Epicurious Will No Longer Publish Beef Recipes(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Epicurious Will No Longer Publish Beef Recipes
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/dining/epicurious-beef.html
71 comments
Thanks for posting this link! Marginal land use, green water use, and inedible feed being standard really puts into perspective what stopping beer consumption would actually do. I found it a surprising perspective.
But they still publish recipes with eggs, the innocent unborn embryos of chickens. Disgraceful!
Not to mention recipes using plants that are either eaten alive or die a slow death on a stove or in an oven.
Yes. A thousand times, yes. Electromyography has proven that plants scream in agony at that point. Isn't there a more humane way?
New theories of consciousness posit that everything in the universe has consciousness to a greater or lesser extent. Even rocks are conscious to a small degree. And salt is a type of rock. Therefore, we must all rally together to shut down any company that encourages the ingestion of salt, a conscious being. We nosaltarians must impose our moral views on everyone else.
New theories of consciousness posit that everything in the universe has consciousness to a greater or lesser extent. Even rocks are conscious to a small degree. And salt is a type of rock. Therefore, we must all rally together to shut down any company that encourages the ingestion of salt, a conscious being. We nosaltarians must impose our moral views on everyone else.
Ah yes, doing one thing to improve must be discouraged because it is not doing all the things.
You grossly misunderstand the point I was trying to make. My point is more about who gets to say what's acceptable on the internet.
On the one hand, you have thoughtful, rational nosaltarians such as myself and millions of my minions, err... followers.
On the other hand, you have the craven beasts at Epicurious who want to encourage the consumption of eggs, living suffering plants, and even conscious salt.
Yes. Everything in this universe has at least a little consciousness. Even salt.
I say that the internet should be ruled by those with the most people pointing out problems. In this case the problem is that encouraging the consumption of conscious beings, such as salt, has logical consequences.
You may call my idea mob rule. But I call it the voices of a thousand rational beings simply trying to save one of our own.
Do you see what I'm saying now?
"Mob rule" as it might be called has one victory down, but we won't stop until we reach the logical end.
My moral standards are different and superior to the lax proprietors of Epicurious. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to hold back and let others violate my moral standards. I won't stop until everyone follows my unquestionably superior moral standards.
On the one hand, you have thoughtful, rational nosaltarians such as myself and millions of my minions, err... followers.
On the other hand, you have the craven beasts at Epicurious who want to encourage the consumption of eggs, living suffering plants, and even conscious salt.
Yes. Everything in this universe has at least a little consciousness. Even salt.
I say that the internet should be ruled by those with the most people pointing out problems. In this case the problem is that encouraging the consumption of conscious beings, such as salt, has logical consequences.
You may call my idea mob rule. But I call it the voices of a thousand rational beings simply trying to save one of our own.
Do you see what I'm saying now?
"Mob rule" as it might be called has one victory down, but we won't stop until we reach the logical end.
My moral standards are different and superior to the lax proprietors of Epicurious. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to hold back and let others violate my moral standards. I won't stop until everyone follows my unquestionably superior moral standards.
We eat unfertilized eggs which will never turn into a chicken, so really it's just an single cell.
Unless you eat Balut but that's not common in the west and definitely not a recipe on Epicurious.
Unless you eat Balut but that's not common in the west and definitely not a recipe on Epicurious.
Some people publicly admit that they think it's OK to eat eggs?! Outrageous! Reading those words are causing me actual harm. Why isn't there a trigger warning? Egg eaters are on the wrong side of history.
I mean it's one thing if you sneak out to Waffle House at 3 in the morning when no one is looking for two over easy.
But anyone who publicly condones this barbaric behavior should be cancelled.
And any company that encourages this barbaric, utterly un-eggs-eptable behavior should be cancelled.
I mean it's one thing if you sneak out to Waffle House at 3 in the morning when no one is looking for two over easy.
But anyone who publicly condones this barbaric behavior should be cancelled.
And any company that encourages this barbaric, utterly un-eggs-eptable behavior should be cancelled.
The cant really has no end...
There needs to be an informed decision pollution breakdown, industry by industry of the climate change impact.
Cows are the latest media exposed industry but I have no intuition on how they compare with other industries? Coal power plants? ICEs in auto industry? Petro-Chemical industry?
If the meat industry collapsed would we eliminate 20% of the world's pollution or 0.2%? I have no idea and haven't found any clear cut data on this?
Cows are the latest media exposed industry but I have no intuition on how they compare with other industries? Coal power plants? ICEs in auto industry? Petro-Chemical industry?
