, that's Labour cast into the wilderness for about another 6 years (at least) then...

Hal

Ah, well, that's Labour cast into the wilderness for about another 6 years (at least) then...

Oh, that'll be fun to---continue to--watch . . .

sk60

"Jeremy Corbyn's top team encouraged street riots. Labour's shadow chancellor called for insurrection against government, economic adviser said the ruling class would be killed if they resisted and key political aide boasted of his role in violent student protests."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11893986/Jeremy-Corbyns-top-team-encouraged-street-riots.html

Just so we're clear on who these fuckers are.

David

Just so we’re clear on who these fuckers are.

In not entirely unrelated news, apparently it’s all been kicking off in Shoreditch.

WTP

From sk60's link, emphasis added:

At a Liverpool conference on March 10 2012, he said: “There’s three ways in which we change society. One is through the ballot box, the democratic process and into Parliament. The second is trade union action, industrial action. The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action…

“Don’t expect that change [to society] coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets."

"Insurrection" is now called "direct action", eh? And then the bolded part. "Elected dictatorship...democratic right to use whatever means". What the serious f*ck? Gotta admit, you can't argue with that logic.

Nemo

Out of the woodwork, into pigs' heads
They're coming, they're coming - get them their meds!

Ten

As a conservative I don't agree with government intervention in people's preferences, but seriously guys... Eating dead animals is the leading cause of heart disease, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke...

Quite, for which the data is building in hills. But, being as codependent as it is, pop-conservativism has squandered the last 100 years of real issues (in the US) after which neocons take stalwart positions atop cultural artifacts yelling stop to vegans, conservationists, and other overt communists, QED.

The real game being lost, now we posture against Whole Foods strawmen and Mrs. Obama's bizarre school lunch trays. I'm sure it'll completely reform the left any day now.

Animal agriculture - which by now is wholly unnatural - is the biggest legitimate environmental issue facing humanity, as well as an enormous health concern, but if you speak it you'll be assailed as a raging leftist by the folks to whom the affection of three drive-up triple cheeseburgers is the epitome of rugged individualism.

Whatever. It is what it is, a deeply unhealthy obsession not tied in the least to either conservativism or tradition but still treated like Jefferson's second coming.

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

Eating dead animals is the leading cause of heart disease, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke...

Every time I hear one of these GD nanny-staters trying to nanny us, I can feel my blood pressure rising. I'm certain I'm not the only one. Obviously, we need to improve the public health by telling these buttinskis to leave us the hell alone.

But when talking about the quality of life, nobody ever wants to talk about the positive value of being left alone.

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

Whatever. It is what it is, a deeply unhealthy obsession not tied in the least to either conservativism or tradition but still treated like Jefferson's second coming.

It's a deeply unhealthy obsession to want to use the force of the state to tell other people what to eat.

The US government food pyramid and ag subsidies has basically lead to an entire population carb-loading, which is likely far more responsible for any increase in obesity as meat-eating.

"Public health" people are, I think, deeply evil because they're really about controlling people these days.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

In not entirely unrelated news, apparently it’s all been kicking off in Shoreditch.

Whereas I generally can't get behind the notion of trashing a place because of "gentrification" (unless gentrification just means hipsterization), I think the protesters would get more traction if they just said they didn't want the idiocy of a "cafe" that just serves breakfast cereal in their neighborhood.

WTP

...an entire population carb-loading, which is likely far more responsible for any increase in obesity as meat-eating.

Bingo.

WTP

I think the protesters would get more traction if they just said they didn't want the idiocy of a "cafe" that just serves breakfast cereal in their neighborhood.

Interesting thought. Though I would proffer the idea that the people who actually live in the neighborhood, be they hipsters or whatever, would express that they didn't want the idiocy of a cafe that just serves breakfast cereal in their neighborhood by simply not going there. Either way, those schmucks that do desire such should be able to go there in peace without having to hear about other peoples' feelings on the matter, violent or otherwise. Who in God's name gets all worked up about what other people eat for breakfast? Oh, yeah. Nanny staters. Never met any nannies carrying pitchforks and torches. YMMV, I suppose.

Ten

Thank goodness for cautionary hand waving about Marxist Communist hippy vegans beating down Republican kitchen doors. We mustn't have that.

It's a deeply unhealthy obsession to want to use the force of the state to tell other people what to eat.

