this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
118 points (96.8% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
568 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jho@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm a vegetarian.

I was, and still am, surprised by how often people will go into a long rant justifying why they eat meat to me as soon as they find out I'm vegetarian. All the while I'm just sat there, not saying anything, because I literally do not care whether or not they eat meat.

Me being a vegetarian is a personal choice for me and myself only. You do you. I don't care. You don't need to explain yourself to me. It makes me feel so awkward.

People will often ask me why I'm a vegetarian too. But it feels like a very personal and heavy question to ask someone immediately after finding out they're vegetarian... I don't especially want to talk about animals dying all the time and how it makes me sad especially to strangers.

Edit/Addition: It feels like a lot of focus is brought on how vegetarians/vegans force their views onto other people but my experience personally is non-vegetarians/vegans trying to force me into conversations about this topic.

[–] jargoggles@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

There are a lot of people who take it personally when confronted with the idea that someone else is making an ethical choice that they, themselves, are not. When they hear someone say "I made this personal choice," their ego warps it into "I made this personal choice and if you don't, you're a bad person."

It's simply low empathy behavior. They struggle to contextualize other people's thoughts and decisions outside of their own personal experience and beliefs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mizu6079@mander.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (24 children)

got nothing against vegans it's just when they try to force it into others

[–] DotSlashExecute@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a vegan myself, I completely agree! I won't tell others what to eat and they shouldn't tell me what to eat. If I were to ever get "preachy" it's purely about reducing impact on the factors mentioned in the meme and by no means forced... One less meal a week with meat in? Go you! Locally sourcing meat? Hell yeah, less environmental impact!

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For the bit about local, it's worth noting here that the difference is substantially less than one might expect. Transport is a surprisingly small portion of emissions and environmental impact

Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.

Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.

This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

[–] Abel@lemmy.nerdcore.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I always thought the party of sourcing from local wasn't transport but supporting your local economy and small producers, keeping the money within your city and raising buying power for its citizens.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Most of what I hear from those touting local is about the environment (and usually unaware of the levels of its effects)

[–] DotSlashExecute@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you for sharing, I wasn't aware the impact of transport was quite so small

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you mean by "forcing" veganism onto others?

[–] supergrizzlybear@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

Eat your vegetables or I will make you eat them! /s vegan btw

[–] max@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Very few will force it on others, though. Anyway, I find it hilarious how people can get riled up about the idea of a person not eating meat or any animal products. I’ve seen it often that they take it personally for some reason and will “compensate by eating extra bacon/steak/chicken”. It’s bonkers.

[–] SolarNialamide 3 points 1 year ago

People take it personally because deep down everyone knows it is wrong to keep something as cruel as the meat and dairy industry alive, plus the huge environmental impacts on multiple fronts. So they get super defensive instead of confronting or accepting the fact that they're doing the wrong thing for selfish reasons.

[–] PaulL@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's funny: the forum I help moderate has a strong contingent of zero-carb/carnivores, and their experience is the same, only in reverse. They get shamed for not eating plants. I guess the moral is that people will criticize us, no matter what we do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] buckykat@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Same energy as "I don't hate the gays I just wish they'd stop shoving it in my face"

[–] bulbasaur@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Like you force your lifestyle on animals, by exploiting and killing them?

[–] SolarNialamide 2 points 1 year ago

Nobody is forcing veganism onto others lmao. You see a lot of vegans going around putting a gun to someone's head demanding they drop the eggs they're holding in the store? Most vegans won't even tell you they are vegan when it's not relevant because it's too exhausting when a person turns out to be a 'veganism bad lel' debate bro, so we'd rather avoid the chance.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I hate that this used to be me.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

:)

It's especially ironic considering I've gone vegan this year.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Personal growth++

[–] Scout339@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So... Tell me how vegan alternatives to items reduce carbon footprint lol.

