Ecology and Vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2

Consumption and sustainable and responsible diet tips daily to reduce energy and water consumption, waste ... Eat: preparations and recipes, find healthy food, seasonal and local conservation information food ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 01/03/18, 10:45

excellent documentary that does not deal with vegetarianism as the title might suggest, but on: can there be another farming method more respectful of its environment. However, there are still fundamental questions such as: how to deal with the case of male chicks sent to live grinders, that of laying hens that are declining in production, the removal of calves from their mothers, discarded dairy cows after service rendered to humanity, without the slightest emotion, etc ... and all this to satisfy selfish culinary tastes, by closing your eyes and covering your ears on this useless butchery and therefore ethically questionable.
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 07/06/18, 13:40

https://www.france.tv/france-2/question ... iande.html
Another debate, one more, on » should we stop eating meat? " or not !
This debate, as interesting as it may be, shows a certain imbalance between its stakeholders: on the one hand 9 people who consume meat and on the other 2 VGL speakers: Brigitte Gothiere from L214 and Emeric Caron passed from VGR to VGL vegan.
The lively debate shows that everyone defends his convictions, fortunately, but also professions (professionals from any other sector of the economy would do the same) and therefore the subject is obscured and therefore becomes: should we to stop farming or not, which is another problem, or aspect of the problem.
In addition, the debate revolves less around the fact of ceasing to eat meat than the health aspect (risk of intoxication like Coli, industrial meat VS artisanal meat). In fact, if the health aspect could be completely regulated, would the consumption of meat, declining, re-increase at the same time? This is where the intervention of Brice Teinturier from IPSOS becomes interesting (50'11 '') with his surveys of the public and where the health aspect is perceived in relation to traceability precisely, other reasons becoming as important, statistically obviously and becomes more revealing of what the population thinks and no longer of professionals in the sector in question.
So :
61% consume meat including 36% every other day (which refers to the canteens below)
Men consume more than women
The young more than the elderly
Workers and employees, more than middle and senior managers. Hence his comment: " it is also an ideological representation in the noble sense of the term. It is therefore not only a need that we satisfy on our plate »
So: what could make the meat give up?
32% on traceability
28% for health
28% to preserve the planet
28% due to animal abuse
71% would be favorable for VG menus in canteens
41% could become VG of which 18% without problems and 26% would find it difficult

There is therefore a significant distance between professionals in the sector and the general population.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 10/06/18, 16:42

phew, what a job! I just don't have to do that, my sofa and my TV are just waiting for me. And so:

Faced with the media hype about food, we are trying here to shed some light objective scientist on the content of our plates. See also our file on GMOs.

First postulate: I am an objective scientist: just that! How are your ankles?

Omnivorous, vegetarian, vegan?
by Léon Guéguen - SPS n ° 283, October 2008
No food is essential, only nutrients are. The nutritional needs are met by a balanced diet, which is all the more easy to achieve when the diet is diversified and the choice of food is very open. Man, in essence omnivorous,
First confusion between behaving like an omnivore and being, IN ESSENCE, omnivorous.


In essence: Character and proper and necessary quality of a being; set of characters that make up something.

The comparative anatomy initiated by Cuvier and not questioned, currently, contradicts this postulate.

[*] a "pedophile" behaves like a sexual predator, he behaves as such, but is he, in essence?

who does not refuse any category of food, generally succeeds without too much difficulty. The problem is more complicated but not insoluble for the vegetarian who gives up meat and fish but accepts milk and eggs. On the other hand, the situation is very problematic for strict vegans who consume only plant-based foods, excluding any animal product including milk and eggs.


Very problematic for whom? for the food industry or for the consumer in question?

