Am I reading this study correctly. It says 50g of unprocessed meat (1.75 ounces) and 120g of processed meat (4 ounces) is a serving. Who eats that way?
At any rate, I think we're better off to stop subsidizing monocrops such as GMO Roundup Resistant corn and soybeans that are largely there to feed livestock. I was annoyed that continuation of soybeans was mentioned in one of the democrat debates. We'd also do better to stop eating farmed fish as that has a whole host of health and environmental issues rarely addressed in the times.
23
Why are so many people being defensive here? I am guessing that they just want to keep eating meat and dairy. I’m not including tiny family farms, but the cruelty of animal farming practices is so extreme that most people determinedly “don’t want to know about it,” attack those who are trying to advocate for the poor animals’ (fellow beings! not “livestock”) quality of life and even make jokes at their expense! Please do a lot more research on the topic if you are going to continue to consume cow products, and dairy practices, by the way, might even be worse. No, I am not being “preachy”! I am trying to help the animals!
And besides that, if we don’t change a lot of things about how cows are raised and fed (yes, a lot can be done to improve the methane emissions problem), and even if we do, not eating meat would do more than you think to combat climate change. Trust me, it’s not THAT hard to stop eating meat. I think it’s easier to just go vegetarian than trying to moderate—in the latter case, you have to keep “deciding to do the right thing,” whereas in the former, you stop even wanting it. Vegan is harder, but very much the best choice. It’s a lot harder to stop driving, in my opinion...we have to get places; we don’t need to eat animals.
43
'beef requires far, far more resources than any of those other protein categories. The team calculated that beef requires 28 times more land, six times more fertilizer and 11 times more water compared to those other food sources' -
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/beef-uses-ten-times-more-resources-poultry-dairy-eggs-pork-180952103/
13
“There’s no profit to be made in ground beef”
Fast food chains might disagree.
7
Perhaps the real, real problem with beef is the brainwashing of consumers and the dilution of the grading system. These days, based on the sinewy virtues of grass-fed beef, there are no more sprawling feed lots next to the highway where the poor things were suckered up with grain and hormones, before that last holiday to the slaughterhouse.
As a result, the meat in your supermarket is virtually devoid of fat, and cooks up more or less like a bad slab of vegetarian venison--in other words, tougher than Florsheim. Today's front and center offering might have been called USDA Commercial in 1978.
Ah, to find a good slab of sliced cow, replete with marbled fat throughout, aged. They kept claiming it would give you a heart attack, or cancer. Now they're not so sure. To add insult to injury, the experts say that Beyond Meat's Trump Signature Beef Imposter is ethical, in the PETA sense, but probably will kill you at least as fast. What I could never figure out is why, if meat-averse people are so concerned about the animals, they go to supernatural lengths to make the fake products look like ground animals. That is very Trumpian, indeed.
Beef. It's what's for dinner.
6
Unfortunately Mr. Carroll just accepts the current misinformation being spread by animal and vegan activists about how bad cattle are for the planet. The 30% of ice free land number is a joke...just think about it...its ludicrous on the surface of it. Besides, livestock in the US is raised on land not suited for crop agriculture (without massive amounts nitrogen based fertilizer). On that same land cattle act as proxy or the buffalo, fertilizing and churning soil, ultimately fixing carbon deep back in the soil where it belongs. Even in the CAFO model, cattle spend 80-85% of their lives on grass, finishing on leftover brewers mash and corn stalks augmented with flaked corn not suitable for human consumption - yes, up-cycling waste products.
Oh wait - all that methane!!! Nonsense, cattle are part of a closed loop of eating grass and then producing methane which breaks down into CO2 in about 10 years which is then reabsorbed by the grass the cattle eat and the cycle strats all over again.
The increase in methane is largely attributable to fracking as well as bog activity due to a warming planet and less frozen tundra. The only way to reduce our emissions is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning.
Blaming cattle is a marketing scheme perpetrated by the shysters selling heavily processed vegan junk food: Impossible Burger. Animal proteins are the most concentrated nutritional substances available and ruminants play a critical role in healthy ecosystem.
38
astonishing the ego of greedy humans. arguing incessantly about if meat is "good" for you and not once mentioning the horrific cruelty of a factory farm where the ultimate slaughter is actually putting a sentient being out of their human created misery.
I do not eat meat simply because I do not want to be a monster like the rest of humanity
125
Bacon and fried chicken are healthier than beef. Not if you recognize that salt is bad for you. Broiled chicken, without coatings or skin, is ok. Fried chicken isn't.
3
Moderation of any kind of caloric intake is the key.
I'd like to offer a suggestion that may or may not be popular with other readers.
Right now the number of deer that live among us especially in suburbia is at very unhealthy numbers. These animals are not only over-browsing the habitat but are the cause of number of other problems such as car accidents and carriers of parasitic animals that promote disease.
Venison is a very healthy meat and wild venison even more so. I'm not advocating the slaughter of wild animals in the name of dietary satisfaction. But when you look at the situation and a solution, this may very well be it.
8
Not interested in reading the results of studies on unhealthy American populations. Their rates of chronic disease including obesity are well known, Almost all protein from beef, pork and chicken is compromised by the animals' dietary intake and the conditions under which they are raised, for example feedlot animals that don't move and are fed corn.
There are two guiding principles in nutrition: "you are what you eat" and "garbage in, garbage body." If you put de-graded proteins into your body, as in corn-fed cow, then you get the corn-dog body.
Even the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did not and could not differentiate between consumption of high quality meats and the garbage paraded as food when they came to their conclusion that red meat consumption was a high risk for various cancers. IARC barely even looked at the differences between factory processed meats and directly off-the-hoof slaughterhouse meats.
Nonsense science, and just a glance at how the human genome evolved over millennia will show clearly that the human upright body and brain evolved on a high quality meat and fish protein diet.
These scientists should be looking not at the average population, but the healthy, high-quality protein eating before coming to their conclusions.
Me, I stick with organic meats if they are from a farm, wild meats like bison, kangaroo, venison, and ocean fish.
4
@Svirchev
I think what is fueling obesity in the US is that America eats it's meat with a heaping side of sugar and calories. We "blame" beef for fast food making people fat, while that sad 4 ounce portion of beef is slathered with corn syrup, thrown on a processed bun, served with a jumbo size serving of deep fried potatoes and washed down with sugar water.
I do believe in eating quality meat, and do so myself, but we would make a giant step forward even eating garbage meat if we cut back on calories, sugar and nutrient void foods that accompany that beef.
12
You obviously have not tried the meat substitutes. If real ground beef was as tough as pea protein no one would eat it either.
Killing any sentient being for food is wrong, is inhumane. It is especially inhumane when someone pays someone else to do the killing.
I have a tiny amount of respect for someone who would , with bare hands, kill a cow for food. That IS all things equal. Even a knife would make it unequal.
The plant kingdom provides more than enough sources of every nutrient we need including protein. Except Vitamin b12 which could be obtained by eating one egg every week. Stealing an egg does not cause pain to the chicken. Ditto dairy products.
On the subject of methane we could reduce methane emissions by composting all plant wastes from our kitchens.
In our house we grind up all plant wastes in a mixer with water and then spread the liquid over the lawn and over the vegetable garden. Our apple trees love this basic form of fertilizer. Grinding them down to smaller particles makes the composting process faster. Our lawn loves it even more.
