Dan Barber- The Complicated Locavore

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577482560684797868.html

I found this an interesting read. No offense to vegetarians intended - just thought it was an interesting view from one of our top US chefs.
Deb

Right on! I had to re-post that to fb.

The amount of resources it takes to produce 1/4 lb of hamburger are pretty eye opening: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/0 ... eat-eaters

Reducing meat consumption doesn't mean cows (and their fertilizer) will go away -- it just means they won't be bred in the massive numbers they are now, and they won't have to live their lives in abusive conditions on factory farms for the sake of cheap meat.

Any way you slice it, a plant-based diet has far less environmental impact than one that involves meat every day.

He can eat whatever he wants...if he wants to eat meat, go for it, but don't try to justify it with this "environmental balance" junk. I'm not out to force anyone to be vegetarian or vegan; I believe we should all choose for ourselves...but there's no denying the facts of the massive amount of natural resources it takes to produce the meat an average American omnivore consumes in a year. Reducing one's meat consumption is a good way to help preserve our plant for future generations.

TAny way you slice it, a plant-based diet has far less environmental impact than one that involves meat every day.

Even if that "plant-based diet" revolves around frozen soy products (likely an end product of earth friendly corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, et al) that are factory farmed in a nitrogen depleting manner, then mass produced and trucked around the country in refrigerated trucks?

Any way you slice it, a plant-based diet has far less environmental impact than one that involves meat every day.

Even if that "plant-based diet" revolves around frozen soy products (likely an end product of earth friendly corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, et al) that are factory farmed in a soil nitrogen & water table depleting manner, then mass produced and trucked around the country in refrigerated trucks?

Reducing meat consumption doesn't mean cows (and their fertilizer) will go away -- it just means they won't be bred in the massive numbers they are now, and they won't have to live their lives in abusive conditions on factory farms for the sake of cheap meat.

Within reasonable limits (I can't enforce my lifestyle choices on my mom, or on my friends when dining at their homes) I don't eat any meat that's been raised under abusive or unsustainable conditions. I know every farmer who I buy meat from by their first name, and know well the conditions under which their animals are raised, even slaughtered. Reducing meat consumption doesn't mean giving up meat altogether. I lived as a vegetarian for 9 years, several of which I was a default vegan because my partner was, and we shared most meals together. I have no intention of becoming a vegetarian again, and I agree with the content, tenor and structure Barber's argument. There are actually numerous ways to slice the data in the report you post a link to, some of it conflicting. Moreover, it's all based on one study, which, if you study statistics and science (science actually has rules, it's not just "I read this and the facts they put forth are...") is relatively weak to base one's position on. Finally, you seem to miss the point Barber is making, which is against any kind of factory farming, animal vegetable, or whatever. He's not saying, "Go out and eat all the McBurgers you like, since those cows are shitting all over the earth and replenishing necessary nutrients", you know.