The Veganism Thread

[Patchelicious]

I actually agree with your first paragraph, and maybe I phrased my comment wrong. My choice to eat meat is my business, as your choice to eat plant-based is yours. But that doesn't abdicate me from any responsibility with regards to reasonable consumption and a balanced diet. I'm not saying "screw the world, eat what you like".

 

Answer me this: Taking the emotive side out of it, would there still be such a problem if everyone ate some meat as part of a balanced diet? 

 

As for the study you posted, we debated this on page 1 so I'm not going to get into it again. The problem is eating the average American diet and overall consumption, not solely meat. Meat as part of balanced diet is just as healthy as a plant based diet. 

 

This again where I think an internal conflict might make acceptance difficult for some vegans.

 

If somebody agree that the world needs to get the meat consumption reduced, and they reduce their meat consumption from 14 meals a week to 2 meals a week, sell your car and cycle around, reduce your plastics intake and setup self sufficient solar power, will that satisfy the animal rights activists? 

 

The answer cannot be 100% vegan or nothing. If those are the only two choices, then the net effect on the world we share will not be maximised. So we need to give people some wiggle room.

 

From what I can see currently 7% of UK population claim to be vegan and the in the US its seems to be 3%. What would the net impact be if we get the other 93% or 97% to simply reduce their meat intake by 20%?

Edited January 29, 2019 by Patchelicious

[Thor Buttox]

This again where I think an internal conflict might make acceptance difficult for some vegans.

 

If somebody agree that the world needs to get the meat consumption reduced, and they reduce their meat consumption from 14 meals a week to 2 meals a week, sell your car and cycle around, reduce your plastics intake and setup self sufficient solar power, will that satisfy the animal rights activists?

 

The answer cannot be 100% vegan or nothing. If those are the only two choices, then the net effect on the world we share will not be maximised. So we need to give people some wiggle room.

 

From what I can see currently 7% of UK population claim to be vegan and the in the US its seems to be 3%. What would the net impact be if we get the other 93% or 97% to simply reduce their meat intake by 20%?

Let me add a little bit to this thread for the first time in a while. As you know the trouble and strife has gone full Vogon, and there have been some interesting developments.

 

I am trying for ethical reasons to lower my meat intake (and for cycling reasons, my intake as a whole) but in the last two weeks I have had two convo's with people who were vegans and who are now no longer, one having been ordered to stop it cos things had gone awry.

 

So I popped home and said to the Mrs that my friend had been ordered to stop due to some reasonably dramatic health changes. My wife said, well, obviously, you have to take your supplements, too. So being a curious fella, with not many dollars, and a few sense, I asked what supplements these were as I thought full veganism just gave you gas, without any other side-effects? Turns out she has a little farm-acy under her bathroom stand.

 

Curious was I.

 

I then said OK, let's just do a shop excluding your supplements and see what we can buy. I eat quite a bit more than her but my shop for a week and hers were very nearly the same over here, anyway, while mine was pretty much twice as much actual food (and that only had a bit of meat).

 

Not that these findings are anything but hearsay and are totally unscientific, but less meat stl makes me feel better about myself. It makes my family's wallet lighter (in Aus terms, anyway) and requires Extremely Powerful Other supplements. My wife has a thyroid condition on top of the supplements for the food, so it is a bit dear.

 

It's just interesting how hypocrisy gets thrown around at carnivores, when it is really clear to me as a middle class pheasant that veganism is not the solution to the world's problems. But as Patch says it may very well be a solution to an individual or group of individuals of an upwardly mobile persuasion. Or even a large percentage of the population. But it's about as much of a panacea as Trump's wall.

 

And I actually am trying in my own tiny way.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Thor Buttox

[Odinson]

I actually agree with your first paragraph, and maybe I phrased my comment wrong. My choice to eat meat is my business, as your choice to eat plant-based is yours. But that doesn't abdicate me from any responsibility with regards to reasonable consumption and a balanced diet. I'm not saying "screw the world, eat what you like".

 

Answer me this: Taking the emotive side out of it, would there still be such a problem if everyone ate some meat as part of a balanced diet? 

 

As for the study you posted, we debated this on page 1 so I'm not going to get into it again. The problem is eating the average American diet and overall consumption, not solely meat. Meat as part of balanced diet is just as healthy as a plant based diet. 

 

The thing is, ask 100 people "Do you think you eat a balanced diet?" and 98 will answer "Yes!" Would that be the case? I don't think so. The problem is having people understand the problem and then actually take measures to truly limit their consumption. 

 

If the world woke up tomorrow and everyone eating a typical Western diet ate the diet recommended in the recent Lancet study, would I be happy? Hell, yes! It would make a huge impact on human and planetary health and would save so many animals from suffering. Would I then stop advocating for veganism? Hell, no! Why? Simple: necessity. We do not need to exploit animals. Why do it if there is no need? 

 

Even if we could turn the clock back to the 60's we'd be better off. 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production-consumption

 

 

[Odinson]

This again where I think an internal conflict might make acceptance difficult for some vegans.

