Just making a drive-by comment, but India is a big country with high rates of vegetarianism.

Since we are doing drive-bys, ever heard of chicken tikka masala?

PS>
Here is an unrelated quote from an unrelated article: "India has the highest number of undernourished people in the world".
Here is the unrelated article in question: India is still world's hunger capital.

There are, of course, many reasons for the things being so bad. All I say is - not a very convincing example.
You would do better to point out the the relatively high percentages of vegetarians in CA.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Yes, as I am from the country which invented it and where it is eaten, namely Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
Just making a drive-by comment, but China is a big country with low rates of vegetarianism.
And the majority of Indians are not vegetarian according to the sources in the Wikipedia article.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

It seems you missed the flow and branches of the discussion.

From the article you linked to: "The UN estimates that hunger now affects one in six people, compounded by factors such as war, drought or floods, high food prices and poverty. Most of the hunger in a world of plenty results from grinding, deep-rooted poverty." In other words, yes, the hunger in India is unrelated to vegetarian diets. And yes, there is a high percentage of vegetarians in CA that is not suffering from malnutrition. So your point is ...?

In an earlier post you question whether it would be possible to provide enough protein for the world's population without meat:

Why not? A professor for environmental science at Cornell University claims: "Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein..."

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Bantari, as a vegetarian who has researched your questions deeply I can answer most of them. I could provide references to back up my statements if you need them but it would take some effort and I am not prepared to do that at this point.



We most definitely could. Most people in the western world eat way too much protein. It is not just the land used for grazing which would be freed up. It is also all the land used to grow feed for those times when they are in the feedlot or during winter. The number of acres required for each animal is way more than you would imagine and that land could be used to grow a lot of food. Admittedly, not all the land is arable , but there is enough of it. Most people grossly underestimate the amount of protein which is available in such vegetarian fare as beans and greens. Plus, it takes a lot more water to produce a pound of meat protein that to produce a pound of vegetable protein. And it don't just mean twice as much, although I forget the exact number. It is a huge multiple. And as we all know, water is in short supply and is slated to become the next gold. Nestle is buying up water rights all over Africa and selling the water back to the locals. The same is happening in other parts of the world.



This is true. Our daughter has been vegetarian since her teen days, even before we were. She survived in college on pasta and cheese sauce. It was not a healthy diet. But if we assume that the transition to a vegetarian diet for the masses will be gradual then there is plenty of time to education people on how to eat well. The bottom line is that there is a huge number of studies which show than a vegetarian lifestyle is a healthy one if done correctly. The majority of studies which show eating meat is necessary are sponsored by the meat marketing boards.



As I pointed out above, the answer is yes. We definitely could produce the necessary food. And if we did not eat meat then there would be no need to produce all the animals which are currently required to supply it. As I posted earlier in the thread, this frankenmeat could be phased out very quickly. Cows, sheep and chicken, as produced by nature are already close to extinction. The ones produced by factory farming are gross distortions pumped full of antibiotics and other drugs in order to plump them up to achieve greater value. When you eat them you also get you share of those same antibiotics, and guess what it does to you.



You may not, but there are out there with a little research. Just make sure to ask yourself who is sponsoring any published article. Those which promote vegetarianism are sometimes sponsored by pro-vegetarian groups and organizations, but those which promoted meat-eating are almost always sponsored by those with a financial interest in the matter.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Beans and rice actually don't have much protein compared to whole wheat. In my experience, being vegetarian in college and now going low meat(to control weight and for health), is not the protein but lipids and cholesterol. When I was a vegetarian I had a skin condition, at some point I had a blood test, and I was two standard deviations lower than normal, started eating butter, it went away. Now, omega-3 is the challenge I take fish oil supplements.

Something to consider carefully.

1) There may well be environmental reasons to suggest that only a comparatively small amount of animal be eaten.