When plant wastes are buried in landfills they get covered up and do not have direct contact with the oxygen in the air. This results in a slow generation of methane which eventually gets released into the atmosphere doing what we all know it does.
All municipalities must convert all plant wastes into compost instead of burning it in landfills. They should also allow homeowners to put kitchen plant waste into the same bags that are used for yard waste. Yard waste is generally composted.
10
Aha! As a doctor, I’ve figured out how to use this evidence to advise my patients about red meat consumption in respect to their health.
I won’t tell them to eat less red meat.
I’ll tell them not to be the kind of person who eats a lot of red meat.
7
@Marie Heitz
I eat a ton of red meat. I am going to bet I am a lot healthier than your patients. Along with my red meat, I work out very hard, eat a ton of vegetables, avoid sugar and alcohol and get enough sleep. I also take no drugs. At age 45 I regular beat women half my age in my CrossFit classes. My labs are all good per the doctor and you can see my abs. I eat sirloin steak, lamb or venison 7 nights a week.
13
I wish the article compared ecosystems and best management practices for livestock production that are less environmentally damaging, such as amount of water and land required to raise a single animal depending on climate etc., i.e. density - animals per unit area of land, and the amounts of waste produced and how the waste is managed. In New Zealand, where beef are for the most part grass fed, the climate is much wetter and milder than the western US. The average AUM in New Zealand is significantly lower than in arid climates, such as the western US, Australia and very likely de-forested tropical rainforest, where the amount of grass and other plants is sparse and of poor quality, water which could (and should) be more efficiently applied to other uses is used in stead to water livestock. This is true regardless of the type of animal relatively speaking, although most other livestock (goats for example) are far less resource intensive than cattle. I live in a wet climate. If I buy beef or any other animal product that is locally produced, and eat it in moderate amounts, the environmental harm is minimal compared to buying Pampas raised beef from the local supermarket, which in addition to large environmental products costs, has to be transported long distances. And regarding the quote at the end of the article "Who needs steak when there’s bacon and fried chicken?" How about the environmental coasts of waste from super-sized chicken and pig farms??
5
A reminder the decomposition of cellulose (about 50% of a plant) produces methane; the bacteria that do so in water (marsh gas), soil or herbivores (birds, fish, insects, mammals, and reptiles) are all similar. Thus, methane is unavoidable. But, in nature and in Regenerative Farming and Holistically Managed Grazing which emulate the natural pattern of wild herbivores can more than offset that methane. A 1000 pound cow can sequester in the soil 3 tones of carbon dioxide (actually just the Carbon) more than offsetting the methane, equivalent of one ton of CO2 she belches.
There is little doubt that a properly grass fed steer is helpful in reducing CO2. Chickens and pigs raised in Industrial Farming are unquestionably bad for the environment including water and air pollution and releasing carbon from the soil, worsening the problem.
4
Not only is red meat and animal fat good for your health as shown by the latest research for keto diets but properly managed herd animals are absolutely necessary for saving our soils and sequestering carbon. Regenerative agriculture and holistic grassland management is a revolution in food production that has been shown to profitable and increase the quality of the food supply for poor countries as well as the rich. There are many "grass roots" organizations promoting the methods worldwide but I suggest that you look into the Savory Institute to start.
Soy beans and corn are shallow rooted annuals that deplete the soil of nutrients,and need fertilizer, insecticides, and herbicides (like roundup) to produce in quantity with mechanized farming. Constant tillage and shallow rooted crops destroy the soils carbon holding capacity releasing it into the water and atmosphere. Carbon holding and water holding capacity can be restored to marginal and desertified lands with managed livestock.
Conclusion: overproduction of soil destructive crops is bad as a food and bad for the planet. Large herds of cattle, sheep, goats on managed grasslands is good food and good for the planet. It is time to learn about it.
23
Here they say raising beef is bad for the planet. Another article offers advice for getting used to eating insects! Before our species abandons its food culture and turns into insectivores so it can cram our planet with the maximum number of humans possible - why don’t we learn to live rationally and collectively and work towards reducing the population so everyone can live sustainably with creature comforts..like delicious food.
7
@Frank G You are a bit out of date. All developed countries and several developing countries are at or below replacement birthrates. Only sub Saharan Africa is substantially above. Seems once girls are educated, they lose interest in large families.
5
I think that the amount of red meat that Americans consume is quite large, and that we need to try to be considerate of eating in moderation so that we can protect not only our environment (by cutting down on methane levels), but also our health. Red meat is being proven to be somewhat better for us than once originally thought, but it is still not our best option. I like that this article points out different ways to cut down on our cow/dairy/beef intake. As someone who is dairy free already, I do not contribute to our intake of cow's milk, but I am eager to try some of the vegan alternatives to meat listed in this article. Overall, I think that for the sake of our health, our environment, and the animals involved, it is best that we attempt to cut back on red meat.
4
In the analytical field of public policy analysis there is a saying: “If you want to bag an elephant, you have to go to elephant country.”
What this means is that if you want to make a big improvement on a particular problem, you have to concentrate on those areas where big effects are even possible.
When it comes to the issue of Climate Change, convincing people to give up meat ain’t “elephant country.”
Not to horribly mix policy analysis metaphors, but there is a heck of a lot of “lower hanging fruit” that provides substantially higher “bang for the buck.”
5
Not to be cynical, but I can just hear Sarah Palin in ten years asking:
“So, how’d that ‘Become a vegan for Climate Change’ thing work out for ya?”
5
Not to mention the sometimes horrific conditions these animals are kept under. This and climate change are the two main reasons I am cutting back on meat. I have no problem killing animals for food -- I don't think death has much meaning if you don't know about it -- but at the very least if we are going to eat them we owe it to them to give them a comfortable life and a quick, painless death.
11
The author does everyone a disservice by dismissing grass-fed beef with “almost no one” produces it in the USA. That is simply wrong. Grass-fed beef production may be a small fraction of feedlot beef volume, but it is still available. Consumers just need to look for it, ask for it, and demand it from their meat vendors (be they grocers, butchers, or restaurants). Here in the Pacific Northwest my family has purchased only grass fed beef for nearly a decade now, sourced at local and regional ranches. The latest research by soil scientists and range experts confirms the potential for well-managed grass ranches to improve carbon soil sequestration. This really is an issue where consumers need to lead, because I guarantee you there are plenty of ranchers (including the younger generation) ready to make the switch to supplying grass fed beef when the demand is there.
28
I don't think there is a problem with eating meat if you consume modest sized portions of it and make most of your diet vegetables and whole grains and the like. There are two problems with meat that the quoted experts don't talk about, prob because they get money from the meat industry:
1)People are eating too big portions, in the past 40 years we have gone from a 1/4 hamburger to a 1/2 pound or more, and restaurants when you get steak are giving pound + steaks. This wasn't the norm in the past......which leads to 2)the meat people are eating today is big because it is cheap, thanks to the corn subsidies, cattle are force fed corn to make them grow fat fast, and worse, the cheap meat uses antibiotics and hormones to make it grow fast..and the meat is loaded with saturated fat, the antibiotics have led to resistance by bacteria, and it just is not healthy...but because it is cheap, people glom it up.
