News Plant Based/Vegan

NYT: The End of Meat (Opinion)


I think the author could have done a better job of articulating their views. And yet the piece is timely, and thorough.

I really liked the article. I guess if I had to find something to complain about, it would be that it was too short. But Its a newspaper article. they have rules on that.

But there were some sentences that begged to be elaborated and paragraphs that could have been expanded.

For instance, "Despite this grisly reality — and the widely reported effects of the factory-farm industry on America’s lands, communities, animals and human health long before this pandemic hit...."
This sentence could easily be a chapter or even a book. In the article the words "factory-farm industry" is a link that takes you to an anti-factory-farming website.
The last part of that same sentence says, " — only around half of Americans say they are trying to reduce their meat consumption." In this case the words "around half" are a link providing a reference for the "around half" claim. But I was surprised the author used the word "only". I am a little surprised that it is up to half.

There were a lot of other ideas that deserved more inches, and a lot of other sentences that were well crafted.
This one was one of my favorites.
"We cannot protect our environment while continuing to eat meat regularly. This is not a refutable perspective, but a banal truism"
 
That was a good sentence! The article did have its good points.

I have a lot of carnivore-leaning friends. Many tend to be curious about veganism yet also skeptical. I've had decades' worth of conversations about the topics covered in the article. So I tend to think in terms of what is enlightening versus what tends to just antagonize people. Usually, it helps to let the facts make your argument for you. The more in-your-face approach is great for a vegan and vegan-curious audience, but if you use that style with meat eaters, you need to support it with the right kind of substance.

That's just my take on it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Val and Lou
There is a lot of stuff going on in my own life and in the world that could skew my perception, so take my conclusion with a grain of salt.

--------
anyway that line, " — only around half of Americans say they are trying to reduce their meat consumption."
I was not aware that it might be around half. It doesn't surprise me but this might have been the first time I saw it in print. And with a reference!
And the reference actually says,
  • 54% of US adults say they are “currently trying to consume fewer animal-based foods (meat, dairy, and/or eggs) and more plant-based foods (fruits, grains, beans, and/or vegetables).”

That's more than half! Granted, "trying" and "fewer" may not mean all that much but .... still.

One of the other results was also very heartening.
  • 49% of US adults support a ban on factory farming, 47% support a ban on slaughterhouses, and 33% support a ban on animal farming. * The support for the latter two exceeded even researcher expectations.
Although the next two results were disheartening. But they showed that perhaps with more education we could change that.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is something I have been saying for years. We are approaching the tipping point.

--------

* I wonder where these adults think they will be getting their whoppers and nuggets without factory farming, slaughterhouses, and animal farming. I have a feeling they didn't' think this question thru. But then again these are the same idiots who thought "they usually buy animal products 'from animals that are treated humanely,”
 
Hmm! So the linked study used Ipsos to collect their data.


They seem to offer paid surveys - people register and fill out surveys in exchange for gift cards and such, though at a glance, I gather that they may collect data in other ways as well.

Those numbers seem really high to me and I have to wonder if the sample is representative of the US population or not. And what other variables could be at play.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: silva
Love Snoop Dogg, and even Dunkin' which he's advertising for Beyond, is now offering oat milk creamer! I just hope it doesn't cost more o_O
 
This story is being spun as anti-vegan when it's obvious that other factors led to the child's injuries. The couple should be held responsible for the abuse, and it should be acknowledged that these were not typical vegan parents.

Dam how desperate! An australian couple abuses their child causing lasting damage and makes it in the NYC news!
Nothing to do with a vegan diet, everything to do with neglect. Hope the dads new meat diet gives him heart disease
 
Dam how desperate! An australian couple abuses their child causing lasting damage and makes it in the NYC news!
Nothing to do with a vegan diet, everything to do with neglect. Hope the dads new meat diet gives him heart disease

It's been in the news everywhere, always spun as anti-vegan. "Vegan couple starves child!"

It's really obvious, when you look at the facts, that they were just abusive parents. Tons of people raise healthy vegan kids. The media needs to point this out. And the penal system in AUS shouldn't be letting them go. They should lose custody of their children, at minimum.
 
There was a similar story (or two) in the news years ago. I will see if I can find them.

One was in Florida. (of course)


Another one in France.


I also remember the Italians tried to pass a law on outlawing veganism in response to something similar.


NYT has written the kind of article NYCG wants

And to paraphrase Ian Flemming, once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three is an epidemic.

Although all of these tragedies could have been avoided with some research by the parents*, it's clear to me that we can not rely on that all the time.

Here in the USA, the typical reaction is to put a warning label on a product. "Do not drive with sunscreen in place. " Not sure what kind of warning label we need here. Would we put it on the baby?

Or to pass a law. For example, Stop at a railroad crossing while lights are flashing. Violators will be prosecuted. (if they survive). This is what Italy seems to think is the right path.

One would have hoped that after thousands of years of evolution the stupid people would be eliminated from the gene pool (Don't tease tigers). Evolution in Action. But it seems like there are more stupid people than ever.
-https://darwinawards.com

* It used to be that the first thing a person did when finding out they were pregnant was to get a book on prenatal care, another on infants, and another on children. Maybe we do need some government regulations. We require people to pass a test to drive a car. Why not require one for parents?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Brian W
There was a similar story (or two) in the news years ago. I will see if I can find them.

One was in Florida. (of course)


Another one in France.


I also remember the Italians tried to pass a law on outlawing veganism in response to something similar.


NYT has written the kind of article NYCG wants

And to paraphrase Ian Flemming, once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three is an epidemic.

Although all of these tragedies could have been avoided with some research by the parents*, it's clear to me that we can not rely on that all the time.

Here in the USA, the typical reaction is to put a warning label on a product. "Do not drive with sunscreen in place. " Not sure what kind of warning label we need here. Would we put it on the baby?

Or to pass a law. For example, Stop at a railroad crossing while lights are flashing. Violators will be prosecuted. (if they survive). This is what Italy seems to think is the right path.

One would have hoped that after thousands of years of evolution the stupid people would be eliminated from the gene pool (Don't tease tigers). Evolution in Action. But it seems like there are more stupid people than ever.
-https://darwinawards.com

* It used to be that the first thing a person did when finding out they were pregnant was to get a book on prenatal care, another on infants, and another on children. Maybe we do need some government regulations. We require people to pass a test to drive a car. Why not require one for parents?
If you're an omnivore and feed a baby nothing but bread and it gets sick it's child neglect.
If you're vegan and feed a baby nothing but bread and they get sick it's because of a vegan diet
 
If you're an omnivore and feed a baby nothing but bread and it gets sick it's child neglect.
If you're vegan and feed a baby nothing but bread and they get sick it's because of a vegan diet

That wasn't what was in the stories.
 
That wasn't what was in the stories.
I was just using bread as a simple comparison :shrug:
Babies have been malnourished on omnivore diets forever, and it's always been called neglect. Giving a baby an inadequate vegan diet is also neglect,.
Not all the omnivores giving their babies a inadequate diet do it out of malice--and if you're vegan and not researching nutrition it should be called neglect