Why give up food of animal origin?
There are many reasons. First there are the religious prohibitions (especially for pork) which do not lend themselves to any discussion, as well as ethical considerations (respect and rights of the animal) or philosophical that do not rest on rational foundations


Philosophy, by its nature, is not rational, otherwise it would be science. But physiology, anatomy is rational science and its bases contradict his discourse

but that it is futile to contest. This was already the case with the Pythagoreans of ancient Greece who excluded all meat from their diet
other concerns, economic or ecological, are based on scientific (or sometimes pseudo-scientific) bases and lend themselves to debate.


Phew! We had a narrow escape !

It is true that the production of food of animal origin, based on weight or calories, consumes much more energy and water (5 to 7 times) than plant production. It is thus easy to argue that the cereals used for pig and poultry production would at least prevent hunger in the world (failing to feed it well). This fact is indisputableMore how (and why) to ban the consumption of meat, especially in emerging countries where demand increases with purchasing power?

But where is he going to get it all? Who can ban anything? All the prohibitions have given the opposite results to those expected. So no question of banning anything! But is it better to force, directly or indirectly, through official speeches promoting the lobbies of the bidoche? For example, in addition to the rest, in canteens.

In the case of herbivores the problem is posed differently. Indeed, if we accept the interest of milk production, we can consider that red meat (inevitable male cows and calves that it makes sense to fatten) is a "fatal product" that it would be illogical not to consume.

See the subtlety of the discourse: since we breed animals, not for their beautiful eyes, what are we going to do with them? otherwise consume them. There it is strong! It is like saying that: since we make cars we have to use them! Bravo for the logic!

In addition, ruminant herbivores, at least in extensive or semi-intensive farming, consume only fodder rich in cellulose that they are the only ones able to develop. They therefore do not compete with humans.

There, champion, he discovers that herbivorous animals eat grass, without competing with humans. But who said the opposite? Humans are not herbivores, any more than omnivores, my dear Watson!

It is true that this reflection does not concern very intensive dairy farms which use concentrated complementary feeds based on cereals and protein crops (notably soybeans) or corn silage which is very demanding in water.

Ah yes ?! But these are the ones that are intended, as a priority, to be eaten, as far as I know! and it's not just cows, there are also sheep, hens, ducks, pigs, etc ... who are subject to the same "diet", but he must not be aware!

From an ecological point of view, ruminants are rightly accused of producing, mainly by belching gas from microbial rumen fermentations, considerable quantities of methane, a gas with a very strong greenhouse effect.
However, they also play an irreplaceable role in maintaining the landscape and it is certainly better to graze or cut the grass than to destroy it with herbicides or to leave wasteland often difficult to exploit for another use.


I thought I noticed that most animals for human consumption do not live (if that's what it is to live) in these idyllic conditions, but rather surrounded by barbed wire, electrified cords, cages, life on gratings, in their shit what! But we see little (or not) of oxen, goats, sheep, pigs and coy free in the corn fields, in the vineyards, the fields of rapeseed, sunflower, radish, melons and salads to avoid the herbicides in question.

However, the harmful influence of overgrazing on soil conservation in semi-arid areas and deforestation should not be overlooked. sometimes improperly practiced to feed animals.

He lives on which planet of bisounours?

[b] In any event, consumption of animal products will increase everywhere in the world, especially in the most populous emerging countries, and this growth is inevitable. It will therefore be necessary to find the means to face it ![/B]

Well done, Monsieur de la Palice! And how do we deal with it? With artisanal or industrial farming?

Can we preserve our health by giving up animal products?
The proponents of these eating practices are convinced of this and that is their main objective. This question has been the subject of several summary reviews1. We must first consider several degrees in vegetarianism, in increasing order of risk of deficiency or impairment : the semi-vegetarian which excludes only mammalian meat but accepts fish and sometimes poultry (therefore without any nutritional problems),


It is not semi vegetarianism, but non vegetarianism:
vegetarianism:Diet excluding all animal flesh (meat, fish), but which generally allows the consumption of food of animal origin such as eggs, milk and dairy products (cheese, yogurt).

