
How to Satisfy the World’s Surging Appetite for Meat - prostoalex
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-satisfy-the-worlds-surging-appetite-for-meat-1449238059?mod=trending_now_2
======
craigjb
It seems like the most immediate way to meet low-cost but high volume is
through in vitro meat culture [1]. It will likely take awhile to clear the
health and GMO-fear hurdles, but it's coming. Especially places where raising
livestock in traditional ways drastically harms the environment (mass pig
dumps in rivers, or limited land resources in island nations).

Decentralizing growth of meat and other food, as mentioned in the article, is
probably a good thing too, just like decentralizing internet services or
electrical generation. However, I don't completely buy the 'decentralize
everything' argument that has become popular lately. While it brings us closer
to the libertarian dream, some advantages are lost as well. Also, I'm not
convinced the innovations that enable decentralized agricultural or electrical
generation don't have the same positive impact on the centralized version of
the system. Except, in the centralized system you benefit from economies of
scale. We'll probably end up with some kind hybrid system.

[1] [http://new-harvest.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/post_2012_...](http://new-harvest.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/post_2012_cultured_meat_from_stem_cells_challenges_and_prospects.pdf)

~~~
copperx
The only solution I foresee comes from technologies such as the one you
mention, in vitro meat. Billions of families on earth have an entrenched
cultural desire for meat. It's much easier for a technological revolution to
happen than to change culture.

------
CuriouslyC
Meat and other animal products are delicious. Eating them is totally natural.
The only issue I have is with cruelty. I would be ok with a rise in prices in
exchange for more ethically produced animal products (though I don't think
conditions would have to change much for chickens, they're pretty retarded).
Historically meat has been a luxury.

That being said, if you are a vegan on the internet ranting about animal
cruelty and you own basically any mass produced clothing you need to re-
examine your priorities.

~~~
cdnsteve
Eating meat is natural? Then why is it our bodies cannot handle digesting raw
meat like say, lions?

Eating meat is _not_ natural. Humans are not predators.

~~~
erikb
The two other comments underneath this one (at the time of my writing) both
state something along the lines of "of course humans can digest raw meat,
because there are raw meat dishes". This is reasoning is flawed. You can eat a
lot of things that you can't digest.

I also believe, though, that we can and do digest raw meat. But I have no
specific knowledge about that (and this is not a request to get spammed with
data, thanks).

~~~
Turing_Machine
A very high proportion of the traditional diet of Inuit, Iñupiat, Yu'pik, and
related peoples consists of raw meat.

If humans couldn't digest it, those peoples would have gone extinct long ago.

~~~
erikb
This is a much better argument. Do you see the difference between your
argument and the argument of "there are raw meat dishes, therefore we must be
able to digest it"?

Things going through your stomach doesn't mean they can be processed
(something everybdoy should be aware of about once a day). Having a huge
portion of your callories depend on raw meat on the other hand, that means
there needs to be some processing, otherwise you'd be dead.

Keep in mind, that I was saying the argument was BS, not the thesis. I agree
with the thesis, in fact, that humans can process raw meat and it's part of
our natural diet.

------
ciconia
This is sickening. At the risk of starting a flame war I'll still state my
opinion: the only reason for eating meat is taste. The same goes for cheese
and other dairy products.

The arguments against the meat & dairy industry are well known: chronic
disease, depletion and pollution of natural resources, global warming, and
above all the moral argument: enslaving sentient beings is wrong.

200 years ago in the US they were breeding human slaves [1]. Today they still
breed chicken slaves and cow slaves and pig slaves, selecting for higher
fertility and higher production of eggs, milk and meat. Then these animals
spend all their lives enslaved, from birth to death, a life of absolute
misery.

I'm not saying killing animals for food is inherently a wrong act, but
enslaving them sure is.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States)

~~~
zensavona
You're right - it is sickening. And it's increasingly becoming this elephant
in the room nobody wants to talk about.

I used to be totally in the bandwagon of "those annoying vegans trying to make
people feel bad for eating meat". Now I agree - why shouldn't you shame
someone for doing something bad? Buying and consuming animal products is bad
for everyone involved: bad for the person eating them, the environment and the
animals. We would shame corporations for polluting the environment and we
would shame a person for abusing their pets in the way factory farming does
animals, so why is it ok if they do it by proxy?