If the meat industry collapsed would we eliminate 20% of the world's pollution or 0.2%? I have no idea and haven't found any clear cut data on this?
There's a good chart with a short text summary at Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
This is really really cool.
So looking at the world data the global warming effect of the whole world livestock production is 5.8% which is aproximately the same as the methane emissions of accidental leaks in the Energy sector industries.
It seems logistically much easier to solve the problem of coal mining leaks and Oil and Gas methane leaks created by a few multinational conglomerates, than to try and curb a fractured meat industry spread through multiple (often developing) countries.
So looking at the world data the global warming effect of the whole world livestock production is 5.8% which is aproximately the same as the methane emissions of accidental leaks in the Energy sector industries.
It seems logistically much easier to solve the problem of coal mining leaks and Oil and Gas methane leaks created by a few multinational conglomerates, than to try and curb a fractured meat industry spread through multiple (often developing) countries.
Or if people drive 33% less.
Or heated their home 50% less.
But why not stop the accidental leaks while eating less meat while driving less while using energy efficient houses?
It’s a lot easier to blame an industry you can’t control than make a few decisions at home.
Tell your politicians to hold the mega corps accountable while proving you care by avoiding beef and driving less and turning the AC on less.
Or heated their home 50% less.
But why not stop the accidental leaks while eating less meat while driving less while using energy efficient houses?
It’s a lot easier to blame an industry you can’t control than make a few decisions at home.
Tell your politicians to hold the mega corps accountable while proving you care by avoiding beef and driving less and turning the AC on less.
Indeed wholeheartedly agree, it was not my intention to single out a particular industry and participation is key since like you said transportation and energy are two main causes for which we do have control over.
It was just interesting that the percent contributions where really similar between the two when intuitively I would expect Oil/Gas/Coal methane leaks to have a marginal climate impact.
It was just interesting that the percent contributions where really similar between the two when intuitively I would expect Oil/Gas/Coal methane leaks to have a marginal climate impact.
I'm not sure if I'm missing something but right now the global goal is 0 co2 by 2050 which already means hitting 1-2 degrees increase.
Every measure right now, which doesn't hurt us, doesn't do anything right now to solve the problem.
Mexiko has a drought strongest of the last 30 years, permafrost is unfreezing, etc.
Every measure right now, which doesn't hurt us, doesn't do anything right now to solve the problem.
Mexiko has a drought strongest of the last 30 years, permafrost is unfreezing, etc.
Maybe? Why wouldn't you try both?
You think repairing literally millions of abandoned leaking natural gas wells is easier?
I don't really know but my gut feeling is that you can sit down with the 99.9% of those well owners at a single OPEC or IOGP meeting.
However, you would struggle to enforce any meat industry curbing measure with the millions of meat producers spread across many developing countries.
However, you would struggle to enforce any meat industry curbing measure with the millions of meat producers spread across many developing countries.
If you think it's easier to focus on developed countries, North America and Europe are responsible for 1/3 of the global meat production (~110 million tons/year). China is another 80 million tons.
On the consumption side, and leaving aside the micro-nation of Hong Kong, the US lead the per capita meat consumption charts with 124 kg/year, with other high-wealth countries close behind. (China: 61 kg/year.)
The developing countries don't have to be a particular priority, at this point.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
On the consumption side, and leaving aside the micro-nation of Hong Kong, the US lead the per capita meat consumption charts with 124 kg/year, with other high-wealth countries close behind. (China: 61 kg/year.)
The developing countries don't have to be a particular priority, at this point.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
They don’t have owners, they are abandoned.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-sp...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-sp...
TIL. But even after insolvency there must be a way to enforce personal liability on whoever was in charge of the company that drilled the well in the first place.
[deleted]
be interesting to see what the predicyions would be if another World War broke out and we pretended that nukes wouldn't get used.
I'm guessing that the 73% of GHG from industry and energy production would jump to 90% during war 0.o
edit: Holy snapping duck crap. a quick google search bought up some really horrifying links:
https://www.wri.org/data/greenhouse-gas-emissions-over-165-y...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_war
I'm no human hating greeny but this makes me feel sick about us in general
I'm guessing that the 73% of GHG from industry and energy production would jump to 90% during war 0.o
edit: Holy snapping duck crap. a quick google search bought up some really horrifying links:
https://www.wri.org/data/greenhouse-gas-emissions-over-165-y...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_war
I'm no human hating greeny but this makes me feel sick about us in general
This is the biggest problem with climate change in my opinion. Public education is abysmal and as someone that fully believes in it I still have the exact same issue - I have no clear understanding of the problem in order to make a clear decision as to where I could focus my efforts.
