Comments on: Science Magazine considers whether decreasing meat consumption can increase global food security http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2010/02/science-magazine-considers-whether-decreasing-meat-consumption-can-increase-global-food-security/ Intersection of Nature and Culture Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:22:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Eve A http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2010/02/science-magazine-considers-whether-decreasing-meat-consumption-can-increase-global-food-security/comment-page-1/#comment-4413 Eve A Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:18:46 +0000 http://www.globalchangeblog.com/?p=3613#comment-4413 Although I didn't read the original Science article, I've read the your quotes from it. The quotes seemed to have the agenda to rationalize meat eating. To vegan ears it sound like the author doesn't want meat eating to have any impact on world hunger. For example the idea that developing countries will eat more meat if we eat less seems totally unsubstantiated. Who's to say developing nations would choose to squander environment, health and ethics the way we have for generations. Although I didn’t read the original Science article, I’ve read the your quotes from it. The quotes seemed to have the agenda to rationalize meat eating. To vegan ears it sound like the author doesn’t want meat eating to have any impact on world hunger. For example the idea that developing countries will eat more meat if we eat less seems totally unsubstantiated. Who’s to say developing nations would choose to squander environment, health and ethics the way we have for generations.

]]> By: Danny Ducat http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2010/02/science-magazine-considers-whether-decreasing-meat-consumption-can-increase-global-food-security/comment-page-1/#comment-1022 Danny Ducat Mon, 03 May 2010 16:41:51 +0000 http://www.globalchangeblog.com/?p=3613#comment-1022 I read the "Could More Meat Mean Less Food" a few months back and was so frustrated with it that I have come back to reread it a couple times and have kept wondering what exactly I was missing and why the logic seemed so misleading to me. I too, agree with you that it was quite interesting to see an article discuss the factors that might confound what, on the face of it, seems like a very simple equation (i.e. less meat = more food calories in the world). It challenged my assumptions about how large of an impact that en masse adoption of diets less rich in meat would have, yet I think that the article's main premise seems to rely on too simplistic of a change in variables and overhypes its angle (perhaps because it makes for more controversial/entertaining journalism) The modeling seems to keep the eating habits of all non-developed nations unreasonably rigid for one thing. Further, the modeling relied on a purely voluntary 50% reduction in meat consumption that is not tied to changes in meat cost/taxes (a variable change that seems both too simplistic and unrealistic). To be fair, the article later quotes Lester Brown as saying that a meat tax would be a good way to go, but seems to fail to address the obvious question about what models would predict were that strategy (or other incentive measures) used. Anyway. I'll stop my venting, but its good to know that a few others out there also thought the tone and approach of the article was more than a little misleading. Thanks for your great post on the matter. Keep up the good work! I read the “Could More Meat Mean Less Food” a few months back and was so frustrated with it that I have come back to reread it a couple times and have kept wondering what exactly I was missing and why the logic seemed so misleading to me. I too, agree with you that it was quite interesting to see an article discuss the factors that might confound what, on the face of it, seems like a very simple equation (i.e. less meat = more food calories in the world). It challenged my assumptions about how large of an impact that en masse adoption of diets less rich in meat would have, yet I think that the article’s main premise seems to rely on too simplistic of a change in variables and overhypes its angle (perhaps because it makes for more controversial/entertaining journalism)

The modeling seems to keep the eating habits of all non-developed nations unreasonably rigid for one thing. Further, the modeling relied on a purely voluntary 50% reduction in meat consumption that is not tied to changes in meat cost/taxes (a variable change that seems both too simplistic and unrealistic). To be fair, the article later quotes Lester Brown as saying that a meat tax would be a good way to go, but seems to fail to address the obvious question about what models would predict were that strategy (or other incentive measures) used.

Anyway. I’ll stop my venting, but its good to know that a few others out there also thought the tone and approach of the article was more than a little misleading. Thanks for your great post on the matter. Keep up the good work!

]]>