Chicken and pork are no healthier, they are raised in horrible conditions that people choose to ignore. The chickens no longer user antibiotics by law, but they are not raised on good feed and fresh air, far from it, same with pork.
The government of course won't stop this, they are in bed with the meat business...but if meat were more expensive but better quality, people would eat less, the portions would be smaller, and would be better off.
18
Include seaweed in the feed of bovines and the flatulence and belching diminishes to little significance. The clearing of forests to raise bovines and to feed them may be reduced if people try to eat less of it. Beef and dairy products are not problems that require eliminating their use, just using them more carefully.
Despite the sense that eliminating food taken from animal sources would save the planet and eliminate a big part of the violence in human life, it's mostly imaginative not realistic. We evolved as omnivores with those who avoided eating mammals eating dairy products, fowl, and fish.
Our bodies just have a hard time with a strictly vegetable diet and always have. We eat many vegetable products which must be carefully processed to eliminate toxins which screw up our digestion and make us sick including legumes, nuts, and grains. We have not the gut bacteria able to digest cell walls and so rely mostly on carbohydrates stored for plant growth for nutrition. Legumes are all toxic to us and must be cooked well to reduce the toxins to safe levels. Some grains like blue corn are also toxic. Almonds in nature are full of cyanide. Cultivated almonds are mutations selected for cultivation by man. Acorns eaten by California native peoples were nutritious but toxic until processed. Plants that tests show contain nutrients needed by man often contain substances which prevent man's gut from absorbing them. The plant world is not particularly friendly to mankind.
8
Now that climate change is starting to hit the fan, those of us in areas that are predicted to suffer catastrophic drought and water issues, already happening now, need to keep one thing in mind.
It takes 1,799 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. It's 216 gallons of water to produce a pound of soy, 106 gallons for edible corn.
The climate changes that barrel towards us will choose our meals for us.
10
I am NOT eating soy products PERIOD
I am lactose intolerant and thought soy was s godsend... NOT
It is worse than dairy!!
3
@Entera Remember, those gallons come from both water drunk, snow cattle eat and water in the plants they eat. Most of that water in pastured cattle is returned to the soil chock full of minerals and nitrogen in the form of urine, usable by the plants.
9
Before buying into this latest ploy from BigAg, who or what paid for this 'study' or is it a 'finding? This reminds me of all the 'studies' supposedly denying climate change or from an earlier period when BigTobacco paid for 'studies' purporting that cigarettes weren't harmful.
Ask questions and don't be so gullible the next time some corporations try lying to you about their products.
5
Cows, by definition, are female, i.e. what we use in dairy production. When discussing beef, better to stick to the term "cattle."
5
We clever humans, just large and dexterous enough to manage fire and make tools that make tools, are so good at large-scale animal agriculture that we've pushed the earth's carrying capacity for domesticated animals beyond its limits. We're good at that but it's really bad for us, the billions of sentient animals enslaved and gone to slaughter as well as the other creatures who have perished in the wake of our cleverness.
5
I found this op-ed to be one-sided in favor of meat. What humans need to do is moderate, if not completely stop, the consumption of meat. Quit fooling around thinking anything else would work. And quit kidding yourself that the way we raise and slaughter animals is morally right. I dare anyone to walk, child in arm, through a modern dairy farm or pre-slaughter feed-lot and then in the evening drink milk while eating your rare beef steak for dinner. The scenes in these dairy farms and slaughter facilities are unimaginable. They’re horror shows no one who eats meat could bear to witness.
It would be child abuse to show them to children.
15
Bad for the planet? People are bad for the planet. Everything we do is bad for the planet. I'll eat my steak and not give a hoot about the environmental impact. That ship with those considerations sailed a long time ago.
10
RE: There has been a lot of hope that Beyond Meat’s pea protein or Impossible Burger’s soy could serve as beef burger substitutes, reducing the need for cows.
Well not in the real world where people have budgets
Beyond Meat's 2 patty 8 oz package of burgers is $5.99 - eough for 2 people
That is $11.98 PER POUND!
Impossible Burger is just hitting the stores and, according to Business Insider, 12 oz is $9 ---- $12 a pound again
At the same store that has the Beyond Meat patties, 96% lean ground beef is $4.99 & 90/10 is $5.19 per pound & 80/20 ground beef is $3.99 a lb
Beyond & Impossible cost up to 300% MORE - 3 times as much which puts it in the same price range
* 2 cap ribeye steaks 3/4 lb $11.24
* 10 oz ribeye grass fed steak at $12,99 or 10 oz New York Strip at $11.99
* 4 strip loin steaks (1 lb) at $9.99
Good luck on peddling 2 burgers for 2 people for the cost of steak for 2 to 4
6
Having driven through Texas several times, there is plenty of grassland there that is well suited for cattle that does not at all require deforestation. Of course, the beef it provides is likely not enough for our voracious appetites. We can have sustainable and responsible beef, but please bring on the lab grown substitutes for mass fast food consumption!
1
@Tallulah Cultured meat from the people that brought you the American diet designed to produce obesity, heart trouble, diabetes and dementia.
Meat produced using raw materials produced by Industrial Agriculture..
I just cannot wait.
1
Holistic grazing management results in well aerated soil that supports methane consuming methanotrophs. It also allows for the sequestration of carbon into soils which will further offset any climate change impacts of the methane from ruminants.
Animal impact is a critical component of regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture focuses on improving soil biology. Mob grazing is used along no-till and multi species cover crops heal the soil which prevents floods and droughts.
12
What is not mentioned are the subsidies for animal feed crops, like corn. This artificially lowers the cost of most meats. If beef was at its true cost, market forces would reduce consumption. Throw in some regulations on the care of the animals and prices would go up even more. Eliminating meat may not be the best choice, there are grasslands that probably should not be tilled and farmed. Or at least, farming them would have a huge environmental cost. Having grazing animals is part of a grassland ecosystem.
9
@JS True costs won't influence the consumer. If the consumer wants it, the consumer will buy it at any price. Look no farther than my country, Norway, where people will actually pay $30 for a pound of bacon, $28 for a six pack of beer, and 100 percent tax on a car.
3
@JS
Agreed. Another ironic change. The relative price of meat would invert without subsidized grain. Before WWII and the government subsidized corn soybeans, beef that was grass finished was cheapest, with pork in the middle and chickens as most expensive. The difference was the amount of grain necessary to the animal diet.
3
While this article is about beef, in parallel we are mining the oceans, turning to new species as traditional species are depleted. What the land and sea food sources have in common, is an attempt to keep up with an exploding number of human mouths. Nobody talks about that in connection with the environment, but 2 BILLION more people are projected in just the next 30 years!
8
Actually, according to UN forecasts, the human population is going to level off somewhere around 12 billion. We need to be finding ways for about 12 billion people to live sustainably - it can be done.
BLM now has prioritized cattle grazing on Federal Lands to accommodate ranchers. The grazing is suppose to "help control weeds but degradation of the sensitive undergrowth vegetation renders the land unable to sustain the, Greater Sage Grouse, an umbrella species,which shares sagebrush habitat with 350 other species. The rules have recently been amended to be more inclusive to grazing in the Trump administration. The, Obama's administration, using the, Endangered Species Act, in a multi-year project with 10 states, private land owners,states and local governments, protected millions of acres of habitat across the west. The largest land conservation effort in history! This landmark achievement was attenuated by the Trump administration by 1 million acres and lessened the grazing restrictions. Remember at the,G-7, this year when Trump said there was money under his feet! And he is planning on extracting every penny he can get his hands on for big business including the meat industry!