Industry by industry doesn't reward good actors or innovation within an industry. Ideally we would just directly tax polluters and let the price reflect the pollution.
And what about forest-killing soy and avocado plantations? What about water-guzzling fields?
The “environmental” story of vegetarianism is such hypocritical bullshit.
The “environmental” story of vegetarianism is such hypocritical bullshit.
It seems the data doesn’t back up this assertion (based on studies linked elsewhere in this post).
PS. What-about-ism is not a sound argument.
PS. What-about-ism is not a sound argument.
What about them?
They probably looked in their traffic logs and saw that google isnt sending users for those keywords anyway. PR-Stunt.
Exactly! And in a year or two when they'll just quietly bring them back should they realize it hasn't had the impact they wanted.
My spidey-senses are tingling. You're clearly a plant (!) sent by big tofu to double bluff us.
And what exactly is the purpose of this “pr stunt”?
I do think the problem is there is no differentiation between organic animal husbandry which has proven benefits (the pastures capture carbon dioxide etc) and the intensive factory farms. I have been reasonably selective of my meat sources over the past decade buying from a local butcher who sources from local organic farms and i am a happy customer and not ashamed.
Indeed. I have seen a study that suggested free range cows in Australian grasslands were even less CO2 intensive per calorie than grains and also made use of land which wasn't farmable.
However such a thing can't really scale because of the large area required.
However such a thing can't really scale because of the large area required.
> Grasslands cover around 3.5 billion heactares globally, representing 26-40 percent of Earth's total terrestrial area.
I assume wiki meant these are natural grasslands in which case sounds pretty scalable.
I assume wiki meant these are natural grasslands in which case sounds pretty scalable.
Link to study?
Here is one source[1] this science is not new. The no dig farming movement takes this further because they don’t till the land the soil retains more co2.
[1]https://www.soilassociation.org/media/4954/policy_soil_carbo...
How does that make the co2 and methan go away?
Every cow produces it.
And do you have a conflict that you are able to pay higher prices for meat than a lot of other people?
Every cow produces it.
And do you have a conflict that you are able to pay higher prices for meat than a lot of other people?
> Every cow produces it.
Every individual cow does produce CO2 and Methane. But that's not causing rapid climate change. The root cause is perceiving cows - or meat in general - as a commodity.
Factory farming, raising and keeping tens of thousands of animals, has little to do with the historically intricate relationship between individual humans and cattle. It's about producing as much of a resource as possible in order to compete on an open market. In such a model, CO2 and Methane are costs to the farm that need to be externalized as cheaply as possible.
Not to mention externalized costs further down the chain to the customer such as the waste of unsold produce, single use plastic packaging, transport and so on.
> And do you have a conflict that you are able to pay higher prices for meat than a lot of other people?
Not OP. I buy meat from a local butcher or farm.
No. I don't have that conflict for several reasons.
First, I rather buy quality meat once a week which I consume sparingly, then cheap, processed meat daily or even multiple times a day. So, that evens the costs out for me.
Second, I choose to pay a higher price. Why? Because that's closer to the true cost of keeping and raising healthy cattle on a small, sustainable scale. What I get is a quality product.
Third, I make self-cooked meals on a daily basis. I'm a stickler for good, tasty food. Choosing to approach meat more carefully prompted me to adapt my diet and replace the dishes I used to make. This is a positive experience since there's an absolute wealth of dishes out there that don't require meat. The meat I do buy and prepare only get minimally wasted (e.g. freezing portions, making stock,...)
Fourth, I don't support a model where the abundant availability of meat globally is taken for granted, even though the environmental and social costs are clearly there. My effort is entirely insignificant on a global scale, but at least it makes me sleep just ever so slightly better at night. That's more then enough for me.
Every individual cow does produce CO2 and Methane. But that's not causing rapid climate change. The root cause is perceiving cows - or meat in general - as a commodity.
Factory farming, raising and keeping tens of thousands of animals, has little to do with the historically intricate relationship between individual humans and cattle. It's about producing as much of a resource as possible in order to compete on an open market. In such a model, CO2 and Methane are costs to the farm that need to be externalized as cheaply as possible.
Not to mention externalized costs further down the chain to the customer such as the waste of unsold produce, single use plastic packaging, transport and so on.
> And do you have a conflict that you are able to pay higher prices for meat than a lot of other people?
Not OP. I buy meat from a local butcher or farm.
No. I don't have that conflict for several reasons.
First, I rather buy quality meat once a week which I consume sparingly, then cheap, processed meat daily or even multiple times a day. So, that evens the costs out for me.