I read a nutrition book called "The China Study" about 6 months ago and it was
the push I needed to seriously give veganism a try. I don't deny it, I love
the taste of certain meats and at times I do miss them and I do occasionally
still eat fish (sushi is my favourite food).

I'm feeling better in every sense. I was surprised to see that my body
composition is actually better now, even though my protein intake is markedly
lower (I was 95kg and ~14% body fat before and am 87kg and ~10% now, judging
BF% with calipers so not exactly precise), my weightlifting strength is up, my
cardio endurance is improved, my skin is _hugely_ clearer and I anecdotally
seem to have more energy - I definitely feel less lethargic after eating. My
biggest concern was loss of muscle mass given lower protein intake, somehow I
am looking better and feeling stronger than before. I'm eating around 3-600g
of carbs per day (!) which is all coming from whole fruit and veg, which
seemed totally ridiculous to me before coming from a close-to-paleo high fat
high protein diet.

FWIW I'm a 22 y/o male and consume around 3-4000 cals/day and work out 5-6
times per week so YMMV.

~~~
brahmwg
Lifelong vegetarian here, and I can say from my experience I feel healthier
and more fit on a mostly plant based diet, with some animal protein (eggs). I
did take a year when I was 22 and experimented with eating meat, and I will
still occasionally cheat and eat a bit of animal flesh here or there. Maybe
not the right diet for everyone but works for me and you too it seems.

~~~
cdcarter
If you are a lifelong vegetarian how can you even anecdotally say you feel
healthier?

~~~
brahmwg
Because I spent a year eating meat regularly specifically to see if I would
feel healthier or perform better in exercise, and ultimately found I felt
better eating mostly plants so switched back. Still eat some animals rarely so
I am not a puritan veggie.

------
erikb
It's interesting. There are pro meat eaters and pro animal arguments here, but
none of the comments I see states the following opinion: that meat in fact
contains a set proteins, fats (and vitamins? not sure) that are hard to find
in that combination in other sources. So yes, it is theoretically possible to
eat complete and healthy without meat. It's also theoretically possible to put
3 chop sticks on top of each other, put them on your head and walk like that
to your super market. That doesn't mean you can do it, by adding some beans
and nuts to your diet. It's so complicated that some doctors think they can't
do it for a long time to themselves. And it's so individual that no newspaper
can tell you exactly how you specifically can compansate.

I don't think I know enough about health to have an opinion, but for me it
sounds just as likely as meat having no relevance to human health.

And although statistics sometimes trick you, I know a lot of very, very thin
vegetarians/vegans, but a lot of people with a healthy BMI who strongly
advocate eating balanced (including meat, just not as much as most people do),
which makes me believe that a small amount of meat may be better for human
health than no meat at all.

~~~
1457389
>So yes, it is theoretically possible to eat complete and healthy without
meat. It's also theoretically possible to put 3 chop sticks on top of each
other, put them on your head and walk like that to your super market. That
doesn't mean you can do it, by adding some beans and nuts to your diet. It's
so complicated that some doctors think they can't do it for a long time to
themselves.

This is such FUD nonsense; pretty deplorable on this forum. There's nothing
theoretical about eating "complete and healthy without meat" \- people have
been living on vegan and vegetarian diets for centuries without ill effects.
People have become bodybuilders, MMA fighters while being vegan too, not that
the vast majority of humans need to measure their diets by those of elite
athletes.

As for "so complicated" here is the American Dietetic Association:

>It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately
planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are
healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets
are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

