[–] Jho@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm a vegetarian.

I was, and still am, surprised by how often people will go into a long rant justifying why they eat meat to me as soon as they find out I'm vegetarian. All the while I'm just sat there, not saying anything, because I literally do not care whether or not they eat meat.

Me being a vegetarian is a personal choice for me and myself only. You do you. I don't care. You don't need to explain yourself to me. It makes me feel so awkward.

People will often ask me why I'm a vegetarian too. But it feels like a very personal and heavy question to ask someone immediately after finding out they're vegetarian... I don't especially want to talk about animals dying all the time and how it makes me sad especially to strangers.

Edit/Addition: It feels like a lot of focus is brought on how vegetarians/vegans force their views onto other people but my experience personally is non-vegetarians/vegans trying to force me into conversations about this topic.

[–] jargoggles@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

There are a lot of people who take it personally when confronted with the idea that someone else is making an ethical choice that they, themselves, are not. When they hear someone say "I made this personal choice," their ego warps it into "I made this personal choice and if you don't, you're a bad person."

It's simply low empathy behavior. They struggle to contextualize other people's thoughts and decisions outside of their own personal experience and beliefs.

[–] mister155@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Good for you. Although your choice doesn't befit me, I understand and respect your decision as long as you also respect mine.

It is sad some people need to belittle others over stuff that literally doesn't even personally affect them. I mean, unless they're the cook, I guess.

[–] Scout339@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So... Tell me how vegan alternatives to items reduce carbon footprint lol.

Vegans in ideology make sense, but if you are paying more for food [that's worse for you, instead:] just buy local stuff from your farmers market or ethically-farmed things... Local eggs, cows, vegetables... Surely this can't be unreasonable.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The worst-case production of plant-based foods actually comes out ahead compared to best-case production on virtually every environmental metric including emissions.

If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

[…]

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

More broadly

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

Transportation doesn't actually make as much impact as one might think

Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions. This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

In terms of health, one can live perfectly fine and healthy on a plant-based diet

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

[–] Scout339@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have one thing for you to research - as I do agree when it comes to naturally-created plant diets (but still with a requirement of some meat, pescatarians and vegetarians make more sense than vegans) - But you should instead look out for Seed-oils. Video

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The seed oil thing in particular isn't really backed up by current research

June 22, 2022—While the internet may be full of posts stating that seed oils such as canola and soy are “toxic,” scientific evidence does not support these claims, according to experts. Guy Crosby, adjunct associate of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, was among those quoted in a May 31, 2022 Consumer Reports article who pushed back on the idea

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-debunk-seed-oil-health-risks/

If you are looking at plant-based meats as that video seems to be, there is some degree of evidence showing that it still comes out ahead health-wise compared to animal meat . That being said, aiming for more of a whole-foods plant-based diet is of course even better health-wise

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] candyman337@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While the initial reasoning is respectable, veganism is t without it's flaws, several plants are not ethically sourced and either cause a lot of pollution, destroy habitats to be grown, or are grown via slavery, or a combo of all 3. The real issue is the systems that are in place across the food industry, plant and animal based.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That being said, they still come out ahead in comparison to animal-based foods due to the fact that you need to grow massive amounts of feed crops to raise other creatures. It turns out that pretty much every environmental metric comes out ahead

Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits

[...]

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

In terms of workers, the meat industry is arguably worse on that front. It's one of the most dangerous industries anywhere for workers

US meat workers are already three times more likely to suffer serious injury than the average American worker, and pork and beef workers nearly seven times more likely to suffer repetitive strain injuries

[...]

Amputations happen on average twice a week, according to the data

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/05/amputations-serious-injuries-us-meat-industry-plant

And there's great risk of PTSD from the workers that you don't see for harvesting crops

There is evidence that slaughterhouse employment is associated with lower levels of psychological well-being. SHWs [slaughterhouse workers] have described suffering from trauma, intense shock, paranoia, anxiety, guilt and shame (Victor & Barnard, 2016), and stress (Kristensen, 1991). There was evidence of higher rates of depression (Emhan et al., 2012; Horton & Lipscomb, 2011; Hutz et al., 2013; Lander et al., 2016; Lipscomb et al., 2007), anxiety (Emhan et al., 2012; Hutz et al., 2013; Leibler et al., 2017), psychosis (Emhan et al., 2012), and feelings of lower self-worth at work (Baran et al., 2016). Of particular note was that the symptomatology appeared to vary by job role. Employees working directly with the animals (e.g., on the kill floor or handling the carcasses) were those who showed the highest prevalence rates of aggression, anxiety, and depression (Hutz et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2013). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380211030243

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not do be pedantic but wouldn't this imply you HAVE to grow feed for livestock? There's lots of regions where you don't feed your livestock but let them graze. It's part of the reason why 100% of those with Irish decent are able to digest lactose as it was crucial for survival for thousands of years.

