We've had a smattering of topics related to vegetarianism on this forum, usually in the realm of philosophy and animal rights.

Let's look at eating meat in a different way.

There are two huge issues with eating meat that don't have anything to do with philosophy. One relates to the environment, the other relates to our own health.

Producing meat requires a massive quantity of fresh water. The animal must drink a substantial amount over its lifespan before being slaughtered, the slaughtering and transport process takes water, and plus the animal itself must be given huge amounts of grain.

Environmental effects of meat production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The world is in a fresh water crisis with rising population. 1.5 billion people lack access to clean water. And yet we take tens of thousands of gallons of water to make a relatively trivial amount of meat? Additionally, the excrement of cattle and other livestock tends to get into runoff and pollute rivers and other sources of what remaining freshwater we have.

Secondly, because livestock is so tightly packed together, to prevent pandemics farmers give livestock massive amount of antibiotics. These antibiotics are, in small quantities, passed into the food we eat. These small amounts of antibiotics aren't enough to kill bacteria in our bodies, however it is enough to make them resistant to antibiotics. Thus, we are in essence creating tough bacteria that poses a great threat to ourselves and animal life.
=

So, is it worth it? What do you think about environmental and medical issues with consuming meat?

i think you might but misunderstanding about the facts concerning fresh water concerns.

all of the water in the world has been recycled naturally and artificially for the entire existance of the planet.... its impossible to create or distroy water so all of the water we have, we've always had and always will have.

that being said the fresh water problem is not due to giving a bunch of water to cattle.... it is due to the inability to provide filtration systems to areas that dont have them already naturally occuring.... for example places that dont have a lot of rain and the water does not run but instead stays stationary has a fresh water problem, not because they cant get water, but because they cannot get clean water.

as for our health meat is a pretty nessecary part of our diets, honestly it is unnatural to not eat meat, as humans it is very instinictual to eat it.... so health wise not eating meat is actually worse for you than eating it... aside from the fact that of course since the start of man eating animal there werent farmers giving antibiotics to animals.... the only thing that does is ensure that our world will become over populated and people will live longer and fatter..... they arent nessecary, just prefered

I think the water argument is a weak one.

It fails to point out where this water comes from for the animal feed(hay and grain), in my experience the majority of this water comes from the sky in the form of rain, the land is then irrigated to maintain moisture. Where I live we have an abundance of rain and enough surplus to rear cattle and supply a further 50 million people whilst still having rivers spew out billions of gallons of fresh water each year.


The need for the land for alternate food source is a more substantial one both in the pastures the animals are reared plus the land required and acquisitioned to produce animal feed. I blame this on human mismanagement of land resource rather than the need to feed animals.

-----------------------

As for the antibodies; you can turn this theory on its head, in that the bacteria in our bodies is essential for the human process, strengthening it is only strengthening us. That is after all one of the benefits of eating yoghurts and cheeses. If the argument was opposing in that the antibodies were destroying the bacteria then we have a problem but it would not take long to realize it.

What does this sentence mean?

actually that's not true - vegetarianism when done right is healthier than a diet that is heavy in red meat. Beef is very high in saturated fat, which can contribute to cardiovascular disease, which kills more Americans every year than all types of cancer. Yes it's true that humans evolved as meat eaters, however most people get far more protein in their diet than what's necessary. Excess protein can cause as many problems as insufficient protein intake.

again, what does this sentence mean?

i typed the whole thing fast but the first sentance was supposed to be "i think you dont fully understand the concerns about fresh water"

secondly your assuming that the meat diet is flawed but the vegitarian diet can be perfect?! thats not how things work.... assuming both diets are perfect a vegitarian diet is less healthy than a meat included diet purely for the fact that you cannot consume enough protien without going over a normal healthy calorie intake. certain things you can only get from meat (fish included) unless all you eat is what? beans and penut butter.... im sorry but being from potland we have a lot of vegitarians here and i have not whitnessed one remotely unflawed vegitarian diet. even my friends who call themselves vegan admit they have to consume fish to provide themselves with all the required minerals/vitamins/nessecary dietary components.

a perfect meat included diet is better than a perfect vegitarian diet (which cant exist from what i've whitnessed)

no, I'm not assuming anything. I know for a fact that vegetarian diets - when carefully planned - are healthier than diets that are heavy in red meat. Every living thing is made of amino acids - the building blocks of protein. Beans and peanut butter are not the only non-meat sources of protein.

