I suspect a sedentary lifestyle and cooking style is more to blame for obesity and the unhealthy life that many people lead. I mean, if you cut most people's meat and they switched to vegetables, but instead of eating them fresh like everyone here is imagining, they decide to stir fry and deep fry most of it. Is that really improving the situation much?

You can also blame sedentary lifestyles on everyone driving everywhere. Which in the US is heavily subsidized (gas).

vix86 Wrote:Which is ridiculous because most stuff in life is bad for you in extremes.

A new study funded by the National Cancer Institute shows that even eating meat in moderation has much higher risks of cancer than a vegan diet. With meat it just might be that even a couple servings a week is enough of an extreme to increase cancer risk, lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-fres...thy-living

Quote:A 2012 analysis of all the best studies done to date concluded vegetarians have significantly lower cancer rates. For example, the largest forward-looking study on diet and cancer ever performed concluded that "the incidence of all cancers combined is lower among vegetarians."

Quote:A new study just out of Loma Linda University funded by the National Cancer Institute reported that vegans have lower rates of cancer than both meat-eaters and vegetarians. Vegan women, for example, had 34 percent lower rates of female-specific cancers such as breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer. And this was compared to a group of healthy omnivores who ate substantially less meat than the general population (two servings a week or more), as well as after controlling for non-dietary factors such as smoking, alcohol, and a family history of cancer.

Quote:An elegant series of experiments was performed in which people were placed on different diets and their blood was then dripped on human cancer cells growing in a petri dish to see whose diet kicked more cancer butt. Women placed on plant-based diets for just two weeks, for example, were found to suppress the growth of three different types of breast cancer (see images of the cancer clearance). The same blood coursing through these womens' bodies gained the power to significantly slow down and stop breast cancer cell growth thanks to just two weeks of eating a healthy plant-based diet! (Two weeks! Imagine what's going on in your body after a year!) Similar results were found for men against prostate cancer (as well as against prostate enlargement).

That last study was reaaaaally amazing to me. The blood of vegans was 8x as effective at stopping prostate cancer cell growth than that of someone on an animal product diet. For the breast cancer cells they tested what would happen if someone was on a vegan diet for just 2 weeks. In only 14 days there was a huge improvement.

34% less chance of breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer? This is a total no brainer! My grandma died of breast cancer. I would never go through what she went through just for the sake of eating meat and dairy.

Francesca2207 Wrote:34% less chance of breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer? This is a total no brainer! My grandma died of breast cancer. I would never go through what she went through just for the sake of eating meat and dairy.

Well, that might not have been the cause. Since not eating meat and dairy would have reduced her risk by a third, it's still more likely than not that she got cancer simply because cells are imperfect and people sometimes get cancer.

Besides, actually, if you have a healthy diet and good health care you are probably going to die of cancer no matter what you do, just at a later date. If you eat unhealthily you wil die of heart disease, or of cancer, at an earlier date.

Choose your fate people, haha.

Quote:34% less chance of breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer

Good thing I have none of these?

The "blood of a vegan" study is lacking in details and I can't find an actual study on this which clarifies if they controlled for other variables besides simply diet.

The study from Loma Linda seems interesting but I would want to see the full article to see if they actually did control for that factor. The article states it, but the visible abstract mentions nothing about controlling for this variables.

My skepticism still stands though since many of the countries in the world with the highest life expectancies are also countries with people that still eat meat, but in moderation.

Francesca2207 Wrote:A new study funded by the National Cancer Institute shows that even eating meat in moderation has much higher risks of cancer than a vegan diet. With meat it just might be that even a couple servings a week is enough of an extreme to increase cancer risk, lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-fres...thy-living

I read the actual study (the diet analysis, not the cancer paper) that article was based on: http://content.karger.com/produktedb/pro...01&typ=pdf

One things that wasn't clear in your post, is that this study looks at mortality, not just the risk of getting cancer. The study says

Quote:We observed a 9% lower all-cause mortality in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians

but then goes on to say

Quote:However, data from a prospective cohort study of adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity (p238)

Bolding mine. This means that it is very possible that vegetarians have healthier lifestyles outside of just diet (less smokers, drinkers, more active, etc)- meaning that we can't link these results directly to diet choices.

More interesting points:

Quote:We found that the overall cancer incidence in vegetarians was 18% lower than in nonvegetarians. This reduction in risk associated with vegetarianism might be due to changes in diet during the long-term follow-up of the study. Some large studies have found a significant correlation between red meat consumption and the incidence of colon cancer [42] , but large prospective studies do not confirm this observation [11, 27, 43, 44] . The difference in total cancer between meat eaters and nonmeat eaters could not be ascribed to any one of the major cancer sites examined. This difference might be partly due to dietary differences between the groups. Furthermore, the results may be influenced by residual confounding because of measurement error in the assessment of confounding factors and by confounding by unknown factors

(bolding mine)
This is a hypothesis, not a conclusion- further studies would have to be done to prove that dietary differences are significant.

