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

Ecology and Vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 30/04/11, 12:43

Ecology: environment and agriculture, meat and vegetarianism, food and CO2.

Topic divided since: https://www.econologie.com/forums/energie-et ... 10728.html

Resume dual interest messages:

START ADDITIONS BY MODERATION

jlt22 wrote:Before fighting to regulate the energies, we should drastically reduce our consumption, namely:
-to become vegetarians
(...)


Janic wrote:Before fighting to regulate the energies, we should drastically reduce our consumption, namely:
-to become vegetarians
The consumption of animal products is one of the biggest ecological waste in France (and worse in America). With the population growing steadily, it is certain that continuing to consume as many meat products will have a problem as important as that of renewable energies. We can not continue to run towards one more than one side, knowing that we have reduced our consumption by a few percent.




Janic wrote:this site is not bad either: www.viande.info/ afterwards we can no longer say: "I did not know!"


Obamot wrote:+ 1 for meat!
And jit22 did well not to say "vegan", because it is very complicated to manage, if you want to avoid food squares.
By cons, the biggest difficulty in food is cultrural (not to say cult). The problem for Westerners is the frequency ... 1x per week (or small quantities at each faith like in Asia) would be good enough. And the health of the population would gain. And then we should absolutely develop the consumption of vegetable proteins (tofu, etc.)


END ADDITIONS BY MODERATION BEGINNING OF THE DEBATE

And jit22 did well not to say "vegan", because it is very complicated to manage, if you want to avoid food squares.


Another misconception widely spread by the media at the service of meat lobbies.
Since 42 years vegan, 2 vegan children until their choice of adults, 6 small vegan children without health problems, nor deficiencies besides my close vegans also for more or less long time. A single imperative, eat organic and complete not to consume food deficient, sick and poisoned.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 30/04/11, 18:40

This is not very nice of you by Janic, and very unproductive ... If you want, I can also give you other feedback ...

Then I totally insult myself against this type of completely erroneous approach of univocal and unilateral, not to say dogmatic, that would require to say:
- you MUST eat EVERYTHING organic.
- DO NOT eat this or that (in this case meat).
- It is necessary to drink 2 liters of water a day.
- you MUST eat meat for a week to start losing weight ...
- It MUST be vegan rather than vegetarian.
- It MUST be vegetarian rather than vegan.

etc, and so on and better ...

All this is arch-false, that's not how we build the immunity of the body

How many times will we have to repeat that because we are all different: our metabolism does not work identically the same for all peoples around the world ... And besides, the same metabolism will not work in an identical way in climate tropical than temperate or northern ... And this depending on the "food available and consumed on the spot!" There are thousands of examples of how an organism can adapt to a given environment according to its needs! ... "listen" to his body and his taste, informs ...

How many times will it be necessary to repeat that physical exercise as well as sun exposure are also part of the "food bowl".

How many times will it be necessary to repeat that the acid / base balance is at the center of any good metabolism of nutrients!

How many times will it be necessary to repeat that once this equilibrium is established, with practice we realize that establishing digestion by fermentation => and much more profitable and essential for the body, whatever either the diet, that many other futile things, like the dogmatic choice of the type of protein ingested !!!! (fermentation VS putrefaction)

Then, a non-square food bolus is ONE MIX of different things and not an EXCLUSION of food, which always has consequences poorly controlled depending on the subjects with whom it is intended ... BECAUSE THE ESSENTIAL IN EVERYTHING THAT, IMMEDIATELY AFTER A CERTAIN WISDOM, THIS IS THE CONCEPT OF PLEASURE !!!


So first thank you for appearing at meat lobbysuch comments are meaningless given the fight I have been waging in the area of ​​prevention for more than 20 years .... Then "meat" is only a ridiculous part of the nutrition process, which is far from to focus on the essentials, and finally it is better to stop focusing on anything.

Besides, you are not even able to validly defend your point of view somewhat lacunary (see the other son in which you spoke on the subject, and your site full of mistakes). And it's not gossiping you have written a book just as incomplete that you will impress us (at least not bibi).

We had already talked about all this in another thread, and your knowledge of nutrition are pretty parcelaires, I noted many errors in your remarks, it must be recognized.