Second, I choose to pay a higher price. Why? Because that's closer to the true cost of keeping and raising healthy cattle on a small, sustainable scale. What I get is a quality product.
Third, I make self-cooked meals on a daily basis. I'm a stickler for good, tasty food. Choosing to approach meat more carefully prompted me to adapt my diet and replace the dishes I used to make. This is a positive experience since there's an absolute wealth of dishes out there that don't require meat. The meat I do buy and prepare only get minimally wasted (e.g. freezing portions, making stock,...)
Fourth, I don't support a model where the abundant availability of meat globally is taken for granted, even though the environmental and social costs are clearly there. My effort is entirely insignificant on a global scale, but at least it makes me sleep just ever so slightly better at night. That's more then enough for me.
I try to do the same with meat. I can easily afford it and do it seldom.
60-100$ price for bio beef is not a problem.
My internal issue has more to do with the conflict of me being able to afford the best meat on the market but a lot more can't.
Can I tell poor people to stop buying cheap meat while still consuming it myself?
60-100$ price for bio beef is not a problem.
My internal issue has more to do with the conflict of me being able to afford the best meat on the market but a lot more can't.
Can I tell poor people to stop buying cheap meat while still consuming it myself?
> Can I tell poor people to stop buying cheap meat while still consuming it myself?
Aren't the more interesting questions: why are so many individiuals poor? can't afford to buy produce at an "ethically reasonable" price point?
Aren't the more interesting questions: why are so many individiuals poor? can't afford to buy produce at an "ethically reasonable" price point?
Making your product available to the widest amount of people possible can also drive the mass-production practices talked about in this thread. So it's not just people being poor, it's that poor people are a huge market!
The US govt subsidizes many grains and provides socialism to farmers to make soda and burgers cheap, at the cost of healthcare and the climate. Often, fast food is only what poor people can afford.
True enough. I wouldn't call it "socialism" though. The reality is that individual / independent farming isn't economically viable since farmers have to compete with these large factory farms.
Most farmers running factory farms at the behest of large private corporations who define what the farmer can and can't do because they invest in these farms. Factory farms aren't diverse farms: they produce only one specific commodity e.g. meat, dairy, grain, soy beans,... The price the farmer can get is entirely defined by those large commercial interests.
Just think about the notion that farmers, by contract, need to buy seeds from these corporations. Seeds which are protected by intellectual property law. As a result, the practice of seed saving - which is thousands of years old - has become a liability as there's a risk of patent infringement. As a result, farmers aren't just forced to buy seeds, they have to buy those seeds every year, and they can't really choose between suppliers by contract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving
Such practices render farmers into anything but employees in name. It would be "socialist" if the farmer retained their freedom and their vote in how the farm is run. Legally speaking, they still do have that freedom and that agency as a legally independent business. But in practice, the exploitative nature of the economic relationship between farmers, the markets and these corporations has turned that pretty much into a meaningless concepts.
In that regard, the subsidization of agriculture doesn't benefit the farmers. It benefits those corporations through these entirely skewed market dynamics.
Most farmers running factory farms at the behest of large private corporations who define what the farmer can and can't do because they invest in these farms. Factory farms aren't diverse farms: they produce only one specific commodity e.g. meat, dairy, grain, soy beans,... The price the farmer can get is entirely defined by those large commercial interests.
Just think about the notion that farmers, by contract, need to buy seeds from these corporations. Seeds which are protected by intellectual property law. As a result, the practice of seed saving - which is thousands of years old - has become a liability as there's a risk of patent infringement. As a result, farmers aren't just forced to buy seeds, they have to buy those seeds every year, and they can't really choose between suppliers by contract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving
Such practices render farmers into anything but employees in name. It would be "socialist" if the farmer retained their freedom and their vote in how the farm is run. Legally speaking, they still do have that freedom and that agency as a legally independent business. But in practice, the exploitative nature of the economic relationship between farmers, the markets and these corporations has turned that pretty much into a meaningless concepts.
In that regard, the subsidization of agriculture doesn't benefit the farmers. It benefits those corporations through these entirely skewed market dynamics.
I think the OP was sarcastically noting that "socialism" is often used to mean "anything the government does that doesn't benefit me". Including many farmers, at least by stereotype.
Cattle on ranchland can easily be CO2 negative. Soil is a great carbon sink. So as long as the quality of the soil is increasing, we're removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Cattle and Buffalo are great for the soil, unlike other grass consumers like sheep.
Methane is a more difficult problem. It's mostly soluble with specific supplements and other mechanisms, but it's an expensive process that ranchers won't pay for unless there are proper incentives.