Quote:A potential weakness of the type of cohort studies we have compiled is the accuracy of the assessment of vegetarian status [27, 45] . Vegetarian diets can differ in many ways from nonvegetarian diets, and vegetarian diets themselves vary between different vegetarian groups as in the case of Buddhist vegetarianism [1] . In comparison
to the mortality from all-cause mortality among vegetarians, there was also eterogeneity between studies. Moreover, the vegetarians were compared with all nonvegetarians or with meat eaters. Some heterogeneity between studies is to be expected because the dietary differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians vary between different populations, but we did not have sufficient dietary data from these studies to evaluate this fully. Therefore, it is impossible to draw any conclusions as to which aspects of the diet are protective [1] .

In conclusion, the overall cancer incidence and mortality from ischemic heart disease were significantly lower, but there were no associations of a vegetarian diet with
all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory and
cerebrovascular diseases. (p239)

I'm not saying eating all meat is healthy, I'm just pointing out that the conclusions are not as rosy as your post led me to believe.

This thread really makes me want to grill up a juicy steak. New York strip. Marinated.

kitakitsune Wrote:This thread really makes me want to grill up a juicy steak. New York strip. Marinated.

That really does sound good. I've been craving seafood recently though, and I haven't had any.

So, I decided to make some eggs just now.

After reading this thread closely, I think we can all agree that eating in general is a necessary hazard.

no one has yet given a good reason why vegetarians should have to continue paying for other people's meat via subsidies...

Because the USA has determined through its democratic processes that subsidies to certain industries are good for the overall economy/society.

nadiatims Wrote:no one has yet given a good reason why vegetarians should have to continue paying for other people's meat via subsidies...

I'm tired of people complaining that they don't want their tax money going to such-and-such. Nobody gets to decide where their taxes go based on their personal beliefs. Whether or not you are a vegetarian or vegan has nothing to do with whether your money should go towards meat industry subsidies. If you want to stop paying for subsidies you need to convince everyone that the subsidies are a bad idea and when policy changes everyone will stop paying. Whether you need to pay has to do with national policy, not with individual beliefs.

[Zgarbas]

nadiatims Wrote:no one has yet given a good reason why vegetarians should have to continue paying for other people's meat via subsidies...

Because if taxes were that easily modifiable according to individual beliefs then people would start opting out of paying taxes for pretty much anything? The moment exceptions start occurring in the system, everyone will want one.
"I don't believe in science and therefore none of my taxes should go to that"
"My kid didn't need school so why should I pay taxes for that?"
"I don't have kids, nor any intention of procreating, therefore why should I pay taxes that help children since I get no future benefit from this?"
"I don't believe in medical help so why should any of my taxes go to hospitals?"
And so on.

Taxes aren't there to fit your individual needs or preferences, they're there for everyone.

I'm asking for concrete reasons why these subsidies are justified, how they benefit society.

So far all that's been mentioned is that a lot of people would lose their jobs if subsidies were eliminated. This is not a valid reason. But even if it were, this can be mitigated by phasing in any changes over time to allow for individuals and industries to adjust.

If the answer to the question of why a certain expenditure is justified is simply "it was decided so that's that" then we may as well give up on progressing as a society.

[Zgarbas]

I'm no economist and American agricultural policies never stirred my interest, but in my book having enough affordable food for everyone was always a good thing...

How does taking people's money and ensuring it is spent in the least efficient way possible (paying more for less food) ensure that food is more affordable for everyone...?

nadiatims Wrote:I'm asking for concrete reasons why these subsidies are justified, how they benefit society.

So far all that's been mentioned is that a lot of people would lose their jobs if subsidies were eliminated. This is not a valid reason. But even if it were, this can be mitigated by phasing in any changes over time to allow for individuals and industries to adjust.

If the answer to the question of why a certain expenditure is justified is simply "it was decided so that's that" then we may as well give up on progressing as a society.

The problem was your phrasing. You said vegetarians shouldn't have to pay for subsidies. Now you're arguing that the subisides shouldn't exist. The two things are completely different. We were responding to the former claim, not the latter.

[Zgarbas]

I frankly have no idea what you're talking about.
How exactly do you expect to get food if not from farms?
And how do you expect local farms to manage to provide enough food for the US's gargantuan amount of people without government aid and/or an industry to ensure that demands are met?