The only necessary nutrient that is lacking in a vegan diet is vitamin B12, which can be taken in supplement form.

"Being from potland" - what does that mean?

Sorry, but your observational evidence is incorrect - a perfect vegetarian diet is possible. If you'd like to argue intelligently about nutrition I suggest you take a nutrition class.

the assuming part is that in your argument you say compair a perfect vegitarian diet and a non perfect meat inclusive diet.... which is why i said your assuming the meat diet is flawed but the vegitarian diet is perfect.

aside from the fact that having to take suppliments means that your vegan diet is seriously lacking important things that you have to intake artificially.... naturally speaking a meat inclusive diet is healthier because you dont miss anything and just because most people overeat protien does not mean that is the only way to have a meat inclusive diet does it? no it does not.

as for the being from potland, aka portland oregon, was just my way of connecting to the arguments being made that i come from a place where these discussions occur regularly (We are hippies you know).... i have whitnessed every attempt at a vegan diet and it is flawed. as far as is concerned, no suppliments used, a meat inclusive diet if exicuted properly is healthier than a vegan diet. no suppliments are needed and you can intake the correct amount of protien and everything else needed without over doing things. just because some people **** it up doesnt mean everyone will.

if you would like to argue without insulting intelligence then you can try again but otherwise i have stated my case and thats all.

This is true but It is an unfair comparison. You are comparing a carefully planned diet to a heavy meat eater. Any food to excess is bad.

What if we compare a strict(not necessarily well planned) vegetarian diet with that of a well planned meat eaters; for example a good mix of fish, poultry, dairy, cereals, fruit and vegetables accompanied with lets say approx. 400g red meat per week?

We are ominivores and can survive as carnivores and herbivores. A good balance of both is what is usually considered healthy.

You make a good point Bananas, however people who chose to go vegetarian often do so for health reasons, therefore they are more likely to plan to eat healthy; whereas people who don't think about cutting meat out of their diets usually don't give their diets much thought at all.

I do realize that's a sweeping generalization.

Back to the original point of this thread, I think that the planet could sustain meat production if people were to eat it in the proper proportions, rather than three servings (or more) of meat a day as a large number of Americans do.

EWR you are countering your own argument when you say "just because some people **** it up doesn't mean everyone will" - the same goes for vegans and vegetarians.

I understand what you say about generalizations. People have little regard to what they shove down their throats and do not fully understand the concept of diet. A good proportion of vegetarians often quit meat for moral reasons and it is not until they become ill that they realise how important the balance of a diet is and regulate their food input. The same can be said for meat eaters however their illness usually comes in their 40s-60s and is not quite as forgiving. I remember a few years ago when the Atkins diet became a fad where people eliminate carbs from their diet, what a ridiculous concept! did they think they did not need energy!

Three servings of meat a day is a lot. That can not be good for a person. Like you suggest if humans can eat proper proportions then we can sustain and regulate meat production better. I think we should be taking this concept a step further in what we produce and how we produce it and for what reason we produce it. The amount of food that goes to waste due to consumer demand is despicable.

[rant]All the big supermarkets must supply a surplus of stock to guarantee they meet consumer demand. If you walked into Wal-mart and the shelves had no food on it then a manager would be reprimanded, instead at the end of the day the food spoils and goes to waste. In the UK alone we as households throw away 3 million tonnes of food whilst the people who supply it to us throw away 17 million tonnes. I dread to think of how much of this is meat. There was another frightening statistic that suggested that for every 5 chickens that make it to the supermarket only 3 will get consumed. How many of these animals are we rearing needlessly and how much of an unnecessary strain on resource are these pointless existences![/rant]