4
The authorities are trying to cow us into not consuming red meat because of the greenhouse effects of cows. I will not be cowed into not enjoying my meat of choice either.
1
Not for nothing but the prairie used to be teeming with animals before the wanton destruction of buffalo herds and killing off predators. Methane is not the point. There's plenty of that bubbling out of melting tundra and methane hydrate deposits. What should be on peoples minds when they sink their teeth into flesh is the sheer number of animals, sentient beings, that are led to slaughter daily. Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands to allow the mindless consumption of meat at every meal. Meat may not be bad for you but factory farming is really bad for the animals and the environment.
94
@RT1 I wonder would the steer prefer not to have been born at all? That is the result of not eating beef. No cattle.
10
Stop saying "bad for the planet" when what is really meant is "bad for our sustainable existence on this planet." The planet will be fine in 10 million years when we are just a plastic stripe in the geologic record.
24
Something being good or bad for humans is the only context in which anything makes sense. No one cares whether or not lifeless planets are "fine." If Earth becomes less livable for humans, it is doing bad.
2
Yes, I choose to eat beef. I've more than made up for the environmental resources used by my food choice by also choosing not to have children. One child will tax the planet's environmental resources far more than all the cattle I consume during my lifetime.
My point: when are we going to stop getting self-righteous about other people's choices? Mind your own storefront.
12
Factory farmed chickens and pigs live absolute horrific lives. And animal agriculture destroys natural areas and the animals that live there including wetlands, creeks, rivers and now the oceans.
How about a plant based diet as push back to they way we a trashing the earth and the creatures who share it.
4
Feeding sea weed which has been washing up beaches in huge quantities also reduces methane emissions massively... turn one problem, into a solution.
2
I am not overly dogmatic about this (I think that moderate consumption of meat is fine), but Americans eat WAY too much meat and it is killing the planet. The surest way for people to cut the size of their carbon and water footprints is to reduce or eliminate meat consumption.
42
@Perry Brown FTFY: The surest way for people to cut the size of their carbon and water footprints is not to reproduce.
23
@Sarah B. - Then I guess it's childless vegans FTW!
I should have said 'easiest.' One has to really want to not reproduce in order to overcome the social pressures to do so, whereas reducing or eliminating meat from one's diet is relatively easier. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption is also something that pretty much everyone can do today. Some people, like me, have already reproduced and are stuck with the little buggers.
11
@Perry Brown
Perry I encourage you to follow @ghgguru on twitter and youo'll find you are pretty much wrong on this topic. There are a variety of reasons why this assumption has become widespread but you'll find them all debunked here. Think about it for a bit...the animal mass on this planet has declined precipitously in the last 1000 years, despite modern livestock production, yet GHG emission are exploding? The ismple fact is man made emission are responsible for this, not livestock. Ruminent animals such as cattle are part of a "closed loop" system, producing methane, which breaks down over about 10 years into CO2 which is then reabsorbed by the grass they eat.
7
Pigs and chickens live horrific lives in factory farms. Pastured raised beef (that end up in feedlots) dairy, chicken and pork factories are all major sources of surface water contamination. So it's not just the air.
78
The answer is so simple if only we were willing to face up to it. What the Earth needs is an order of magnitude fewer people. Hit that goal and all this hand-wringing about steak versus hamburger versus chicken becomes totally irrelevant. Perhaps Greta Thunberg could bring this solution to the fore (despite the obvious hypocrisy that she'd wouldn't be around to voice it if parents like hers were limited to having a single child).
5
I don’t disagree that population control is critical, but Greta is her parents’ first child, so even with a one-child policy, she would still exist.
1
One thing is for certain: people eating red meat is *terrible* for the sentient beings their muscles are carved off of for human consumption. No matter how local or grass fed your beef is, it is sawed off of an animal that wanted to live and fought as hard as it could for its life for what? Your taste buds? Your "desire?" There is zero reason humans need to eat cows other than their own selfishness. Combine that with the devastating impacts on the natural world (water, wildlife, climate) and it is impossible to justify eating cows - especially in this country where nutritional options are almost endless.
7
@Kelsey Arthur Two major errors. First methane is an part of biological decomposition of cellulose containing plants (virtually all) whether that decomposition occurs in the soil in water or in the guts of herbivores and omnivores.
Second, grasslands can and due sequester enormous amounts of carbon drawn from the atmosphere by the grassland plants. Those plants evolved with herbivores and require grazing and trampling to stay healthy.
Thus, why not benefit from that natural process by eating the herbivores, either by hunting them or by raising them?
3
@Kelsey Arthur Two major errors. First methane is an part of biological decomposition of cellulose containing plants (virtually all) whether that decomposition occurs in the soil in water or in the guts of herbivores and omnivores.
Second, grasslands can and due sequester enormous amounts of carbon drawn from the atmosphere by the grassland plants. Those plants evolved with herbivores and require grazing and trampling to stay healthy.
Thus, why not benefit from that natural process by eating the herbivores, either by hunting them or by raising them?
From yesterday's Times article about the new study:
"Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions 'harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.'"
This is disturbing. If the media is going to publish summaries of scientific studies as they become available, the public had better get a grip. It's all just information, to be put into context. No one study, with very few exceptions, can claim to have set the record straight for all time. If we start suppressing certain studies, when there is no obvious weak point in their integrity, THAT is when we are harming the credibility of science and eroding the public trust in scientific research.
Please, everyone, stop looking for ultimate conclusions in each scientific study, or you'll just get whiplash, and with whiplash comes minor forms of nihilism - "red meat is bad, red meat is good, oh my god what can be done, I have no idea what to do"... How pathetic.
3
It would be nice if the answer was so simple. Every thing is either good or bad with no gray. But reality is far more complex.
Factory raised beef, and pork, and chicken are problematic. Animals were not meant to be raised this way. Cows are not supposed to eat corn. Cows can graze on land that is hilly and rocky and could not grow crops.
The nutritional profile of meat or eggs raised in more inefficient and traditional methods is different, and healthier than factory raised animals. This is more expensive in the short term but improved health means fewer doctors visits, potentially, and a different kind of savings.
My personal experimentation with my diet as led me to a real (non-processed) foods including grass fed and pasture raised, and a preference toward organic has resulted in better overall health. This type of food is more readily available than it used to be.
I await the study that examines the health impact of food quality. Sometimes forward progress involves looking backwards.
10
"Who needs steak when there's bacon and friend chicken?" I'm assuming since this article is concerned about the land-use associated with raising cattle, Dr. Taber means CAFO chicken and pigs. I'd argue that she discounts the incredible amount of waste generated by such operations and the amount of soy beans required to raise such pigs and cows. (And then there's the treatment of animals raised that way.)
3
You sit in NYC and tell me that red meat is bad for the planet.
Then don't eat it.
I love red meat and will continue to enjoy it.
Nothing like a juicy hamburger or sizzling steak.
Now I am beginning to understand the frustration that motivates some of the Trump voters. No one wants to be told how to live their life or be forced by the PC police to conform.
I will still vote Dem or Libertarian ( depending on how left the Dem candidate is) and eat my meat.