However one cannot get from there to none. The vegetarian position (none) can only be based on moral arguments. Please, I am not saying that those aren't valid. I am saying that just because eating less (much less) meat would be better for the environment does not mean that none even better <<because not true* in the factual sense>>

2) Not all land on which livestock could be raised could be converted to growing grains and (large seeded) legumes. For example, soybean roots provide close to zero resistance to erosion nor does this crop fix more nitrogen than it needs for its seeds (not even that much) so should only be grown on fertile very flat land. Land with even a few percent grade shouldn't be plowed but even 10-20% grade land can support permanent pasture/mowing of small seeded legume/grasses mix without damage.

3) No, completely untrue that people who are on the omnivore side of the argument support eating meat for financial reasons. Extremely few have anything to do with raising meat animals, processing meat animals, etc.

* Rather easy to prove. Assume that the most non-destructive (to the environment) amount of vegetable food for humans is already being raised. Not all parts of these plants are edible by humans nor is all ground suitable for raising them on. But these parts not directly usable by humans are potential food for animals, particularly the ruminants, so some animals could be raised and eaten in addition to the previously assumed maximum food situation -- so that was clearly not the maximum.

Again please note, that is not saying anything about the morality of eating meat, just the factual situation. You can't get from "eating very little" to "none" based on "most food" arguments.

Yes, protein is actually not too hard for a vegetarian. The FDA recommendation is 50g of protein for a 2000 calorie diet. That corresponds to 5 grams per 200 calories. Whole wheat pasta, almonds and cashews beat that mark by a small amount, soy beans, black beans, tofu all surpass it by a lot. Vegetarians who eat eggs and other dairy should have almost no problem.

I eat a low-meat, low-milk diet (combination of ethical concerns and lactose intolerance) so I pay constant attention to the quantities of protein in things I eat, but it's really not bad, as long as you don't eat a ton of empty calories. The trick is to imagine your current diet with meat being replaced by protein rich vegetarian foods, not your current diet minus the meat.

A bigger challenge for a lot of vegetarians is iron, and supplements are probably a good idea. She didn't check with a doctor, but my wife was probably anemic last month, and she started taking vitamins with iron.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

This is just a question of genuine curiosity, not some sort of challenge:

What are the main sources of vitamin b12 for vegetarians and especially vegans?



I thought spinach was pretty iron-rich. Is that not true?

It's not particularly iron-rich, see:

http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=883&sid=1

There are some natural sources. Tempeh is a good one. Vegetarians don't need to worry too much as they consume eggs and dairy. Vegans should consider taking a B12 supplement. But it does not take a lot of B12 and it hangs around in the body so a little goes a long way.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Sorry if I appear grumpy. I am.


Same as the previous poster - drive-by. I thought we were sharing interesting facts about India.
I have not started it. You have nothing else to pick on?


As you can see by what I wrote, fossil fuel was not the resource I was wondering about. It never even crossed my mind, to be honest. Fossil fuel is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about growing lentils, or raising chicken, but now that you mention it, I realize it is also needed for large scale farms. In any case, the fact that both plant protein and animal protein production require large amounts of fossil fuel makes both models not really sustainable in the long run. So we have to switch to something else eventually, and who knows where the dividing line will fall then. All you say is that while we can survive slightly longer as global vegetarians, we still cannot survive long.

Also, did the good professor thought in global terms, or was he only paid to make a point? For example - if we all become vegetarians, was part of the calculation all the fossil fuel required to transport the food we produce to the central Africa or Japan? Is that part of the equation? Because if it is not, the data is meaningless in the context of whole world becoming vegetarian.

Anyways. There are many more issues involved here than just fossil fuel, which is just one of the indicators. For example - some land is not appropriate to grow protein-producing plants, but you can grow plants that can feed protein-producing animals. Without animals, such land would be used inefficiently, if at all. How does that fit in with what the good professor says? Other issues and resources can be important as well, just google it.