This gentleman seems to ignore or not remember, all speech discrediting all VG forms without any distinction the last century. How, they did not have all our current knowledge! Weird!

lacto-ovo vegetarianism which prohibits

and zou! the forbidden ate in all sauces. The VG is a choice, not a forbidden, no more than smoking, drinking alcohol are.

all meat and fish but not milk and egg, veganism that doesn’tadmits than plant foods,

It's already better ! Kids generally don't like spinach and parents admit that their taste is not attracted to this food. Should we force them? (What I did, shouldn't we eat everything as this character says) and their disgust was only accentuated, so it's not the right solution !

and finally, some even more restrictive forms of macrobiotic or fruit-based veganism.

One more ignorance.
https://ma-naturo.com/regime-macrobiotique/
macrobiotics is not veganism.

He is well known (from whom?) that these latter regimes, often with sectarian overtones, pose significant risks, in particular to children and pregnant or lactating women. Thus, numerous cases of severe megaloblastic anemia, due to vitamin B12 deficiency, and growth retardation have been reported in infants receiving only the milk from their mothers consuming such diets2.

Hey! Without seeming to, it is a dead man who writes here because all these deficiencies have ended my life and those of my loved ones over 3 generations.

Even vegans, big fans of taking B12, have a hard time finding in the medical literature, proven cases of this deficiency (which are found most of the time in non-VG elderly people), but their sources come from websites meaty (them who fight them on the ideological level) as what they are just not logical.

The crowding out of dairy products, eggs and fish also causes iodine deficiency in very young children (goiter), as well as essential derivatives of omega-3 fatty acids.

Absurd! Many VG consume iodine-rich foods like seaweed
http://sois.fr/fileadmin/pdf/Tableau_iode.pdf
but even without algae, other sources satisfy it.

Can we do without meat? Avoiding meat alone does not pose a major nutritional problem if the proteins are provided by dairy products and eggs, or even fish (semi-vegetarians). The main interest of meat is to provide vitamin B12 absent in plants (and therefore to prevent disorders ranging from anemia to serious neurological damage), iron of heme nature3 with very good bioavailability,

And one more !

Except that even these vegans fail to understand, nor explain why and how individuals (like me among others) without known contributions of B12 whose stocks do not exceed 3 or 4 years, according to documented sources, spend this period without troubles, no deficiencies (and I and my loved ones too, about fifty years in a row) Mystery and billiard ball… to change!

https://www.vivelab12.fr/vegamine-b12/
There is also this kind of literature (among vegans): At the same time, Seventh-day Adventists warned their followers of the stigma resulting from the radical application of the paradise diet to which everyone aspired:
“The abstinence from milk, eggs and butter practiced by some [Adventists] failed to meet the nutritional needs of the system, and led them to become weak and unable to work. As a result of which our health reform has been challenged ”(Ellen Gould White, Testimonies for the church, vol. IX, pp. 161-162).
"The day will come when we may reject some of the products we currently consume, such as milk and cream, or eggs, but my advice is that you should not get yourself in trouble prematurely, and inflict death on yourself as well" (Ellen Gould White, "Letter No. K 37", 1901).


It turns out that I studied closely, this literature that must be placed in its context and must be explained, what goes beyond this framework


Unlike plant iron present in the form of insoluble phytates or oxalates, zinc is more available than that of plants, especially seeds. A recent German study4 showed that 60% of vegetarians had a vitamin B3 stage 12 deficiency.


And in addition, the AADDC has shown that the level of B12 in the VGL was LOWER than average and excess rate "omnivores", but not deficient, and thatno signs of deficiency had been noted for this population. It is as if we compared an obese to an individual with muscles! The difference in weight, therefore in quantity, is not a sign of weakness, but only of condition.

Likewise, iron deficiency causing iron deficiency anemia is very common in vegetarian women.

https://www.vegetarisme.fr/comment-deve ... ibree/fer/
pretty complete article of the AVF, to read!

