I would have expected this to be proof-read, as it is a direct excerpt taken from a book, but it is filled with mistakes. Spelling, grammar, word order...
Maybe it is an excerpt of the first manuscript of the book.
Other than that, I find the concept very interesting, but quite intuitive too.
"[...] animal products and feed", straight from the image. Sadly, no distinction. I would assume that it's mostly subsidies to feed. I am unable to find any sources on subsidies to meat directly.
I'm all for removing subsidies to monoculture agriculture.
Regarding deforestation and so on, I think we must also take into account that "industrialized" non-pastured husbandry (is that the correct term?) is probably cheaper and easier than the greener alternative.
Sadly, it's usually a matter of profits and not a matter of environmental friendliness.
Yes, you are right. I have conveyed my point only half-way and I apologize.
What I meant is that methane is known to have a bigger heating effect than other greenhouse gases, like x28 that of CO2 if I recall correctly. This is used as part of the anti-ruminant argument, when comparing the effect of methane expelled by animals to the rest of greenhouse gas emissions.
However, if you take into account the reduced lifespan, that 28-time increase is definitely less relevant.
How about we don't change the diet but change where the food comes from?
When talking about meat and damage to the environment, the only relevant figures are the ones associated with animal feed (e.g. water consumption per kg of meat).
Pastured animals, by definition, don't eat feed coming from the monoculture industrial agriculture that is depleting the soil and consuming all those resources, and which is also used to feed humans, sadly.
Bananas and dates (to name a few fruits) are plants, are whole foods, and are filled with fructose.
A single potato with skin has 6 grams of fiber and around 60 grams of starch.
As for the vitamins and minerals, the only thing found in a relevant amount in potatoes is potassium. Contrast this with eggs, organ meat or even muscle meat.
What would you say is the problem with saturated fat?
Even though I have no children, I can try to imagine what it feels like.
My paternal grandfather died of complications from uncontrolled, insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes. He spent his last years half-blind, unable to move, filled with ulcers and missing several toes.
My father has been hovering around the prediabetic range for many years now, and I live a 5-hour drive away from him. Effectively, he is like a child, with no knowledge of nutrition or metabolism, trying to find his way in a world dominated by a food industry that doesn't have public health anywhere in its objectives.
But it's not just the food industry, although they might have the monopoly of malice in this context. Guess what the diet prescribed by his primary care provider looked like once he was deemed prediabetic. Motherfucking biscuits for breakfast, pasta or rice with lean meat, sugar-laden fruit juice... but counting calories! Exactly the opposite of what I have finally convinced him to eat by chipping away on every holiday visit. He's not exactly following a ketogenic diet, but at least he is starting to figure out what sugar, starch and seed oils do to people, and how the blame was shifted onto the wrong substances (saturated fat and salt, basically). He is even giving intermittent fasting a go!
It's hard when you know that the potential suffering of a loved one is perfectly avoidable with just the right pieces of information.
As you might have guessed, having type 2 diabetes in my immediate ancestry (also in my maternal family) was one of the reasons that led me down the rabbit hole. I now treat nutrition and its effect on health and metabolism sort of like a hobby. I guess there is a component of biohacking in there as well.