I am not really sure what you are trying to tell me. Its a very complex issue, as I have said.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Hi Steve,
This is a HUGE subjest, so let me post a few more question and thoughts in here, then I will address the rest of your post separately.

Tell me - how does water-based protein fit into that? I mean - fish and other seafood. When you stop fishing, its not like you can plant lentils there or anything on the land. Seafood is a huge source of protein and nutrition in the world, and to cut out this source without any replacement will not be easy, if even possible. There are whole communities, regions, and countries who rely heavily on fish protein. For example - Japan. They simply do not have enough land to grow what they need, and without fish they would have to either starve, or move, or pay through the nose for others to give them food. I am not sure this would be good right now.

You say "western world". But there is much more to the world than the west and the US of A.

There are huge regions in the world, for example in Africa, where people can easily have some chicken and wilderbeasts to sustain themselves on eggs and an occasional butchering, but where the land and the climate prevents any large-scale farming. Or even small-scale farming. If we take away all their livestock, how will they survive? Who will produce their food, and how will they pay for it? Are you and your family willing to work double hours to feed a family in Africa?

But lets say we can grow extra corn in the US, do you know how much it takes to transport it to the heart of Africa in a form that is still edible and nutritious? I don't, but I am sure the cost is astronomical. How do we solve this problem? Will you and your family be now working 3 times that hard to pay for that too? People in Africa don't have much to pay you with, and we can't just let them starve. Or can we?

Also there are other issues with plant food production, ones that I seldom see mentioned by the veggie-sauruses, but which concern me.
One example is: pesticides. Won't we have to use more pesticide to have more plant-producing land and make this land more efficient? Overall, this is not so good, is it? But if we all become vegetarians, we might realize we need to put a lot more of that stuff into the ground and on our food. Even as it is, you need to scrub each apple you get really hard before you can safely eat it, or so the doctors seem to say, and I for one believe them.

Another example is that of frankenplants. You mention later in your post frankenherds, and you are right. But most of the plant food we eat is as heavily modified on a genetic levels as the livestock, if not more so. And who knows what other stuff is put in there so the strawberries always look red and shiny (even if they test like crap) and people spend more money on them. But even without greed - how much chemicals and engineering we need to grow enough corn to be enough for all? And how much more aggressive we will have to be in this respect if we cut out all the animal protein and now have to produce even more corn?

Somehow, when people talk about genetic engineering of plants they are proud, while genetic engineering of animals is looked at with suspicion. Personally, I see no difference, you tinker with Mother Nature either way, and you are just guessing what kinds of results it will produce long-term. Or shall we burn all the engineered crops and stuff, like we kill off all the engineered cows? I would be *very* surprised if we then still had enough resources to produce enough to survive.

I already skimmed this - but how about transportation then? Right now, a lot of plant food is picked before they ripen and then go through the nitrogen process during transport - this is the only way we know, or at least the only way which is affordable, to deliver edible products to the end user. By and large, this process kills a lot of the nutrients, or prevents the nutrients to develop in the first place, not to mention it ruins most of the taste. What about that?

And the price. Some time ago I switched to a 100% organic diet, mostly locally grown and raised, and the difference was HUGE. Both in terms of my health, my well-being, and my enjoyment of food. But it is very expensive, and most people probably could not afford it. Also, very little food is grown organically right now, the process is simply not as efficient.

So, as a race, we are doomed to the genetically engineered, nitrogen-ripened, cardboard-tasting, and nutrition-low varieties of most of the veg. How to solve that? I imagine this problem will be magnified when we have to start feeding the rest of the world, as we will have to do when the whole world becomes vegetarian.

I mean - when you speak as a person who made the choice to move away from civilization, live on simple local food from local growers,, and generally live a healthy life surrounded by nature, what you speak of seems very possible, even desirable. And I cannot argue with you, you have it good in this respect, from what I understand. But from my perspective, of somebody living in a big city in the middle of the desert, tied in here by my job and lots of other stuff - it all looks less rosy, and questions just keep popping up.

