EDIT: here’s a source for that figure
Previous studies have estimated that 73% of all antimicrobials sold globally are used in animals raised for food
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766021/pdf/antibiotics-09-00918.pdf
Vegan products still use land and farm equipment won’t stop for any mouse or insect in the way
Farmers also shoot pests that eat their crops
A vegan diet is not sustainable for the average person. Ex-vegans vastly outnumber current vegans, of which the majority have only been vegan for a short time. Common reasons for quitting are: concerns about health (23%), cravings (37%), social problems (63%), not seeing veganism as part of their identity (58%). 29% had health problems such as nutrient deficiencies, depression or thyroid issues, of which 82% improved after reintroducing meat.
Many environmental studies that vegans use are heavily flawed because they were made by people who have no clue about agriculture, e.g. by the SDA church. A common mistake is that they use irrational theoretical models that assume we grow crops for animals because most of the plant weight is used as feed, The reality is that 86% of livestock feed is inedible by humans. They consume forage, food-waste and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden. 13% of animal feed consists of potentially edible low-quality grains, which make up a third of global cereal (not total crop) production. All US beef cattle spend the majority of their life on pasture and upcycle protein even when grain-finished (0.6 to 1). Hence, UN FAO considers livestock crucial for food security and does not endorse veganism at all.
Vegans have never been able to define or measure that their diet causes less deaths/suffering than an omnivorous one. They are ignorantly contributing to an absolute bloodbath of trillions of zooplankton, mites, worms, crickets, grasshoppers, snails, frogs, turtles, rats, squirrels, possum, raccoons, moles, rabbits, boars, deer, 75% of insect biomass, half of all bird species and 20,000 humans per year. Two grass-fed cows are enough to feed someone for a year and, if managed properly, can restore biodiversity. The textbook vegan excuse where they try to blame plant agriculture on animals and use only mice deaths, fabricated feed conversion ratios of 20:1 and a coincidentally favourable per-calorie metric is nonsense because:
The majority of animal feed is either low-maintenance forage or a by-product that only exists because of human food harvest.
It literally shows that grass-fed beef kills fewer animals.
EDIT: also why do you keep using random imgur links as source with no context as to their origin and a lot of low quality random blogs. More links does not mean more correct. This all smells a lot of like gish gallop
It still take more human-edible feed than it produces out. From the same study that produced the cited figure:
1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
For the claims about sequestration
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/
And good luck scaling up grass-fed production even if it did sequester more
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
And it is perfectly healthy
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
This link simply shows what rubbish you are talking. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass
Nothing good comes from the meat industry. Nothing at all.
If you bang your knee every day, you might be so used to the pain eventually that it’s like you don’t feel it anymore.
Physically if you don’t know what it feels like to not consume a damaging and inflammatory diet, it’s easy to mistake feeling like shit all the time with normalcy. But it’s not normal, it’s killing you.
And emotionally if you only know what it’s like to do something that causes so much trauma and suffering (both to the animals, and the people who do the slaughtering), you might be so used to a background noise of guilt that you’re not even aware that you’re carrying it. The only way to know the difference is to change and watch what happens in your mind when you stop running away from the violence you’re complicit in.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=zqyGkvdvvuE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Can someone explain why antibiotics are used in the meat industry? Are lots of animals dying to bacterial infections so they need antibiotics to aid the yield, or are antibiotics incidentally also growth hormones, or something else? Always been curious
On top of the other answers, animals are more likely to get sick if they get cramped together in extremely tight spaces, facilitating the spread of diseases, and meat industries do systematically cramp animals together because it’s economically efficient, at the detriment of both the animals and the quality of the meat.
One of the biggest reasons is because cattle growers (especially in North America) feed their cows corn instead of grass or other things that cows actually evolved to eat. They do this because long standing US government subsidies on corn production mean that it can be sold for less than the cost of production; the farms are literally paid to grow it. This is also why high fructose corn syrup is in everything you eat. The corn makes the cattle sick, so the farms pump them full of antibiotics, because that’s cheaper than just feeding them properly.