4
I find this argument so ridiculous. Not only self-righteous but also self-aggrandizing as if "saving the planet" is a simple personal task for all-powerful millennials. This is the generation that can barely walk down the street without taking their eyes of their devices. They will "save the planet" -uhuh. And to do so they must change the eating habits of all Americans -uhuh. The notion that sensible grown-ups will listen for a nanosecond to the dicta and preachings of the tattooed ones is laughable.
11
I'm OK with a seaweed farm the size of Manhattan. And with global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps, I have an idea for where such a Manhattan-sized seaweed farm might be located: Manhattan.
51
Thank you for changing the way this article is titled. Who cares if beef is bad for your body or not? It's contributing hugely to climate change, and I was livid to see the irresponsible way that the Times appeared to encourage consumption yesterday.
3
This article exemplifies one real problem with the current approach to climate change; a focus on possible solutions that are unacceptable to many and thus can't be implemented. Large portions of the population are just not going to give up beef.
A more sensible approach would be to do the things we can do to reduce greenhouse gasses without sacrifice. We know how to stop using fossil fuels to generate energy for most uses. A combination of solar, wind, hydo and nuclear power -- using currently available technology -- could support the entire power grid. With carbon free electricity we could replace fossil fuels for heating and cooling homes and other buildings, powering cars and trucks and most industrial processes. We may not know how to use electric power to drive airplanes and ships, but that shouldn't stop us from doing what we know how to do.
1
Perhaps whether or not red meat -specifically beef - is bad for you may depend on where it was raised. Generally, American beef, raised on corn not grass, with limited roaming ability is fattier (and I assume unhealthier) than Argentinian beef that's been raised on grass and is much less fatty.
As the study covered people in various countries, the results could be skewed towards eaters of grass fed meats. It would also explain the discrepancy between other studies and this one.
2
I am a cattle rancher in remote western North Dakota. Cattle are the tool used to manage these vast grasslands, keeping the soil, native plants and grasses, and natural water systems healthy, and minimizing fire hazards. Wildlife alone do not accomplish this, and recreationists take it for granted.
My cattle are treated better than most people do their children, and return ungrudging and plentifully the care and attention put into them. I acknowledge that this is not true of some ranchers; shame on them and on an industry fixated on profit while rationalizing inhumane practices. Cattle are living beings, they have feelings and a defined system of communication. Good stewardship of the land and sound animal husbandry are minimum threshold requirements.
With that caveat, cattle production is a useful tool in the management of an environment that otherwise would rapidly be out of balance. As does so much of the commentary and research about the downside of cattle production, this article does not distinguish between human-devised confinement operations -- which generally are abhorrent to the health of animals, be it cattle, poultry, or swine, as well as produce an excess of waste materials -- and natural grass operations to which much of the western US is well suited.
Anti-beef attitude is overbroad and misguided. Demonizing beef as the culprit merely alienates those of us who actually live in the natural world and make our living in consonance with the environment.
72
@Winsome. Sorry but the notion that cattle are good for managing grasslands is a myth promoted by the cattle industry.
9
@David
A bit less righteousness please. The cattle industry has no interest in managed grazing. They are committed to Confined Feeding Facilities that feed the cattle with a grain diet that would in time kill them to feed the humongous packing plants.
Raising cattle on grass only and using grazing practices that imitate the wild herds of Aurach and Bison and Antelope actually promotes soil and sward health.
17
@David
According to who? Please cite your evidence.
10
This "extensive study" is deeply flawed from a public health perspective. There is a universal population-level correlation between meat-based, Western style diets and higher cancer rates, inflammation, and negative cardiovascular outcomes relative to plant-based diets. The funding sources of this study explain why they are muddying the waters with this "news".
5
I occasionally eat grass fed beef from the numerous small family ranches near my home.
The cows turn food we can’t eat into food we can.
Contrast that with raspberries grown on ex rainforest then shipped by air halfway around the world.
16
@Erik Frederiksen. It's not either/or both are bad.
1
@David
How is the beef I described bad?
4
The methane produced by raising cattle can be greatly eliminated by adding seaweed to their dietary. Why not do it instead of trying to convince the whole world to eliminate beef from their dietary?
People are always looking for certainty but it eludes us. Beef contains saturated fats which can be converted into LDL cholesterol which in the presence of other factors increases the likelihood of blocked arteries and cardiovascular diseases. But it's a factor not a certainty. The reduction of beef in the diet apparently affects a significant but not large proportion of cardiovascular disease outcomes and so the need to avoid them is less than was thought. If one is not lacking nutrition available from eating beef, it probably does no harm in avoiding it. But the risks do not justify having all people avoid eating it.
1
People should know BY NOW that if it's bad for the planet, it's bad for you. We're doomed. But, hey, at least red meat isn't DIRECTLY bad for your health.
2
Let's eat reat meet/beef if we want to - as we have since the dawn of time - and make a serious push to stop humans from breeding like rabbits. It's overpopulation that will kill the planet, not hamburgers.
10
@Paul. It's not either/or - both hamburgers and overpopulation are bad for the planet.
3
Went vegan five years ago and feeling (and dare I say) looking better than ever. That quote at the end of this article about bacon and chicken - how sad for her.
9
Two irresponsible articles yesterday in this paper, and this one. You know what? Reeses peanut butter cups aren't that bad for you. Alcohol is not that bad for you. Crack cocaine is not that bad for you. Its all in the serving size, and the fact that with all of them looked at in isolation, its hard to find a problem with any of them. Professor of pediatrics, addressing a population in their 50- 80's that read this paper. A dereliction or omission of responsibility.
A 5 year old is elastic and bulletproof.
3
note to the editor: the cut shown on the photograph is technically not a steak but instead is a beautifully pink london broil. yum.
lets agree to disagree you continue eating your tofu lasagna(is tofu "green"?) and i will continue hammering down the occasional tasty steak.
following dr carroll's line of logic we should kill all the cows (and other large farty mammals) so as to keep them from expelling methane into the atmosphere. maybe thats what happened to the dinosaurs they were exterminated by extremist global warming warriors.
3
Giver me a break...
"Once there were 50-to-100 million buffalo, they were the most numerous large mammals to ever exist on the face of the earth. Traveling in huge herds, they dominated much of North America from the Missouri River to the Rocky Mountains, from Mexico to Saskatchewan."
5
Going to raise my own pigs, chickens and lambs, I have the land, finding a butcher is the hard part.
1
GREAT picture to start the article. It actually made me salivate!!
3
Since meat isn’t bad for you, just for the planet, it’s fine if you live on some other planet.
1
Beef: It's what's for methane. Bad for You, Bad for the Land.
2
I refuse to accept people continuously attacking others for what they eat. The raising of beef cattle may produce some pollution, but compared to the coal industry, I'm sure it is negligible. Turn your energy in the proper direction.
8
@Grittenhouse. Regarding beef and coal, I’d like to share a saying I learned when young: Two wrongs don’t make a right.