So you see, the issue is not quite as simple for me, and while I am not an expert, I know enough to know that many of the problems I mention are not solved and not solvable right now. And there are tons of other problems and questions. Its a complex issue.

Although on personal level - it is simple. This is why I believe in personal choice and both choices being equally valid.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Most of the studies I have seen go along these lines:

• World production of plan food, when maximized and expanded to the areas now used for animal production and taking over the resources, is X.
• World population is Y.
• Lets divide X by Y and see how much we can produce per person. We can produce Z per person.
• Ok, sweet, Z is enough for a person to survive. Great, it is possible to all be vegetarians. We just have to solve all the other pesky little problems, which remain unspecified and unsolved, often unmentioned.

It is a very simplistic view.

None of the studies I have seen mentioned (or if they did, they just glossed over and dismissed them) any of the problems that exist and some of which I mentioned in my previous post. Nitrogen ripening, transportation costs, pesticide usage (and production), genetic engineering and other chemical processes we use (and have to use for the industry to be sustainable), and many many more - and the necessary drastic increase in all those bad and expensive things if we as a race do away with meat.

This is why I trust those studies as much as I trust the pro-meat ones.
I have not seen a good honest study which would deal with such question for neither side. There might be some out there, I did not look hard, so who knows. But there are big problems which need to get solved *first* before we can proclaim it is possible for our race to do without meat. And I know at least some of them are not yet solved.



Here: chemically treated and covered by chemicals frankenveggies and frankenfruit and frankencrops!
Not sure if they are better or worse than frankenmeat. But fair is fair - there is franken-stuff on both sides, and it needs to be mentioned. Or we are running the risk of being viewed as equally biased and one sided and agenda-driven as the studies you mention.



Agendas are on both sides, this is why it is so hard to believe such studies, on either side. Studies cost money, and big studies cost big money. Nobody gives big money for nothing these days. And yes, I am an old cynic, but this is what I learned about the world.

And this is why I rather think for myself. And from what I know, I *know* that some problems are far from being solved right now: transportation, necessity of genetic engineering of plants, pesticides, nitrogen-ripening, just to mention a few.

So studies can go both to sides, but the problems remain. This is why I still think that its not a matter of opinion if we can or cannot all be vegetarians. I simply do not see how we can, unless many other sacrifices are made, some of them in human lives. And this is why I believe both choices are equally valid.

And also - I love bacon!

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Ugh... I re-read it and realized you were talking about different studies. I was writing like 3 posts simultaneously, with ideas cross-pollinating, and got confused.

Anyhow... As for the studies you mention, I agree. The studies which show that eating meat is necessary are all BS. I know plenty of very healthy vegans and vegetarians - more than half of my family falls into this category. You can be perfectly healthy as a vegan or vegetarian, it is proven.

But you can also be perfectly healthy eating meat - The other half of my family and most of my friends falls into that category, so this is proven for me as well.

As I keep stressing - it is a personal choice, and both choices are equally valid. Or equally healthy. If you do it correctly.
The advantages lie in personal views, values, and sometimes religion and are, by definition, personal, and thus subjective. There are people who are one or the other side for health issues, but I think this is only a fringe and not really representative of the population at large.

PS>
Hmm...
For somebody who was supposed to be lurking, I certainly got into all this deep. Well, I find it important, so it might be worth all this fuss. or maybe not, who knows...

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Indeed it is a huge subject. So much so that if I were to answer all your questions as thoroughly as I would wish I would probably be thrown off the board for monopolizing bandwidth. So here, to the best of my ability, is my attempt at concise answers to most of your points.