Both of the two. The two main reasons are that it incidentally boost growth and there are lots of circulating diseases due to heavy overcrowding conditions. Note that the use is not on those who are sick, but to everyone even if they show no symptoms
Antibiotics are administered to animals in feed to marginally improve growth rates and to prevent infections, a practice projected to increase dramatically worldwide over the next 15 years.There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals.
Don’t worry, it gets worse! Certain farmed animals are particularly susceptible to infections like shrimp and oysters. These animals are kept in open water pens and antibiotics are routinely DUMPED INTO THE OCEAN to protect the stock, naturally contaminating the ocean at large and giving bacteria in the wild just enough exposure to antibiotics to develop resistance.
If you want to support responsible antibiotic use, avoid all farmed shellfish, don’t buy any meats from India or China, and only buy free range chicken; these are the biggest global offenders. If you’re European, avoid meats from Greece or italy.
Sorry I’m too lazy to look up a source, but the way I’ve heard it explained is that while they might occasionally give them to sick animals as a sort of panacea, they often just give all of them a low dose. Apparently it like, makes their immune system not have to work as hard so they gain weight faster. Which is basically textbook how to make resistant bacteria.
“Does it make us money right now? Then it’s fine.”
Land use, even cropland use, is actually far lower on a plant-based diet
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
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115
Also wanted to point vast majority of people consuming animal products contain a number of deficiencies in vitamins and minerals that only or mostly occur in plants. For instance, only 5% of the US population gets enough fiber
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that the public should consume adequate amounts of dietary fiber from a variety of plant foods. Dietary fiber is defined by the Institute of Medicine Food Nutrition Board as “nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants.” Populations that consume more dietary fiber have less chronic disease. Higher intakes of dietary fiber reduce the risk of developing several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, and have been associated with lower body weights. The Adequate Intake for fiber is 14 g total fiber per 1,000 kcal, or 25 g for adult women and 38 g for adult men, based on research demonstrating protection against coronary heart disease. Properties of dietary fiber, such as fermentability and viscosity, are thought to be important parameters influencing the risk of disease. Plant components associated with dietary fiber may also contribute to reduced disease risk. The mean intake of dietary fiber in the United States is 17 g/day with only 5% of the population meeting the Adequate Intake. Healthy adults and children can achieve adequate dietary fiber intakes by increasing their intake of plant foods while concurrently decreasing energy from foods high in added sugar and fat, and low in fiber. Dietary messages to increase consumption of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts should be broadly supported by food and nutrition practitioners.
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01386-6/fulltext
-
A widespread lie is that the vegan diet is “clinically proven to reverse heart disease”. The studies by Ornish and Esselstyn are made to sell their diet, but rely on confounding factors like exercise, medication or previous bypass surgeries (Esselstyn had nearly all of them exercise while pretending it was optional). All of them have tiny sample size, extremely poor design and have never been replicated in much larger clinical trials, which made Ornish suggest that we should discard the scientific method. Both diets included dairy.
-
Vegan diets are devoid of many nutrients and generally require more supplements than just B12. Some of them (Vitamin K2, EPA/DHA, Vitamin A) can only be obtained because they are converted from other sources, which is inefficient, limited or poor for a large part of the population. EPA+DHA from animal products have an anti-inflammatory effect, but converting it from ALA (plant sourced) does not seem to work the same. Taurine is essential for many people with special needs, while Creatine supplementation improves memory only in those who don’t eat meat.
-
The US supplement industry is poorly regulated and has a history of spiking their products with drugs. Vitamin B complexes were tainted with anabolic steroids in the past, while algae supplements have been found to contain aldehydes. Supplements and fortified foods can cause poisoning, while natural products generally don’t. Even vegan doctors caution and can’t agree on what to supplement.
-
There is an extremely strong link between meat abstention and mental disorders. While it’s unknown what causes what, the vegan diet is low in or devoid of several important brain nutrients.
Stop citing random blogs
and this time a random pastebin look at a few YouTuber comments?