If your problem is with the fact that these subsidies go towards meat production, then it sounds like sheer "my tax money is wasted on something I don't need" issues, which I find irrelevant. If the problem is with the inefficiency of the subsidies then feel free to argue as to how it could be better spent. Because if all you have is "this system doesn't work a fictional system which is highly unlikely to come around and/or actually function is better" (I'm reaaally not going to read all 10 pages, but from what I skimmed+read in numerous other discussions, that's all it amounts to...it's easy to find problems with the system when you're not bringing a more viable and long-term sustainable solution to the table because there usually isn't one).

P.S. I have no idea how anyone can be a vegetarian in America. American vegetables scare me...I recently watches some "cooking" shows which were actually "let's waste half our veggies by shaping them like flowers or turning them into baskets" and was appalled by the lack of juice in them...

Tzadeck Wrote:The problem was your phrasing. You said vegetarians shouldn't have to pay for subsidies. Now you're arguing that the subisides shouldn't exist. The two things are completely different. We were responding to the former claim, not the latter.

Well I thought nadia's question was clear. Since (I'm assuming) it's a given that we're not going to start exempting people from taxes for things they don't use, she was asking why there is a nationwide tax for something that some people don't use. Which could be asked about pretty much anything taxes are used for.

As I understand it, food subsidies are a form of wealth redistribution. They pool money from everyone (and as we know, people with more money pay more taxes) to lower the price of goods so that everyone can afford them. Since meat is a large part of the typical American diet, it makes sense that some of these subsidies would go toward meat. I'm not sure that food subsidies are a good thing, but they seem like they've got their heart in the right place. If we're going to subsidize food at all, I think it's sensible that meat would be included. I'm sure that there are taxes paying for things you want that I don't.

Quote:P.S. I have no idea how anyone can be a vegetarian in America. American vegetables scare me...I recently watches some "cooking" shows which were actually "let's waste half our veggies by shaping them like flowers or turning them into baskets" and was appalled by the lack of juice in them...

The reason for this has to do with consumer pressure. Take the tomato for instance. Over the years, farmers and produce sellers noticed that people were more keen to purchase the tomato that was more red. As a result, farmers started picking genetic lines (or engineering) which produced tomatoes that were fully red. Normally a tomato will be be slightly discolored at the top. The fully red tomatoes ended up also being the less flavorful of the two. The same applies when you start talking about picking genetic lines which produce bigger fruits as well.

------

Some other things to keep in mind about subsidies to farmers is that some of that includes subsidies to crop insurance programs.

[Zgarbas]

My grandpa's tomatoes are only discolored if he has to pick them early (for certain types of meals, or if he knew a big storm was coming, or various other reasosn). They get fully red, though we have to be careful to pick them before they got too ripe (delicious, but they'd get too juicy to work). Of course, any of his produce is roughly 1/4th the size of the ones in the supermarkets... but even those have somejuice in them.

We actually have the juiceless things with cucumbers, even those in the local produce market... I can't remember the last time I had a cucumber that tasted like cucumbers and not plastic, those hand-picked from the farm aside. Silly cheap Turkish imports =(.

nadiatims Wrote:I'm asking for concrete reasons why these subsidies are justified, how they benefit society.

So far all that's been mentioned is that a lot of people would lose their jobs if subsidies were eliminated. This is not a valid reason. But even if it were, this can be mitigated by phasing in any changes over time to allow for individuals and industries to adjust.

If the answer to the question of why a certain expenditure is justified is simply "it was decided so that's that" then we may as well give up on progressing as a society.

I think in this case you're not going to find much argument, because there doesn't seem to be any really good rational reasons to do it. It's basically just a vote winner. Most people like to eat meat, but can't afford to because their employers are ripping them off, so the government gives out subsidies and stops people from revolting or protesting or whatever.

If meat eating wasn't so harmful and wasteful i wouldn't really care about the subsidies. But it is, so...

There ARE good reasons for other types of subsidies, but here, not particularly, not that i can see.

[Zgarbas]

Because hey, who needs proteins, iron and various vitamins+satiating delicious food in their diet, eh?

And sure, over-agriculturizing crops leads to a slow but sure desertification of the areas and cultivating enough veggies to feed all the people in the world would turn all land into a desert by the end of our lifespan probably.
But hey. Cow farts.

Zgarbas Wrote:Because hey, who needs proteins, iron and various vitamins+satiating delicious food in their diet, eh?
And sure, over-agriculturizing crops leads to a slow but sure desertification of the areas and cultivating enough veggies to feed all the people in the world would turn all land into a desert by the end of our lifespan probably.
But hey. Cow farts.

I'm not quite sure whether this is serious or not... Are you serious or is it intended to be a joke? (Edit: i.e. do you really think vegetarians or vegans lack protein and vegetarism leads to desertification because more plants are eaten?)

Zgarbas Wrote:Because hey, who needs proteins, iron and various vitamins+satiating delicious food in their diet, eh?

There are various ways to get those things that don't involve eating meat. Certainly we don't need as much meat in our diets as we have atm.