Deficiencies, whatever they are, can come from anything and not only from the superior or inferior presence of such or such element, health is a harmony between its various constituents and anemia can therefore have several sources. Now the "very frequent" is only a simple view of the mind of its authors.

If the vegetarian diet excludes fish and gives pride of place to nuts, seeds and oils, the risk of imbalance between omega-6 and omega-3 unsaturated fatty acids, by excess of the first and insufficiency of the second, is very increased. Anyway, well-chosen vegetable sources of omega-3 fatty acids (linseed oil and seed, marine micro-algae…)

Weird! I do not eat flax seeds or micro algae because I do not like their taste.

and possible iron and vitamin B12 supplements are enough to exclude any risk of deficiency.

And long live supplementation and para pharmacy! For thousands of years (millions according to the theory (smoker: provocation!) Of evolution, neither drugstores, nor factories has supplements existed and we are there in spite of everything. (This supplementation system nevertheless many current reasons for existing anyway and I have already mentioned them, but not for the reasons indicated.)

The exclusion of meat is even more and more often considered to be beneficial for health, even if reliable epidemiological studies are sorely lacking: cholesterolemia, lower blood pressure and body mass index, reduced risk of cardiac disorders, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer (increased risk of excess red meat).

Oh, the fun! It has been centuries and more particularly decades now that comparisons have been made, among the populations concerned with the impact of one food model rather than another.

What about milk and cheese?
Giving up milk and dairy products is much more problematic. Despite the anti-milk campaigns which are rampant in France and which have been the subject of critical developments, in particular on the question of calcium and osteoporosis5, it is obvious that it is very difficult to cover the calcium needs discarding any dairy product.


It aligns them in abundance!
The VG remind that ALL other mammals, without exception, no longer feed on dairy products after the weaning period, except humans and not all of them. Are wild and farm animals lacking in calcium? Apparently not, given their robust framework in large mammals as in non-mammals elsewhere: elephant, rhino, hippopotamus, giraffe, monkeys, lion, whale, etc.

A basic diet without dairy products cannot provide regularly, unless the few rare foods or mineral water rich in calcium are chosen more than 500 mg of calcium per day, while at least 800 mg or more 1000 mg in adolescents, postmenopausal women and the elderly. The argument that calcium from milk increases urinary calcium loss and is therefore ineffective for bone is grossly false
And blah, blah

The strict vegan diet therefore makes it difficult to cover calcium needs, especially since plant calcium is, contrary to what some people claim, more poorly absorbed by the intestine than milk calcium. The frequent lactose intolerance of milk as it is can be an obstacle to its consumption but is not a contraindication for dairy products like yogurt and cheese, and even for a glass of milk.

Thank you the dairy lobbies! and their propaganda!

A paradigm shift
In recent years, we have witnessed a paradigm shift regarding vegetarian diets6. Instead of first considering their faults (absence of certain vitamins, calcium, iron, etc.), it is increasingly common to emphasize their beneficial aspects linked to the presence of dietary fiber (vegetables, cereals, fruits ...) and micro-constituents with antioxidant power. The promotion of fruits and vegetables goes in this direction, their favorable effects in the prevention of various diseases being the object of a consensus (despite the presence, in almost all, of pesticide residues otherwise much criticized !).


It's not the fault of the VGs: right? : Cheesy:

These beneficial aspects are therefore opposed to the proven deleterious effects of excess saturated lipids and often salt supplied by animal products, or even excess energy and sugar from traditional Western diets.
It is true that epidemiological observational studies have not made it possible to question vegetarianism, or even sometimes veganism, in increasing the risk of morbidity.


Here then ! It is even the opposite!

However, most diseases being multifactorial, the conclusions of these studies are biased by the differences in behavior and lifestyle. Vegetarians, and even more vegans, are more attentive to their health and adopt a more hygienic lifestyle than omnivores: no tobacco or excess alcohol, physical exercise, avoidance of raw or harmful harmful foods, faster satiation by more fibrous and less energetic foods, therefore less excess food and less risk of obesity and hypertension, more frequent intake of food supplements. The favorable results observed are therefore not all directly attributable to the food consumed.

