Why aren't you a vegan!?

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

This is a perfect example of misinformation.

Please define a type 1 carcinogens, it seems you either misunderstand the term or else just want to mislead people.

https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

I'm not trying to mislead anybody, and this is not misinformation.

A type 1 carcinogen is something which has shown sufficient proof that it can cause cancer to humans. Look at point 8 in the link that you posted, it's pretty clear, and definitely not misinformation.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

gozunda

jimgoose wrote: »

What sodding difference does it make if cattle are AI'd?? :pac:

Perhaps go ask a farmer if you need a lesson in that department . The point is that crap like that is being pushed as gospel - point out that it's wrong and be labelled a troll!. But yes It's a discussion forum Jim. Or is it just smart quips instead and using pointy stick to have a go instead no?

emaherx

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I like to see the science behind the 2500L/quarter pounder. A bovine producing 300kgs of beef would make 2640 quarter pounder s so is accountable for over 6 million litres when you discount for the bread and salad in the burger.

Where is the 6 million litres used up. In Ireland as we use grass based system for most of an animal life.most water will be recycled back into the ground. While maybe in hot arid countries there is an issue with water in beef production it is not an issue in Ireland.

It is probably as climate friendly to eat beef as white meat here and as climate friendy as importing exotic fruit and veg or importing artificial meat replacement foods

I worked it out earlier. About 40L the other 24950L is rain required for grass to grow.


An adult cow drinks 60L of water a day during hot weather. Animals are slaughtered at 3 years.

60Lx365x3=65,700L
There are between 1200 and 2000 burgers in one animal.
65,700/1500 = 43.8L per burger and this is a massive over estimate as it is 3 years being an adult animal in hot weather.

jimgoose

gozunda wrote: »

Perhaps go ask a farmer if you need a lesson in that department . The point is that crap like that is being pushed as gospel - point out that it's wrong and be labelled a troll!. But yes It's a discussion forum Jim. Or would you just like to make smart quips instead and use that pointy stick to have a go at posters no?

G, I need no lessons in that department. I was directing that somewhat rhetorical question of mine at the folk who decided to tear into you over it. Put the flamethrower away, Jaysis! :pac:

atticu

IrishKev wrote: »

Take a flick through the pages and try to pick out a 'preachy vegan'.

IrishKev wrote: »

Definitely. Whole food, plant based diet is the best way to go.

Did you mean preachy posts like this?

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't understand why they can't develop a means to render animals unconscious en masse, then kill them...

In Ireland they do render animals unconscious before slaughter. The exception is Hal Al which I do not agree with btw

Are you a meat eater eskimo?

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

I'm not trying to mislead anybody, and this is not misinformation.

A type 1 carcinogen is something which has shown sufficient proof that it can cause cancer to humans. Look at point 8 in the link that you posted, it's pretty clear, and definitely not misinformation.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

Notice you didn't link it to city air which is also a group one carcinogen instead you deliberately compared to tobacco and a radioactive element. It is not an indication of how carcinogenic something is so listing other more unhealthy items from the list is misleading.

Processed foods in general are unhealthy meat or plant based.

gozunda

jimgoose wrote: »

G, I need no lessons in that department. I was directing that somewhat rhetorical question of mine at the folk who decided to tear into you over it. Put the flamethrower away, Jaysis! :pac:

Well let me see there - I've believe there was the bull china shop jibe earlier no? and one other as detailed above. But yes sorry Jim I was tugging your leg about getting a lesson - just in case you didnt get that

is_that_so

IrishKev wrote: »

I'm not trying to mislead anybody, and this is not misinformation.

A type 1 carcinogen is something which has shown sufficient proof that it can cause cancer to humans. Look at point 8 in the link that you posted, it's pretty clear, and definitely not misinformation.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

Pretty sure that carcinogen claim on red meat is "probable" and processed meat "definite". That said the NHS suggests it is unproven.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/red-meat-free-diet-not-proven-reduce-overall-bowel-cancer-risk/

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

I'm not trying to mislead anybody, and this is not misinformation.

A type 1 carcinogen is something which has shown sufficient proof that it can cause cancer to humans. Look at point 8 in the link that you posted, it's pretty clear, and definitely not misinformation.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

A quote from your own link

The lists describe the level of evidence that something can cause cancer, not how likely it is that something will cause cancer in any person (or how much it might raise your risk). For example, IARC considers there to be strong evidence that both tobacco smoking and eating processed meat can cause cancer, so both are listed as “carcinogenic to humans.” But smoking is much more likely to cause cancer than eating processed meat, even though both are in the same category.