It seems your view of scientific evidence is very based on individuals. You’re now focusing on focus on the claims of a very specific type not even plant-based diet and using that to disregard the claims of other evidence about heart disease. There have been RCT studies on it, for instance
Nevertheless, several RCTs have examined the effect of vegetarian diets on intermediate risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (Table 1). In a meta-analysis of RCTs, Wang et al. (22) found vegetarian diets to significantly lower blood concentrations of total, LDL, HDL, and non-HDL cholesterol relative to a range of omnivorous control diets. Other meta-analyses have found vegetarian diets to lower blood pressure, enhance weight loss, and improve glycemic control to greater extent than omnivorous comparison diets (23-25). Taken together, the beneficial effects of such diets on established proximal determinants of cardiovascular diseases found in RCTs, and their inverse associations with hard cardiovascular endpoints found in prospective cohort studies provide strong support for the adoption of healthful plant-based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S1050173818300240
Here is the full text, I originally planned to paste sections of it that I felt applicable to rebuke you in multiple comments as lemmy does have a comment character limit and won’t let me paste the entire text
I beleive I may have also unkowingly cut out relevant parts of the text
I belive you misinterpreted the way I originally posted it as “gish gallop”
I beleive it is a good compilation of sources
I know the original text may also be a bit negative towards vegans but I still beleive the scientific sources contained within it and its explanations of those sources are valuable excluding the negativity and I removed the negativity in my comments containing sections of the text, I did not write the text compiling the sources but I use it as it is a good compilation of sources
That document is extremely full of bad, misleading, and outright false information. I shouldn’t be surprised for a self described “anti-vegan copypasta”
The comments about soybean oil being the only main driver of the industry are just false. When we look at the most common extraction method for soybean oil (using hexane solvents), soybean meal (used for animal feed) is still the driver of demand
However, soybean meal is the main driving force for soybean oil production due to its significant amount of productivity and revenues
[…]
soybean meal and hulls contribute to over 60% of total revenues, with meal taking the largest portion of over 59% of total revenue
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669017305010
The comments about the mental health show the cherrypicked natures of sources here. Earlier in the document it bashes correlational studies and those that have even so much as a weak potential to be funded by any one related. But now that it’s convenient, it then relies on a beef industry funded study (listed that way right in the paper) that looks at only correlational studies. It also fails to consider the cause being the other way around. That some may be depressed because they see a world of cruelty that they oppose
The comment about slave labor ignores heavy amounts of slave labor used in the fishing industry, nor the prison slave labor in the meat industry. Nor the meatpacking industries unusually high injury rate and multiple human rights watch reports
Together, poultry slaughtering and processing companies reported more severe injuries to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) than many industries that are popularly recognized as hazardous, such as sawmills, industrial building construction, and oil and gas well drilling
The claim that all vegans argue for it from negative utilitarianism is just very, very untrue. Many many vegans are not even utilitarian at all, some very strongly against utilitarianism
And looking at the overall sources in that document:
- 22 random imgur links
- 17 random youtube videos
- 14 random pastebins
- 3 random reddit posts/comments
- many many many random blogs
I can keep going for a while
science around veganism is highly exaggerated. Nutrition science is in its infancy and the “best” studies on vegans rely on indisputably and fatally flawed food questionnaires that ask them what they eat once and then just assume they do it for several years:
-
Vegans aren’t even vegan. They frequently cheat on their diet and lie about it.
-
Self-imposed dieting is linked to binge eating disorder, which makes people forget and misreport about eating the food they crave.
-
The vast majority of studies favoring vegan diets were conducted on people who reported to consume animal products and by scientists trained at Seventh-day Adventist universities. They have contrasting results when compared to other studies. The publications of researchers like Joan Sabate and Winston Craig (reviewers and authors of the AND position paper, btw) show that they have a strong bias towards confirming their religious beliefs. They brag about their global influence on diet, yet generally don’t disclose this conflict of interest. They have pursued people for promoting low-carbohydrate diets.