Zgarbas Wrote:And sure, over-agriculturizing crops leads to a slow but sure desertification of the areas and cultivating enough veggies to feed all the people in the world would turn all land into a desert by the end of our lifespan probably.

This is due to bad farming practise rather than growing crops in itself. If you use solid farming practices this shouldn't happen, as far as i'm aware.

Remember that you're using a whole bunch of land to grow crops to feed the animals, and on a calorie basis, less crops should need to be grown to feed humans directly because of the trophic inefficiency of eating animals. (although, some animal feed comes from crops that aren't fit for human consumption, so it's not a direct exchange.)

Animals are useful for grazing certain types of land, and there's no reason to stop farming them completely.

All other things being equal, i wouldn't have a problem with the subsidies at all. I just don't see any good justification for subsidising what is in effect a luxury product when the environmental and other costs of doing so are so high.

It's so funny to hear and read this over and over again... let's just call it nonsense .... Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend anyone personally here....just some general remarks... been having these discussions for years.. a short info: I'm vegan for many years myself and very far from being malnourished or anything... I have blood work done on a regular basis (iron, proteins, b12, vit d) and it's always perfect... I rarely catch a flu or anything...
Oh and my guests love my dinner parties.... as if vegan (or vegetarian for heaven's sake) food couldn't be delicious... lol

It just strikes me to see so many people thinking along these lines, just as if we were still in the 1950s.... imagine i wrote "spinach is good against anemia cause it contains a lot of iron so you have to eat it without it you'll suffer from anemia" lol would be at the very same (low) level (no, spinach doesn't contain that much iron...I'm aware of that ) Is there really so little information out there?? And if you are not informed about nutrition and only know what your parents or your school teachers have told you about it (be honest to yourself...), please don't write about it and read relevant sources first (Weston A. Price = no reliable source). Thanks.

[Zgarbas]

yowamushi Wrote:

Zgarbas Wrote:Because hey, who needs proteins, iron and various vitamins+satiating delicious food in their diet, eh?
And sure, over-agriculturizing crops leads to a slow but sure desertification of the areas and cultivating enough veggies to feed all the people in the world would turn all land into a desert by the end of our lifespan probably.
But hey. Cow farts.

I'm not quite sure whether this is serious or not... Are you serious or is it intended to be a joke? (Edit: i.e. do you really think vegetarians or vegans lack protein and vegetarism leads to desertification because more plants are eaten?)

Overcultivation DOES lead to the erosion of the land in time. Sure, you can make it "sustainable" with good agriculture practices, but that sustainability is not as long-term as people would like to think. Plant enough things for a while and the land just can't grow them eventually. Also, sustainable methods do not go hand in hand with feeding that many people. If you need to farm enough veggies to replace the meat in people's diets with them, overcultivation IS a given. People overcultivate even when there's no real need for it, if there was a need then I fail to see how it wouldn't happen, barring any magical "well see if everyone went vegetarian everyone would magically learn to eat healthy and take care of their plants and care for the environment all of a sudden ^^".

Quote:There are various ways to get those things that don't involve eating meat. Certainly we don't need as much meat in our diets as we have atm.

Not as much !== not at all.
I think sweets and corn cause more damage to the health than meat. But I don't see people campaigning against that one.

Quote:All other things being equal, i wouldn't have a problem with the subsidies at all. I just don't see any good justification for subsidising what is in effect a luxury product when the environmental and other costs of doing so are so high.

How is meat a luxury product? Vegetables are way more expensive than meat. Unless they're plastic overgrown byproducts of consumerism, of course. Who I am sure would take good care of the land they're growing their crops on, just as well as the meat industry is taking care of its animals. Not like anything can go wrong with that one, eh?

Quote:I'm vegan for many years myself and very far from being malnourished or anything... I have blood work done on a regular basis (iron, proteins, b12, vit d) and it's always perfect... I rarely catch a flu or anything...

My grandpa is 85 and in perfect health (aside from some back aches caused by a bad fall a few years ago) whilst eating meat 3 times a day. So? Does that mean that just because one example of this exists then a sort of diet is good/bad? Who is a stronger candidate for good health? My grandpa has been an avid meat eater for roughly 8-10 times the time you've been a vegan, and more than half of that was during communism when food was pretty much made of dirty toenails. I don't see him advertising himself on meat-eater websites. Would that change anything?

Or wait, are you implying that nutrition is only relevant so long as it's supporting your cause, while ignoring the fact that meat DOES have proteins, iron and all those yummu vitamins? Cause hey, who cares about the benefits of something you're against so long as you can go "I'm young and healthy enough to not need them and have enough time and money to cook alternatives?".

(or wait, are all these grandparents who are healthy eating meat just imaginary and nothing compared to the 20-year-old healthy vegetarians?)