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

Notice you didn't link it to city air which is also a group one carcinogen instead you deliberately compared to tobacco and a radioactive element. It is not an indication of how carcinogenic something is so listing other more unhealthy items from the list is misleading.

Processed foods in general are unhealthy meat or plant based.

I see 'air pollution' on the list, which is obviously carcinogenic. 'City air' is subjective. Are you talking Dublin or Delhi?

is_that_so wrote: »

Pretty sure that carcinogen claim on red meat is "probable" and processed meat "definite". That said the NHS suggests it is unproven.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/red-meat-free-diet-not-proven-reduce-overall-bowel-cancer-risk/

That link is a response to an exaggerated Daily Mail article. It goes on to state that you should not exceed a limit of processed meat per day.

emaherx wrote: »

A quote from your own link

The lists describe the level of evidence that something can cause cancer, not how likely it is that something will cause cancer in any person (or how much it might raise your risk). For example, IARC considers there to be strong evidence that both tobacco smoking and eating processed meat can cause cancer, so both are listed as “carcinogenic to humans.” But smoking is much more likely to cause cancer than eating processed meat, even though both are in the same category.

The point is processed meat, and processed foods in general, aren't good for you. A whole food, plant based diet has been proven to be the healthiest.

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

I see 'air pollution' on the list, which is obviously carcinogenic. 'City air' is subjective. Are you talking Dublin or Delhi?

Diesel fumes and air particulates also listed. So yes Dublin or Dehli but like I said it gives no distinction between the 2 which is why the following statement was nothing short of misleading

The World Health Organisation have categorised processed meats as a Type 1 carcinogenic, along with tobacco and plutonium.

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

Diesel fumes and air particulates also listed. So yes Dublin or Dehli but like I said it gives no distinction between the 2 which is why the following statement was nothing short of misleading

That's a fair point, it's an extensive list with lots on it. But it's a carcinogenic nonetheless.

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

That's a fair point, it's an extensive list with lots on it. But it's a carcinogenic nonetheless.

Point is this is what the WHO said

The lists describe the level of evidence that something can cause cancer, not how likely it is that something will cause cancer in any person (or how much it might raise your risk). For example, IARC considers there to be strong evidence that both tobacco smoking and eating processed meat can cause cancer, so both are listed as “carcinogenic to humans.” But smoking is much more likely to cause cancer than eating processed meat, even though both are in the same category.

But you chose to re phrase it.

gozunda

IrishKev wrote: »

...
The point is processed meat, and processed foods in general, aren't good for you. A whole food, plant based diet has been proven to be the healthiest.

Has it really? I think you will find that is mainly propaganda and misinformation btw.

Meat and dairy products are also whole foods and remain a recommended part of a healthy balanced diet.

Heres the NHS least you accuse our own health authority of being biased

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/

IrishKev

Read this book. It will change your opinion of dairy.

Unearthly

gozunda wrote: »

Well I believe the general rule is attack the post and not the poster. But as I point out earlier not much changes there eh?

I'm sorry unearthly we've had some intersting discussions - but please point out where it is alleged "the biggest anti vegan poster". I see what you did there btw ...

As detailed out many many times - I really dont care what anyone eats and I do not make comments about vegans personal choices btw. That's not my style. What no one likes is the endless crap like that by a small number of 'preachy' vegans who have a tendency to personally attack anyone who points out that the 'facts' derived from various bs plant advocacy website are either incorrect or just complete rubbish

What I do care about as detailed above is the endless mindless absolute bs being promoted against farming and agriculture. And shock horror yes these are the posts to which I have replied. This is a public forum last time I looked.

If you anyone else thinks for a millisecond that is 'attacking' anyone by engaging in discussion - then possibly the best thing to do is report the post and dont hide behind faux outrage and bile.

I was defending you. That's what others call you, I don't

ted1

Only 18% of calories come from livestock but it takes up 83% of farmland. Is that not concerning?

gozunda

Unearthly wrote: »

I was defending you. That's what others call you, I don't

From who? - Repeating some alleged personal style attack? I wasnt engaged in any discussion at that point and I did not see my name mentioned before that. And yes it's also incorrect. If someone has then that's attacking the poster and against boards ToU afaik.

emaherx

ted1 wrote: »

Only 18% of calories come from livestock but it takes up 83% of farmland. Is that not concerning?