[0][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864)

~~~
Evgeny
[0][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864)

Here's just a few lines from the _full text_ of your link

 _Vegetarians, and particularly vegans, tend to have lower blood levels of EPA
and DHA than nonvegetarians (15)._

 _Zinc intakes of vegetarians vary with some research showing zinc intakes
near recommendations (32) and other research finding zinc intakes of
vegetarians significantly below recommendations (29,33)._

 _Some studies suggest that vegans who do not consume key sources of iodine,
such as iodized salt or sea vegetables, may be at risk for iodine deficiency,
because plant-based diets are typically low in iodine (12,35)._

 _In the Oxford component of the European Prospective Investigation into
Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) study, the risk of bone fracture was
similar for lacto-ovo-vegetarians and meat eaters, whereas vegans had a 30%
higher risk of fracture possibly due to their considerably lower mean calcium
intake (38)._

 _Low vitamin D intakes (42), low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (12), and
reduced bone mass (43) have been reported in some vegan and macrobiotic groups
who did not use vitamin D supplements or fortified foods._

 _The vitamin B-12 status of some vegetarians is less than adequate due to not
regularly consuming reliable sources of vitamin B-12 (12,46,47)._

 _No unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin
B-12._

 _Vegetarian diets are typically rich in folacin, which may mask the
hematological symptoms of vitamin B-12 deficiency, so that vitamin B-12
deficiency may go undetected until after neurological signs and symptoms may
be manifest (47)._

 _Vegetarians did not meet dietary standard (in at least one country) for: ●
vitamin B-12 (in the United Kingdom); ● iron (in the United States, for both
vegetarians and omnivores); ● folate (in Germany, though lower rate of
deficiency than among omnivores); and ● zinc (in the United Kingdom)._

 _Infants of vegetarian mothers appear to have lower cord and plasma DHA than
do infants of nonvegetarians (70)._

 _Breast milk DHA is lower in vegans and lacto-ovovegetarians than in
nonvegetarians (71)._

 _Vegetarian athletes may have lower muscle creatine concentration due to low
dietary creatine levels (92,93)._

 _Some, but not all research suggests that amenorrhea may be more common among
vegetarian than nonvegetarian athletes (94,95)._

 _Not all aspects of vegetarian diets are associated with reduced risk for
heart disease. The higher serum homocysteine levels that have been reported in
some vegetarians, apparently due to inadequate vitamin B-12 intake, may
increase risk of CVD (111,112) although not all studies support this (113)._

 _Although very little data exist on the bone health of vegans, some studies
suggest that bone density is lower among vegans compared with nonvegetarians
(164,165)._

 _Vegetarians can, however, have risk factors for dementia. For example, poor
vitamin B-12 status has been linked to an increased risk of dementia
apparently due to the hyperhomocysteinemia that is seen with vitamin B-12
deficiency (188)._

TL;DR:

The complexity is there. It is possible to eat a balanced meatless diet, but
at the same time it is quite easy to screw it up, and the consequences may
show up after a few years and take time to undo.

~~~
1457389
I guess you've never seen a review article. The whole point is to go through
the prevailing literature and rationalize the results, with the end goal of
providing the consensus position among experts. Which is to say, cherrypicking
"a few lines" of citations is one of the worst ways to interpret a review
article which draws from hundreds of separate and often conflicting studies.
You will note that I quoted from the abstract, where they clearly state their
position.

This review draws from 204 studies, 20 of which you have cherrypicked one-line
statements from. I don't see the utility in getting a 10% cursory review of a
review from a layman who has an axe to grind.

Complexity of course exists, but not in the dishonest sense that you implied
in your initial comment. What I am telling you, and anyone else that is
listening, is that as of 2009 experts in the field have concluded that it is
absolutely practical to be healthy on a well planned meatless diet, notional
doctor and newspaper strawmen be damned.

~~~
Evgeny
_This review draws from 204 studies, 20 of which you have cherrypicked one-
line statements from._

There are more studies. How many would be an "enough" number to convince you
that it is not trivial to achieve optimal health on completely meatless diet?

My point is that there are many vegetarians and vegans in imperfect health and
lacking certain vitamins / minerals. To make a blanket statement that they are
all doing it wrong would be to fall into "No true vegetarian" fallacy.

 _Complexity of course exists, but not in the dishonest sense that you implied
in your initial comment. What I am telling you, and anyone else that is
listening, is that as of 2009 experts in the field have concluded that it is
absolutely practical to be healthy on a well planned meatless diet, notional
doctor and newspaper strawmen be damned._

So at least you agree that complexity exists. My disagreement lies in that I
do not think it is "absolutely practical" to be healthy on a meatless diet.
Your own words "well planned" suggest that there is an expectation for a
person to be aware of all potential deficiencies one can experience on a
meatless diet, and to have enough nutritional knowledge to plan ones diet
around these deficiencies. While possible, it is not something I expect from
an average person to do. An average Western person, unfortunately, does not
even have enough knowledge in nutrition to keep a healthy weight, which is a
much easier task compared to tracking micronutrients.

A practical thing would be to include at least some meat (I agree that most
people in the west eat more than strictly necessary) and to avoid a lot of
overhead, unless one really wants to study the subject.

------
logn
"Some of the company’s prized purebred birds can now add a pound of weight for
every 1.2 pounds of feed consumed"

That's great news. Also compared to cows, chickens emit much less methane and
other greenhouse gases, especially if their manure is handled properly. Not to
mention they're working on breeding to improve that. And given it takes only ~
30 days to raise a chicken, that reduces overall energy consumption running
the farm.

But I think WSJ understated how healthy a vegan diet is, aside from lacking
B-12.