8
@Grittenhouse This topic, more than many others that involve climate change and pollution, will always feel like it's more personal to people because it involves our everyday decisions. The food we buy, cook, and consume can be a huge part of our identities! And that's why people have such a hard time with this. But make no mistake, when you combine the emissions of the dairy and meat industries around the world, as well as take into account the deforestation that is occurring that is used to grow crops just to FEED those animals, the impact is enormous, even in the US alone: "Between pastures and cropland used to produce feed, 41 percent of U.S. land in the contiguous states revolves around livestock." And this number will only continue to grow, which is why the situation is so dire.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html
3
@Grittenhouse, classic whataboutism. The article isn't about coal. It's about meat.
2
Wouldn't a drop in demand for ground meat raise the price of steaks, and therefore cause a drop in demand for them too?
2
"What about the environmental argument? Almost 30 percent of the world’s ice-free land is used to raise livestock. We grow a lot of crops to feed animals, and we cut down a lot of forests to do that."
150 years ago, there were 30 million buffalo roaming the Great Plains, and a human population of 25 million. There are about 100 million cattle in the U.S. today., and a human population of 330 million.
Are cattle really the problem?
82
@Michael
Who cares about the environment.
After I am dead you guys and your kids can deal with it.
In the meantime, I am not going to allow the PC police to dictate my life.
Vote Libertarian if you have a conscience.
We won 4,489,221 votes in the general election, or 3.28 percent of the popular vote.
Your vote can count.
2
@Michael
Very clever. We can more easily reduce the numbers of cattle being raised than humans
2
@Michael. Yes, cattle are a big part of the problem, because of those 330 million people, who have the highest per capital carbon footprint in the world, in large measure due to their extremely high consumption of beef. (Canadians are virtually as bad — like Americans we have a profligate predilection for pickup trucks, beef, McMansions and weeklong winter vacations at Mexican/Hawaiian resorts.)
The core problem is that each year, globally, we keep growing our populations AND our gluttonous consumption. We’ve far exceeded our limits and there’s no room left for cattle. Sorry, beef eaters, you can’t love the planet and love beef — something has to give.
14
No one is willing to admit to one major factor in beef consumption, so I will.
It tastes good! There is nothing made from chicken or vegetable protein that compares to the taste of a nice slice of rare roast beet, or a juicy Porterhouse steak.
32
@michaelscody
It tastes good, as our taste buds evolved to guide us to what is good. It is very likely that only 100% grass-fed beef is good for us, and that grain finished beef is bad. We do know that grass-fed has more Omega-3s, and grain finished has more Omega-6s.
4
@michaelscody....well....Nothing taste that good, for 5 minutes if palate pleasure...to know an animal suffered and gave its life ....I dont think eating alot of the plant based meats are the answer from a health perspective..they should be used as transition...and Im nit a tree hugging hippie..I'm a conservative middle aged woman...so. Idk..watch Earthlings and get back to me....
8
@michaelscody . Preach, brother.
2
This is getting hilarious.
Last week, meat was bad for your health.
Yesterday, meat was good for your health.
Today, meat is bad again, but not due to health reasons any more. Now it’s just bad because cows create global warming, I mean, climate change. It’s true, just go ask AOC who wants to ban cows (and air travel as well).
But you did hit on something I liked very much:
‘they’re trying to grow it in the lab using stem cells.’
That’s it, that’s the solution. Am no kidding. No longer we grow animals for meat, we just grown meat. Why not?
I say this as an avid cow eater, I am right now enjoying my left over steak from last night’s dinner.
I would very much like to see cuts of beef grown in labs, that would be good for all.
I am sure AOC would still try to find a way to ban steak, but not like any one can take her seriously anyway.
3
The original article saying red meat isn't that bad is already being debunked by most nutritionists that specialize in the field. Please remember to do your own fact finding as most of the articles written like this have an agenda from the Meat and Dairy industry. The following quote comes directly from a group of experts at the Harvard School of Public Health, "The new guidelines are not justified as they contradict the evidence generated from their own meta-analyses. Among the five published systematic reviews, three meta-analyses basically confirmed previous findings on red meat and negative health effects."
6
@TEven
The field of nutrition is very poor and cannot give accurate predictions. The science is p-hacked nonsense.
I understand the difficulty - you cannot make random people follow a given diet for decades. So some humility would be nice. Almost every science short of physics is having a replication crisis. About half of the foundational studies in cancer research do not replicate. Social science the same. Education research is unspeakably bad.
Eat what you like. It probably will not hurt you. Exercise some, even just walking a few miles on the weekends. If you are getting heavy you are eating (or drinking) too much.
As for the lack of humility of saying what is good or bad for the planet? Please.
1
This article maybe is a bit too US focused. Overall, meat production is way more complex and diverse, including the questions of which land actually is used for growing animals and if - and how much - crops are used to feeding them.
Also ruminants are way more efficient in extracting nutrition value from their food, so depending on the cattle's diet you might even have a net win -- if you count food available to humans.
This summary links to a more recent analysis of that: https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/more-fuel-for-the-foodfeed-debate-new-study-indicates-livestock-production-is-a-much-smaller-challenge-to-global-food-security-than-often-reported
5
Aaron you need to read Nicollete Hahn Niman’s work. Where we live, beef ranchers use pasture raised, sustainable land grazing and production techniques that actually sequester and reduce carbon. Also it all won’t matter when the permafrost melts in Alaska and the resulting carbon release will likely be the largest single carbon release in history making emissions from cattle raising immaterial.
5
I purchase my beef from a farmer I know, about 30 miles from my urban home. His farm is solar powered and his farming methods are easy on the earth and animal. My purchase supports his family, and the employees at the family owned abattoir. I specify how the beef is cut and packaged, right sized for my family, yielding almost zero food waste. It tastes wonderful and is way less expensive than the Whole Foods or similar grocers. There are affordable ways to eat healthy meat with a positive social and environmental impact, a mere google search can get you there.
47
Or just maybe not eat meat. Kinder to animals and the planet.
9
@Katherine. Regarding the “positive environmental impact,” I invite you to reread the part about methane.
2
For older people, who have had plenty of time to accumulate carcinogens in their bodies, it seems that caution makes sense before plunging into a diet laden with thick steaks. Likewise for those with heart disease. Sensible moderation makes the most sense. Discussing these findings with your doctor in light of your personal medical profile before being guided only by press reports also makes sense.
1
Meat being bad for the environment so limiting consumption is a funny argument. On one end, we are destroying the animals on the planet and they are all dying which is bad but paradoxically, wouldn't that also be good since animals are bad for the environment?
No, animals are not bad for the environment. Unbalanced environments are bad. We clear forests to plant food which the cattle needs. This is a double whammy of environmental impact because it destroys habitats and funnels the land productivity into cattle, which is a big producer of greenhouse gasses. If we used the same land to grow vegetable food for humans, we wouldn't need as much land and we also wouldn't have the cattle green house gasses.
63
@David
Or, whatever happen to supporting small local family farms that are quickly disapperaing? As a diary consumer, I strive to support farmers putting in the labor and producing quaity products through raising their cattles on pasture. Luckly, in the state of Massachusetts, one can find small farms still in operation but future of these family owned entities are still uncertain.
2
"Picture a seaweed farm the size of Manhattan."
Okay. Why is that so much more difficult than picturing a corn farm the size of Iowa?
67
So, if we are urged to consume plant based meat substitutes for the health of the planet why are we told that our dogs and cats must be fed food made from "real meat"?
3
@Chuck Cats are carnivores, not omnivores
2
@Chuck
Because dogs and cats do not have the same physiology as humans. Their nutrition requirements are not the same.
