[crackpotbaker]

This repetition is irrational.

Given all the evidence there should be no meat, milk and eggs in the diet of developing countries.

How does a growing economy cope with costs of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer?

WHO report said 50 grams of processed meat per day significantly increases chances of colorectal cancer (causation proof). 50 grams of red meat correlates with all-cause mortality (causation being published). White meat is filled with cholesterol which is the main cause of heart related diseases.

This is something that from an economic perspective shouldn't plague the developing countries, ignoring the energy needs.

50 grams daily is 350 grams weekly, about 18kg of meat per year per person. USA consumes ~100kg of meat per year per person. China is 50kg - and has just in the last 40 years risen from poverty. Just imagine India doing the same, Africa.

If you think people are being moderate, they aren't. This luxurious culture cannot be rationally apologized.

[DanBC]

> WHO report said 50 grams of processed meat per day significantly increases chances of colorectal cancer (causational proof).

Go careful. WHO said we now know that processed meat causes cancer. But the risk was tiny, and the increased risk is still tiny.

[crackpotbaker]

Everyone is nitpicking bits and pieces of my answers. First the culture, then the sustainability, now health.

Yes, I'm quite aware of the results, and authors of that large scale study, and the paper, the same authors published the all-cause mortality study too (also based on 50 grams), which WHO decided not to reference. There's plenty of evidence, WHO is pretty much years behind that evidence, if not decades.

There's nothing to discuss. Yes, the increase is 17%, which given the low chance of colorectal isn't that much of a big deal but the increase is significant, although, cardiovascular disease increase is much bigger, obesity huge.

The moderate "healthy" amount is really vague.

If I were trying to positively influence the developing world, imposing energy/water/resource hungry animal agriculture business wouldn't be a first step. It's irrational to consider it.

> Freedom of Information Act documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned the egg industry that saying eggs are nutritious or safe may violate rules against false and misleading advertising.

When the evidence for meat and dairy ends up documented in 5000 papers, I guess the same will happen with them, same thing happened with cigarettes after thousands of papers. It takes time, but the evidence provided is sufficient now.

[clock_tower]

No meat, milk, or eggs at all means leaving a lot of potential nutrition on the table. Chickens (and goats) can eat vegetable waste and the like; cows can eat waste from harvesting, and of course can graze -- an activity that doesn't require significant human labor or expenditure on fuel and tools.

[crackpotbaker]

You skipped over everything I've referenced and introduced a completely new narrative which has a simple rebuttal.

We waste tons of grains to filter through cows' bodies. Cows produce waste, that waste is used to replenish the land with minerals needed for grain growth.

Now, wouldn't the same thing be possible without filtering that waste through animals, keeping the waste in high amounts, suitable for the grain agriculture?

Of course, there's absolutely nothing magical in cow's butt that produces the necessary fertilizer. You can fertilize land with vegetable waste, producing less pollution and less non-recyclable waste, needing less energy.

The animal component is completely unecessary.

If you're trying to find rationality of these industries look at this narrative.

People hunted animals, they survived because of animals, but why did they do it, instead of just picking berries, raising food?

It was a time-saving heuristic. The animals were free, the animals were collecting nutrients, packing them into their bodies, and all that time was saved for the human. Humans just "collected" the neatly packed nutrients and had concrete savings.

Today, we bring the food to animals, we center everything around their food filtering, from an energetic, sustainable, environmental perspective it isn't equivalent, it's not even close. It is irrational. This irrationality is closely linked with our desire of excessive luxury.

From all the given evidence, dropping this would save us billions if not trillions in environmental cleanups, health-care bills etc.

Currently, there's nothing magical in animals that necessitates our use of them. The magic has disappeared when we snatched the planet.

[ZenoArrow]

Even if animals can eat vegetable waste or graze, that may not be what's happening. I think if you're going to address the GP it's probably worth working with some of the source material behind the views. I suspect the GP has watched Cowspiracy, I'd recommend taking a look:

http://www.cowspiracy.com