I think overwhelmingly you have the correct position here however.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Grass-fed doesn't really scale and entails a number of other environmental issues from higher methane to higher deforestation. Even for Ireland in particular, it's got quite a number of issues

Increased methane emissions

Grass-fed production requires longer growing times leading to more lifetime methane emissions overall. It also requires more cattle overall due to lower slaughter weight

Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401/pdf

Not enough land to meet demand even if 100% of grassland was used

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

Problems in countries that have tried to scale it up

New Zealand has tried to scale up it's grass-fed production and often touts it. To do so, they end up using heavy amounts of fertilizer in their production so much so that some regions need a 12-fold reduction in their dairy industry size just to have their water meet safety thresholds

The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows. [...] The “grass-fed” marketing line overlooks the huge amounts of fossil-fuel-derived fertiliser used to make the extra grass that supports New Zealand’s very high animal stock rates.

https://theconversation.com/11-000-litres-of-water-to-make-one-litre-of-milk-new-questions-about-the-freshwater-impact-of-nz-dairy-farming-183806

Keep in mind that this is the case with New Zealand still using plenty of feed because their definition of grass-fed still allows for plenty of supplemental grain. A fully grass-fed system would fair even worse in that regard

The national dairy industry [in New Zealand] is consistently the country’s largest consumer of grain and feed at approximately 75 percent (Figure 4). The majority of dairy farms are on non-irrigated pasture-based systems (75 to 80 percent), where up to 25 percent of the annual diet could consist of supplemental feeding. With the recently high dairy prices experienced of over NZ$9.30 (US$6.05) in the last two years (Appendix 2), farmers have looked to maximize milk yields by utilizing more “purchased” feed for conversion to milk solids

(emphasis mine)

https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=New%20Zealand%20Grain%20and%20Feed%20Market%20Situation_Wellington_New%20Zealand_NZ2023-0003.pdf

Problems with grass-fed production in Ireland

In the UK and Ireland, the land that grass-fed cows are on is primarily actually not natural grass-land - its natural state is temperate rainforest

Most of the UK and Ireland’s grass-fed cows and sheep are on land that might otherwise be temperate rainforest – arable crops tend to prefer drier conditions. However, even if there were no livestock grazing in the rainforest zone – and these areas were threatened by other crops instead – livestock would still pose an indirect threat due to their huge land footprint [...] Furthermore, most British grass-fed cows are still fed crops on top of their staple grass

https://theconversation.com/livestock-grazing-is-preventing-the-return-of-rainforests-to-the-uk-and-ireland-198014

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I feel like you want to argue about this but I really don't. I agree with you, I just have some criticisms for how you cherry pick feed crops and now cows to support your argument. Sheep could easily be eating just grass and have their wool used to insulate housing that could theoretically decrease the burning of sequestered carbon for heating/cooling. But that's not what is going on, it's not a popular use, and it's not really fair to you to cherry pick data like that.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Almonds are a big one that I know of. The vast majority of the world's almonds are grown in California, a state that has been facing severe drought for years now (though maybe not so much this year), but somehow still finds hundreds of billions of gallons of water yearly to keep almond farms irrigated.

And eating almonds is one thing, but processing them into milk is an order of magnitude more wasteful. It takes about 400 almonds to make a half gallon of almond milk, and each one of those almonds requires a gallon of water to produce. So that's 400 gallons of water spent to produce a half gallon of almond milk. A single almond tree can make about 30 gallons of almond milk per harvest, so we're looking at 24,000 gallons of water consumed per tree, which yields a full shelf of Almond Breeze at a single grocery store.