2
Pastured beef raised to maturity on properly managed pastures allows carbón to be sequestered in the lower profile of the soil. Consider consuming organic grass-finished beef from grassland and prairie habitat. This preserves the natural habitat. Buy beef from producers who treat their animals with respect and care. Beef and cattle can make things better when properly managed.
29
@Deborah Steward. Their methane is *not* making things better.
3
Next up -studies that show that smoking isn't actually bad for you!!
9
This headline and story is patently FALSE. Meat is less harmful to the environment than moncropped agriculture and shipping plants around the world so your whole foods vegetable isles look nice, even during winter. Properly raised beef is environmentally better because it traps carbon in the soil. Meat does NOT cause heart disease or cancer as every study that's ever been done failed to come close to proving this claim - they are based on food questionnaires that are not considered scientifically valid study instruments.
51
@jny243
How is this story false?!?
Where exactly does the author claim that meat is more harmful to the environment than "moncropped agriculture"??
Did you actually read the article?!?
7
@jny243 This is addressed in the article. Grass-raised beef may not be quite as bad as grain-raised beef, but it's still not great, as it requires large amounts of land to support current levels of consumption and gives cows longer to fart methane into the atmosphere.
You can read more at Project Drawdown (https://www.drawdown.org/), but the summary is that a plant-rich diet (eating less meat) is still one of the top 5 ways we can reduce emissions; managed grazing is #19.
Here's what I don't understand from my fellow humans. What's so wrong with dialing back the beef and milk? Is it THAT important, so much a part of your identity, to eat as much as you want whenever you want? Outside of people with very specific dietary restrictions (e.g. a low FODMAP diet), there's really no downside to a diet that is majority plant – vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fruit.
I know that shifting a diet takes a bit of thought, but once you have new habits and a rotation of plant-based foods, you can do it without thinking. And then if you occasionally want to have a steak, go for it, as long as it's the $25 per pound grass-fed type that accurately accounts for the true cost of your choice.
16
@E Le B
Here's what I don't understand from my fellow humans. Why someone would think that their opinion about what other people should do is relevant at all.
4
I gave up red meat and dairy years ago, primarily as a way to fight climate change. And what I’m hearing here is, I can go back to eating burgers :D.
3
@Ben I was a vegetarian, nearly vegan, for many years. I am also concerned about the environmental effects of raising animals for consumption, as well as the ethics of killing and eating sentient beings. Personal health is just one aspect of my choice, but I do eat some meat, and specifically small amounts of red meat, for health reasons. This new study is just one of many, and its conclusions should be put into context. But my understanding of the study, based on another article yesterday in the NYT, is that from the perspective of any one person's personal health only, "no red meat" as generic advice is not based on scientific knowledge to date. This confirms my experience of red meat consumption making me healthier, while likely being bad for the health of many others.
Apologies for the serious response to your lighthearted comment, which I enjoyed.
5
Always with the big lie. Carroll is well aware that beef production is a rounding error compared to coal burning in China. But he can't nag China into turning off a single plant for five minutes, so he would damage American health for the rest of time by pressuring millions of his countrymen to switch to utterly untested fake "foods" replete with substances never before tested, let alone consumed.
Lying, misdirection and nagging -- these are the superpowers of the new wave of comic-book heroes, American-style.
41
@Tom From the article:
"Cows also put out an enormous amount of methane, causing almost 10 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to climate change."
10% hardly seems like a rounding error, and it sounds like that only accounts for the methane output from the cows themselves, and not, e.g., carbon emissions from equipment operation. Not to mention the impact from clearing forests to expand feed production, as is happening in the Amazon. I don't know how China's coal burning stacks up, but the beef industry is certainly not a negligible contribution to the atmospheric composition.
Also, the article did not really recommend that people eat "fake foods". Rather, it recommends that people cut down on consumption of steak and dairy. This could be in favor of fake meats, more veggies, or in favor of chicken and pork (as is suggested in the last paragraph).
9
@Tom You think eating less beef will damage American health for the rest of time? In any case, climate change is a classic example of a prisoners' dilemma, but China's action (or inaction) doesn't absolve us from our own environmental responsibilities.
10
@Tom. I haven’t eaten red meat in 37 years and my health seems fine, and perhaps the better for it. Lately I take some B12, per my GP’s advice.
5
“An extensive study CONFIRMS that red meat might not be that bad for you.” [emphasis added]
From everything I’m seeing in the news, “confirms” is nowhere near the case — any of several other words (e.g., “reports”) would have been more accurate.
26
this article is so unhelpful. sends mixed messages and doesn't have a point. the NYT should know better. this almost feels like they were paid by the beef industry to promote beef as companies like Beyond Meat are gaining traction. shameful!
28
Why is moderation important in eating meat, if it isn’t harmful?
And what does moderation even mean? The author provides no guidelines or even examples.
The article does discuss the effects of consuming animal products on the environment, climate, and animal cruelty — which are all negative.
So why eat steak OR chicken or bacon? Why not just eat plant based whole foods—avoiding animal products, and processed foods, especially CRAP (Calorie Rich And Processed)? A wonderful diet has lots of veggies and fruit, beans and whole grains, and in moderation nuts and seeds.
15
@Dr. J. Because there are still unknowns in terms of health. And because it is quite harmful in terms of climate change.
1
@Dr. J wrote: "Why not just eat plant based whole foods...?" Because almost all plant based foods are mostly carbs, and carbs are poison for many people. That's why we have an epidemic of diabetes in this country. When I greatly increased the proportion of animal -based foods in my diet, my health and life improved greatly. And I'm speaking as a former vegetarian here.
2
I'm not going to a plant based diet. Doesn't work for me. (I've tried and I've lost 150 pounds eat 120 grams of protein a day from meat, dairy and cheese mostly.) That being said, I only buy grassfed beef (yes, it costs more - so we don't eat as much of it) and humanely raised chicken and pork. But, as people are driving around one at a time in Chevy Suburbans, I don't seem to think that cows are the real problem. As things are being sold in plastic packaging for everything, I don't think the steers are the problem. Petroleum processing and refining is the larger problem. Eat what agrees with you in moderation. Exercise in moderation. And avoid processed foods - all that helps.
40
Steers are one part of global warming.
I presume you’re aware of methane’s effects.
2
While it's good to see an article in the NYT recognizing the environmental impacts of beef, it's disappointing that turning to chicken and pork is presented as better alternatives. That simply isn't true. The World Health Organization has classified processed meats including ham, bacon, salami and frankfurts as a Group 1 carcinogen (known to cause cancer) which means that there’s strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Eating processed meat increases your risk of bowel and stomach cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork, has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. Saying that meat in moderation can be part of a healthy diet is like saying that smoking in moderation can be part of a healthy lifestyle.
The CDC estimates that every year about 1 million people get sick from eating poultry. New CDC research shows that foodborne illnesses from bacteria found in chicken are on the rise. Personally, I don’t let my dog eat chicken - it’s filthy. Huge concentrated hog and chicken operations create enormous amounts of waste that contaminate local rivers and negatively impact the health and quality of life of nearly by residents. Lastly, but certainly not the least, is the unspeakable cruelty, pain and suffering imposed upon of millions of sentient farm animals (pigs are smarter than dogs) so people can eat chicken and bacon.
