<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Study says eating less red meat improves health, helps fight climate change]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by FuriaFubar http://www.grist.org/article/meat4/ Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:29:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/meat4/1 It's a plot

by the fishing industry.  Yes indeedy, eat more fish.  The other...uh...well anyway fish don't flatulate, at least we don't think so, and if they do it's not methane, and it's underwater at that.  Hey did you see what the Hudson "Institute" is putting out?  500 "scientists" saying global warming is nothing more than a normal cycle - again - and really a good thing after all.  Dennis Avery at it again...
http://www.xanga.com/furia_fubar

]]> It's a plot

by the fishing industry.  Yes indeedy, eat more fish.  The other...uh...well anyway fish don't flatulate, at least we don't think so, and if they do it's not methane, and it's underwater at that.  Hey did you see what the Hudson "Institute" is putting out?  500 "scientists" saying global warming is nothing more than a normal cycle - again - and really a good thing after all.  Dennis Avery at it again...
http://www.xanga.com/furia_fubar

]]> Comment #2 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/meat4/ Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:56:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/meat4/2 mixed messages

Presumably the authors of the study reported in The Lancet are primarily interested in personal health, not in mitigating global warming, and the statistics they found for GHG emissions of agriculture are thrown in for rhetorical support.

Similarly, the recommendation that people in poorer countries should actually increase their consumption of red meat -- for health reasons -- indicates limited creativity.  Good nutrition certainly does not depend on eating beef.

]]> mixed messages

Presumably the authors of the study reported in The Lancet are primarily interested in personal health, not in mitigating global warming, and the statistics they found for GHG emissions of agriculture are thrown in for rhetorical support.

Similarly, the recommendation that people in poorer countries should actually increase their consumption of red meat -- for health reasons -- indicates limited creativity.  Good nutrition certainly does not depend on eating beef.

]]> Comment #3 by iprefertherain http://www.grist.org/article/meat4/ Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:58:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/meat4/3 Why not just call for vegetarianism?

Studies that connect health and carbon emission with meat consumption are crucial, and much needed.

However, I just don't understand why these researchers don't just ask people to become vegetarian?

If this is really a climate emergency then they not only have a moral obligation to ask that, but if they don't have the authority to ask that of people, then who does?

]]> Why not just call for vegetarianism?

Studies that connect health and carbon emission with meat consumption are crucial, and much needed.

However, I just don't understand why these researchers don't just ask people to become vegetarian?

If this is really a climate emergency then they not only have a moral obligation to ask that, but if they don't have the authority to ask that of people, then who does?

]]>