janic ... I don't know where to start, I disagree on too many points of your approach ...
I do not want an agreement, but just to correct misconceptions spread by the media at the behest of agribusiness.
- The "unsuitability" of the human body to the consumption of animal proteins is very controversial.
It is not a question of theoretical point of view, but of physiology and comparative anatomy. It's like saying that "The inadequacy "of cattle to consume animal protein is very controversial. No one would believe it despite the attempt made and whose results were not convincing and why? Because, at school, we teach children that the anatomy and physiology of cattle is vegan, on the other hand (if you have books on the subject you can check it) the affirmation of the human omni s' is based on culture and not on anatomo-biology. Why ?
In contrast, veganism and nutritional deficiencies are often mentioned ...
Of course ! No system applied to the individual is perfect because of heredity, lifestyle, food mode, etc ... so we can find here and there some cases of deficiencies. But you have to compare them to other layers of the population and the results are rather favorable for LV (and again there are many forms of LV, too long to develop here)
So rather than relying on incompetent media and in need of paper to lay: why not check, with a maximum of people concerned and actually living this lifestyle, what it is? There are forums (for example Vegeweb which is one of the most consulted, for example) where everyone expresses themselves (almost ) freely and which is better than on dit and assumptions.
- From a planetary point of view, livestock and meat food are essential for survival issues (seasonality of plant resources) and represent the only local solution for survival and storage of food resources (fodder).
This is only partially true because, apart from some extreme cases, the vegetation offers more products than the bidoche and a good part grows in winter and another part can be the object of dry or transformed conservation.
- Food alternatives such as insects, practiced in many countries are also credible and logical (use of local resources).
There too it is only local and indeed for certain populations it is a means of survival. But this is not applicable to all of humanity and even less to “modern” European-American societies (as far as we are concerned) because it is these latter populations which are the biggest consumers of bidoche.
- When I mentioned the hens raised at the bottom of the garden fed with peelings, it goes without saying that these peelings came from vegetables grown in the garden next to the chicken coop. We consider that a well managed garden of 10m by 10m is enough for the needs of a person ...
But then again, you cite a behavior at the margin from the rest of society. The omni or vg subject concerns the entire world population because it is the food behavior of this one for the years to come which will decide or not of the food future and at the same time of the survival of humanity.
- I am sorry to contradict you on the origin of ORGANIC products, French production is far below demand, not to say ridiculous ...
It is very fair and I would say happily and unfortunately at the same time.
Fortunately because it concerns above all a real awareness and not a fashion that lasts only the time of it. Unfortunately because the survival of populations depends on it, the poisoning of the land and its consequences on human and non-human consumers are dramatic.
The majority of the products we consume are even produced outside of Europe and I am not talking about their exoticism like Quinoa, soybeans and others.
a) products outside Europe: this mainly concerns supermarkets which see in organic farming only a future economic sector to exploit but which does not take into consideration the real health of consumers, but which only seeks to sell products of better quality supposed at low prices ( which is contradictory)
b) quinoa, soy etc ...: Again, these are marginal products which represent only a tiny part of the daily food volume. We can compare this to chocolate, coffee, tea and other exotic products consumed by the population.
For my case, we may consume a 500g pack of quinoa a month for two and very, very exceptionally soy (I do not share at all this obsession with protein that must absolutely be consumed instead of the jug)
When there was the scandal of contaminated milk from China, famous German brands of organic products had to withdraw dairy products from the market because they no longer met demand and had obtained supplies from Brazilian producers who were out of stock had themselves sourced from ... China.
This is the whole problem, which I have already mentioned, of the officialization of organic farming which has lost in demand to open up to more producers who are less fussy about the real and final quality of the product. Hence this rush on the BIO as a factor of better quality and its deviances. But it's like in politics, in economics, in any sector where humans intervene and are concerned. Just because a few apples are rotten doesn't mean the whole basket has to be thrown away.
In short, in food as elsewhere, there are choices to be made but above all compromises ...
It is, of course, a matter of life choice where certain minor points can be satisfied with compromise and other points where compromise is the worst thing.
PS: I will not follow this subject because I lack time for other activities that are close to my heart. Sorry, but I have to make choices ...
It's good to have had the patience to talk so far. What I find especially unfortunate is this recovery for cash from the media literature without verifying the honesty of its sources and above all without checking it with the only competent people, namely those who live it every day. I just hope that these few clarifications will have helped readers with personal reflection.