[flagged]
At the end of the day, we all need to eat less meat.
If everyone went to buy food at my local grocery store, the 7 billion people in such a small building would cause an enormous humanitarian catastrophe.
I don't think that means there is anything wrong with me shopping there, and I don't think there is anything wrong in eating grassfed free range beef either.
400 lbs of meat per head of cattle is 3,000,000,000 cows. 5 acres per head of pure grass fed, double number of animals because of average slaugher at 2 years, and that is 30 billion acres devoted to grazing. For context 125 million acres are utilized for cattle (feed and grazing) in the US. Globally that is 3 times more than is used for all agriculture, globally. This is ignoring dairy.
So this is not very tricky. It is wildly unrealistic for grass fed beef to be anything but an extreme luxury food without large numbers of people starving.
Why? The first example is absurd and the logic that someone would rely on in making an argument against you shopping somewhere would also be absurd. But the second point is not absurd, as enough people are already eating meat to the point that ecosystems are severely strained.
It's really the size of the range that's a problem. Eating food that eats food is a really inefficient way to get your energy, so you have to offset it by letting that cow range widely. You have to ask: what this that space not doing because it's currently supporting a cow instead? What have you taken away that other people need?
All major food production is taxing the planet beyond what it can handle, among those being the use of artificial fertilizers in farming. Using a limited resource like fossil fuels to feed people is extremely inefficient when the ocean and land has plenty enough nutrients already. Using land itself is also fairly inefficient use of space when land is only 30% of the earth, with 70% being covered by water. Nothing beats farming on water when it comes to land efficiency.
Looking at land efficiency a second time, the size of the range is not the only factor. Caribous uses a massive amount of land for very small amount of meat, but the land they use tend to have an average human population per square mile close to 0. Using land located in a rain forests is much worse than using land located within the polar circle. There is a argument that using animal ranges in some locations is both good in term of land efficiency and bio diversity.
This is not that.
A cow spends its whole life radiating heat into the environment. That's energy that could be powering me. It's a pretty simple watts-in-watts-out calculation, and it's nowhere near efficient.
Sure, maybe no humans want to live where the cows typically graze, but there are other organisms which contribute to carbon capture and clean air and clean water and pollination and disease control... And they are displaced when you've got cows gobbling up all the new growth and preventing forests from forming.
What's unfair is that those ecosystem services are being degraded in service of a few people's dietary habits, and that their loss is subsequently impacting the rest of us.
Yeah, maybe there's a biodiversity benefit to controlling grazer population through hunting, but only as a stopgap until we manage to reintroduce natural predators which don't have to be policed or practice restraint: predator/prey population dynamics are better equilibrium seekers than government regulation re: permits and tags.
If we talking about fairness, food should be sustainable and not causing massive harm to the environment. That seems however to be outside the ballpark of what people consider possible. The question is then where we should start.
Not to take away from your primary point, though. I'd much rather have meat be valued as a high quality nutrient source rather than something cheap you can take for granted.
There are many studies that show that beef, grass fed or not, add to Climate change.
The grass fed meme crowd thinks they are saving the rainforest by not eating beef fed with soy from monocultures in Latin America but conveniently forget that in order to feed the whole world with grass fed animals you would need more land than the world can provide. Much of the amazon is being cut down to create pastures for cattle. It's a complete tragedy.
>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed.
Animal protein raises pressure on your kidneys for hours after consumption. By eating that you are inflaming your kidneys and increasing the likelihood of a wide range of consequences.
Turns out living has consequences no matter how you live. Choose what you are willing to die for.
However, I think the OP rather meant plant defense chemicals like phytic acid, oxalic acid etc., which as far as I know are not found in meat.
The article you mention doesn't answer this question. Read harder
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-pfas-blood-ubiquitous...
I'm not proposing that a single study is proof, but I'm default-skeptical of dietary claims without strong evidence, especially ones that comport with other aspects of worldview or preference.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846392...
Not to mention that side effects like those caused by almond consumption, would require eating hundreds of grams of almonds a day.
So you're not quite being fair here.
Even if you could find a handful of foods that are absolutely toxin-free, eating only those would greatly reduce the diversity in your diet.
The obvious optimum is a diet minimal in the effect-weighted sum of its toxins, subject to the constraint of also providing healthy levels of all essential nutrients... which the GP is attempting to reasonably approximate without requiring years of research into the exact diet by proposing toxin risk diversification.
There are far, far, more species of plants to eat than species of animals in human diets.
Primarily whole-food, plant-based diets have the lowest level of toxins.
For example, see the Cleveland's Clinic recommendation for a low-inflammation diet which recommends diets like Mediterranean, DASH and whole-food vegetarian.
There's plenty of protein in plant foods.
It'd be cool if we can grow steak in future, but I think it'd be very hard to replicate an actual cow without adding toxins, and I worry that they'll make some ridiculous low-fat or low-cholesterol version based on nutritional "science".
When Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, it took him forever to paint a small surface. Any old housepainter could have been more efficient.
The point is that grass is inedible and grows all over the place, and cows turn this abundant and useless resource into wonderful steaks.
You'll note that beef is by far the worst.
Here's one that better describes the components of that CO2 footprint (whether it's methane production, or transport overhead, etc.): https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Michelangelo did a less efficient job painting the Sistine Chapel per square meter than a housepainter would have.