There should be a law against obsessions. Fortunately, the govt is vastly more overrun with ag subsidists - typically over the dead animals side, where it costs three times to produce a # of hamburger than the retail price and where resources are converted to cancer-curing dead animal food at about a 5% efficiency - than with filthy hippies and their tofu burgers, Soviet invention that everybody knows they are.

The US government food pyramid and ag subsidies has basically lead to an entire population carb-loading, which is likely far more responsible for any increase in obesity as meat-eating.

Except for the unfortunate science that seems to want to assert otherwise. I realize that carbs in the presence of the usual fat-based diet are known to cause obesity, against the obvious common sense of fat never making fat and against the science of carbs being burned for energy. It's a hippy plot that converting to an all carb, veg, and fruit diet, and stripping out all animal products, is tested and documented to scientifically be the best way to lose weight, by far. Fat vegans? Nope.

It's a plot. To shut all the Carl's Jrs. I know, huh?

[+]

"Eggplant emoji is the digital catcall — seemingly harmless, but at its core a symbolic representation of old fashioned masculinity and dominance over women."

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/the-eggplant-emoji-is-the-next-frontline-of-online-harassment/

Johnnydub69

"...an entire population carb-loading, which is likely far more responsible for any increase in obesity as meat-eating."

This was after the government told us saturated animal fats were the biggest issue.


Now we have a serious issue with NOx pollution after the government made car manufacturers focus on bullshit CO2 emissions.

Anyone see a pattern here? Anyone see why we should tell Kerry McCarthy and the rest of her ignorant shitkicking ilk to fuck right off just on general principles?

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

Fat vegans? Nope.

Most cattle are fattened up with a vegan diet of grains.

Ten

Most cattle aren't humans but they are fattened with a cocktail of hormones which with all the antibiotics they're force fed are passed to humans. Identical to humans except for all the parts that aren't, starting with their metabolisms.

David Gillies

Why would cow hormones have any effect on people? Hormones are not active cross-species. As for the idea that it costs three times as much to produce a pound of mince than you can sell it for: why does anyone do it then? Farmers are not generally known for their charitable impulses.

I don't want to go to a restaurant that serves only breakfast cereal. What I very much want is for the State to fulfil one of its very few core competencies—that of protecting the peaceful enjoyment of property and the pursuit of trade—and descend like Shiva in a bad mood on these Class War filth.

Fuel Filter

Yeah. The British Left is now getting what it has really wanted all along.

Good. And. Hard.

Embrace the suck, suckers.

Chester Draws

where it costs three times to produce a # of hamburger than the retail price and where resources are converted to cancer-curing dead animal food at about a 5% efficiency

You're just making numbers up now.

Argentina, New Zealand, Australia can provide your beef requirements with no subsidy, and still undercut the European providers.

The reason the EU has a heavy subsidy (and only the Swiss get to the level of three times) is because they want lovely looking farms, rather than the countryside flattened for crops. It's an aesthetic decision. So Europe looks nice, in a way Kansas doesn't.

A difficult choice for vegans this. Get rid of animal husbandry as a profitable option for farmers, and see the countryside destroyed as it turns into monoculture crop mega-farms. Still, cheap tofu!

Or pay farmers to keep animals so that the countryside is still worth visiting. Not a difficult choice for anyone else though, since we aren't vegetarian. We get to have tasty food, plus a nice countryside.

Most cattle aren't humans but they are fattened with a cocktail of hormones which with all the antibiotics they're force fed are passed to humans.

"Passed to humans" eh? Significant parts of the human race take hormone pills daily, in vastly higher amounts, for contraception or body-building. I hope you are crusading against that as well.

Seriously, most hormones are destroyed by the stomach, some steroid ones pass through, but we already have them in larger amounts in our bodies. It's a risk, but a competing one against making sure you get a full source of nutrients.

And if your lot actually allowed free trade, instead of the protectionist bullshit that the EU runs with, your beef would be hormone and antibiotic free. This is where the "eat local" crap runs into one of its bigger issues.

Fat vegans? Nope.

How do you tell if there's a vegan at a dinner. Don't worry, they'll tell you!

Vegans have to focus on food so much in order to ensure a full diet. It's hard work, and tends to take over their life.

They don't get fat because eating is a chore, and most easy choices are forbidden. They can't just have a biscuit like an ordinary person.

Ten

if your lot actually allowed free trade

This bit proves the point about the codependent pedantry on the part of what's now a merely ostensible and largely ineffective right.

