Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

This seems spot on, and very rational... but I don't see it happening until meat prices become so high that it causes indignation even amongst those who can still afford to buy as much of it as they like.

The reason I doubt that a significant number of people will reduce their meat consumption is partly because food is such an emotionally charged subject, and partly because it is so easy to rationalise doing what we want (even if we honestly care about the environment, animal welfare, and our personal health).

Still, if we all begin strategically reducing meat intake now, it may forestall, or even eliminate the odds that meat prices will skyrocket, since by making this decision we create more of a becomes a buyers'--rather than a sellers'--market.

Because I do like eating meat, and rather hate to think that in the not-too-distant-future it will become one of those now-rare 'good old days' items, I hope that even the most impassioned meat lovers will come to will see the option of significantly reducing meat intake as an opportunity to be proactive, to take this situation into their own hands now, rather than as caving-in to the attempts of panic-mongers/tree-huggers/bleeding-heart types/[other fanatic of choice] to infringe on one of life's pleasures.

I wonder where this puts the option of raising, say, palm beetle larvae?

mstod, we might take this a bit further, so let's be accurate and complete; starting from where you left off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda):

'. . . of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.'

The issues of impartiality and disinterestedness are key. Besides, there is one other aspect to propaganda, which is not addressed here, and that is the issue whether or not whoever is making a statement is identifying him-, her-, or itself (in the case of an organisation). Bittman acknowledges his stated opinions as his own, and includes the data that he believes best supports his argument.
As a meat eater, he could hardly be described as having agenda.

When it comes to discussing propaganda and the debate over the meat consumption, the industry itself hasn't a leg to stand on, since all its campaigns are propaganda-driven ('Real food for real people'? Come on...).

We could collect every 'fact' on this topic, carefully sift out those that are inaccurate, and start from there, but the evidence is too extensive to simply dismiss an opposing viewpoint out of hand as 'propaganda'.

Re: meat hangover obviously how one's digestive system responds to any given food is very individual but I know that I feel much, much better when I'm not eating meat at all. Even small quantities of meat impact my body negatively. So I don't think the "meat hangover" can only be attributed to portion size. That doesn't mean I don't partake in meat from time to time, it just means I know I'm not going to fee great the day after. Some meat based meals are worth that feeling but the vast majority aren't.

I suppose it wouldn't hurt us to eat a little less meat, and perhaps thus appreciate and enjoy it more?

However, I don't think our planet, or any other planet for that matter, really cares one way or the other.

sounds too easy to be true.

plus i wonder about what really ends up happening when we eat less meat. is it like, "i'm not eating meat but eating something else and this something else brings me just as much joy so i am happy."

or

"i'm not eating meat but eating something else, and this something else does NOT bring me as much joy, but at least i am making the planet greener."

i tend to believe in the latter, simply because if the alternatives are just as tasty, people would have equal incentives to eat them. but people don't. they eat more meat, which lends me to believe that if scenario two is more likely, then it is also less likely to stick as an idea/way of life.

I also found the article thought provoking and disturbing. DH and I don't eat much meat, maybe once or twice a month, mostly for health reasons -- but I won't give it up completely because sometimes you just gotta have a steak or a burger.

After reading that article, though, I would be much more inclined to stick to only grass-fed meat. It's not just the environment -- it's also the fact that we're subsidizing all that grain production, but the grain is going to cattle instead of to starving humans. AND the grain isn't even good for the cattle to begin with! It's just so stupid -- we take food out of the mouths of humans so we can feed it to the cattle, it makes the cattle sick, so we then pump them full of antibiotics, which in turn make us sicker. No thanks.

in the great words of Esqueleto, "I believe in Science."

http://gizmodo.com/349723/scientists-discover-how-to-neutralize-cow-farts-your-farts-next-god-willing

(obviously there is no way in hell any mass cattle producer would spend $1/day per cow. but still... pretty cool

Eating less meat means eating less meat, not cutting it out completely, and that sounds reasonable. In fact, I started buying locally, grass-fed beef since this summer and pretty much refuse to buy it from the grocery store anymore--beef is one of those things that's not necessarily seasonal, and so can be acquired at the farmers market all year. Since it costs more at the market, we just eat less of it--and it's been just fine, actually.

I have to agree that we could just eat less in general. A lot of restaurant portions are ridiculous; we've switched to eating at sushi places or tapas restaurants when we go out, mostly because the portions are a lot more manageable. Yeah, not cheap either, but we only eat out fancy-like every couple of months (birthdays, anniversaries, special occasions).

I don't think we need to eat as much as we do, particularly meat. I think American culture thrived on the bounty created by industrialized meat (and food in general), when it first started out. But we've taken that to an extreme in a hedonistic way, almost. So the fact that there are repercussions and that, in a capitalistic society, it continues to be lucrative (and cheap for consumers), are both not surprises.

I think of farmers in the past eating--they had true cause to eat heartily, considering they were caring for an entire farm--and I think they would be a little shocked at how much we eat. Overeating, to me, is a little like drinking too much--for special occasions or times when you've managed to bring together a large group of family and friends. Should we drink too much every day? No. The occasional over-indulgence (and the inevitable "oh that sucks" moment the next morning) keeps us in check--or should.

This isn't me shaking my finger at people, but with people shaking their fingers at how little I eat (I'm five feet tall and wanted to lose weight, and am now maintaining--so my portions seem just fine to me), I wonder if they should examine not how little I eat, but how much they do. Yeah, a small sandwich does look pathetic next to a steak and cheese on a humongous grinder roll--but it's not so pathetic if you add a salad, some ingenuity and a few more years on my life.

Wow, I didn't realize I had so much of an opinion on this...