87
It's a different matter to say we shouldn't raise cattle on environmental than to say that eating that meat is badon health grounds. It's also different to oppose meat eating on moral grounds than to say it's unhealthy for individuals. There are a number of things we don't do for environmental or moral reasons that wouldn't necessarily harm an individual doing them in isolation. The issue is often that they harm others or harm all of us collectively.
7
Prof. Carroll's points are well taken, but he should not dismiss the role of burgers on these matters. If the burgers did not contribute to the overall revenue of raising the cattle, whether for steaks or dairy, the price of steaks and dairy would have to rise to compensate. As the prices of steak and milk rise, there would be less demand for them, and there would be less consumption of cattle products and less cattle raising.
7
I live in the middle of beef and chicken country. To say that chicken and pork farming is less harmful than beef is very inaccurate to say the least. Have you ever seen how they raise chickens? In massive barns the lengths of football fields? It is the most inhumane thing I have ever seen and why PETA is not all over this is beyond me. They use MASSIVE amounts of water. The chicken manure is huge in quantity, it sits in large pits, it runs off into the water supply. I no longer eat chicken after learning how they are "farmed" in industrial chicken farms. It is sickening. Cows also consumer massive amounts of water. The reality is that eating meat is not sustainable when we start running out of water or when climate change really hits.
114
@Sarah99
As a donor to PETA, I can tell you they are "all over this" as far as legal means allow.
24
@Sarah99. I agree, but beef is still massively worse than chicken, partly due to the methane. We have a climate crisis. Yes, crisis.
8
@Ann O. Dyne That is good news. In Virginia, the chicken lobby owns the state so nothing is happening in the interests of the animals, the people affected by living near these industrial farms and the environmentalists are hand-cuffed as well.
6
The immediate shift in the argument, from “It’s bad for you” to “ OK maybe it isn’t that bad for you but it is bad for ” shows that those making the former argument already pretty much knew that the nutrition argument was questionable. We always question the agenda behind and funding for any study that shows the benefits of eating meat. Why does nobody question the agenda behind or funding for studies that push plant-based diets?
7
@Roy The agenda for people pushing plant-based diets is the desire and passion to help improve people improve their health and quality of life (people in the Blue Zones with the greatest longevity have mostly plant-based diets), to reduce the enormously destructive impacts on our planet, and to create a more compassionate world for millions of sentient animals that are no different than our dogs and cats. That is the agenda.
47
Clearly a little more research would have shown that Memphis meats will be releasing product in 2021. I would think that would deserve a mention considering NYT did an article on it. But as we see with all news outlets very little actual reporting is done today.
1
People love hearing good news about bad habits. Go ahead. Keep eating meat and getting heart disease and cancer. See how that works out.
33
Red meat is recalled every month or two for the last decade. Why would anyone want to indulge?
4
@Richard The most serious public health emergencies are to do with vegetables like lettuce and sprouts. These are the vectors that have the potential to cause millions of Americans to unknowingly ingest excrement, and do quite often.
13
@Richard
Vegetables are recalled all the time for e.coli etc. Why would anyone want to indulge?
3
Raising 100% grass-fed beef is not simply "less bad" than conventional, grain-fed beef - it has big benefits for the environment as well as health. Managed grazing sequesters carbon, restores fertility, and protects against both droughts and floods. And grass-fed cattle do not emit the volumes of methane that grain-fed cattle do; grazing them is a net-climate benefit. The science is there and consumers are demanding it for the climate benefits. Look at the research that has been done right. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/02/11/adaptive-multi-paddock-grazing-reaps
29
@Miss Manners - The problem in your comment is the term "Managed grazing", which occurs virtually nowhere in our industrialized, Big Beef industry. "Managed grazing" is a concept that claims to emulate the beneficial natural grazing habits of the millions of American Bison that we slaughtered back in the day.
"Managed grazing" requires intensive management and raises the cost of the beef far above what most Americans could (or would) pay. Nice concept. Won't fly.
If you feel you have to eat meat (hint, you don't in order to get adequate protein), eat good, pond-raised fish, chicken, or even pork.
3
@Miss Anne Thrope
We see that humane practices and managed grazing is not practiced in the industrialized big Ag world, but it is practiced in parts of the northeast. It is possible in these parts to find moderate amounts of high quality locally raised pastured meat, eggs and dairy. This does require avoiding chain restaurants and chain supermarkets and paying higher prices at farms and local businesses. This may never be possible in some parts of our country, but it could become a reality for more people than it is today. The fact that these farming practices cannot feed everyone right now is not a reason to dismiss them. I remember when solar panels were prohibitively expensive, and look where that industry is now.
14
@Miss Anne Thrope I'm far from wealthy and I buy grass fed steak. If you eat reasonable portions (4-8 oz in a meal), it's not that expensive.
And when you say "won't fly" - are you familiar with movements like keto and paleo that more people are joining every day? Actually, it IS flying.
5
I think saying beef causes less environmental harm than chicken or pig meat begs the question that both chicken and pig meat production cause enormous amounts of environmental harm, human suffering and disease, and animal suffering and disease. Please don't evade reality by setting up pig and chicken as viable alternatives to beef - they are not..
47
In nature, for every thousand animals that eat plants, there’s one animal that preys on them. That’s the healthy balance. A small number of meat-eating animals for a much larger number of plant eaters.
The problem is not that humans consume meat. It’s that there’re 7 billion of us consuming meat in ever larger numbers. A few million humans eating a predominant meat based diet would be sustainable, as it was a thousand years ago.
14
We need to look to history to solve this problem.
For a very long time (until corporate/factory farming came to be), meat was NOT something that all people ate at every meal. For a large number of people (those who were not well-off), it was a once-a-week food. Protein came from other sources: eggs, legumes, cheeses, milk from different animals such as lamb, poultry, rabbit, and foods such as hams, sausage, and bacon (more shelf-stable). Those in rural areas could hunt as well. Beef was a treat -- something special. It was expensive. The rich ate whatever they wanted -- this isn't about them.
After the Great Depression, and WWII, our elders may be forgiven for wanting "the best" for their children, thus the change in ways of providing food, and the increase in the eating of beef. "Meat and Potatoes" became a value. Beef stopped being grass-fed and factory farming came to be.
This is one area where economics can be helpful. Let's make beef expensive again. Make grass-feeding the norm. Ensure the continued existence of heritage breeds, not just for biodiversity but also for variety of food. Let's explore and promote cooking that features legumes and vegetables: older cookbooks (before 1945) feature many recipes for vegetables. Some of these veg are no longer available (when did you last see salsify?). The world of legumes is vast -- it isn't all chickpeas.
Our aggregate behavior changes WILL drive this market. Look how fast the organic market has grown.
53
Going Corporate is the big problem. Grass fed Beef was sustainable for millennia and has been proven by studies to be healthier than feedlot beef. We caused problems when we it became cheaper to feed grain than to keep the cattle longer on the pastures. Big corporate agriculture began to add antibiotics to the feed because it was not the natural diet of cattle & created bacterial problems & sometimes contaminated our food supply with e coli. The authors reveal their corporate thinking when they say that a seaweed farm to alleviate the methane issue would have to be the size of Manhattan. It doesn't occur to them that if properly pursued it would be dozens of local seaweed farms around the world no bigger than Bryant park.
12