Methane is a more difficult problem. It's mostly soluble with specific supplements and other mechanisms, but it's an expensive process that ranchers won't pay for unless there are proper incentives.
Is there something specific about cows that produces more methane than other animals?
Assuming we stopped cow farming completely and the fields were turned into wild live reserves of bison or something would emissions magically go down? Or do they no longer count as anthropogenic so we can magically ignore them?
Assuming we stopped cow farming completely and the fields were turned into wild live reserves of bison or something would emissions magically go down? Or do they no longer count as anthropogenic so we can magically ignore them?
A huge portion of beef calories come from mechanically harvested feed (pasture crops and soy and corn).
The emissions related to those calories would go away.
The emissions related to those calories would go away.
Beef production accounts for 9% of US corn production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_...
If we have a magic wand and that disappeared entirely tomorrow, that would simply be allocated to other areas. There’s a reason sodas in the US are sweetened with HFCS and our gasoline is cut with ethanol produced from corn - because of lobbying efforts to subsidize corn production, which has driven down costs, which in turn made it profitable to use corn in ways where it wouldn’t otherwise make sense. Europe uses ethanol derived from sugar beets, which is significantly more efficient in terms of CO2.
It’s significantly more complex than “if we reduce beef consumption, we’ll reduce corn consumption”.
If we have a magic wand and that disappeared entirely tomorrow, that would simply be allocated to other areas. There’s a reason sodas in the US are sweetened with HFCS and our gasoline is cut with ethanol produced from corn - because of lobbying efforts to subsidize corn production, which has driven down costs, which in turn made it profitable to use corn in ways where it wouldn’t otherwise make sense. Europe uses ethanol derived from sugar beets, which is significantly more efficient in terms of CO2.
It’s significantly more complex than “if we reduce beef consumption, we’ll reduce corn consumption”.
The methane from the cattle that didn't exist would go away.
I guess I didn't try to spell the whole thought out, but I wasn't trying to claim that beef consumption is an island, I was thinking about how CAFO style animal husbandry supports a lot more animals than pure grazing would.
I guess I didn't try to spell the whole thought out, but I wasn't trying to claim that beef consumption is an island, I was thinking about how CAFO style animal husbandry supports a lot more animals than pure grazing would.
If cows are fed an unnatural diet instead of grass they fart a lot. So wild animals don't have the same issue.
Do you have a source for that? From my brief looking it seems like its the other way around (https://beef.unl.edu/reduce-methane-production-cattle)
The issue here is there is no balance in the discussion. we push people to be vegan and they become radical environmentalists but the vegan lifestyle for the average person is filled with processed foods with no discussion of the environmental impact of food processing. Busy people have no time for some of the food preparation required to be vegan. There is no balance of conversation at all.
Regarding the comment about me paying higher prices, I can't agree. I spend an aggregate of about £1.50 / head on meat per day which is much less than if I decided to buy any processed soy or processed plant protein.
Regarding the comment about me paying higher prices, I can't agree. I spend an aggregate of about £1.50 / head on meat per day which is much less than if I decided to buy any processed soy or processed plant protein.
You do?
Do you get the cheapest meat available?
Where do you live?
Do you get the cheapest meat available?
Where do you live?
He offsets the carbon by mixing in some veal
I think I heard of it but never been able to buy it
The majority of the Western world eats too much food!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-shift-obes...
We need to start taxing the Obese and Overweight to encourage them to put their forks down, and to pay for their externalities. With 67% of Americans obese or overweight, this would help more than switching to a "better" beef.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/news/20191220/growing-obe...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-shift-obes...
We need to start taxing the Obese and Overweight to encourage them to put their forks down, and to pay for their externalities. With 67% of Americans obese or overweight, this would help more than switching to a "better" beef.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/news/20191220/growing-obe...
I make similar choices for animal welfare reasons for all our meat, but better husbandry and land management doesn't stop the cow pumping out methane.
The problem is we still refuse to make sacrifices to show an impending climate disaster. We know where we need to be, we know that gestures like organic beef don't get us there. I hope our grandkids forgive us.
The problem is we still refuse to make sacrifices to show an impending climate disaster. We know where we need to be, we know that gestures like organic beef don't get us there. I hope our grandkids forgive us.
You can't provide billions of organic, free-range, hipster beef burgers to the entire world and expect there to not be associated massive anthropogenic costs to GHGEs and air/water/soil pollution. The point is meat ag for the whole world is inherently not scalable, not sustainable, and a losing luxury like ivory that needs to go away ASAP.
[deleted]
It doesn't negate the moral problems with factory farming, but that wasn't the intent of the video.
https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g