 

If somebody agree that the world needs to get the meat consumption reduced, and they reduce their meat consumption from 14 meals a week to 2 meals a week, sell your car and cycle around, reduce your plastics intake and setup self sufficient solar power, will that satisfy the animal rights activists? 

 

The answer cannot be 100% vegan or nothing. If those are the only two choices, then the net effect on the world we share will not be maximised. So we need to give people some wiggle room.

 

From what I can see currently 7% of UK population claim to be vegan and the in the US its seems to be 3%. What would the net impact be if we get the other 93% or 97% to simply reduce their meat intake by 20%?

 

I think we're perhaps conflating two separate, but related, interest groups. Asking that question to dogmatic animal rights activists would be similar to asking the Jewish community if 'just a little bit of Antisemitism is okay'. Granted, it's not a particularly elegant comparison, but you get where I'm coming from. 

 

Remember, in whichever movement, you're going to have people who fall on a spectrum, with dogmatism on the one hand and pragmatism on the other hand. Personally, I like to consider myself a pragmatist - I have no qualms accepting that 97% of a population strongly curbing their animal consumption will have a greater net effect than 3% vegan. So, I'll encourage that reduction. 

 

Like I said, I'll still advocate for veganism, because of the ethical aspects (why kill and torture defenseless animals if you don't have to) and the fact that greater benefits can be netted by fully plant-based than just 'a little bit of meat'. 

[Odinson]

Let me add a little bit to this thread for the first time in a while. As you know the trouble and strife has gone full Vogon, and there have been some interesting developments.

 

I am trying for ethical reasons to lower my meat intake (and for cycling reasons, my intake as a whole) but in the last two weeks I have had two convo's with people who were vegans and who are now no longer, one having been ordered to stop it cos things had gone awry.

 

So I popped home and said to the Mrs that my friend had been ordered to stop due to some reasonably dramatic health changes. My wife said, well, obviously, you have to take your supplements, too. So being a curious fella, with not many dollars, and a few sense, I asked what supplements these were as I thought full veganism just gave you gas, without any other side-effects? Turns out she has a little farm-acy under her bathroom stand.

 

Curious was I.

 

I then said OK, let's just do a shop excluding your supplements and see what we can buy. I eat quite a bit more than her but my shop for a week and hers were very nearly the same over here, anyway, while mine was pretty much twice as much actual food (and that only had a bit of meat).

 

Not that these findings are anything but hearsay and are totally unscientific, but less meat stl makes me feel better about myself. It makes my family's wallet lighter (in Aus terms, anyway) and requires Extremely Powerful Other supplements. My wife has a thyroid condition on top of the supplements for the food, so it is a bit dear.

 

It's just interesting how hypocrisy gets thrown around at carnivores, when it is really clear to me as a middle class pheasant that veganism is not the solution to the world's problems. But as Patch says it may very well be a solution to an individual or group of individuals of an upwardly mobile persuasion. Or even a large percentage of the population. But it's about as much of a panacea as Trump's wall.

 

And I actually am trying in my own tiny way.

 

I'm curious. Is her supplementation on the basis of a Dr's recommendations or her own? The only supplement required on a vegan diet which cannot be obtained from the diet is B12. Considering that the global dietary supplement market was valued at USD 133billion in 2016, I think it's fair to say that it's not vegans funding that market

 

Regarding the cost, I think we've discussed this at length - it's as expensive as you want it to be. Keep in mind, upward mobility = more animal product consumption. 

 

 

As nations urbanize and citizens become wealthier, people generally increase their calorie intake and the share of resource-intensive foods—such as meats and dairy—in their diets

[GrahamS2]

Like I said, I'll still advocate for veganism, because of the ethical aspects (why kill and torture defenseless animals if you don't have to) and the fact that greater benefits can be netted by fully plant-based than just 'a little bit of meat'.

Debatable, especially since almost every vegan relies on supplements.

Edited January 29, 2019 by GrahamS2

[Patchelicious]

The thing is, ask 100 people "Do you think you eat a balanced diet?" and 98 will answer "Yes!" Would that be the case? I don't think so. The problem is having people understand the problem and then actually take measures to truly limit their consumption. 

 

snip

 

Ask 100 dieticians what a "balanced diet" is, and you will get 98 different answers.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Ask 100 dieticians what a "balanced diet" is, and you will get 98 different answers.

With one constant. No processed foods.

[Patchelicious]

With one constant. No processed foods.

You would think, but my jaw has hit the floor where they try and punt you stuff like FutureLife.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

You would think, but my jaw has hit the floor where they try and punt you stuff like FutureLife.

???? yeah true. Or that global study recently. "Oreos would be a good dessert option"

 

Errrrr, what!?

[Chris_]

You would think, but my jaw has hit the floor where they try and punt you stuff like FutureLife.

 

Marketing is a powerful beast, with a big budget. 

 

Selective facts and omitting facts are almost as bad as false facts. 