And as farms keep expanding and conditions become drier and drier over time, it's going to destroy the ecosystems of the state. And all so that people can have a decent milk alternative to have with their morning coffee and cereal.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The majority of California's water usage is going to beef and dairy. They are large producers of animal feed which are heavy water users. Per liter, dairy milk requires 628.2 L of freshwater vs almond milk requiring 371.46 L of freshwater. And if you use something like oat milk instead that gets you to 48.24 L

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks

One graph even has California's animal feed water usage so large it actually goes off the chart at 15.2 million acre-feet of water (it is distorted to make it fit as it notes). For some comparison, the blue water usage of animal feed is larger than all of almonds water usage of ~2 million acre-feet of water

https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf#page=25

This is true across the American West as a whole

Correspondingly, our hydrologic modelling reveals that cattle-feed irrigation is the leading driver of flow depletion in one-third of all western US sub-watersheds; cattle- feed irrigation accounts for an average of 75% of all consumptive use in these 369 sub-watersheds. During drought years (that is, the driest 10% of years), more than one-quarter of all rivers in the western US are depleted by more than 75% during summer months (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2) and cattle-feed irrigation is the largest water use in more than half of these heavily depleted rivers

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=wffdocs

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I hate that this used to be me.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Personal growth :)

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

:)

It's especially ironic considering I've gone vegan this year.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Personal growth++

[–] Marduk73@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Im about a month in eating fruits vegetables plant based whatever. Im eating eggs cheese and milk.

I'm a meat eating buddhist. I'm all over the place. I'm only doing this because of hypertension and desperately trying to loose weight.

Surprisingly not hard to do. I don't preach it. I never want to be that guy. I'm just doing whatever i can to fix my health.

I don't miss the meat yet but i do a little bit. I don't think this is permanent for me. We'll see if my numbers change.

[–] mizu6079@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

got nothing against vegans it's just when they try to force it into others

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you mean by "forcing" veganism onto others?

[–] supergrizzlybear@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Eat your vegetables or I will make you eat them! /s vegan btw

[–] DotSlashExecute@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

As a vegan myself, I completely agree! I won't tell others what to eat and they shouldn't tell me what to eat. If I were to ever get "preachy" it's purely about reducing impact on the factors mentioned in the meme and by no means forced... One less meal a week with meat in? Go you! Locally sourcing meat? Hell yeah, less environmental impact!

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] max@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Very few will force it on others, though. Anyway, I find it hilarious how people can get riled up about the idea of a person not eating meat or any animal products. I’ve seen it often that they take it personally for some reason and will “compensate by eating extra bacon/steak/chicken”. It’s bonkers.

[–] SolarNialamide@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

People take it personally because deep down everyone knows it is wrong to keep something as cruel as the meat and dairy industry alive, plus the huge environmental impacts on multiple fronts. So they get super defensive instead of confronting or accepting the fact that they're doing the wrong thing for selfish reasons.

[–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah when I was a vegetarian kid a decade and a bit ago I was relatively quiet about it because I got sick of meat-eaters throwing bacon at me or trying to "gotcha" me with the classic desert island meme.

[–] PaulL@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It's funny: the forum I help moderate has a strong contingent of zero-carb/carnivores, and their experience is the same, only in reverse. They get shamed for not eating plants. I guess the moral is that people will criticize us, no matter what we do.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I use arch btw

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] arthur@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, they're always outside the Steakhouse picketing. Running at me constantly with a fork full of green vegetables.

THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM THAT I CONSTANTLY HAVE IN REAL LIFE.

[–] puppetx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the sarcasm we deserve.

I've known plenty of vegans and not once have I seen them "try to force it into others"... Outside of internet rage baiting crazies.

..Now the religious on the other hand, I have first hand experience with.

[–] Galven@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You joke, but there have been cases of steakhouses and butcher shops having troubles with protestors. It's not an everyday thing, but we are talking about a small, crazy portion of an already fringe group.

[–] bulbasaur@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So crazy to protest ppl profiting off the rape and murder of thousands of sentient beings

[–] Galven@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

.....that is a profoundly stupid way to look at it, you cannot exist without hurting something or someone, your mere existence causes pain to some people, and they'd much rather you stop existing, are you going to oblige them too? To define pain and suffering as unacceptable in all forms is to deny reality.