Water-based protein. I have not looked into this too closely. But I do know that the catch of many of the common seafoods is declining so ultimately that is not the solution unless we drastically reduce the fishing levels. I wouldn't touch seafood even if I were not a vegetarian. That from the Pacific is full of Fukushima radiation: there are documented reports of lethal levels in fish at the top of the food chain such as tuna. Much of the Atlantic is heavily polluted. Japan is having to fish further afield these days to bring in the same volume as before.

I say western world as meaning the first world nations of Europe and the America and, to a lesser extend a few other countries. The western part of the US is a significant part of that, but far from the major part of it. People in other parts of the world often do not get enough protein, but I do not believe that is due to the lack of meat. It is due to the lack of overall nourishment. The problem is that most people in affluent countries are just as malnourished as those in third world countries. The malnourishment just takes a very different form. It is this western malnourishment, based on an overabundance of unhealthy junk food, primarily meat based, which I am against. I understand that in some parts of the world it is more practical to eat small amounts of meat. I am not saying everyone in the world can become vegetarian, but I do believe that if they could then the overall health of the planet would probably improve.

Monsanto is in the process of trying to hijack the food supply in Africa. If they succeed it will only make matters worse. Independent research has shows that yields of gmo crops are dropping. Many organic and conventional growers are getting higher yields these days. But their crops are being infected by their neighbors gmo pollen and Monsanto is suing innocent farmers for using their crops without a license! And we should not be trying to grow corn here and ship it to Africa. Africa should be growing crops which are native to the continent and which have been grown there for millenia.

As for pesticides the answer is an absolute no. Weeds are prety good at evolving to resist roundup and such. GMO seeds are resitant to roundup and so farmers have been spraying crops with roundup so long now that superwees have evolved which survive it. GMO farmers now are often using more pesticides than organic farmers, and are getting lower yields. Things cannot be changed overnight. It will take a few decades, even if it ever happens. But there are ways to do it which do not involve pollution of the land - they should require a little more enlightened effort. Education is the key.

As for frankenplants, I think the above paragraphs make it clear that they are not needed. They are there purely to put money into the hands of the large corporations. And if we cut out animal protein sure we will need to grow more plants, but what we will not have to do is grow the huge crops of corn and soybeans, 80% of which is fed to animals.

I do not know a single person who speaks of genetic engineering of plants proudly. At least not unless they are big shareholders of Monsanto, Syngenta, et al. That could, of course, be because of the people I associate with. Did you know that Syngenta, a Swiss company, is not allowed to even test its product in its home country so it sends them all over here for testing. And if we killed of all the plants overnight you are correct - we would not have enough "food". What is needed it to make a gradual shift back to normalcy over a few years. And right, most people could not afford to eat organic food right now. But they could 50 years ago when that is all there was. So a return to all organic would not be problem as there would be no premium - because there would be nothing else. I don't even eat a lot of organic food as a lot of it comes from China and is not inspected in this country. Whole Foods, for example, gets organic food from China. I grow as much as possible myself and I make sure that I know the source of the organic food I do eat.

AS for me living on local food and you living in a city in a desert then I have to agree. It is a dilemma for you and others like you. But it would not have to be if the system were to change. You are spot on when you say it is not solvable right now. But I think you are wrong when you say that because if that we cannot even try to solve them over a prolonged period.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Water-based protein is not only fishing from the ocean. There is aquaculture for both freshwater fish and saltwater fish.
There are also integrated livestock-fish farming systems where the manure from the livestock is used to feed the fish so the production is more efficient.


I don't think unhealthy junk food is primarily meat based. There is quite a huge amount of vegetarian junk food such as potato chips, french fries, cookies, candy, carbonated soft drinks and beer. Why would you primarily be against meat based junk food? Perhaps a vegetarian diet of beer and potato chips while watching TV all day is not the best combo for the health of the planet.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

If you want to eat fish fed on livestock manure then go ahead. I don't.

I agree that there is a lot of junk food which is not meat based, but I was thinking primarily of fast food outlets. I stand corrected, but I think my point is still valid.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).