The various fallacies and end-runs aside, Chester Draws, you don't know what my "lot" is, notwithstanding that I didn't hide it. Take another throw at it.

But issues don't really matter as much as cultural postures do anyway, which I said. The left has no business whatsoever limiting lifestyle and choice, but the right somehow has no will or capacity to prevent it doing so anyway.

Ten

Farmers are not generally known for their charitable impulses.

Indeed. So they get subsidized, which I said.

Ten

You're just making numbers up now.

Oh? First search hit.

Do some research.

pst314

"Fat vegans? Nope."

Funny, I know a fat vegan. And, true to stereotype, she'll quickly tell you all about veganism...and socialism...and why Marx and Lenin and Castro and Mao are unfairly maligned.

WTP
Patel has said that the real cost of a hamburger should be about $200. When the costs to the environment and one's health are also considered, how much would a person be willing to pay for that hamburger? And - no matter the cost - could it ever be worth it?

OK, I'm calling bs on this. No way hamburger would cost $200/lb. this is the sort of bs "analysis"/"science" done by people with zero understanding of economics. Deer are plentiful and virtually free in most of the US. Deer meat would cut into the beef market and even if this were not the case, the demand for beef would drop to nearly zero if beef got anywhere near that price. Thus it would never approach that price. I'm looking in to finding out what it costs a rural farmer in the Appalachians to raise beef. There are numerous small ranches near where I have a second home. I'm fairly sure I know someone who knows someone who raises cattle. I'll see what I can find out. Though I'm very, very sure that what I come back with will be denounced as "anecdotal", though I'm willing to bet Mr. Patel is much further removed from actual, real beef production, not to mention an understanding of economics, than I am.

Bentley Strange

Natural News is now a source, F****g really ?

Ten, you're bullshit, all the way down. No subsidies where I am for farmers, and we do it cheaper AND better AND without antibiotics.

The research is in, excess carbs are NOT burnt off, they accumulate as fat in the body, and because they don't satiate, they promote over-eating. Fats by contrast are preferentially "burnt" and also satiate to restrict habitual over-eating. Vegans are losers who obsess about food because of their inadequate lives, get over it.

ACTOldFart

"Fat vegans? Nope."

Vegans who have kids with rickets? Far from unknown

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/420181

Darleen

Anecdote follows:

#4 daughter attended San Francisco State University - decided freshman year to go vegetarian (she would sneak some eggs & cheese when famished) ... By the middle of sophomore year she had been sick numerous times, couldn't control her weight, was always hungry and cranky.

Actually an intelligent woman, she then did some real research with a nutritionist and added meat back into her diet. Dropped 30 pounds, regained energy, saw marked improvement in her skin, hair & nails.

And she was happier!

Human beings are omnivores and our bodies will not function at peak efficiency without some dead animal flesh.

Being a vegan is a religion which has little to do with science.

JerryC

So what happens to all the nice cows and piggies after Ten converts everyone to veganism? Oh yeah, they get put down. Thanks, hippies!

Ten

Being a vegan is a religion which has little to do with science.

But an anecdotal one-sample example that isn't actually vegan is science, right Darleen? Because in actual studies vegans are far and away the most effective at weight loss. Not dairy and cheese zero meat eaters, vegans.

And no, humans aren't omnivores because they have no vestiges of carnivore physiology such as speed, tearing teeth, short digestive tracts, more. They've attempted to become omnivores to various effect.

So basically you're asserting facts not in evidence, which is belief. The root of...religion.

Darleen

Again, more than half of the water in the United States is used in the production of beef

Oh for the love of God -- that is such a blatant lie I'm baffled anyone would give the author the time of day.

In California the greenies want to whine about the drought (and strip a lot of farmers of their water rights which were granted more than 100 years ago) by claiming that Agriculture as a whole (meaning crops as well as cattle, dairy & chickens) in California uses "80% of the water."

In reality, it breaks down to 40% ag, 10% urban and 50% environmental -- not only water along "wild rivers" which have been forbidden to have any water diverted to reservoirs, but rivers that had dams removed, plus water the Fed government forcibly diverted from the Central Valley to flush into the Sacramento delta to save a non-native bait fish (the smelt).