Vegans in ideology make sense, but if you are paying more for food [that's worse for you, instead:] just buy local stuff from your farmers market or ethically-farmed things... Local eggs, cows, vegetables... Surely this can't be unreasonable.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The worst-case production of plant-based foods actually comes out ahead compared to best-case production on virtually every environmental metric including emissions.

If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

[…]

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

More broadly

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

Transportation doesn't actually make as much impact as one might think

Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions. This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

In terms of health, one can live perfectly fine and healthy on a plant-based diet

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

[–] Scout339@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have one thing for you to research - as I do agree when it comes to naturally-created plant diets (but still with a requirement of some meat, pescatarians and vegetarians make more sense than vegans) - But you should instead look out for Seed-oils. Video

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The seed oil thing in particular isn't really backed up by current research

June 22, 2022—While the internet may be full of posts stating that seed oils such as canola and soy are “toxic,” scientific evidence does not support these claims, according to experts. Guy Crosby, adjunct associate of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, was among those quoted in a May 31, 2022 Consumer Reports article who pushed back on the idea

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-debunk-seed-oil-health-risks/

If you are looking at plant-based meats as that video seems to be, there is some degree of evidence showing that it still comes out ahead health-wise compared to animal meat . That being said, aiming for more of a whole-foods plant-based diet is of course even better health-wise

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] candyman337@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While the initial reasoning is respectable, veganism is t without it's flaws, several plants are not ethically sourced and either cause a lot of pollution, destroy habitats to be grown, or are grown via slavery, or a combo of all 3. The real issue is the systems that are in place across the food industry, plant and animal based.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Almonds are a big one that I know of. The vast majority of the world's almonds are grown in California, a state that has been facing severe drought for years now (though maybe not so much this year), but somehow still finds hundreds of billions of gallons of water yearly to keep almond farms irrigated.

And eating almonds is one thing, but processing them into milk is an order of magnitude more wasteful. It takes about 400 almonds to make a half gallon of almond milk, and each one of those almonds requires a gallon of water to produce. So that's 400 gallons of water spent to produce a half gallon of almond milk. A single almond tree can make about 30 gallons of almond milk per harvest, so we're looking at 24,000 gallons of water consumed per tree, which yields a full shelf of Almond Breeze at a single grocery store.

And as farms keep expanding and conditions become drier and drier over time, it's going to destroy the ecosystems of the state. And all so that people can have a decent milk alternative to have with their morning coffee and cereal.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CarolineJohnson@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  1. Oil comes from dinosaurs.
  2. Electricity comes from oil.
  3. This means electricity is made from dinosaurs.
  4. Dinosaurs are animals.
  5. This means electricity is an animal product.

How curious it is that vegans still use electricity, when in most places it isn't even vegan!

[–] dieelt@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

😂 not sure if you are joking. But most of the biomass which became oil was from plants.

Definitely joking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mister155@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Good for you. Although your choice doesn't befit me, I understand and respect your decision as long as you also respect mine.

It is sad some people need to belittle others over stuff that literally doesn't even personally affect them. I mean, unless they're the cook, I guess.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think veganism is useless. However, I'm not going to argue

[–] MavTheHack@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

To be fair. There is much debate around whether livestock is indirectly carbon neutral with very valid studies on both sides

[–] VeganSchnitzel@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Please link any study on livestock being CO2-neutral. I'm very skeptical, but would love to read your source first.

[–] MavTheHack@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't have access to my schools library atm. But here's one I found off google (which is admittedly a poor method to find studies)

https://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/new-study-finds-grass-fed-beef-reduces-carbon-footprint

Full disclaimer I should have clarified in my original comment. Grass fed livestock specifically is carbon neutral

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not carbon neutral if you look at studies that account for more factors. For instance, here's an article with an interview of the researchers in the field talking about how there is no carbon-neutral beef

There’s not been a single study to say that we can have carbon-neutral beef

[...]

We also have to ask how much of the sequestered carbon in these systems is actually due to the cattle. What would happen to the land if it were simply left fallow?