But let's go back: since you are invited elsewhere, how do you make sure that everything is "organic" ...?

Besides, you can not even guarantee it yourself since the labels "organic" are controlled only on their "good faith" and the presentation of their accounting / invoices ... Unless cultivating the "bio" so- even...

Then the lunch, often taken on the run at the cafe of the company or the restaurant ... when it's not a sandwich in the car .... Is all this "bio" is the air we breathe in an urban environment is "bio" or charged with chemical effluents, traffic, aircraft, heating, industry and all human activities? Not to mention the micro particles suspended in the air with POPs ... To which we must add all the food containers and other plastic bottles containing bisphenol, paraben and other endocrine disruptors, such as boron in drinking water. .. see the fabrics of our clothes in synthetic mattresses, directly in contact with the skin ...

So yes, that's what I say, it's possible but "it is complicated" ...

So, if you eat everything "bio", it will not make much difference, and it's not cheap! (Although I strongly encourage doing so ... for those who can afford ...)

For those who have an economical choice to make => considering the price of organic. You should know thatit is better to eat non-deficient and "non-organic" than the other way around ...

I stop there for now ... Because otherwise, I feel "We're going to rewrite the whole forum» : Mrgreen:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 01/05/11, 11:18

Obamot hello
Wouoohhh, what a "diatribe".
... If you want, I can also give you other feedback ...
I am always interested. I will not repeat everything since I agree with you for the most part. Diet is one of the health factors among others, but remains one of the important factors. After that depends on the level at which you place the bar and each place where he wants. On the other hand can you affirm that the industrial food that you find in the food rays, is neither deficient, nor sick, nor poisoned?
Then I located the meat in terms of its significant ecological impact and secondarily in terms of health.
you are not even able to validly defend your point of view somewhat gaping (see the other sons in which you intervened on the subject, and your site filled with faults).
We learn every day, so fill my gaps and tell me what these mistakes are, I am still and always takers.

since you are invited elsewhere, how do you make sure that everything is "organic" ...?
Good question ! There is a fundamental difference between exceptionally consuming a product that does not meet its usual criteria and doing it every day. I am not sectarian (in the pejorative sense of this term), but I strive to be consistent with my choices, just as I hope others do the same.
Besides, you can not even guarantee it yourself since the labels "organic" are controlled only on their "good faith" and the presentation of their accounting / invoices ... Unless cultivating the "bio" so- even...

This is the problem inherent in everything! What guarantees that the meat you buy is hormone-free, GMO-free, or no pesticides or other quality criteria? In theory, state-certified inspection bodies and fraud control services are paid for this.
So, if you eat everything "bio", it will not make much difference, and it's not cheap! (Although I strongly encourage doing so ... for those who can afford ...)

Another image of Epinal widely publicized. Eating organic is not a matter of means (most of the income goes into spending on equipment (computers, cars and other gadgets of our consumer society) to the detriment of basic needs.
So it's a matter of choice rather than means. In addition, organic consumers (apart from a few Parisians) are rarely well-off and are part of the popular strata.

For those who have an economical choice to make => considering the price of organic. You should know that it is better to eat non-deficient and "non-organic" than the other way around ...

Is there a misunderstanding in your sentence which would imply that "the reverse" would mean organic and therefore deficient? On the other hand, the problem would be to find non-deficient non-organic food, given current cultivation methods.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 01/05/11, 13:27

Janic wrote:
For those who have an economical choice to make => considering the price of organic. You should know that it is better to eat non-deficient and "non-organic" than the other way around ...

Is there a misunderstanding in your sentence which would imply that "the reverse" would mean organic and therefore deficient? On the other hand, the problem would be to find non-deficient non-organic food, given current cultivation methods.


What did it mean Obamot, what is more important to focus on nutritional quality than the quality of the product in terms of bio / non Bio.
Example with organic palm oil ... bio can be but in terms of nutritional qualities and their impact on health we will iron ...