This is true for some of them! A large part of the vegans ( forums) and not the only ones (therefore strict VGL) do not care. Some people smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs with lots of medication, do not exercise and therefore do not have a particular lifestyle.

A reasonable and balanced omnivorous diet, associated with the same lifestyle rules, would lead to the same results.

The AADDC study raises this problem effectively, but finds that with a healthy lifestyle, or without it, the results are better than "omnis"

Do not confuse imposed veganism with chosen veganism
It is obvious that the veganism to which two-thirds of humanity are forced leads to serious nutritional deficiencies resulting from the lack of diversity in the food available. On the other hand, barring exceptions of a pronounced sectarian nature, veganism in force in developed countries is chosen and can accommodate a wide variety of products, which limits the risk of deficiency.


Well done ! He just discovered that!

In addition, the "easy" vegan is generally very concerned about the quality of his diet and is often a follower of specific food supplements.

Completely wrong! Culture is changing. According to the WHO, the consumption of meat is an index of social success for the poorest, who thus show their access to a representation of themselves more favorable in the eyes of others ... often the same as them.
« I can afford to buy meat ! "" how can you not afford to buy meat? Like the bourgeois, the nobility of yesteryear, who made the less affluent drool with envy. and therefore the chicken in the pot of Henry IV!
Times are changing and the bourgeoisie is doing the opposite by showing that social success is no longer in conspicuous consumption of drink, but on the contrary to distinguish itself again by its non consumption with or without food supplements, another sign of have the means to… stand out!

In conclusion, the vegetarian diet which does not exclude dairy products and eggs, and even better the semi-vegetarian diet which accepts fish and sometimes poultry meat, are perfectly compatible with a good nutritional balance and are even sometimes beneficial. for health compared to certain poorly controlled and unrestricted omnivorous diets.
However, vigilance is required for iron and vitamin B12, the deficiency of which is the cause of various very serious types of anemia. On the other hand, the vegan diet without milk or dairy products cannot ensure an adequate supply of calcium by common staple foods. The constitution of a balanced menu is then only possible by access to a wide choice of specific foods and supplements, which is excluded when this type of diet is imposed for economic or ideological reasons.


And re bla, bla, bla phoned by the CIV.

Eating meat would be "unnatural"
The motivations for a vegetarian diet are very varied: religious prohibitions, ethical choices, health claims, etc. But for some, vegetarianism is essential because humans were not designed to eat meat. It would be "unnatural". In support of these words, there is a cocktail of scientific-looking arguments. Example taken from one of the many websites developing this thesis:
“Carnivores have long, sharp, pointed teeth, large canines, and claws to allow them to shred the flesh of their prey. In humans, the incisors are remarkably developed, the reduced canines and molars have a large flat surface for chewing food. The jaw of a carnivore only moves up and down, in order to shred and bite the meat. The human jaw moves laterally to grind. The saliva of carnivores is acidic and intended for the digestion of animal proteins; it does not contain ptyaline, an enzyme that digests starches. Human saliva, on the contrary, is alkaline and contains ptyaline to digest starches. Unlike carnivores, humans do not have urase, an enzyme that breaks down uric acid. Carnivore urine is acidic, human urine is alkaline. The language of carnivores is rough, that of humans smooth. The human hand is designed to pick fruits and vegetables, not to pluck the entrails of the carcass of an animal corpse. " http://grandesmala.spaces.live.com/...

Eh, yes, there are physiology rules, whatever the AFIS pseudo-scientists!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Ahmed » 10/06/18, 19:44

Janic, you write:
Philosophy, by its nature, is not rational, otherwise it would be science.

