Science Men’s meat-heavy diets cause 40% more climate emissions than women’s, study finds - Research also shows 25% of diet-related emissions are from ‘optional’ food and drinks, such as coffee, alcohol and cake

7216.jpg

Men’s meaty diets are responsible for 40% more climate-heating emissions than those of women, according to a UK study.

The research also found a quarter of diet-related emissions were from “optional” food and drink, such as coffee, alcohol, cakes and sweets. The scientists said policies to encourage sustainable diets should focus on plant-based foods but switching drinks and cutting down on sweet snacks presented further opportunities.

A second study found in western countries, vegan and vegetarian diets were about a third cheaper to buy than regular diets, which the researchers said contrasted with the perception that they were the “preserve of a privileged middle class”.
https://www.theguardian.com/food/20...-seaweed-in-my-week-eating-a-climatarian-diet
Food production causes 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, and previous studies have shown that meat-eating in rich countries must be sharply reduced in order to tackle the climate crisis, largely caused by the methane and deforestation associated with cattle. But these studies have looked at the average emissions of broad food categories.

The new study, published in the journal Plos One, analysed the emissions linked to more than 3,200 specific food items and examined the diets of 212 British people, who recorded their food and drink intake over three 24-hour periods. It found animal products were responsible for almost half of the average diet’s greenhouse gas emissions: 31% from meat and 14% from dairy. Drink caused 15% of emissions and 8% came from cakes, biscuits and confectionery.

The research also showed that non-vegetarian diets created 59% more emissions than vegetarian diets. Men’s diets had 41% more emissions, largely due to eating more meat but also due to more drinks.

“We all want to do our bit to help save the planet,” said the scientists, led by Holly Rippin, at the University of Leeds. “Working out how to modify our diets is one way we can do that. There are broad-brush concepts like reducing our meat intake, particularly red meat, but our work also shows that big gains can be made from small changes, like cutting out sweets.”

Rippin said the research did not assess why men ate more meat. “But we can speculate that it could be because men generally eat more food than women,” she said. “We could also speculate that men may eat more traditional meat-based diets.”

Another recent study found that men’s spending on goods caused 16% more emissions than women’s, despite the sum of money being very similar, mostly due to higher spending on petrol and diesel for cars.

The scientists’ database also includes 40,000 branded food items, and they said that future research could allow people to cut their food emissions by swapping brands.

The study analysing the costs of different diets was published in the journal The Lancet Planetary Health. It compared seven sustainable diets to the current typical diet in 150 countries using food prices from the World Bank.

It found that in high-income countries, vegan diets were the most affordable, reducing food costs by 21-34% compared to average diets, depending on specific food choices. Vegetarian diets were a close second, with 27-31% reduction in cost.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ream-how-millions-got-a-taste-for-going-vegan
A flexitarian diet, with low amounts of meat and dairy, reduced costs by 14%, but fish-based pescatarian diets actually increased costs by 2%. The study focused on whole foods and did not include highly processed meat replacements or eating at restaurants or takeaways.

“We think the fact that vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian diets can save you a lot of money is going to surprise people,” said Marco Springmann, at the University of Oxford, who led the second study. “When scientists like me advocate for healthy and environmentally-friendly eating it’s often said that we’re sitting in our ivory towers promoting something that is financially out of reach for most people. This study shows that it’s quite the opposite. These diets could be better for your bank balance as well as your health and the health of the planet.”

A recent survey for WWF found that more than 70% of Britons believed people should eat food that was better for the environment, but 65% said sustainable options were too expensive.

Current average diets in rich nations do not align with nutritional guidelines, with meat-eating higher than recommended levels. Both the new studies confirm previous work that healthy diets are also lower-emission diets.


 
  • Informative
Reactions: Figger Naggot
Sure, I'm willing to buy into some better environmental stewardship, right as soon as I stop seeing 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND) bureaucrats flying to Glasgow or Dublin or wherever, to discuss their latest environmental plans, and I see Greta Thunberg actually trying to square off with China, over it's domestic pollution, and the economic imperialism it's engaging in throughout Africa, which is leading to massive pollution and human rights violations, there. Until then, I'll keep eating steak.
Just personally picking up after yourself and turning out the lights in your own home has a more immediate and direct impact than anything the class of paper-pushers and vanity activists can do, which, as you pointed out, is making things worse if anything, with private jet trips and a mountain of "assistants" who all have to be outfitted with the best clothes, best gear (which requires Chinese microchips made in appalling conditions) and nicely coiffed any time a camera might see them.....

*Sigh* rules for thee.....


Back in grade school when the teacher went around and made suggestions about how to help the Planet, the ideas were maybe childish, but they were also practical. It was easy to walk/bike to your friend's house instead of drive, and picking up roadside litter was worth it because things look nicer when clean....