And in the same light it's not because it's organic, fair trade or anything else that's virtuous!
I take the example of organic palm oil, fair trade, planted on land from ... deforestation of primary forest ....
Admit that to find it is hard!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/05/11, 15:49

Exactly and excellent, and since you are addressing the indissociable issue of "priorities", I would like to eventually throw some modest tracks, from different angles, and related criteria. And first at the global level:

Janic wrote:
... If you want, I can also give you other feedback ...
I am always interested. I will not resume everything since I agree with you for the most part.


Alleluia! : Mrgreen:

Let's look at the overall plan: For China, India and any other culturally very different region in terms of all that is agro-food or even the choice of the model of society. I completely agree with Christophe, who says: "That we should not use the pretext of a need for development elsewhere so as not to call into question our own modes and paradigm of consumption" and also stop deducing «That everyone would want to imitate our model» inappropriate...

What they do is one thing, but let's sweep in front of our doors without turning away from our own responsibilities ...

Because there is nothing to do, but the "local choices", depend on us in the politics of transport, energy, and will also influence the primary sector agri-food, to the industrial strategies since all the sectors can not implant and develop without the agreement of the communes ... (That it is in an ideal world of responsible policies ^ ^ but it is necessary to start again there ...) To do thus what it should here and now will have an impact on the climate here elsewhere and tomorrow => it is therefore here that it is the most efficient to start.

So particularly in terms of health / diet: and the influence of our choices on the climate ... We can cite great classics, like that of dropping the car, to go on foot, choose the bicylette or public transport, whenever possible ... And here, China, India and many others are rather well placed ...

Let's see the rest locally ...
Last edited by Obamot the 01 / 05 / 11, 16: 02, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/05/11, 16:00

For agro-industrial food is much more complicated!

And with regard to the climate, let's not forget the biggest scandal: that of bio-fuels, which trim on the cultivable parts, to the detriment of agriculture, even if it is claimed that the fallow can be used to make fuel. This is not true, since it is the result of the depletion of soils, and when a field is returned to the anarchic development desired by nature, it is (for example) to allow nitrogen to be re-established in the soil. Soils, and not to extract the substance necessary for regeneration ... Not total sense. Then the cultivation of bio-fuels means the continuation of the mode of transport / current consumption, while the goal is to seek out (without leaving a dogma to enter another ...)

Janic wrote:Diet is one of the health factors among others, but remains one of the important factors. After that depends on the level at which the bar is placed et each place where he [color = blue] wants[/ Color].

Excuse me, it is not out of a spirit of contradiction, it is especially that this point is very interesting on the psychological level. So, since sometimes the "decision" the choice of the type of food escapes for several reasons to the people concerned: it is unfortunately all too often "Everyone the place where he peut».

While indeed you are right: la Responsibility Law should depend clearly on the personal will! (or in political questions that set the rules of the game at the civil level ... the choice of the electorate, always in an "ideal" world ...)

As in the communes, it is difficult to reconnect with good practices - victims they are, solicitations of all kinds from the business world to divert them from their primary vocation, when they should above all safeguard the general interest => families are also victims of these solicitationsIt is extremely difficult to change / re-establish "good" eating habits, and parents influenced by their children, who are themselves influenced by the ad, have difficulty opposing the consumption of sweetened lunches. , then sodas, chocolate bars at any time, chips etc ... And that's the gear! (As for burgers "organic" between two slices of bread with transgenic cereals ... but again we must agree). We come to the next point ...:

Janic wrote:On the other hand can you affirm that the industrial food that you find in the food rays, is neither deficient, nor sick, nor poisoned?


This is where I have a hard time following you! You say first that everyone places the "bar [relatively] where he wants, but you introduce this question about "Possible carrences" food rays?

I do not know if I misunderstood in the other thread and here, but it is the individuals, who are square (or not), and not "the stalls" ... To my knowledge, nobody forces us to be content with the "supply" in situ, if it does not correspond to our demand (although here the legislator is very lax, not to say criminal to authorize products harmful to the sale, even fatal to the long without precaution ...)

The communes are no longer obliged to accept all the traps that the private sector places before them ...

This is the problem of advertising that seeks to influence choices "in what the big distrib / industry offers" (hence the obligation they have to add the words: "Eat five fruits and vegetables a day"). Just as it should be reminded to some elected officials, they are there to safeguard the general interest ...