~~~
philfrasty
„...understated how healthy a vegan diet is...“ One question always crosses my
mind when I hear this, maybe someone knows an answer here on HN.

It seems easy to tell the negative effects of eating meat (might cause cancer,
etc). But are all the effects of not eating animal products at all in the
long-term well known? And I don't mean not eating animal products for 1 year
or 10 years but for multiple generations.

Will people who have not eaten animal products for 1000 years still have a
life expectancy similiar to the general population (I guess animal product-
eaters)? Will they have more/less diseases, higher/lower IQ, etc.

~~~
zensavona
The China Study[1] is a really good book that contains a lot of research about
the effect on chronic disease a vegan diet has. I found it very interesting.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-China-Study-Comprehensive-
Implicat...](http://www.amazon.com/The-China-Study-Comprehensive-
Implications/dp/1932100660)

~~~
Evgeny
_The China Study[1] is a really good book that contains a lot of research
about the effect on chronic disease a vegan diet has. I found it very
interesting._

Did you read any of the critisism though? Here are some

[http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-
Study.html](http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html)

[http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-
nutrition/...](http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-
nutrition/the-china-study-myth/)

[http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/](http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-
study/)

------
cryodesign
Science has shown that:

\- Animals are mostly likely sentient and feel pain and can suffer like we do
[1]

\- Pigs are as smart or smarter than small children [2]

\- We don't need to enslave and kill animals anymore to survive [3]

\- Large scale animal farming is harmful to the environment [4]

\- Working in a slaughterhouse can cause PTSD and has other emotional toll on
workers [5]

The main reason why we still eat meat is because it's cultural and because we
like the taste of it.

So considering the above, it's highly illogical to continue this myth of
needing animal protein.

The future of food is plant-based and we don't have to give up the taste and
texture that meat products currently provide. There are alternative products
like [http://beyondmeat.com](http://beyondmeat.com) that are superior to meat.

If you can opt out of the perverted and insane system that the meat industry
is, why wouldn't you?

\---

[1] [http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-
sent...](http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-
sentience.html)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg)

[3][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864)
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately
planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are
healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets
are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

[4] [http://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/environmental-
damage/...](http://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/environmental-
damage/pollution-in-detail/)

[5]
[http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2013/03/creatin...](http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2013/03/creating-
killers-human-tolls-of-slaughter/)

edit: formatting

~~~
CM30
How about because I don't see humans eating meat as any worse than any other
animal eating meat?

I'm sure the mouse one of my previous cats ate was in excruciating pain when
it died. But that's life, it's called predation.

See no reason humans should try and be 'different' to the rest of nature. The
whole artificial 'divide' between humanity and nature is just strange to me.

I enjoy eating meat, I see it as perfectly natural, and frankly, I don't give
a damn how the cow feels as its being slaughtered.

~~~
cryodesign
You are not a cat and carnivores kill and hunt their prey without using tools
or factory farms and eat raw meat. Can you can kill a cow with your bare hands
and teeth and eat it raw while the flesh is still bloody and warm? Maybe you
can, but would you enjoy it?

In the past we used to hunt and raise our own animals, because of scarce
resources, we needed it to survive. Now most of us don't need it anymore,
because we have access to better and more ethical alternatives- it's called
progress.

