Fox News Does Something Good. What The...???

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM PDT

Here's an excerpt:

Andy Kroll of Fox News outlined the reasons why he was going to reduce his meat consumption by 75 percent in the upcoming months. The tipping point for him? The significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with animal production globally.

What is so inviting and simultaneously exciting about Andy's article is the realistic and informative approach he takes to a very complicated issue. He notes the United Nations figure regarding animal production -- 18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions are associated from animal production [PDF]. This includes all of the myriad emissions linked to animal production: pesticides and fertilizers required to grow feed crops, methane emissions from cows burping, and all of the stuff that comes out their back end, plus the energy required to transport, slaughter, package, and distribute animal products.

Global warming was the tipping point for me too, although I went vegetarian instead of just cutting back. But that's a personal thing. I am not very good at moderation and I realize that. I am very, VERY encouraged by the many recent headlines encouraging people to cut back on meat. The debate used to be all or nothing, carnivore or vegetarian. I'm thrilled to see society realizing that you can be a near-vegetarian if giving up meat is too painful and still benefit the planet and your own health.

Oh, and to be totally fair to Fox News: Don't worry, I'm not giving the entire network credit for one faux-newscaster's good deed. You still retain your status as the most hated network by liberals.

Red Meat Kills

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 22:20:53 PM PDT

From the Washington Post:

The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.

Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.

This doesn't come as a surprise to me, but it's always nice to back up hunches with facts. What I think WILL be surprising to a lot of people is how little red meat (4 oz/day) made a difference. Four ounces is within the Food Pyramid's guidelines for how much meat you should eat daily, although they do encourage you to "choose [fish, nuts, and seeds] frequently instead of meat or poultry." (The Food Pyramid does NOT tell you to avoid beef - just "choose lean cuts" of beef.)

From the nutrition advice I've seen during my work in hospitals, these study results don't result in new dietary advice. Any doctor would tell you that red meat is a good idea, and red meat every day (particularly processed meats) is a bad idea. No surprise there. Best headline I've seen on this? "Steak and Hot Dogs Linked to Early Death"

Consumers Union to Vilsack: We Want Better Meat Labels

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PST

1. Withdraw the "naturally raised" label - CU criticizes the current naturally raised claim because it only means that the animal was raised without certain antibiotics, animal byproducts, and growth promotants. In a poll, consumers want the label to mean the animal:
   • Had a diet free of chemicals, drugs and animal byproducts (86%)
   • Was raised in a natural environment (85%)
   • Ate a natural diet (85%)
   • Was not cloned or genetically engineered (78%)
   • Had access to the outdoors (77%)
   • Was treated humanely (76%)
   • Was not confined (68%)

2. Close loopholes in Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

3. Close loopholes in "grass fed" standard - In November 2007, a new standard for a "grass fed" label went into effect. However, any company already using a "grass fed" claim was grandfathered in and allowed to continue making the claim, even if they didn't meat the standards.

4. "Harmonize" meat marketing claims across meat, poultry and dairy items - Consumers get confused when labels mean different things on meat, dairy, and eggs. For example, the grass fed standard currently only applies to ruminants (cud-chewing animals like cows) but the label also appears on poultry, milk, and eggs.

5. Define "raised without antibiotics" label claim:

   While most consumers believe that this claim means no antibiotics or antimicrobial drugs were administered, there is in fact no standard for the term.

6. Ensure consistency of "organic" label to scope of products covered - Mostly this is a request for the USDA to clean up the standards for "organic" farmed fish. This standard is currently in progress and quite frankly, it stinks. The current standard the USDA is considering allows "organic" fish to eat non-organic food. WTF?

7. Maintain "treated with irradiation" labeling for meat from irradiated surface cuts - The USDA is currently considering a request from the American Meat Institute to allow meat irradiation without labeling. Please, oh please, USDA - don't do this!

Is Ethical Meat Eating an Oxymoron?

