Rule 6: Beef is by far the most environmentally costly food most people can put on their plate, which is why choosing it over alternatives is such a telling signal. Per gram of protein, beef produces many times the greenhouse gas emissions of chicken, eggs, or legumes, mostly from cattle methane and from the forest cleared for pasture and feed. It also demands far more land and water than almost any other common food. These facts are widely published and easy to find, and cheaper, lower-impact options are available in nearly every grocery store. So when someone keeps choosing beef anyway, they are showing that the environmental cost isn’t a factor in their decision. Nobody has to be perfect, but picking the highest-impact option when better ones are easy to reach is a pretty clear statement of priorities.
It’s also worst health-wise compared to other common meat types.
Oh? How does that work?
Are you asking why is red meat bad for you?
Edit: in case you are, red meat intake increases the risk of heart disease, some cancers and diabetes.
Other red meats include pork and lamb too and most other mammal meat.
Not saying there aren’t some health benefits too but minimising your red meat intake and supplementing your diet with more legumes and tofu as well as white meats (poultry and fish), is a healthier option.
Nyet. I’m asking about the mechanisms / science of the adverse differences between beef & other meats.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590157525010582
Good starting point
If I understand correctly, the article is a summary of existing research, and suggests that red meat is generally worse than white, but doesn’t single out beef, specifically.
This is something that’s been pretty well-established for… I don’t know, a decade or two?
I didn’t know pork was red meat, that’s disappointing
Yeah definitely unpopular with me.
Eating less meat is good. Eating no meat is also good. But if you say that, the only thing people will hear is “it doesn’t count if I eat less and I can’t really stop eating meat rn, so why bother”. Which is the opposite of what everyone who’s concerned about the climate wants. Less is more, literally. Give it a positive spin “I like when people reduce their meat consumption”. Be a living example. Discussions don’t change minds, but being a positive living example does.
90% of your posts/comments are ai slop and you’re commenting on what’s bad for the environment.
Mh … I disagree, it is not a great way. Eating beef is way too common, so as a “proof” it will mostly go unnoticed.
On the other hand if you’re a frequent flier or drive a giant SUV (in Europe) then everybody can instantly tell that you don’t care.
Also if you really want to hammer home the point just by a BP Oil or Shell t-shirt and walk around with that. It’s direct and unambiguous.
i care about the environment i just recognize that these are systemic issues that individual action can’t fix and inconveniencing myself on principle for no real reason is just silly
also it’s really tasty 🤤
ooh a fedi-celebrity in the comments!
:3
Keep living in denial and believing your actions have no consequences!
These facts are widely published and easy to find
but you don’t cite the studies at all. i can’t refute evidence you don’t present.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain
It’s not hard to search yourself, I guess I gotta do the favor of doing work for you for free, lame.
Data source: Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018)
this is a deeply flawed study. its conclusions could be right but the methodology is just junk science.
actually, my sources are the references of that paper, itself. they explicitly say that, because LCA studies are disparately methodized, they cannot be combined.
Meanwhile you are typing this on a device that has a ton of plastics and adds to the micro plastic problem. While riding in vehicles that have plastics. Wearing clothes that have plastic in them.
I like beef 😟