The fact remains, in California only 40% of our water goes into agriculture and we are a huge agriculture state (percentage of US crops/dairy provided by CA)

Artichokes - 199%
Asparagus-55%
Broccoli-93%
Cabbage-22%
Carrots-89%
Celery-94%
Garlic-86%
Lettuce-78%
Cantaloupe-54%
Honeydew-73%
Onions-27%
Bell Peppers-47%
Spinach-18%
Tomatoes -94%
Almond-99%
Apricots-95%
Avocados-84%
Strawberries-90%
Dates-82%
Figs-98%
Grapes-88%
Kiwi-97%
Lemons-89%
Nectarines-93%
Olives-100%
Peaches-76%
Pistachios-96%
Plums-93%
Walnuts-99%
Honey-18%
Milk & Cream-21%

So "Natural News(sic)" can stick its beef-hate in its ear.

Darleen

Oops ... 99% of artichokes ... don't know how that "1" snuck in there.

R. Sherman

Fortunately, the govt is vastly more overrun with ag subsidists - typically over the dead animals side, . . .

Wrong, at least in the U.S. where the majority of subsidies go to feed grains to be used for ethanol, which BTW increases the cost of animal husbandry because the supply of feed grains is less than it would be, thereby increasing the cost.

Ten

Since the rightist animal ag tilt in this thread is quite incapable of reason, I'll restate the obvious again.

1. Leftists make you codependent on the food issue. Try not to play. Ignore them and try to concentrate on defeating statism. Start with your own Party, whichever it is, because both need a lot of work. Try and remember that if the left has no right to be free from your religious speech, you have none to be free of theirs. Identify it as David has, but must you make it such a hill to die on? Where you get lost is in all the reactionary chest-thumping. The left is impotent until you empower it.

2. Animal ag is typically costly, wasteful, unnecessary, unethical, turns out unhealthy food by comparison, destroys habitat, resources, and environments, and is at least as subsidized as other agriculture is (a bit of a contradiction for proud, rock-ribbed Republicans and other self-styled traditionalist John Deere conservatives whose Iowa neighbors are just as happy voting for Hillary and Washington dollars from either statist Party and the enormously lobbied and conflicted USDA, making them neither traditional or politically conservative on this and scores of other issues, all of which they've capitulated on for the last century.)

3. Therefore, kindly reconsider projecting your psuedo-scientific preferences onto actual conservativism, conflating your cultural affectations with all that God deems good and proper and American and Red Statey. It ain't; it just isn't. You can't even define conservativism anymore, or the real issues, your disdain for filthy hippies and their Mother Gaia and cretinous battery cars notwithstanding.

you're bullshit, all the way down... Vegans are losers who obsess about food because of their inadequate lives, get over it.

Of course, and if God had wanted cars to have batteries he'd have put them there. So taken on faith, assertion, and demand, say you, angry meat eaters are never losers who obsess about food because of their inadequate lives.

No, beef people can't be emotional, projecting zealots. Because somehow that would be impossible.

Ten

Natural News is now a source, F****g really ?

It was the first hit I found, Bentley. Do some research, like I said.

And then deny it.

dan
Patel has said that the real cost of a hamburger should be about $200. When the costs to the environment and one's health are also considered, how much would a person be willing to pay for that hamburger? And - no matter the cost - could it ever be worth it?

A lot of this environmental propaganda is fake. For example the calculation of the amount of water needed to produce a kilo of beef is exaggerated a thousandfold - it always assumes that if the cattle weren't present all the rain falling on pasture would be used for drinking (as opposed to flowing into streams).

it costs three times to produce a # of hamburger than the retail price
Well who would oppose magical meat that can be profitably sold for a third of its production costs, and with distribution and retail markup not even existing at all? It's a veritable perpetual motion machine.
of three drive-up triple cheeseburgers
Gotta hate the lumpenproletariat.


Fat -> fat is a myth based on a couple of 50s experiments which were methodologically disastrous. Vegetables are not 'good for you'. They contain almost no nutrition. The few vitamins they have generally require fat for absorption. They contain almost no calories for energy production, no protein for anabolism, no fat for essential body functions. The shift from fat to carbohydrates has coincided precisely with the obesity 'epidemic'. Getting rid of lard and tallow was the reason we started trans fats. Getting rid of trans fats has given us partially hydrogenated oils which are probably even worse.

'The Big Fat Surprise' is an excellent layman's guide to the disastrous uncontrolled experiment which was encouragement of high carb diets and reduction of meat intake.

