Hacker News Reader

Comment by codetrotter | Hacker News Reader

“Meat production accounts for 57 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire food production industry. It also results in widespread deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and each of these means that it significantly contributes to climate change.”

https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-env...

View on HN

Now can you elaborate on how/why is lab-produced synthetic food based on plants better for our organism? won't they qualify as ultra-processed products, so you're pretty much trading your health for protecting the environment?

Ignoring that cultivated meats should be generally indistinguishable from their host, there are many ways that cultivated meats will be better for humanity

Animals tend to be parasitic hosts, which is where lots of our cooking temperature guidelines come from

Animal / human viral crossovers can make more deadly virus variants, so reducing that exposure is probably better for us

Cultivated meats should ultimately result in lower emissions, so if you’re anywhere near a coal fired plant, that will directly result in lower cancer rates

This should similarly have a positive impact on climate change

Funny thing is that you are much more likely to get food poisoning from salads than from anything else, including raw meat like you would find in a "tartare". But yes, cooking meat products at a certain temperature ensures safety because normally no bacteria should be able to survive those temperatures. But at the same time, we also do it because it tastes better that way, it's pre-processed for digestion and we can come up with lots of creative ways to mix and match with other types of foods. Reducing it to a safety measure is extremely shortsighted.

In fact, I wish vegetable processing was held up to the same standard, because in the end you are much more likely to have trouble with this part of your food. If you have digestion problems, chances are it is most likely poorly processed beans/veggies or bacteria on raw veggies...

Okay but what about the actual benefits for our health? All these things you mentioned have little to no effect on our health (nutrition wise).

>cultivated meats should be generally indistinguishable from their hosts

>you should get sick less

There doesn’t need to be health benefits anyway. This is a ridiculous “whataboutism” that you’re putting forth.

Foodborne parasites are not a major health problem in the developed world. A litany of ills stemming from ultra processed foods are. Your reply doesn't seem to have actually addressed the question raised in the previous comment.

Ultra-processed does not necessarily imply being unhealthy, and lab-grown meat isn't ultra-processed. Arguably, it is less processed than farm-grown meat.

And it doesn't involve the extreme suffering of animals, a point not even raised yet, but far more important than your health.

The atmosphere is almost the best example of a commons that we have. If a reason for cultivated meat is greenhouse gas emissions, then Italy misses out on virtually none of the benefits by banning it.

I was under assumption deforestation is mainly happening in developing nations, is meat production causing deforestation in Italy?

Does synthetic food show or promise improvements in any of these aspects?

Those are heavily disputed claims.

In what reality ...?!

> For instance, replacing beef with beans in the US could free up 42% of US cropland

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184671/

> Global soy production has increased more than 10-fold over the past 50 years. This has been driven by increased demand for meat

https://ourworldindata.org/soy

Sorry but i have to call you out here, because the list of sources is huge and it is even common sense, that meat consumption requires more resources.

I think you urgently need to esacpe the bullshito sphere in which this is disputed. It is sickening to read such ad hoc bs on evident and pressing issues.

How can they be disputed? It's a fact clear as a day that deforestation in many places is caused by people making room for farmland… that don't produce food for people but fodder for livestock. And livestock has a calorie conversion efficiency much lower than unity. So you need to cut more forest to feed the same number of people. It can also scarcely be disputed that cattle produce large amounts of methane, enough that it's a significant factor in total greenhouse emissions.

There's also no disputing the fact that turning uncultivated land into monocultural farmland is a great cause of biodiversity loss – it's essentially the definition of farmland!

If you mean the claim that the beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk represents a huge emissions footprint, then no. That's not in dispute and it isn't particularly hard to prove that by looking at how much of the agricultural output goes into producing these protein sources.

And that's _before_ you consider the emissions from raising cattle, swine or poultry.

It is also useful to consider the scale of these industries. In terms of biomass, livestock represents more than 30 times the biomass of land based wildlife. In terms of creatures living on land, our food completely dominates the planet.

And if you wonder: I eat meat (in moderation) and I plan to continue doing so as part of a healthy, balanced diet. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of the environmental cost of what I eat. If we're going to keep eating animal proteins we can't ignore this as the global population grows, and even more importantly, as more and more of the global population is moving up the wealth ladder (see Hans Rosling's talks and how the global population is moving out of the lower income categories).

> I do a thing that I consider bad, but I understand that it is bad, therefore I am good.

This is always one of my favorite takes.

Are you projecting your own need to have others think you are good? I can assure you I have no need to make strangers think I'm good.

The point I was making was that it is possible to know, and acknowledge, that you are doing something that has negative impact without having to deny reality. I don't think anything is gained by departing from what observed reality tells us and turning the discussion into a moral discussion. When something becomes a moral discussion it stops being about solving problems and it becomes a spectacle where assholes unashamedly pleasure themselves in public and expect applause. It solves nothing.

Which ones?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com