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).

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.

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-fre … thy-living

I read the actual study (the diet analysis, not the cancer paper) that article was based on: http://content.karger.com/produktedb/pr … mp;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

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

but then goes on to say

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:

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.

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.

Last edited by captal (2012 December 11, 3:46 pm)

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.

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...

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 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...

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.

Last edited by Tzadeck (2012 December 11, 11:02 pm)

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.

Last edited by JimmySeal (2012 December 11, 11:31 pm)

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 .

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?

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.

Last edited by IceCream (2012 December 12, 2:22 pm)

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 ^^".

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.

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?

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?)