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:06:23 PM PST

Personally, I find it abhorrent to gain an animal's trust and then kill it and eat it. But that's me. Because I have friends who raise animals humanely and sustainably, who confront this issue head on and still decide to eat meat, I feel strongly that it is not my place to judge others for their decision to eat meat.

This very question has been the subject of much conversation lately, so let's explore it a bit more below.

Meat, Egg, Dairy, and Nut Consumption

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:10:15 AM PST

For similar data on fruits, go here.
For data on vegetables, go here.
The original USDA ERS data is here.

UN says eat less meat to curb global warming! About effing time!

by: Asinus Asinum Fricat

Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:08:40 AM PDT

The 68-year-old Indian economist, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

'Give up meat for one day (per week) initially, and decrease it from there. In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity.'

BTW, Pachauri is due to give a speech in London on Monday under the title: 'Global Warning: the impact of meat production and consumption on climate change'.
                     

Beef: Unsafe at any price, even at Whole Foods

by: Michele Simon

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:10:08 PM PDT

Meat and Global Warming

by: OrangeClouds115

Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 15:00:00 PM PDT

To understand livestock's impact on the planet, you have to consider the size of the industry. It is the single largest human-related use of land. Grazing occupies an incredible 26 percent of the ice- and water-free surface of the planet Earth. The area devoted to growing crops to feed those animals amounts to 33 percent of arable land. Meat production is a major factor in deforestation as well, and grazing now occupies 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon region. In Brazil, 60 to 70 percent of rainforest destruction is caused by clearing for animal pasture, one reason why livestock accounts for nine percent of human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Other sources of CO2 include the burning of diesel fuel to operate farm machinery and the fossil fuels used to keep barns warm during the winter.

More on the flip...

More on Meat and Global Warming

by: OrangeClouds115

Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 15:28:38 PM PDT

First - there is much more to the meat issue than what I wrote in that short piece but there's a limit to what you can say to a general audience in an internet article. I've got a book coming out in June 2009 and all are welcome to read it and then criticize me as much as they'd like.

Second - I agree that holier than thou vegans suck. I was a vegan for a year and I'm strongly considering going back to being one. But even when I had given up eggs and dairy, some vegans got on me for continuing to eat honey. To me, overzealous animal rights activists aren't much different from crazy abortion activists. And I'm saying that as someone who abhors any cruelty to animals. I just don't feel that the local eggs I eat from the pampered chickens who lay them should be considered cruelty to animals.

Third - what's wrong with being a starry eyed hippie? Nothing. The point I was driving at was that those who support sustainable ag aren't impractical. They are scientists and scholars as well as idealists and hippies.

Fourth - Is it a total cop out to avoid the fact that we eat too much meat by telling the carnivores to just go for grass fed meat? Yes and no. On one hand, I think it's important to work with people and make them feel comfortable as you gently push them towards a more sustainable lifestyle. On the other hand, even if we say we'll have all grass-fed beef, there are rainforests being destroyed in Brazil as we speak to make more pasture for more grass-fed beef. So we need to find the right way to do it. Use land that should be used as pasture to raise animals, but definitely preserve any fragile ecosystems at the same time - particularly the rainforests, the so-called lungs of the planet.

Fifth - By telling people to keep eating meat, am I forgetting that killing is wrong? I struggle with whether or not I think it's wrong to kill animals for food. I couldn't do it myself. I don't eat meat. But I don't point the finger at others who do, particularly if they eat pasture raised meat from farmers they know. In fact, I direct people to http://www.eatwellguide.org all the time so they can FIND pasture raised meat. To me, the ethics of eating animals is a personal issue, just like the ethics of having sex before marriage. To me, sex before marriage is no big deal... to someone else, it's a sin. It's a personal question each person can only answer for him or herself. But global warming is a universal issue, not subject to individual ethics (no matter what the oil execs say!). We should all reduce our carbon footprints, and if you don't want to give up meat, well... that's up to you.

Gore Piece on Op Ed News

by: OrangeClouds115

Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:46:30 AM PDT

In the meantime, check this out from Op Ed news: http://www.opednews.com/articl...

Also, see this from Organic Consumers Association: http://www.organicconsumers.or...