The answer is, depending on the land, and on the kind of grazing, it might sequester even more carbon https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/10/03/beef-soil-carbon-sequestration/

If we look at much more rigorous reviews on the carbon sequestration potential of "regenerative grazing" it's pretty slim. It cannot even sequester enough to counteract just grazing only production which only produces 1g protein/person/day

Ruminants in grazing-only systems emit about 1.32 Gt [...] These are their emissions. The question is, could grazing ruminants also help sequester carbon in soils, and if so to what extent might this compensate? As the following numbers show, the answer is ‘not much’. Global (as opposed to regional or per hectare) assessments of the sequestration potential through grassland management are actually few and far between, but range from about 0.3-0.8 Gt CO 2/yr 301,302,303 with the higher end estimate assuming a strong level of ambition.

https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf

And keep in mind that this doesn't scale very well due to the massive land it requires. Already clearing land for pastures is a large deforester. Trying to even scale to a quarter of beef demand would require using 100% of grassland which would put enormous pressure for further deforestation

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

[–] PaulL@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"And keep in mind that this doesn’t scale very well due to the massive land it requires. Already clearing land for pastures is a large deforester. Trying to even scale to a quarter of beef demand would require using 100% of grassland which would put enormous pressure for further deforestation."

Most deforestation is intended to produce land for crop farming. There is still a lot of agricultural land left that is ideal for grazing, and that cannot be used for growing crops. We may not be able to feed everyone in the world on meat, but we definitely can't do it with plant-based foods alone.

And apart from that issue, there is the matter of protein quality, which is complicated to assess. Most mentions of plant protein are referring to total nitrogen content ("crude protein"), but not all of that comes as amino acids, which is the only form in which nitrogen can be assimilated by the human body.

So mixing and balancing plant protein sources has to be done with a certain amount of skill and care, because if one of the essential amino acids in the mix is deficient, that limits the assimilability of the rest of them.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation

https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/unsustainable_cattle_ranching/

Plant-based food production uses less cropland

The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we saw a widespread shift towards plant-based diets.

[...]

If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Complete proteins matter doesn't really matter all that much in practice. Things like soy are complete on their own, and things that are technically incomplete proteins like beans can be made complete with rather little like even rice. You don't need to be getting every amino acid in with every meal. If you eat the amino acids at some point in the day, you will be fine

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VeganSchnitzel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Other people have answered more thoroughly, but it should be added that even your source never calls grass fed beef carbon neutral (on the very first paragraph it even says that it isn't), just that it has a better CO2 footprint than grain fed beef (and that not by much, as has been pointed out)

[–] momentary@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are the majority of livestock grass fed?

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

No, nor is its best case carbon neutral. See my sibling comment about that. It's also worth mentioning here that the typical grass-fed production is actually higher in methane emissions due to longer raising times

Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401/pdf


Currently, 'grass-finished' beef accounts for less than 1% of the current US supply

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401


Or if we look at Australia, which likes to tout its grass-fed production, it's still majority feedlot

51% of domestically consumed beef comes from feedlots. [...] In Q1 2021, 19% of cattle on feed were on feed for less than 100 days

And trend-wise, grain-fed rather than grass-fed is increasing

Going forward, these trends indicate that the Australian grainfed sector will continue to make up a growing percentage of cattle slaughter and beef production

https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/market-news/2021/grainfed-cattle-make-up-50-of-beef-production/

[–] MavTheHack@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately only between 4 and 5 percent in the US is

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Marduk73@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Im about a month in eating fruits vegetables plant based whatever. Im eating eggs cheese and milk.

I'm a meat eating buddhist. I'm all over the place. I'm only doing this because of hypertension and desperately trying to loose weight.

Surprisingly not hard to do. I don't preach it. I never want to be that guy. I'm just doing whatever i can to fix my health.

I don't miss the meat yet but i do a little bit. I don't think this is permanent for me. We'll see if my numbers change.

load more comments
view more: next ›