Because to my knowledge, no one expects consumers (elected officials ...) to the kalach to force them to make such or such a choice, or prevent them from going to the local grocer to find a first-pressed oil a little more expensive but so much better ... (same for shopping at the market, etc.)

Janic wrote:Then I located the meat in terms of its significant ecological impact and incidentally in terms of health

So yes, but if there is awareness, then change habits conssentie way, the decline in meat consumption will be a consequence, but it is still so far ... (elected officials, and renewable energy , etc.)
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/05/11, 16:06

Janic wrote:tell me what are these faults


False VS right? And especially for whom? (God is in paradise VS the 'devil' is in the detail ^^)
It is up to us, and to us alone that it is up to us to understand what is good for oneself (or not), then the notion of "fault" and "forgiveness ... of nature", are all notions. relative (for example with us to the Judeo-Christian culture, which often reasons in a binary way => good VS bad ... white VS black, victim VS guilty ...) "Theoretical model" is often badly done because it introduces potentially dogmas (for politicians, it is often the one "The people not mature enough to understand" (hence the requiem announced by Civil Society, several times ...). Two other opposing paradigms are those of industrial food but so hygienic VS ... the return to the sources of "organic" not organic but so guilt-free ... I agree with Dedelco, you should not see "the good" VS "the evil" everywhere ... But when the latter is there: it must be taken care of ... ^^

No one can rule out making mistakes, the free choice is to be able to correct them ... What I would like to say is that we should not reverse the PRIORITIES, at least as a rule (the elected officials know for that ...). And little by little, "regain its independence" to manage its food bowl itself and with pleasure. Which means "learning to know how to set priorities". If we fall ill, the "pleasure" escapes us, and then it's time to wonder about what went wrong and why we eat, did not give us enough strength to "keep control!" But nothing is simple ...

The pleasure of elected officials: it often takes a whole political career to change a light bulb : Mrgreen: (there stops the parallel, I said everything ...)

Janic wrote:
since you are invited elsewhere, how do you make sure that everything is "organic" ...?
Good question ! There is a fundamental difference between exceptionally consuming a product that does not meet its usual criteria and doing it every day. I am not sectarian (in the pejorative sense of this term), but I strive to be consistent with my choices, just as I hope others do the same.

Nothing to say. (Finally we agree that it is about the "personal will" ;-)

Janic wrote:
Besides, you can not even guarantee it yourself since the labels "organic" are controlled only on their "good faith" and the presentation of their accounting / invoices ... Unless cultivating the "bio" so- even...

This is the problem inherent in everything! What guarantees that the meat you buy is hormone-free, GMO-free, or no pesticides or other quality criteria? In theory, state-certified inspection bodies and fraud control services are paid for this.

Nothing to say. (We agree that they are not doing their job => scandal!)

Janic wrote:
So, if you eat everything "bio", it will not make much difference, and it's not cheap! (Although I strongly encourage doing so ... for those who can afford ...)

Another image of Epinal widely publicized. Eating organic is not a matter of means (most of the income goes into spending on equipment (computers, cars and other gadgets of our consumer society) to the detriment of basic needs.
So it's a matter of choice rather than means. In addition, organic consumers (apart from a few Parisians) are rarely well-off and are part of the popular strata.

Still agree. Yes absolutely, of choice, and more precisely of priorities ... But eating "organic" is not an absolute necessity in the hierarchy.

And who are we talking about in Europe? Where are some privileged people in Europe? If we subscribe to the average salary in Portugal or Greece. Even if I am, those who set fire to the suburbs in France, do not necessarily have to be of this opinion either ...

Janic wrote:
For those who have an economical choice to make => considering the price of organic. You should know that it is better to eat non-deficient and "non-organic" than the other way around ...

Is there a misunderstanding in your sentence which would imply that "the reverse" would mean organic and therefore deficient?

