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
Sorry ya’ll, but if you are still shoveling these idiots money for most of your meals, then you personally are the problem. You should feel guilty every time you do it. You are hurting yourself. You are hurting your children. Tou are hurting your granchildren and future generations. You are hurting strangers. You are hurting everyone you care about. You are doing this all out of addiction and laziness. Not to mention the extreme torture that you are inflicting on the animals. It is time to grow up and take responsibility. You are not innocent because “other people do it too.” You are guilty. Please admit this very clear fact to yourself and do better.
deleted by creator
and a well rounded vegan diet is not cheap.
Not the person you are replying to, but want to counter that part specifically. The cost is actually usually the other way around. It’s much more of a privilege to consume large amounts of meat and dairy
From a modeling study looking at healthy plant-based diets:
It found that in high-income countries:
• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.
• Vegetarian diets were a close second.
• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.
• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
From some real world spending data
Based on primary data (n = 1040) collected through an online survey, representative of the Portuguese population, through logistic regressions, it was possible to conclude that plant-based consumers, particularly vegan, are associated with lower food expenditures compared to omnivorous consumers. In fact, plant-based consumers are shown to spend less than all other consumers assessed
https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9
Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub —(looking at the US)
deleted by creator
People on plant-based diets tend not to eat a ton of plant-based meats, and lower income people are esspecially less likely to be relying on them because of cost?
I don’t follow what you are saying about not being applicable to the US, and UK. Those countries are the modeling study most applies to and shows lower costs?
Additionally it’s worth mentining if we look at other data, lower-income people are most likely to be vegan and vegetarian
Meanwhile, lower-income Americans (7%) are about twice as likely as middle- (4%) and upper-income (3%) Americans to be vegetarians . https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
That’s what the earlier sources looking at real world spending data did… they saw lower costs for people on plant-based diets
I am again confused why we’re talking about bread here when that isn’t affected by a plant-based or not plant-based diet
Do you know if it’s reasonable / practicable to be vegeterian while doing keto? I’ve enjoyed how it makes me feel but the carb limit is difficult to meet without meat.
I know of people that do even vegan keto. There’s actually a decently large subreddit for it. There are resources out there if you feel inclined to do so
I’d always caution people about keto in general though, esspecially for meat heavy keto. A lot of the discussion around it is not always the most scientific
Much of what people may be observing from keto is likely not as much due to carb limits, but from watching food closer. On most diets, people tend to report stuff like weight loss because they’re more aware of what they eat. Or in other cases, changing foods around accidentally ends up avoiding a very specific food sensitivity. For instance you’ll find lots of similar observations from a whole-foods plant-based diet
If it’s not being done for reasons like epilepsy, Keto overall has some not so great long term health impacts that people tend to gloss over. Though much of that research finding more negative outcomes look at people doing so with a meat heavy diet. Ranging from bone health to kidney damage. If I remember correctly, the more limited research about vegan keto has found better results, but I’d still advise caution in general
TLDR; yes it’s possible and there are people that do it, but just be careful about keto in general because it’s got some long term impacts that aren’t so great
Is there not a lot of conflicting evidence for, not keto specifically, but the role of fats and saturated fats (I believe the most concerning aspects of keto) in health? I did a bit of research before going on it and I think came to the conclusion it wasn’t really backed as healthy nor unhealthy but couldn’t be worse than eating garbage instead.
I’ll be sure to check out the vegetarian / vegan keto subreddits though! Might find some nice meals ideas.
