Cigarette-style climate warnings on food could cut meat consumption, study suggests

MicroWave@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 471 points –
Cigarette-style climate warnings on food could cut meat consumption, study suggests
theguardian.com

People are used to seeing stark warnings on tobacco products alerting them about the potentially deadly risks to health. Now a study suggests similar labelling on food could help them make wiser choices about not just their health, but the health of the planet.

The research, by academics at Durham University, found that warning labels including a graphic image – similar to those warning of impotence, heart disease or lung cancer on cigarette packets – could reduce selections of meals containing meat by 7-10%.

It is a change that could have a material impact on the future of the planet. According to a recent YouGov poll, 72% of the UK population classify themselves as meat-eaters. But the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government on its net zero goals, has said the UK needs to slash its meat consumption by 20% by 2030, and 50% by 2050, in order to meet them.

205

You are viewing a single comment

Ha! Love it! Do it! Not like there is any lack of studies to show the health dangers of meat.

  1. Conclusion: Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.
  2. The study found that people who ate two servings per week of red meat or processed meat had a 3% to 7% higher risk (respectively) of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, and a 3% higher risk of death from all causes.
  3. observed strong correlations of dietary HCA intake and consumption of fried and processed meat with DNA adduct levels in breast tissue of 44 women

Won't ever happen in the US tho. The meat industry is so protective that a lot of states have food libel laws, as well as gag laws that's limit filming of slaughter houses. If something is so obviously safe, weird how you can't talk about it's risks or show its production.

We can't forget how wasteful meat is as a food supply. Which is sorta obvious when you think about it for 5 seconds. Feeding cows edible food, drinkable water, on farmable land for several years to only get a handful of meals out of them is just silly inefficient.

And that's just the data, not even going in to ethics. Which, come on. Cut a cow, they bleed, yell and flee. If you cut their young, they attack. Just like we do. Does it matter if they can't talk? The question is, can they suffer? (yes)

I'm not going to argue with your sentiment, but your above arguments are either weak or factually wrong. This doesn't help your cause.

A less then 10% increase in health risks is really a deciding factor, particularly against a cultural and dietary staple to many.

As for beef production, time to slaughter is often between 6 to 8 months, and not years.

Feeding cows edible food, drinkable water, on farmable land

most cows eat mostly grass. the bulk of the water they get is the water in the grass.

I would love to know where you’re finding all that delicious grass fed beef, because here in America it’s almost all corn-fed.

Industrial beef production in the US is crazy and has tons of problems, not just the feeding of the cattle with something it would not normally eat (and which is actually not good for their digestive system) with the associated preventive use of antibiotics and such.

In the rest of the World were Corn Farming is nowhere near the powerful lobby as in the US (you know, the kind of country were they didn't put massive duty taxes on the much cheaper cane sugar in order to make High-Frutose Corn Syrup competitive) and regulations on the agro industry are lot tighter, those problems are a lot less.

This not to say your point is not right, more to say that whilst your viewpoint definitelly applies to a large fraction of the industry worldwide, so does the point of the person you replied to.

your beef isn't corn-fed. it's grass-fed, grain-finished. they don't label it grass fed unless it's NOT grain-finished.

But “finishing” is most of the weight gain of the animal and all the flavor.

It’s like arguing all cows are milk-fed because they were calves once.

It’s like arguing all cows are milk-fed because they were calves once.

i'm not arguing all cows fit the definition of "grass fed". i'm saying most cows mostly eat grass.

But “finishing” is most of the weight gain of the animal and all the flavor.

no, it's not. its about 4-6 months of an 18-20 month lifespan. most of their growing is done when they get to the feed lot.

edit:

The US is highly unusual in just how much Corn dominates food production and that most definitelly impacts the beef production which does included the feeding of corn to cattle (it's actually what creates the "marbling" in american beef) which would otherwise not be done because it's actually bad for the digestive system of cattle (there's a book called "The Omnivore's Dilema" that's well worth reading) and is linked to other problems like the preventive use of antibiotics with cattle because the animals are more susceptive to disease (which in turn affect humans because it leads to increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria).

However in countries were Corn is not so insanelly dominant, the cattle is actually grown the proper way, so mainly grass fed as per your illustration.

Both you and the other poster are correct, IMHO, it's just that each is talking about a very different locally dominant version of the beef production industry than the other.

each is talking about a very different locally dominant version of the beef

no, we're both talking about american beef.

Right, then either things changed lot in Industrial Cattle Raising in the US since "The Ominvore's Dilema" was written or you're only talking about a whole different segment of the industry that's not most of the beef production in the US.

false dichotomy

Well, I didn't want to mention the possibility that you're ill-informed, missusing unapplicable or segment specific information and/or oversimplifying things, since I didn't want to be unpleasant, and I have serious doubts that the book I mentioned was wrong in that since I have yet to see anything disproving it (quite the contrary, it has been lauded as an exposée of industrial farming in the US).

But yeah, there are indeed more possible explanation than merelly the ones I posited in my previous post.

I didn’t want to mention the possibility that you’re ill-informed, missusing unapplicable or segment specific information and/or oversimplifying things

there's also the possibility you are doing this (even if you don't know it)

Indeed.

Which is why I explicitly mentioned my reference source and even pointed out things have changed in the meanwhile, and why in general I have tried to refrain from making absolutist "I know it all" statements.

I'm well aware of not being a domain specialist.

4 more...
4 more...

I have serious doubts that the book I mentioned was wrong in that since I have yet to see anything disproving it

when did you read your 20-year-old book last? are you sure you're remembering it correctly? are you sure it's still accurate?

Well, that's why one of the two possibilities I posited in my original post which you identified as a false dichotomy, was exactly that things might have changed since I read that book.

I remember that specific part very clearly because it was so shocking for me as an European, but indeed as we both mentioned, things might not be the same anymore, which is why I very explicitly mentioned in post that exactly caveat.

1 more...
1 more...

my source comes from the oklahoma state agricultural extension. i doubt your book contradicts them, but if it does, then i'm going to trust the university over michael polan's 2-decades old research.

5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...

I wonder who is your target audience for posts like this. People who made the choice to eat meat on the basis of rational deliberation but are missing some key facts?

Pretty much everyone hopefully knows that meat is not great for the environment, is more wasteful to produce simply due to thermodynamics, that red meat is not very healthy, and that the ethics of eating meat are pretty clear cut.

We just don't care cause it's tasty as fuck. No amount of facts and sound ethical arguments will make a steak not taste amazing.

edit: for what it's worth, I don't care if they put warnings on meat. Doesn't make it any less tasty.

No amount of facts and sound ethical arguments will make a steak not taste amazing.

You love to see it folks. Full support for your selfish, sadistic, nihilism in the face of science, empathy or reason. Long as you are enjoying yourself then who cares about the details?

Just gotta hope no one with more power, influence or capitol feels simmiliar when it's time to consider others. Might be a rough world if everyone says "fuck it, lol idc".

I take selfish and nihilistic but not sadistic. I don't enjoy the fact that animals suffer for my enjoyment. It just doesn't bother me all that much. It's just part of life.

I wonder who is your target audience for posts like this.

Their own righteous self-aggrandizing ego.

Yep. 100% this. I’m not going plant based. I’m well aware meat isn’t great for the environment, but my single personal choice won’t make any difference to the industry, and will only result in me hating the little food I eat even more.

Plant based in general is textures that are so repulsive to eat that I’d rather starve.

Are you a bot?

lmao

No. Just a vegan who has been around awhile and keeps a cheat sheet of sources. Poke around in my history, I talk to lots of people about lots of things.

5 more...