No, precisely there is no sense : Mrgreen: as Sen-no-Sen ...
1) if you eat "organic" but do not put the right priorities, you will end up with "organic carrencé" as opposed to a bolus not carrencé food but not organic. And here the "organic" label does not presage the nutritional quality of the labeled product.
2) the non-squared-not-organic is preferable to the “organic squared”, because the fact of not missing anything will give to the body, the nutrients allowing it to eliminate the toxins / toxic, possibly present in the “ non-organic ”(but for seasonal fruits and vegetables, pesticides often fall by nature => the abundance means that there would be less need => for the off season in forced cultivation it is very considerable).
3) while the one who eats "organic" to eat "organic", without a fair balance, will surely develop allergies, or even cancer, than any consumer lambda remote control by the pub ...
4) but obviously that among all those who eat "organic", there are some who know how to fix the correct priorities. It requires some humility, because there is always a way to progress ... or to regress ...
5) can also set mixed priorities of "non-organic" seasonal foods + high quality and "organic" priority foods to put the odds on their side with a small budget. For example, you never have to worry about the quality of the oils, whatever your budget: it's vital! Besides the "organic" food season, will be cheaper anyway, because of greater abundance on the market ...

It was my way of correcting the syllogism that would suggest that eating “organic” is necessarily better! => It depends on "how", "where" and "for whom" ...

Janic wrote:On the other hand, the problem would be to find non-deficient non-organic food, given the current cultivation methods.

"Considering the current cultivation methods", hum, the use of products intended to increase the yields does not compromise the nutritional qualities, nor does it increase the carrences: it causes an increase of molecules to be filtered / eliminated by the body which can in principle do it suitably from then on that it is not squared, it is not the same. Carrences or not: we are the ones who fix this by our "priorities", individual, consent!

On the other hand, someone weakened and sick, will have every interest in being very selective in his food choices, it can go to his survival! This is why we must go towards "all organic" cultivation solutions => BUT THROUGH DRASTIC HEALTH REGULATIONS AND THE BAN ON THE SALE OF HARMFUL PRODUCTS ONCE THE SOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND. The fight against soil depletion, the protection of “non-specialist” consumers with modest incomes AND IT IS THE ROLE OF HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS TO PROTECT CITIZENS ...

Here again, the laws concerning the "poisoning" of populations exist, but are rarely applied (only in extreme cases with immediately perceptible effects, but not on long-term impacts ... with sneaky and crossed effects ...)
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 01/05/11, 17:53

Obamot
Janic wrote:
tell me what are these faults

False VS right? And especially for whom? (God is in paradise VS the 'devil' is in the detail ^^)
It is up to us, and to us alone that it is up to us to understand what is good for oneself (or not), then the notion of "fault" and "forgiveness ... of nature", are all notions. relative (for example with us in the Judeo-Christian culture, which often reasons in a binary way => good VS bad ... white VS black, victim VS guilty ...) A "theoretical model" is often badly screwed up because 'it potentially introduces dogmas (for politicians, it is often that of "the people not mature enough to understand" (hence the requiem announced by Civil Society, several times. I agree with Dedelco, he does not must not see "the good" VS "the evil" everywhere

I will not take everything over, we would not get out of it, especially since on many points (but not all) I agree. I just stop at the point of faults. I did not understand the meaning of your answer (above) as: (God is in paradise VS the 'devil' is in the detail ^^) or “(for example with us in the Judeo-Christian culture, which often reason in a binary way => good VS bad ... white VS black, victim VS guilty ...)
Not having this culture, I am not able to give an opinion.
Two other opposing paradigms are those of the industrial food but so hygienist VS ... the return to the sources of "bio" not organic but so easy to remove.

What do you mean by that? "So hygienist and bio not organic? "
... But when the latter is there: we must take care of it ... ^^
I learned that prevention is better than cure. Should we wait for a disaster to make arrangements?
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/05/11, 20:25

- Sorry, I respect the culture that I do not know either, but what does it matter! Since obviously a binary reasoning is something like that:

Janic wrote:One more false idea widely used by the media in the service of meat lobbies.


One can thus be of a culture, but very strongly impregnated by another ... Like a Christian living in a country with majority Muslim or Buddhist with about 90% ... the guy will not be really only only "Christian". .

At the same time everything is "organic", and nothing is => of what is market gardening (in the original sense of the species ...) Man has for a long time transformed EVERYTHING, so that what the 'we find in "today's" vegetable gardens is already an orientation desired by man, in terms of flavors, colors etc ... ... then "organic" what does it mean if it is not a binary categorization? VS what would not be !!! Another binary reasoning !!!