And 'Ten' your 'ethics' may be against meat eating but that's not our problem. I'm no more concerned about the ethics of meat eating than I am about the unfairness of lions chasing gazelles. I have no particular interest in Leftism or Statism, I just enjoy eating meat and I happen to think it is healthier than more efficient (for me) than consuming kilos of tasteless dirt-spawn like a cow in an effort to keep up with my metabolic needs. Animal husbandry has been practised for thousands of years and I'm perfectly satisfied with the status quo.

and as for:

destroys habitat, resources, and environments, and is at least as subsidized as other agriculture is

So how does that differ from farms taking up thousands of hectares to produce toxic vegetable oils and tonnes of turnips? It doesn't.

Ten

With regard to water, Darleen, livestock are a second order user: They consume water in addition to what's been used to produce their feed. In terms of food production, this alone makes meat a very inefficient option. It takes enormous resources - and then dollars - to produce a pound of factory beef. Without that step in the chain, efficiency shoots up.

Look, be as zealous as you like making myths about the sacred link between God and slaughterhouses and Hardees. But try not to make it a scientific veracity with which to intellectually batter dope-smoking food-stampers down at the Whole Foods.

dan
With regard to water, Darleen, livestock are a second order user: They consume water in addition to what's been used to produce their feed. In terms of food production, this alone makes meat a very inefficient option. It takes enormous resources - and then dollars - to produce a pound of factory beef. Without that step in the chain, efficiency shoots up.

Look, be as zealous as you like making myths about the sacred link between God and slaughterhouse

Firstly, fine, it uses water. So does drinking water, producing beer or producing your turnips. Living uses water. What else are you preserving the water for? And the water is absorbed from the meat. Otherwise people would need to drink more.
Secondly, if you are worried about the water supply, a nuclear power plant plus desal will produce as much as you want.
Thirdly, your references to religion seem a little kooky. I'm a confirmed atheist myself so don't believe that eating meat is of moral benefit. But the Bible does seem pretty enthusiastic about meat eating and animal killing in general if people are religiously inclined.

JerryC

The whole "beef production uses too much water" thing makes no sense to me. In the US, beef cattle graze grass until they go to the feedlot, where they eat mostly corn. Where's the big water consumption? Corn is not an irrigated crop here. It's not like cattle are chowing down on thirsty crops like rice and almonds.

Ten

Dan, you meander around so much it's probably pointless to reply specifically, but when one asserts that vegetables contain little nutrition, I think we can probably end whatever conversation this is. I see fruit likewise dismissed as flavored sugar among other rightists. Of course, there are hills of scientific evidence to the contrary.

And there are always narrow, third hand Internet fancies underwritten by special interests debunking the food pyramid or fat myths so we have that to console and propel us.

How these dogmas became conflated with political positioning - but not with push-back cultural virtue signalling on the ostensible right - I do not know. But as you wish: The widely known cancer-fighting, diabetes-curing properties of burgers and fries it'll just have to be.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/pdfs/CostsAndConsequences_01-2015.pdf

Wes

I believe in clamping down on meat... with my incisors and molars.

dan
I see fruit likewise dismissed as flavored sugar among other rightists.
You seem to have a bizarrely political interpretation of food. I'm happy to rely on the science.

"Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis......There were no differences in all-cause mortality and non-significant differences in CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary interventions. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality. Government dietary fat recommendations were untested in any trial prior to being introduced."
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full


dan
And there are always narrow, third hand Internet fancies underwritten by special interests

Special interests like the conglomerates that sold Crisco et al, the massive industrial enterprises producing olive oil that promoted the myth of the 'Mediterranean Diet', the peak organisations representing fruit and vegetable producers (and cardboard box producers) that started the 'five fruit a day' marketing campaign that somehow ended up being a health campaign?

Darleen

With regard to water, Darleen, livestock are a second order user:

Ten, I note you completely ignored that the "80% of water is used in beef production" is false. And worse than false, it is a lie to prop up a religious, not scientific, belief.

You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own "facts."

In addition, that so-called "what it REALLY costs" mendacity is based on what the bovinephobics would LIKE to tack on in order to 1) enrich themselves 2) punish people for dissenting from the True Religion.

I have never been in favor of ANY transfer of wealth by the Government from some people to the advantage of others. Whether is is ag, GE, Solyndra or whatever deep pocket the Government has gone to saying "hey, nice business you got here ... shame if something were to happen to it ... like IRS, EPA, et al"

R. Sherman

Ten, how much money is directly paid to US cattle farmers per year, excluding diary farms? (Milk subsidies are a separate issue.) Give me a number and a cite. And no fair attributing feed grain subsidies to cattle, because those subsidies do not reduce grain prices to cattle feed lots. (Most feeder calf operations in my area feed their calves hay grown in in their own pastures.)