-
80-100% of observational studies are proven wrong in controlled trials
Again, stop citing imgur links with no obvious source. You aren’t even citing photos of a source half of the itme
Are you going to tell me this photo actually adds anything. It does not support your claim at all of “scientists trained at Seventh-day Adventist universities” besides just repeating it
You are just adding links to gish gallop, not to provide sources
There are RCT studies out there
Nevertheless, several RCTs have examined the effect of vegetarian diets on intermediate risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (Table 1). In a meta-analysis of RCTs, Wang et al. (22) found vegetarian diets to significantly lower blood concentrations of total, LDL, HDL, and non-HDL cholesterol relative to a range of omnivorous control diets. Other meta-analyses have found vegetarian diets to lower blood pressure, enhance weight loss, and improve glycemic control to greater extent than omnivorous comparison diets (23-25). Taken together, the beneficial effects of such diets on established proximal determinants of cardiovascular diseases found in RCTs, and their inverse associations with hard cardiovascular endpoints found in prospective cohort studies provide strong support for the adoption of healthful plant-based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S1050173818300240
Many, if not all, of the institutions that agree with the AND either just echo their position, don’t cite any sources at all, or have heavy conflicts of interest. E.g. the Dietitians of Canada wrote their statement with the AND, the USDA has the Adventist reviewer in their guidelines committee, the British Dietetic Association works with the Vegan Society, the Australian Guidelines cite the AND paper as their source and Kaiser Permanente has an author that works for an Adventist university.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded by Seventh-day Adventists, which are an evangelistic vegan religion that owns meat replacement companies. Every author of their position paper is a career vegan, one of them is selling diet books that are cited in the paper. One author and one reviewer are Adventists who work for universities that publicly state to have a religious agenda. Another author went vegan for ethical reasons. They explicitly report “no potential conflict of interest”. Their claims about infants and athletes are based on complete speculation (they cite no study following vegan infants from birth to childhood) and they don’t even mention potentially problematic nutrients like Vitamin K or Carnitine.
-
Vegan land use comparisons are half-truths that equate pastures with plantations. 57% of land used for feed is not even suitable for crops, while the rest is often much less productive.
-
Grassland can sequester more carbon and has a four times lower rate of soil loss per unit area than cropland.
-
Vegan infographics always portray beef as a massive water hog by counting the rain that falls on the pasture. 96% of beef’s water usage is green and it can even be produced without any blue water at all. The crops leading to the most depletion are wheat (22%), rice (17%), sugar (7%) and cotton (7%).
-
water footprint is divided into green (sourced from precipitation) and blue (sourced from the surface). Water scarcity is largely dependent on blue water use, which is why experts use lifecycle models.
The sources I talk at looked at cropland usage too. The cropland usage is lower as well per the earlier cited source. Citing a bunch of misleading stats with a straw-man isn’t helpful
Blue water usage is quite high for beef. Even an industry funded study found beef used 2000 L/kg of blue water compared to it noting that corn crops only use 3–280 L/kg of blue water and soy at around 36–616 L/kg. That’s likely best case numbers for beef due to the conflict of interests
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X18305675
Swiss Federal Commission for Nutrition https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/en/dokumente/das-blv/organisation/kommissionen/eek/vor-und-nachteile-vegane-ernaehrung/vegan-report-final.pdf.download.pdf/vegan-report-final.pdf - The positive effects of a vegan diet on health determinants cannot be proven, but there are relevant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies. Children and pregnant women are advised against adopting a vegan diet due to the risks described above. - There is still a lack of data whether the basic nutritional requirements are met and whether the development of children and adolescents fed on a vegan diet is secured on a long-term perspective. These data should be collected and analyzed more systematically. There is in our view up to now no evidence that a vegan diet can be recommended for these age groups - Based on these data, there is no evidence for the position stated in the previous report, that vegan diets are healthy diets. - The scientific evidence available to date is not sufficient to claim that vegan and vegetarian diets are associated with a significant reduction of total mortality - The reduction in IHD and all-cause mortality with vegetarian diet stems mainly from the Adventist studies, and there is much less convincing evidence from studies conducted in other populations. European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28027215/ - Vegan diets should only be used under appropriate medical or dietetic supervision to ensure that the infant receives a sufficient supply of vitamin B12, vitamin D, iron, zinc, folate, n-3 