No other comment on the last two quotes you take out of context, which should be refocused as follows.

Since we can not validate it as correct semantically (while understanding where you want to go, but without being convinced that it was the supposed meaning that was the good ... OUCH!), as much as in a way we can see a bit of dogmatism (and an approach, somewhere binary, since you consider relatively "false" what does not belong to your own practices ...) it would be necessary to review a certain number of things, but it is not for me to judge, I note that if there is error (to put everyone comfortable) they do not necessarily come from misconceptions, but confusion, error / s in priority / s or resistance to change or restrictions that do not necessarily have to be:

Janic wrote:One imperative, eat organic and complete not to consume a deficient food, sick and poisoned.

It's not the "food that's lacking" , but we, which by our choices, will cause us to be starved if we omit to consume such / such / these: vitamins, catalysts trace elements etc ... so: obvious confusion! (It's not a question of agreeing or not Janic !!!)

Then, a completely "organic" food can be quite toxic "naturally" or not, depending on the circumstances and the type of food. So still confusion!

For the rest, I do not intend to convert anyone to abandon the consumption of meat products, if it is consumed correctly and moderately (while opening the door to all alternatives without excluding any ...)

As an example (like all my other posts ... I gave just a few tracks): I do not allow myself to say that you are in error! I say that your food bowl suits you and that apparently it is very well suited to the rest of your family !!! And this is the essential, so do not change (or do as you please).

It seems to me that everything has been said. More other comment to predict, apparently. : Lol:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 02/05/11, 09:25

obamot hello
Janic wrote:
A single imperative, eat organic and complete not to consume food deficient, sick and poisoned.

It is not the "food that is deficient", but we, who by our choices, will make that we will be squared if we omit to consume such / such / them: vitamins, catalysts trace elements etc ... so: obvious confusion! (It's not a question of agreeing or not Janic !!!)

I then precise my thought: the intensive culture induces a weakness in the plant (like the animal in industrial breeding) which is translated by diseases more or less camouflaged by the so-called phytosanitary products toxic for the plant and the animal as much as for the future consumer. So lacking in the sense that the final product would be "dead" before being harvested, just like the industrial farm animals kept alive by many artifices. Now, you also emphasize it, if the human is sick by deficiencies, it seems logical to me to consider that it is the same for the plants and the sick animals too.

Then, a completely "organic" food can be quite toxic "naturally" or not, depending on the circumstances and the type of food. So still confusion!

The term organic does not mean non-toxic, such as coffee, alcohol and other products unsuitable for human consumption, but only do not use the so-called chemical products of commerce by replacing them with products that are not harmful to the culture and final consumption. I thought that this nuance was largely assimilated since the time it is about it.

For the rest, I do not intend to convert anyone to abandon the consumption of meat products, if it is consumed correctly and moderately (while opening the door to all alternatives without excluding any ...).
Neither have I long been trying to convert anyone, either in this field or in others. But when the subject is mentioned, I give also my opinion, which is only an opinion. This site is sensitive to various aspects of ecology and this one is one that you consider (rightly or wrongly as not a priority) but each places his priorities where his personal sensitivity carries it! So, giving up meat is not just a dietary question, it is also having a compassionate humanistic look at the fate of all those living beings with whom humans often have affective relationships. How many would go to accomplish the final act of killing to feed? (Of course, many people are not embarrassed or sensitive)

As an example (like all my other posts ... I gave just a few tracks): I do not allow myself to say that you are in error! I say that your food bowl suits you and that apparently it is very well suited to the rest of your family !!! And this is the essential, so do not change (or do as you please).
I heard it well, I reacted only because you said that veganism was complicated to manage

Quote:
And jit22 did well not to say "vegan", because it is very complicated to manage, if you want to avoid food squares.

Being concerned and especially speaking experience VECUE and not purely abstract, I said that this is not the case. On the contrary, it is very easy and not providing deficiencies from a few very simple elements. By cons I understand very well that it may not interest other people (which I respect) but I can not let pass an inaccurate statement and especially never verified.
0 x

 


  • 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 98 guests