And what about compassion towards non-human animals who have to suffer just to
please your taste buds. How does watching the below make you feel?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF7Ega_TpZE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF7Ega_TpZE)
(can you face the reality of factory farming - ~6min)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCLDK7zjzF8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCLDK7zjzF8)
(Little girl finding out what meat is - ~2min)

Do you agree with the practices that are carried out in factory farms and
slaughter houses, where pigs are being skinned or boiled alive for example?

Are you ok with the ecological damage that is caused by the large scale meat
industry?

And I encourage you to watch the documentary Earthlings -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s50iRI85Z3U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s50iRI85Z3U)
and let me know your thoughts after watching it.

If you raise, kill and slaughter your own animals, then ignore the above.

edit: formatting

~~~
undersuit
So I can't eat meat because I don't possess the sharp canines and claws of a
feline? Should I go around the forest telling tool using animals that they
can't eat termites and ants unless they have the natural adaptations of an
anteater?

~~~
cryodesign
CM30 was comparing him/herself to carnivores, so I was asking whether s/he can
act like one.

And those forest animals of yours need meat to survive. We don't anymore.

We have progressed to a stage where we can perfectly survive on a 100% plant
based diet, but yet we chose to support an oppressive system that enslaves and
kills sentient beings and along the way is destructive on so many other levels
(see my original post) - nothing 'natural' about that.

CM30 was basically saying that s/he enjoys meat, i.e. it tastes good and
doesn't give a sh*t about the well-being of other sentient beings, a very
selfish attitude if you ask me.

Please watch those videos I posted and tell me you're ok with what is shown.

------
cdcarter
The last time the "Meat Question" came around, we thought the solution was
Hippos. [http://brightergreen.org/2014/01/american-hippopotamus-
the-m...](http://brightergreen.org/2014/01/american-hippopotamus-the-meat-
question/)

------
eveningcoffee
This article has funny data. By this most of the Europe does not eat any meat
which is obviously not true.

------
rajington
We just need robotic farmers that are powered from manure and use real
livestock to fight desertification.

------
Mz
Eh, I think there are some very valid arguments to be made for eating lower on
the food chain. I am not a big fan of _moral " arguments per se. Those folks
saying they are vegetarian because they think eating animals is somehow cruel
or something are basically saying that if they can't hear it scream, its
suffering doesn't count. We have scientific proof that plants "scream" (give
off a pulse) when attacked and also communicate chemically with their
neighbors when infested with insects, etc. So plants do have some kind of
awareness of being physically assaulted and they communicate in some manner
about this awareness, it is just a form of communication that human ears
cannot detect. Saying "if I cannot hear it scream, it is all okey dokey" opens
up all kinds of ugly questions (like "Is it okay to be a serial killer if you
are deaf?")

Anyway, some good arguments to get most of your calories from things lower on
the food chain:

1) Ultimately, all calories start as sunlight. Eating lower on the food chain
makes our resources go further because the higher up the food chain you go,
the more sunlight is concentrated in those few calories.

2) Health. There are several metrics which are negatively impacted by eating
higher on the food chain. Toxic chemicals that negatively impact human health
tend to concentrate in the fats of animals. Eating vegetarian tends to reduce
your exposure to a toxic world. You are also more likely to get serious
diseases, like e. coli and certain parasitic infections, from meat than from
plants. Most food poisoning comes from meat or dairy, not plants.

3) Cost. _Diet for a Small Planet* documented the fact that every country on
the planet (at the time it was written) had the ability to produce enough food
from traditional, mostly vegetarian, diets to feed all their people. Famine
was due to political things, like civil war, and the fact that meat was too
costly for poor families who had become accustomed to it and no longer ate the
traditional, mostly vegetarian, local diet.

I am not a vegetarian. I am someone who eats more vegetarian meals than I did
growing up and I have at times been accused of being a vegetarian by my meat-
and-potatoes relatives. I also relatively rarely eat beef simply because I am
really picky about the quality of my beef. I probably eat less meat on average
than the typical American and I am satisfied with the healthfulness of my diet
these days. I think a less-meat diet would do most American good. A meatless
diet is not really critical and even the author of "Diet for a Small Planet"
later relented on her vegetarian stance and repositioned it as "One less
hamburger" in a follow-up book, indicating that we stretch the planets
resources by reducing our excessive consumption of meat without giving it up
entirely.