 

A lot of our 'knowledge' is based on big brand marketing and bottom lines, its difficult to see through the rubbish sometimes and really know anything 100%.

[Patchelicious]

Marketing is a powerful beast, with a big budget.

 

Selective facts and omitting facts are almost as bad as false facts.

 

A lot of our 'knowledge' is based on big brand marketing and bottom lines, its difficult to see through the rubbish sometimes and really know anything 100%.

Marketing is a power beast, as is emotion. As you rightfully say, we need to sift through that.

 

The best way in my opinion to do that is to get educated peer on reviewed data and studies. From both sides of the coin.

 

It’s extremely easy to get caught up in our own echo chambers, only listen to what we want to hear and simply become fixed in our mindsets. We must not listen to opposing opinions simply to refute them, and we must not read opposing studies to simply try and discredit them.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Patchelicious

[Thor Buttox]

I'm curious. Is her supplementation on the basis of a Dr's recommendations or her own? The only supplement required on a vegan diet which cannot be obtained from the diet is B12. Considering that the global dietary supplement market was valued at USD 133billion in 2016, I think it's fair to say that it's not vegans funding that market

 

Regarding the cost, I think we've discussed this at length - it's as expensive as you want it to be. Keep in mind, upward mobility = more animal product consumption.

I think that is changing - the upward mobility part. Remember I am the bunny-hugger sort, so I am firmly stating that reducing animal cruelty is on my agenda.

 

However in terms of the two external examples, the issues resulted from very serious tooth issues in the one which the doctors then ordered her to correct by 'correcting' her diet, which has subsequently reversed to a degree. Now I am aware of correlation versus causation, but she is now vociferously anti-xclusively-vegan having gone through the situation.

 

My wife has magnesium, iodine, calcium, Vit B and some other things that she has to take for her personal situation on doctors recommendations which she didn't need previously. Again, I am not saying it's not POSSIBLE to avoid this, but just saying 'vegan' is the solution is not true.

 

On the cost thing, again, it is what you make of it, but unless you are hardcore and do just the fresh veggies with minimal spices, and minimal Schmeese cheese, soy milk or vegan Sausages, and other such delicassies over here it is definitely more expensive.

 

So while I can respect your personal choices greatly, I am still not convinced it is entirely accurate representation for most people, without knowledge. (which to be fair, you are trying to share here...)

[Chris_]

The high vegan food cost has come up a few times here. And it often leaves me confused. Yes some of the more odd concoctions are expensive, but in almost 2 years I'm yet to buy and/or try them out more than once. Whatever plant version of a burger is not expensive, soy/plant protein in whatever shape or form is not expensive.

 

Lets not forget woolies biltong (I know thats a poor starting point but convenience trumps price for those of us surrounded by tall buildings and k*k work hours) is going on for R800 a kilo! Go to any reasonable restaurant in our cities and you're easily in for R200 for a hunk of meat. 

 

For the two of us at home, I'm certain we've taken 20 - 25% off the food bill. (I used to eat A LOT of biltong...)

[GrahamS2]

Marketing is a powerful beast, with a big budget. 

 

Selective facts and omitting facts are almost as bad as false facts. 

 

A lot of our 'knowledge' is based on big brand marketing and bottom lines, its difficult to see through the rubbish sometimes and really know anything 100%.

And a lot of dietary advice and decisions are based on outdated, inaccurate studies. The dietary cholesterol studies the American Heart Foundation conducted in the 1950’s are a prime example. And yet thousands of food producers and associations base their recommendations on these studies today.

[Odinson]

Devon farmer 'too upset' by slaughter gives lambs to Kidderminster sanctuary

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-47026123?fbclid=IwAR0LrQkZVARbPqNIehg5XkJAoz0fDSmdGujQKYYY4ixpShRPv84Go2w0MaY

 

 

A farmer who became too upset when taking his lambs to the abattoir gave his flock to an animal sanctuary.

Sivalingam Vasanthakumar, from Totnes, Devon, took the 20 male lambs nearly 200 miles (321km) to Goodheart Animal Sanctuaries, near Kidderminster.

Mr Vasanthakumar, a farmer for 47 years, said: "I just couldn't cope any more and I had to say no."

The sanctuary, which looks after 220 animals, said it had never received lambs from a farmer before.

Mr Vasanthakumar said he had previously worked as a dairy farmer with his parents in Sri Lanka but had also been a farmer in the UK for "many years".

"It was taking them to the slaughterhouse and that was stressing me out a lot," he said.

Mr Vasanthakumar said he also hated to see the "animals going through that stress".

Mr Vasanthakumar decided to change his career several months ago when he would normally take the lambs to market.

"I realised this year, I couldn't do it. The emotional toll had become too much," he said.

He said he cooks Indian dishes and planned to sell these and his home-grown vegetables at a Totnes street market instead.

"I will still be in the farming world, but not livestock farming anymore," he said.

Sanctuary manager Dave Bourne said there were only a "handful" of sanctuaries the UK that rehomed rescued farm animals.