LCPUFA, protein, and calcium, and that the diet is sufficiently nutrient and energy dense. Parents should understand the serious consequences of failing to follow advice regarding supplementation of the diet. - Although theoretically a vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements when mother and infant follow medical and dietary advice regarding supplementation, the risks of failing to follow advice are severe, including irreversible cognitive damage from vitamin B12 deficiency, and death. German Nutrition Society (DGE) https://www.ernaehrungs-umschau.de/fileadmin/Ernaehrungs-Umschau/pdfs/pdf_2016/04_16/EU04_2016_Special_DGE_eng_final.pdf - Any diet that does not lead to the intake of adequate levels of essential nutrients and energy is unfavourable. The DGE recommends a diet that includes all groups of foods in the nutrition circle - including animal products. - Special care is needed for groups with special requirements for nutrient supply, e.g. pregnant women, lactating women, infants and toddlers. - On a vegan diet, it is difficult or impossible to ensure adequate supply of some nutrients. The most critical nutrient is vitamin B12. Other potentially critical nutrients on a vegan diet include protein resp. indispensable amino acids and long-chain n-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA), other vitamins (riboflavin, vitamin D) and minerals (calcium, iron, iodine, zinc and selenium). - With some nutrients, a vegan diet without fortified foods or dietary supplements leads to inadequate intake, which may have considerable unfavourable consequences for health. - The risk of nutrient under-supply or a nutritional deficiency is greater in persons in sensitive phases of life, such as pregnancy, lactation and in infants, children and adolescents taking or being given a vegan diet, than in healthy adults on a vegan diet. - Since rejecting any animal foods increases the risk of nutrient deficiencies and thus of health disorders, a vegan diet is not recommended by the DGE during pregnancy or lactation, or for children or adolescents of any age. French Pediatric Hepatology/Gastroenterology/Nutrition Group https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615715 - The current craze for vegan diets has an effect on the pediatric population. This type of diet, which does not provide all the micronutrient requirements, exposes children to nutritional deficiencies. These can have serious consequences, especially when this diet is introduced at an early age, a period of significant growth and neurological development. - Even if deficiencies have less impact on older children and adolescents, they are not uncommon and consequently should also be prevented. Regular dietary monitoring is essential, vitamin B12 and vitamin D supplementation is always necessary, while iron, calcium, docosahexaenoic acid, and zinc should be supplemented on a case-by-case basis. Sundhedsstyrelsen (Danish Health Authority) https://www.sst.dk/da/udgivelser/2018/~/media/2986643F11A44FA18595511799032F85.ashx - Exclusively vegan nutrition for infants and young children (under 2 years of age) is not recommended as it may be very difficult to meet the child’s nutritional needs during the first years of life with this diet. Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique (Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium) https://updlf-asbl.be/assets/uploads/ARMB_-_Veganisme_AVIS_COMPLET.pdf - The committee considers that the vegan diet is inappropriate and therefore not recommended for unborn children, children and adolescents, as well as pregnant and lactating women. - Compulsory supplementation, metabolic imbalances and the obligation of medical follow-up, including blood sampling, are therefore not eligible. Spanish Paediatric Association https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31866234 - A vegetarian or a vegan diet, as in any other kind of diet, needs to be carefully designed. After reviewing current evidence, even though following a vegetarian diet at any age does not necessarily mean it is unsafe, it is advisable for infant and young children to follow an omnivorous diet or, at least, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet. Argentinian Hospital Nacional de Pediatría SAMIC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31339288 - Vitamin B12 deficiency is one of the most serious complications of vegetarianism and its variants. Infants born to vegan mothers are at greater risk of serious deficiency, being more vulnerable to their effects. B12 deficiency is not usually suspected by the pediatrician in healthy infants with neurological symptoms The Dutch national nutritional institute, Stichting Voedingscentrum Nederland https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/voedingscentrum/Documents/Ontwerp_Vegetarisch en veganistisch eten_defLR_2018.pdf - A vegan diet can be adequate but increases the risk for various deficiencies. The report then describes the various risks of deficiencies and how they can be circumvented. - A vegan diet for children can be adequate but is associated with an increased risk of: being smaller and lighter than their peers, worse psycho-motor development and reduced bone density. Help from a professional is advisable. - The literature on the effects of a vegan diet on pregnant women is limited, but the available research indicates that a healthy pregnancy in combination with a vegan diet is possible, under the precondition that the women pay special attention to maintaining a balanced diet.