Reading through some more scientific reviews article, it seems like a lot of the risk comes from animal-based product consumption particularly. For instance, one study found increased all-cause mortality for keto with higher animal product consumption and decreased levels for a plant-based keto diet. However, given that most studies aren’t focusing on that, it’s still hard to tell if there’s other risks not being included there. Additionally, a lot of the touted benefits of keto appear to wane over time and don’t end up doing all that much better than other diets
I’d still recommend just being careful about it
Longer-term effects [of Ketogenic diets] can include decreased bone mineral density, nephrolithiasis, cardiomyopathy, anemia, and neuropathy of the optic nerve (82, 121). Ketogenic diets have low long-term tolerability, and are not sustainable for many individuals (48, 49). Diets low in carbohydrate have also been associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (122), although recent data suggest that lower-carbohydrate diets can be linked to either higher or lower mortality risk, depending on the quality of the carbohydrate they contain and whether they rely more on animal protein and saturated fat or plant protein and unsaturated fat, respectively (123).
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full#h1
Unfortunately, these effects seem to be limited in time.
And yet rice, beans/lentils, pasta, vegetables, and spices are all vegan, and are all the staples for low-cost meals in grocery stores the world over. Where do you live where that isn’t the case?
deleted by creator
Fruits are also available but usually tend to be more expensive and are usually considered a treat for people on limited budgets. Me not listing them was part of keeping to the usual budget shopping lists recommend for people with limited income. Unless you are further being a pedant and insisting that tomatoes are fruits and not vegetables.
And while I am fortunate enough to live in the continental US, I mostly buy what is in season and local and therefore on sale for relatively cheap. And anywhere where that isn’t available, frozen veggies are available, often for even cheaper and with no difference in nutritional value or content. If you don’t have a fridge/freezer, dried veggies are also available in most markets (dried peppers especially) and canned goods are far better for you now than they ever have been, with only marginal decreases in nutritional value.
Where do you live that absolutely no vegetables are available in any form for a dollar a can or five dollars for a family pack that would make a couple dozen meals for a family of four?
(Edit: Or, if not in the US, where you can’t even buy local produce, unless you are in an area where there is famine. In which case you may object to the fact that almost half our farmable land is used to grow crops to feed to animals instead of being used to grow more food for humans.)
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Dude, vegans can and do eat fruits. For people who can’t afford seasonal fresh fruit, we have fortified foods like bread, pasta, rice, and cereals, most of which are also vegan. I specified rice and beans (and everything else you conveniently ignored, lol) because they make a complete protein, which is usually the only thing you need to monitor closely if you are vegan on a budget. Anything else and you are best off getting a multivitamin for best bang for your buck.
Also, you saying none of us have been hungry and then lecturing us about not getting both fruits AND vegetables when fresh fruit is one of the most expensive things in a grocery store, outside of meat that is? You clearly have never been poor enough that you have been needing to have your ‘fruit’ be the cheapest jar of grape jelly you can find, or the cans of frozen ‘orange drink concentrate’.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Beans and rice aren’t replacing the fruits and vegetables part. People eating meat-based diets are also eating fruits and vegetables, or if not, they aren’t going be healthy either
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Anywhere where meat is not subsidised tto hell?
deleted by creator
You know you can’t actually argue against it, so you point to a small hypothetical edgecase as if that will excuse your behavior. You are the one who lacks perspective and demonstrates extreme entitlement. You think because there may be some people forced between starvation and factory meat that it somehow gives you moral superiority and permission to destroy the lives of others. I go out of my way to make things better, you desperately search for anything you can to distract from all the harm you selfishly cause.
You don’t even have the strength to let other people do the work. You feel like you need to go out of your way to attack and intimidate them because it makes you feel so inferior. Lucky for you, there are people on the planet to take care of things for you while you just sit by and moan and complain. We work for a better world despite you while you complain about our efforts, you entitled little brat.
Other people have handled you naivety well. Now, please do your part and fix your diet for the sake of everyone on the planet. You want to stand up for people, so stand up for them by showing some self-control.
I totally get you, but if you want really convince other people of doing the right thing you need to change your tone. This kind of approach is terrible, no one wants to be called evil or dumb for something they never had the time to think about it. You have to do better than that otherwise you are just preaching to people who agree with you.
Yeah, absolutely, you’re totally right. That’s definitely the most common way to go about it, and maybe the most effective, I really don’t know. There is a bunch of gentle nudging going on, though, and everyone responds to different things. For some people, no amount of loving hints will get them to do anything. Some people just need the genuine blunt truth to get them to actually think about something. Honestly, it’s like any other addiction, the desire needs to come from within, nobody can force them to get better.
I dont buy that many people are unaware or never thought about it before. It’s brought up all the time. The issue isn’t a lack of information, it is that most people just have almost no personal moral compass, they just rely on the behavior of the masses to dictate to them what is right/wrong. The more people remind them that what they are doing is disgusting, the more likely they will be to eventually change. I figure just machine gun 'em with all various forms of reminders, and we’ll get through to some. Eventually, we will hit a critical mass, and the sheep will follow. The most pathetic will cling to their cruelty addiction until they are dead, but that’s the same as what happened to the racists, rapists, child abusers or anything else that used to be more accepted.
There is no point in talking reasonably. This is our planet they are destroying.
Nah dude, get down from your horse and learn how to talk with people or just give up. Did you started believing this stuff because some asshole called you a dumb evil fuck? I think not.
Funnily enough I was called those names BECAUSE I believed in that stuff. Soo, ya know, it’s time.
Oh yeah! Love my burgers from the Stockyard restaurant in Brighton. Occasionally, I’ll get the filet. Oh my!!
It is NOT my fault the Earth is fucked.
Corporate and politicians can eat the shit out of the ass of every meat eater.
GFY for trying to blame the “little guy”. You’re a prick stain.
You can try to pass the blame onto them all you want, but the obvious reality is that the billionaires can’t sell disgusting over-drugged factory farm meat to billions of people if billions of people don’t buy it. They only have power if you willingly give it to them.
The game is over, YOU are the problem, and only YOU can stop your own disgusting habits. No more blaming everyone else for your own complete and utter lack of self-control. Live in your guilt. You are screwing us all over because you are unable to admit responsibility. You are an abusive husband who beats his wife and then blames her for it. Nobody with any amout of common sense is still believing your tired old excuses.
Future generations will know what you did, and you will disgust them. They won’t even be able to comprehend how you could be so vile and uncaring. Get used to it, Grandpa. That’s your future.
You militant vegans are hilarious, meat eating is not going away, get over it. You know how people don’t like when religious people try and cram their shit down your throat? Yea… you’re doing the same thing and it’s really fucking annoying.
You are right. Meat-eating won’t go away. Meat-eating is not the issue. Factory farming is. Pumping animals full of drugs in tiny cages and forcing them to live unnatural for your own selfish pleasure. That is what is going away. The fact that you’d defend it so viciously is what makes you so disgusting and pathetic. That is what will make future generations of school children laugh at their unevolved, brutal, self-centered ancestors. They will all deny that it was their bloodline that had people like you in them, those despicable people who knew what they were doing, saw the effect on the world, had the power to resist it, but were too weak and selfish to care and would rather make future generations deal with your mess. All so you can get a cheaper hotdog.
You want to talk about who is “religious” in this equation? It is undeniably YOU. Instead of grappling with moral issues with your own, you defer to the group. Your only excuse for your objectively disgusting behavior is the fact that “other people do it too.” You inflict harm on the less fortunate for your own selfish reasons and when challenged you don’t even attempt to use logic or reason to defend yourself, you simply go and run behind unrelated insults and a defense of group mentality. You are the virus that decent people people are inflicted with because you are too afraid of what you might realise if you were to try to think for yourself. You are the worst aspects of religion with any ounce of love or kindness surgically removed. If you ever have the guys to think clearly, you will be repulsed by who you once were.
You are still alive, you can change. It’s just a question of whether or not you have the strength to do so.
If you will buy it, they will sell it.
Corperations are not people. They have no moral compass. They do what their customers will pay for.
Customers are people. Customers can choose based on any criteria. Convenience, morals, pleasure, whatever they value.
You are the customer. By buying from animal agriculture, you are saying you value what they are selling.
Yes, the thousands, millions, billions of customers matter. YOU are a customer. YOU MATTER. And if you choose to value something that is pure evil for all involved except your taste buds and their bottom line, then yes. You share in the blame. Especially now that you know what it causes.
Mmmm, veal Parm 😁
Did you at least kill him yourself? Or did you have to deepthroat Daddy Tyson’s throbbing meaty cock to underpay an immigrant getting PTSD to just to harvest a baby’s organs and pack them in a pwetty wittle gift baggie for you? uwu
Local farm. But, maybe one of their young kids did it. Sweet nightmare fuel for an 8 y/o.
Removed by mod
Ever wonder why those old racist people who are stuck in the past are how they are? It’s because they think the same as you do. Unable to learn from those around them, obsessed with never growing, and utterly self-centered. You’ll be tolerated, not respected. As increasingly more and more people point this out to you, the more likely you will be to change.
bummer now some random on lemmy who still doesn’t know me thinks im an old fuddy duddy, what will i do!
surely this feedback is from a credible source with my own best interests in mind, i will certainly take your rando advice to heart.
i’m so glad i plan my life choices around what strangers on social media think. this’ll work out great!
(do you get the point i’m trying to make? no matter how correct you are (or you think you are), you might as well be shouting at the wall. who the fuck would actually take your life advice to heart? you have no idea who we are; why would we change our behavior based on your opinion?)
I think on some level you know this but you just wanna preach. maybe you should have this conversation with someone special in your life. or maybe… you know, the positions we argue most fervently are often ones we’re trying to convince ourselves of. since we’re giving unsolicited life advice, maybe think on that one?
I don’t expect you to change because you read my comment. I just know that as time goes on, you will be hearing this more and more from more and more people. Eventually, it will come from people you know and care about. At some point, you may decide to be self-reflective and begin to think about your place in this world and what the consequences of your actions are. Maybe you won’t though, I have an elderly neighbor that literally spits every time he sees an Asian person, maybe you will double down on your behavior into old age and be someone else’s old neighbor that is stuck in the past being endlessly bitter towards the world for evolving without you.
At any rate, comments like mine are just sign posts on the road. The younger generation is already pissed at the selfish older generations. It’s just the beginning, more signs are coming.
That’s why I avoid eating meat and only stick to eating vegans.
Love plants, eat vegans
Honestly most meat tastes like shit anyways. And vegan alternatives taste amazing, are often prepared and ready to go into a meal and you don’t have to worry about it being undercooked.
not really? farming meat doesn’t necessarily have to involve so much antibiotics
sure you can reduce the amount of antibiotics used by reducing the throughput of meat but you can also just put in tighter regulations
We already have tightened regulations. In the USA you can no longer buy antibiotics off the shelf. You have to now get an RX. We here in the US aren’t really the main driver of this. It’s been mainly foreign beef production in countries where there is little regulation.
it’s not just the antibiotics that are the issue. animal agriculture is a giant contributor to pollution of water, lands, and air as well as being a major cause for the destruction of rain forrests. the level of meat consumption in rich countries can not be scaled to the rest of the world.
thats ofc is ignoring that all animal agriculture is extremely fucking immoral and cruel and honestly unconscionable.
I bet you’re the life of the party.
Maybe someday you’ll get invited to the party so you can stop speculating about what’s going on at it.
If you don’t stop I’ll eat my dam grandchildren, how would you feel about that bucko
I would be unsurprised by the natural progression of your selfish depravity. Hopefully, you take it far enough that you just eat yourself to death, and we can get to work fixing the selfish shitshow that you leave in your wake.
“Does it make us money right now? Then it’s fine.”
Nothing good comes from the meat industry. Nothing at all.
Except for delicious meat, of course /s
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.
I knew, even with the sarcasm tag, there was gonna be one. Had to be the user with the name MilitantVegan 🤣🤣🤣
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.
Where does that figure come from? That’s wild, if true
For global estimates (~73%)
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
For US in particular (~80%)
Of all antibiotics sold in the United States, approximately 80% are sold for use in animal agriculture; about 70% of these are “medically important” (i.e., from classes important to human medicine).2 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.3 There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals. Resistant bacteria are transmitted to humans through direct contact with animals, by exposure to animal manure, through consumption of undercooked meat, and through contact with uncooked meat or surfaces meat has touched.4
Jesus… But thanks for having your sources ready!
Added the source to the post text now. Probably should have done that to begin with
We’ll feed them antibiotics by the shovelful but won’t vaccinate chickens…
Don’t worry we’ll do that and still do things like this
Feedback, is a common practice used in the pork industry where infected deceased pigs and their manure are fed to breeding pigs. It it also called controlled oral exposure or sometimes oral controlled exposure. It is done in an attempt to make the breeding pigs garner some degree of immunity to circulating diseases.[1] There is no standard protocol resulting in some swine researchers calling the procedure potentially risky and noting that it is often done in an unsafe manner.[2][3] The practice has also been criticized by animal welfare and animal rights groups calling it disturbing and or unethical.
[…]
However, feedback usage extends beyond diseases where vaccines do not yet exist. In 2012, while 45% of large US herds vaccinated young female pigs against PRRS, 26.6% used feedback (or did so in addition).[6]
[…]
The usage of feedback is not limited to just one country or region. Widespread usage has been recorded in at least the 2010s in places such as the United States,[6] Taiwan,[7] Belgium,[8] Japan,[9] South Korea,[10] Thailand,[11] and more. Additionally, following a PEDv outbreak in the 1970s, feedback was commonly used across Europe.[12]
Oh, what a wonderful thing to read after just buying a large piece of pork.
I dug in (thanks for linking sources) and there are some promising details. The ~80% figure for the US is from a 2011 report (even though the citation states 2014…), so it’s very old. In 2019, the US began an initiative to increase awareness of this issue and address it, see the progress here (pdf link).
Not trying to counter the narrative, but at least we’re talking about it on the federal level, so maybe that can provide some optimism to people.
Unfortunately, the trend is in the opposite direction for the US. Here’s a more recent source looking at the use of the most medically important antibiotics and how they have continued to increase
(note: not including all antibiotics so not directly comparable previous citation)
In addition, the proportion of the most medically important antibiotics is increasingly going to farmed animals instead of humans, according to an analysis published in September by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and One Health Trust. In 2017, the meat industry purchased 62% of the U.S. supply, but by 2020, this rose to 69%.
Even some companies that specifically claim to not use antibiotics, have been found to use antibiotics
Some beef ‘raised without antibiotics’ tests positive for antibiotics in study
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/04/07/antibiotics-found-in-natural-meat/
Unfortunately talking about a problem is not enough when the industry throws money at legislators to not do anything or delay all progress.
In Germany 2015 1700 tons of antibiotics were used, thereof only 300 t for human use.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf
what does this have to do with anything
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
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.
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.
what
Big Meat uses a lot of antibiotics, which causes bacteria populations to evolve and no longer be affected by antibiotics. When this happens, the now-used antibiotics become less effective, causing unnecessary deaths.
Tl;dr: go vegan
Also, a cause of 14.5% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions
deleted by creator
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
-
-
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
-
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
-
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
I’m exhausted just reading all of this. I wouldn’t bother because x4740N isn’t interested in learning anything, he’s convinced he’s right and I’d be shocked if he was even reading any of the stuff you posted. The user took personal offense to the article and subject, which means he probably knows you’re right, and is just acting out. Don’t give him the time of day.
deleted by creator
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.
Almost all of your links 404 and you are citing a a random imugr links with no source. Most of them appear to be blogs. Not exactly the highest quality source
Please stop your gish gallop technique
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.
what is this Frankenstein’s meme
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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
What are you going on about bruh??? Did you read the study? It was about antibiotics. Triggered much?
This link simply shows what rubbish you are talking. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass
deleted by creator