ACTOldFart

Is Ten actually Minnow back again in disguise, pushing an even wobblier, wonkier, whackier barrow than before?

Hal

Being a vegan is a religion which has little to do with science.

Weeelll, amongst all the vehement screaming sentence spraying going on at the moment, there is actually one rather particular observation regarding a strict diet that is only vegan or vegetarian, where the fact just is and one doesn't even have to go sifting through obscure reports 'n' such.

The ongoing and undeniable problem with an absolute, strict, vegan or vegetarian only diet is that once one runs out of them, one has to go back to other forms of meat.

Chester Draws

The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization" - from Wikipedia. There's also a few billion a year in hidden subsidies for insurance and fertiliser.

Gross output of U.S. farming: $374 billion. from www.statista.com

How that gets to be a "62% subsidy" is beyond me. It's not close to that figure, as a minute's research shows. Really, the lies the anti-meat lot tell are astonishing in their cupidity.

As noted above, the largest subsidy to US farmers is for bio-diesel. Which the Greens campaign for heavily. It's not to animal husbandry.

The Swiss do subsidize their farmers to around the 60% mark. It's basically a scheme to keep the countryside looking nice. No-one else could afford anything like that level of subsidy.

David

[ Rubs eyes, surveys inbox. ]

Blimey. I need coffee.

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

Look, be as zealous as you like

I need to put my shades on; the light from the projector is blinding.

wtp

the light from the projector is blinding.

Bingo again. Come on up and claim your color TV...

Joe

There's little point in arguing the nutritional virtues of this or that. That isn't the point... If you think tree bark will make you live forever, sobeit.

As if to replace the concept of civil society organizations, the GOVERNMENT thinks it REASONABLE to tell people what to eat. Basically, that was your mother's job.

ACTOldFart

"If you think tree bark will make you live forever, sobeit."

It doesn't. They tried it in North Korea.

dicentra

humans aren't omnivores because they have no vestiges of carnivore physiology such as speed, tearing teeth, short digestive tracts, more.

That's why we domesticated cows and invented cooking. The domestication of dogs and invention of projectiles permitted us to hunt without needing specialized skills. Just our enormous brains, which are made mostly of fat.

dicentra

Interesting source docs, Ten:

Source 1: IPCC — Known purveyor of fabrication and mendacity.

Source 2: "Livestock and climate change" from an org with addresses in Kenya and Ethiopia--given that Wyoming ranchers and the Masai use identical cattle husbandry techniques on identical terrain, the conclusions are bound to be easily transferable. Especially since the premise in the title gives it more credibility than you can shake a stick at.

Source 3: The Center for Biological Diversity, which, on its front web page, advises us to "Take Action for Polar Bears."

You condemn our opposition to the doctrines of veganism as mere reactionary reaction to a pet topic for the left, and then to support your figures you cite ...

... left-wing sources.

If you want to persuade us that abandoning animal ag is a worthy conservative goal, you need to show us facts and figures from sources that WE trust, i.e., left-wing pubs who are making a confession against interest or somewhere like IBD or AEI.

Just sayin'

dan

"The Swiss do subsidize their farmers to around the 60% mark. It's basically a scheme to keep the countryside looking nice"

If you like beef and nice views, Graubünden is heaven.

Chester Draws

humans aren't omnivores because they have no vestiges of carnivore physiology such as speed, tearing teeth, short digestive tracts, more.

Sorry to feed the troll, but people might actually believe this bullshit.

Humans don't hunt with speed, like cheetahs. We hunt with cunning, teamwork and endurance. Bushmen will literally run an animal down.

We certainly don't have the teeth of carnivores, but I have canines and incisors, which do seem to work on meat. Can't speak for vegans.

Our digestive system is similar to Grizzly bears - which are definitely not herbivores.

Most of our close ape relatives are happy to eat meat too.

In the wild humans probably only ate a small amount of meat and there is little doubt we are more herbivorous than carnivorous. But then my diet is maybe 10% meat,and I could cut it down to 5% without any great strain. That doesn't make me a herbivore.

dicentra

We certainly don't have the teeth of carnivores, but I have canines and incisors, which do seem to work on meat.

COOKED meat, no less, plus sharpened obsidian or iron or bronze or copper to cut apart critters, skin 'em, and roast 'em over that fire thingy that other critters don't have.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll