SPECIAL FEATURES:
12 foods that are bad for the planet: Meat
12 foods that are bad for the planet
photo 5 of 14
Photo:
Lisa Poole/AP
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
P V Ariel
Oct 30 2011 at 10:59 AM
The 12 foods mentioned here are really a shocking news to us.
Thanks for sharing these revealing facts and the connected links
I am resharing this in my scoop.it page.
Best regards
Phil
Constantine
Oct 12 2011 at 9:00 PM
Why are so many people ignorant to the things happening around them, don't think just about yourself but about the future generations, your childs generations to thrive and this day and age we have to substitute some meals with veggies and other non meat products. The truth is out there and many people are beginning to see the truth but the individuals refusing to stop and see whats happen around us will bring us all down, one opinion is not enough but together....THATS WERE WE MAKE A CHANGE
Richard T.
Jul 30 2011 at 1:59 PM
Reading all this tripe (pun intended as an insult to militant vegetarians) that you environmentalist and back-to-nature wackos would be very entertaining if it were not so dangerous. There is absolutely no sound reproducible science to back the assertions that we are damaging the environment or climate by any of our eating habits, driving habits, buying habits or any other human activity. Making the astounding and absurd assertion that any food or preparation or packaging of any food is bad for the
.... More
planet is based dogmatic beliefs and not on sound science. If you people want to believe all this nonsense, please, be my guest. I will not suffer you fools gladly, however, if you try to force me to follow this nonsense by pushing through federal legislation or regulations that then force me to suffer the consequences, then I will fight back by contributing to any organization who will lobby for the defeat of any such legislation or the enactment of any such regulations by the FDA. Grow up, get a life and start doing sound scientific research utilizing the scientific method instead of indulging in alchemy.
Gene Parquette
Jan 17 2013 at 3:09 AM
No one here is trying to get you to become a vegetarian. However, the fact that you continue to bring down the science behind this makes it quite clear it is you, and not the so called militant vegetarians, that has a problem. Obviously, you have no background in science yourself. A person with a true background in ENVIRONMENTAL science, would know that, while these industries might not be as bad as presented, the writers of this article do have a state-able fact that is, indeed, backed by research
.... More
as well as basic common sense. I could give you several links if you desire to scholarly articles by respected scientists, who, by the way, are not vegetarian, that backs up many claims that this article has presented, though perhaps not so direly. Please do not take this as a personal attack; however I find it distasteful for someone to attack the science behind a thing without thorough research, and obviously with a political agenda in mind.
Mark S
Dec 28 2011 at 7:39 AM
Richard T, it is interesting how you rant about the need for scientific research to substantiate claims but my experience with science (having a science background), it is rife with vested interests, corporate agendas and goals of making money rather than true science. While you may be correct with some of your assertions you are blinded by your own scientific spin so truth takes a back seat. While pure/true science is hugely important to the survival of our species and our inherited eco-system,
.... More
it is blind ignorance such as yours which are far more dangerous than the militant vegetarians, environmentalists and back-to-nature wackos you denegrate here.
Richard T
Dec 31 2011 at 12:40 PM
Mark S, you are correct that it does not help for me to resort to name-calling so I apologize. That just lowers me to the same level as the very miltitants whose ideologies I despise. That aside, my comments on the validity of my assertions stand. There is no sound, repeatable by experimentation, physical scientist-based peer-reviewed, incontrovertible evidence to show that man's activities are in actuality contributing to climate change and it is arrogant unscientific nonsense to assert that is
.... More
the case based strictly on computer models that are skewed to produce those desired results. Militant environmentalists, most of whom wouldn't recognize actual science if it jumped up and bit them on the backside, are in this fight not to “save the environment”. It does not need saving. They are in this fight to change our socio-political system from small "r" republican, free-enterprise capitalism to a socialist, command-economy statist socio-political system. You can dispute that all you want but the evidence for my assertion is all around us in the form of onerous non-legislated regulations forced on us by unelected bureaucrats, unconstitutional actions undertaken by both the president and congress mandating behavioral changes that infringe on the very liberties and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution and a federal court system that legislates from the bench and "interprets" the Constitution (read the Constitution, please, including the amendments and show me where it grants the courts the power to legislate or interpret) rather than ruling on the law. As for the militant vegetarians, if that is their preferred lifestyle, more power to them. All I am saying is that they have no sound evidence that a sensible diet that includes meat from animals is any worse than a diet that excludes it. Man was and still is an omnivore and was never, by choice a vegetarian until civilization evolved enough to allow for that luxury. However, they have no right whatsoever to attempt to force me through bureaucratic mandate or regulations or federal legislation to make me convert to being a vegetarian. That is an infringement on my personal liberty and freedom as guaranteed by the constitution. If both of these militant movements want to have their way then they have a legal avenue to do so by proposing and then working to have passed amendments to the US Constitution. I wish them ill luck were they to try but they have the right to go that legal route. Neither group has the right to force their beliefs into action by unconstitutional mandates.
Earthiechick
Jul 25 2011 at 8:06 PM
It's mismanagement/agrabusiness AND overpopulation: more people, more food - a contributing cause of the rise of agrabusiness. Lots of research out there that show how feedlot cattle are in an endless cycle of medication to allow them to eat corn (not their natural diet) and antibiotics to stave off infections from living in lots full of their droppings. Humans were not meant to consume meat 3 meals a day - look at our obesity rates, it's not just refined sugars and carbs causing the weight! Also,
.... More
US beef contains almost twice the fat of beef raised in many other countries. Cut down on the meat meals, stop breeding like rabbits, farm and ranch sustainably. Believe me now or believe me later, you;ll see.
not republican - not democrat
Jul 25 2011 at 12:22 AM
It's mismanagement, folks. When my brother and I farmed, we had no runoff after rain - even very heavy rain - from our pastureland or cropland. It's easy to farm in such a way that the water that falls on a farm stays on that farm. I realize there can be floods and all bets are off, but Mother Nature can defeat all our puny efforts at controlling the planet. There are sustainable methods of farming, and they are generally ignored by farmers, especially the big corporation "farmers."
Speak Out
Jul 25 2011 at 6:37 PM
Yeah and if the environmentalist have it their way the government will be growing our food before too long. That's a scary thought. I wonder how many environmental rules they break! I wonder how much runoff comes from all of the bs in this article because it's neck deep in poo!
Guest
Jul 25 2011 at 12:33 PM
To suggest that everyone mismanages their agribusinesses is ludicrous to sat the least. If all of the cattle industry from Ranch to the Distribution of Meat at the supermarket would have been owned by one Company back in 2003...it would have been listed 9th on fortune 500 list. So get a grip, the cattle business is far from the issue here of polluting the world's water supply...I mean where do these people get their information? It is far from credible, including global warming...LOL, now that is
.... More
a joke.
...and what the hell do you mean corporation farming? Got news for you...if you were actually a business person (WHICH IS A FARMER) you probably operate under a Limited Liability Company, S Corp or Corporation...that is just good business practice. Farming is a business...GOT IT? When a business person runs their business in a professional and detailed manner (as successful business people do) they don't let their assets (soil) run into the river as readily as ding bat hobby farmer suggest.
Larry
Jul 26 2011 at 2:27 AM
Um, this makes no sense. If nobody eats any meat then where do all the cows that don't get butchered go? Do they just disappear? Wouldn't there just be more of them?
J. Pal
Jul 24 2011 at 10:41 PM
According to the math used by this article, if the entire country reduced it's meat consumption by one third then it would be the equivalent of taking half a million cars off the roads? The last count put 254 million cars active in the united states. Half a million off is a 0.19% decrease in carbon dioxide. That's an insignificant advantage for a significant sacrifice. I just don't see the validity of it.
Also agreed with others, the problem isn't in the foods being bad for the planet but the
.... More
human mismanagement of resources involved.
Guest
Jul 25 2011 at 8:23 AM
That was removing ONE SERVING of meat. 3-4 oz per person. A single time. Please read more carefully. If every American went vegetarian, that would be the equivalent of removing every car and coal power plant in the country, with quite a bit to spare.
Danny H
Jul 24 2011 at 7:02 PM
As much as I might disagree with Al on some things Kent, I do have to say that I cannot see what in the world you are saying. Gore promotes planting... Thing is that there is a HUGE difference between planting those plants that will help cleanse the atmosphere and planting ones that will deplete the environment where they are planted. Eric W is right, we are screwing ourselves right out of existence.
Eric W
Jul 24 2011 at 6:13 PM
All this is crap.It's not the food,it;s the mis-management by us.
Stop all this stuff about ,this is bad for you.What's bad for us concering this.Is us.
It just want's me to put my carbon footprint up your (bleep).
Have a good day.
Meat
According to the Environmental Defense Fund, if every American substituted one meal of chicken with vegetarian food, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off U.S. roads. Here are some of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization’s findings on meat and the environment:
-
18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock — more than from transportation.
-
70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon was cleared to pasture cattle.
-
The world’s largest source of water pollution is the livestock sector.
-
Livestock are responsible for a third of the nitrogen and phosphorus in U.S. freshwater resources.
-
Livestock account for about 20 percent of land animals, and the 30 percent of Earth’s land they occupy was once inhabited by wildlife.
Advertisement
Advertisement
From our sponsor
Email
Join the conversation