Not really, nature can live happily alongside livestock. Ploughs on the other hand do much more damage.

YFlyer

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

How did irelands native advacado trees fare in the drought?

Majority ate by meat eaters.

gozunda

IrishKev wrote: »

That's a fair point, it's an extensive list with lots on it. But it's a carcinogenic nonetheless.

Incorrect.

This is what the World Health Organisation actually says about red meat.

Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. 

https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

The issue relates to 'risk' category

In the cancer ratings assigned to all types of food - red meat has been assigned a rating of 2A

According to the World Health Organisation 
classification 2A is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between the substance and the risk of developing cancer

Limited evidence  means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

Morris Moss

IrishKev wrote: »

Read this book. It will change your opinion of dairy.

Yeah the China study has been debunked as absolute rubbish, as you said already don't believe everything you read.

Sir Guy who smiles

emaherx wrote: »

Not really, nature can live happily alongside livestock. Ploughs on the other hand do much more damage.

Also, grass sequesters carbon in the soil while tillage releases it.
Maybe not enough to offset the methane released by ruminants, but methane dissapares within a decade, CO2 persists for millenia.

gormdubhgorm

IrishKev wrote: »

You're right, avocados take a lot of airmiles to get here. Buying in season, local, whole plant based foods is the best way to go.

You could be right about the lettuce leaf consumption, but there's no denying that beef is the big consumer of the world's resources in that graphic.



We are so used so what the 'natural order of the food chain' is that anything else seems foreign to us.

What other species out there cooks and eats the eggs of another animal? Or drinks the milk of another animal? If I saw a horse sucking a cow's tit it would blow my mind.

As I said, animals are already taking supplements, which like you pointed out, are not made 'naturally'. So the source of which you get your B12 is pretty much irrelevant as they're both coming from the same place essentially.

I am sorry this is just ridiculous we are humans top of the chain, the most intelligent mammal that is why we can cook other animals before we eat them. An animal is a resource the leather on your shoes, coat and belt, the meat, the milk, eggs etc.
If you want to behave like a herbivore that is fine by me.
But don't go coming out with ridiculous analogies. It is almost as if you are apologising for being human!

decky1

Have worked on the building sites all my life, never met a Vegan on one yet. Reason ---they would'nt have the physical strength to lay blocks or plaster all day long, you need to eat meat to give you strength, not this false strength they get in Gym's etc. spoke on similar subject here before 2 vegans on oil rig , lasted a week had to be airlifted home as they were both on death's door both bodybuilder's and vegan.

emaherx

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am sorry this is just ridiculous we are humans top of the chain, the most intelligent mammal that is why we can cook other animals before we eat them. An animal is a resource the leather on your shoes, coat and belt, the meat, the milk, eggs etc.
If you want to behave like a herbivore that is fine by me.
But don't go coming out with ridiculous analogies. It is almost as if you are apologising for being human!

Also, we are not the only animals that will drink another animals milk and nearly all animals will eat eggs. Poor Kevs mind would be blown wide open if he looked around. We are also not the only creatures on this planet to keep another species as livestock.

On the cooking of food humans don't particularly on a raw vegetable diet either.

gormdubhgorm

IrishKev wrote: »

Read this book. It will change your opinion of dairy.

Morris Moss wrote: »

Yeah the China study has been debunked as absolute rubbish, as you said already don't believe everything you read.

I never heard of the China Study until now a little bit of internet searching and you get the likes of this.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/

Morris Moss

decky1 wrote: »

Have worked on the building sites all my life, never met a Vegan on one yet. Reason ---they would'nt have the physical strength to lay blocks or plaster all day long, you need to eat meat to give you strength, not this false strength they get in Gym's etc. spoke on similar subject here before 2 vegans on oil rig , lasted a week had to be airlifted home as they were both on death's door both bodybuilder's and vegan.

Yep totally agree a physically demanding job and veganism are not compatible at all.

gormdubhgorm

emaherx wrote: »

Also, we are not the only animals that will drink another animals milk and nearly all animals will eat eggs. Poor Kevs mind would be blown wide open if he looked around. We are also not the only creatures on this planet to keep another species as livestock.

On the cooking of food humans don't particularly on a raw vegetable diet either.

Obviously cats drink milk I have never seen a cat turn milk down because it came from a cow. Mice like cheese.