No! What separates philosophy from science is their different domain, but both fall (and fortunately!) From the use of reason!
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 10/06/18, 20:50

Janic, you write:
"
Philosophy, by its nature, is not rational, otherwise it would be science.
No! What separates philosophy from science is their different domain, but both fall (and fortunately!) From the use of reason!
you are right but i was thinking more of the speeches which suppose that only the proofs are of rational type, which is difficult to bring in philosophy.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
A.D. 44
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 640
Registration: 15/04/15, 15:32
Location: Home
x 225

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by A.D. 44 » 31/07/18, 12:49

Hello,

I find the systematic cataloging tiring, the need to classify and get people into boxes.

fashions follow one another at a breakneck pace with permanent conceptual inventions and the neologisms that flow from them ...

Personally I do not eat meat every day (it has always been the case), in fact like my mother, my grandmother (and like many people in a not so distant time) ... Never been educated in the idea that we eat meat (or fish) 2x / day, 14X / week ...

In short, it’s not that recently, I’m told that I’m a flexivore!?!

me: What then ???

her: yes you are a flexivore, you have an eco conscience and by conviction you limit your consumption of animals, and you tend towards vegetarianism ...

me: uh ... I've always eaten like this, I'm omnivorous ... I eat a variety and my consumption is reasonable (well, I think). But it is that (common) sense that does not date from today ...

it: still you're flexivorous!
1 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 31/07/18, 13:20

ad 44 hello
Everyone interprets this term flexivore in their sauce depending on which side their choices are leaning on.
The VG will say that it is the fact of usual VG who will eat meat occasionally and particularly under certain social conditions (family, friendly or professional meetings.)
The non-VG will consider this as eating a little binge in the usual way, for example X times a week.
me: uh ... I've always eaten like this, I'm omnivorous

Again, there is confusion of terms. Food classification is not linked to opportunistic cultural habits, but in relation to the biological, anatomical constitution of individuals. (one cannot classify a cow, a horse, as omnivore because the grasses have insects on their leaves and are therefore absorbed as they are)
Therefore human is not an omnivore in itself, but is omnivorous by cultural opportunism as there are anthropophages who are for the same reasons.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
A.D. 44
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 640
Registration: 15/04/15, 15:32
Location: Home
x 225

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by A.D. 44 » 31/07/18, 13:34

re,

Janic wrote:Again, there is confusion of terms. Food classification is not linked to opportunistic cultural habits, but in relation to the biological, anatomical constitution of individuals. (one cannot classify a cow, a horse, as omnivore because the grasses have insects on their leaves and are therefore absorbed as they are)
Therefore human is not an omnivore in itself, but is omnivorous by cultural opportunism as there are anthropophages who are for the same reasons.


Let's go ... I don't understand anything anymore (you're hard to follow ...)

I thought that an omnivore could eat vegetables and animals ... in fact I am one, right? I can eat everything (or almost) and I happen to eat everything (or almost). After of course, I manage and adapt by eating only what is available (like a lot right?).
1 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 31/07/18, 14:28

Let's go ... I don't understand anything anymore (you're hard to follow ...)

This is normal, I went there too, because it does not seem that this subject is familiar to you and it often takes a lot of time and reflection to grasp all aspects.

I thought that an omnivore could eat vegetables and animals ... in fact I am one, right?

Exactly not! We are biological beings with precise functions which are determined scientifically according to incontestable criteria on this point. Compare your dentition (it's the easiest to do in anatomobiology) with that of other animals (you have multiple on the internet) or your pets and find your place there.
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366& ... OXgk9sTOZ8
I can eat everything (or almost) and I happen to eat everything (or almost). After of course, I manage and adapt by eating only what is available (like a lot right?).

There is an important difference between be able to eat everything, with the help of our culture: cooking, knives, forks and other accessories and to get to eat everything WITHOUT these accessories as ALL other animals do, without exception. Try it, it's funny! : Cheesy:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 22/06/19, 14:20

0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Sustainable consumption: responsible consumption, diet tips and tricks"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 111 guests