These days, the teacher is screaming at the kids to topple the system and turn in their parents for eating meat, or we're ALL DEAD!!!!.... for all the good that's gonna do....
 
Ah, more shaming of men. How is it that to these wingnuts men shouldnt be allowed to eat steak for the climate(tm) but china can operate a thousand power plants that burn spotted owls and humpback whales to give the slaves just enough light to crank out dem brands? Any "climate activist" that isnt composting chinks and poos above all else is simply doing it as a fashion statement.
 
For as much shit the college system gets and public education gets, these types of articles would have a very hard time finding resistance due to the masses not knowing the actual facts behind claims like this. Having a slightly more informed/educated populace has made it harder for them to push blatant bullshit like this.

Or maybe that's just the internet.
 
Beef production produces much more waste than other forms of meat production. It is an outlier, because the ratio of feed required to produce a pound of food is exponentially higher than it is for chicken.
What about the seed required for chicken? I have only heard discussion about the beef's feed but none about the chucken's seed (Although I wouldn't expect city slickers to know much about it to be honest)
 
The research also found a quarter of diet-related emissions were from “optional” food and drink, such as coffee, alcohol, cakes and sweets.

none of that is optional....

But Im willing to find some sort of compromise! Im willing to pay a tax on my food so somebody can take out an african village everytime i eat a cake, to offset the CO2.
 
Studies have shown that most of these risks can be mitigated through the use of on-land contained salmon farms, while still maintaining a high degree of efficiency compared to other protein sources long-term.
I'm assuming these mitigations function in exactly the same way as the mitigations against Asian carp (which have ignored all attempts to mitigate their invasion of everything upstream from the Mississippi), or the safety protocols at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Which is to say both "Nature finds, uhh, a way." and "Idiot-proofing simply produces more committed, more deliberate idiots."
Imagine how much raging wildfires contribute.
Especially all the ones in California, some of which have been conclusively proven to be arson, many of which I would assume are arson, and the overwhelming majority have the root cause of California slashing brush-clearing budgets.
 
What about the seed required for chicken? I have only heard discussion about the beef's feed but none about the chucken's seed (Although I wouldn't expect city slickers to know much about it to be honest)
There's literally a chart in my post. Feed to edible chicken is 4.5:1. Feed to edible beef is 25:1.

If you live in the contental US, you're way closer to any city than I am, cityboy.
 
Whenever someone cries about meat and how subsisting on grains is 110% the best way ever for humans to base their diets on, I can’t help but think of all the times agriculturists got their asses handed to them by stronger, freer, healthier, and taller nomadic pastoralists.
47D96604-4A96-4A79-8464-CD871AEE464F.jpeg
4892B5BB-AAB9-4F79-92AE-38CF2143BD59.jpegD3CAC86B-7645-40E5-ADE1-CF5C896642C7.png
149E83C4-FE87-4E71-AF15-A13B78EA1B3B.jpeg
443E8746-8BDA-4D8D-8934-61929BFBAD93.jpegF4F8B260-1DC4-4B58-A15D-2E800BEBD621.jpeg899E98D1-FCDE-4F99-A951-23BDAB398BBF.jpeg9ABEEB60-4E84-40BA-9E9E-B5360E1C5CF0.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Beef production produces much more waste than other forms of meat production. It is an outlier, because the ratio of feed required to produce a pound of food is exponentially higher than it is for chicken, turkey and to a lesser extent pork. I have read studies that have shown things like farmed salmon and poultry eggs were better for the environment than the mass production of soy due to the massive tracts of land required for soy production and its effect on soil quality. I have never seen a study that differentiated between chicken and beef or turkey and beef and come to the conclusion that chicken or turkey were environmentally unsustainable. I have seen ones that suggested eating chicken was not as efficent as eating plant-based foods, but not ones stating it was actually unsustainable.

If you take all the global warming shit at face value, it'd be a much easier to cut emissions related to food production by selling people on eating turkey burgers and using ground turkey in their cooking, or opting for a salmon plank on bbq night, because these are options your average person does not find repulsive and will be more receptive to. Instead they push soy and bugs because it's about politics and control, not science.

I know a lot of you guys roll your eyes at the idea of something being unsustainable. That's not the point. The point is even when you engage with them on their terms and take the idea that our current diet is unsustainable at face value, there is no scientific basis to tell people to stop eating chicken.

*Edit*

For reference here's a feed to meat chart that shows what I'm ranting about:
View attachment 2762626

Chicken is five times more efficent on a feed/edible weight basis plus a greater percentage of it is actual protein by weight. If you take the environmental arguments at face value, we can save the world by eating chicken instead of beef. Why aren't these people trying to convince us to switch to chcken?
I think this is ignoring how chicken and beef feed are wildly different. Farmed chicken are fed mostly corn for there entire growth. Farmed beef spends a good chunk of its life grazing on land unsuited for growing crops, only moving to a high energy diet to finish.
 
Back