Food Choices For Health And Planet

As one can see a person can eat meat and enjoy a healthy life as long as they exercise moderately and stay away from an excessive amount of saturated fats. The problem with the Lyman’s premise B is he overlooks the impossibility of all 6 billion people on this planet transferring to a vegan lifestyle. Only 3% of earths land is suitable for crop production, 10% of that is land based. Roughly 2/3 of the land is not suitable for crop production due to cites, swamps, snow, deserts etc. Of the 35% that can be donated to crop production less than 1/3 can be cultivated to produce products that can be digested by humans, leaving the rest to be covered by shrubs, grass etc. It is for this reality that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) promotes the use by humans of both plants and animals. “Domestic farms are crucial for food and agriculture, providing 30 to 40 percent of the agricultural sector’s global economic value. Around 2 billion-one third the global population-depend at least partly on farm animals for their livelihoods.

For example, Simon (2013) states, “...high consumption levels damage our health and costs billions of dollars to treat.” Simon portrays that eating a wide variety of meat is no longer healthy for individuals. Moreover, it can age and promote growth amongst individuals quicker. Some effects have even gone as far to be as detrimental as cigarette and tobacco use. As the public generally becomes more and more aware of such concerns, there are two possibilities. The first being that people decide to not change what they eat, and therefore, suffer from the costs that come along with a multitude of health problems. The other alternative, is for an individual to decide to change their diet. In turn, the businesses that function around serving meat, will have to restructure and remarket to the general

Did you know that buying that burger at dinner or frozen chicken at the grocery store is killing you, your family, and the environment? Despite that you grew up eating meat and accumulated the thought that you “can’t live without it,” you CAN go without consuming meat. If you were to give up meat, even for a while or better yet all together, you would not only be helping the earth, but also your health, and even our future generations to come. Believe it or not, eating meat causes huge side effect to your health. Factory farming even causes more pollution and chemical fume releases than cars. On top of that, it is wiping out vast sums of land and is causing deforestation, which is even causing plants and insects to become extinct every day. Factory farming and the consumption of meat is bad and should be limited or stopped altogether.

The first idea they propose is “because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed.” The article says this and then goes on to talk about the effects of our diets on our lives but when I read this sentence I thought “If this is the effect of the food going into our bodies what’s the effect on the environment?” through research I have found that most fast food places get their food from farms called factory farms these contribute to more global warming than all cars around the world. Also I found all the stuff we put into the food gets washed off eventually whether through rain or other ways and all these chemicals run off into our water and pollute our drinking

Also instead of buying food which is just going to be left at the back of the pantry or refrigerator we should wait and buy small amounts so we do not end up wasting so much food.

The journal takes a look at the sustainability, security, demand, and supply of food. (3) The writers of the Dietary Guidelines could learn a lot by following along with this source. They look at things from a global perspective and tell how the estimated world population will be over 9 billion by 2050. (3) How is it going to be sustainable to feed that many people following the dietary guidelines? It’s imperative that they take things like this in consideration when they are trying to tell people how to eat. They are trying to make Americans more healthy, which is a great thing, while causing many other negative effects in the ecosystems. (3) Another flaw in the dietary guidelines is the fact that there is no consideration on the income of families. (3) The prices of some of the things that is recommended is just not sustainable for some lower income families in this country. It would be great if they could include maybe some cheaper alternatives that would still beneficial for

Consuming less meat helped me lose weight, gain a livelier complexion, and decrease my risk of heart disease since it runs in my family. Therefore, focusing on the individual as the source of environmentally beneficial social change is more useful because a large organization misuses power to get ahead monetarily, instead of profiting from environmental actions. The individual not only values their treatment of power, but utilizes it to point out environmental concerns such as obesity. So, by starting to eliminate all processed meats to eventually put an end to all red meat would reduce obesity and construct a healthier society that will encourage change. In order to turn the reduction of red meat consumption feasible over the long term, all individuals must gain the knowledge to make the choice to have a healthier lifestyle by recognizing that eating less meat will put both the environment and their bodies in good

Most people around the world weren 't ever -- or are even now -- eating the way some of us do every day: steak-and-egg sandwiches for breakfast, quarter-pound cheeseburgers for lunch, two whole chicken breasts or a half-pound pork chop for dinner. And you know what? They were, or are, often healthier for it (if their diets provide adequate calories and nutrients for basic health, of course). Consider some of the studies reviewed in "Six Arguments," for instance: In one study, vegans (people who eat no meat, fish or dairy products) who added 8 ounces of beef to their daily diet saw their average blood cholesterol levels rise by 19 percent in just four weeks. In another, long-term, study, the American Cancer Society found that the people who ate the most beef, pork and processed meats (bacon, sausage, etc.) also had the highest risks of rectal cancer. And Harvard 's Nurses ' Health Study found that women who drink two or more glasses of whole milk a day substantially increased their risks of a heart attack. On the flip side, a community health program in California found that participants who switched to a low-fat, near-vegan diet -- and also boosted their physical activity -- saw their levels of bad cholesterol drop by 14 percent, their rates of high blood-pressure cut in half, and their weight reduced by an average of 7 1/2 pounds. In other words, meat

In a study conducted by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2003, it was estimated that there are approximately 2 billion people that live primarily on a meat-based diet while approximately 4 billion people live primarily on a plant-based diet (Pimentel, 2003). With this information we can deduce just how much of a difference in environmental effects there are between a vegetarian diet and a diet that consumes meat. For example, in this study it was found that the average amount of fossil fuel energy used for 1 kilocalorie of animal-based protein was 11 times more than that for 1 kilocalorie of grain protein. This statistic shows that the mass production of animal meat-based foods requires a much larger amount of the already limited amount of fossil fuels that are on Earth than plant-based food. By examining this fact, it is not a broad leap to assume that in reducing the worlds extravagant use of animal meat for consumption we could not only preserve the natural resources we have but also assist in reducing factors that add to climate change. Although the argument could be made that because both the vegetarian diet and a diet with meat in it use a large amount of resources there would be no difference in reducing the effects that the agriculture industry has on climate change but that is simply not true. While it is true that both diets use a large amount of resources, across the board the meat-based diet uses a much larger amount of resources. In fact, in the study conducted by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition it states, “The meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian [vegetarian] diet.” Although both are considered unsustainable, this study provides very valid evidence that the vegetarian diet is more sustainable than that of a meat-based

“Less meat, less junk food and more plants” that’s the main slogan of Mark Bittman’s talk. According to him, eating habits of modern society dramatically differs from earlier times: people found convenient buying prepared food (fast food, frozen food), that doesn’t need much time and effort, which, consequently, harms our health and contributes to disease can cause diabetes, cancer and heart diseases. Moreover, as he said meat is not that healthy to our organism as it believed to be. Firstly, cattle are mostly forced to eat can and soy, in place of natural grass to stay alive longer. Secondly, even if they’re called organic and packed tightly, it does not mean that they save freshness and will be good as they were at first, because they travel

The article future of food: Jon Foley's 5-step plan to feed the world by: Ben Jordan published in the National Geographic’s focuses on strategies to provide better nutrition worldwide. The author, Ben Jordan, raised points that can make readers ask questions. Is there going to be food available to people? Is it going to be harder or easier to find food? Is the food going to look different to people or the same? The future of our food is going to be more organic because people want to learn where food comes from. Food can evolve because people are going toward organic foods. There is going to be a lot more people becoming vegetarians because it is healthier. Many people have realized that by reducing their intake of meat and processed fast

When only the facts are addressed, the choice seems clear, a whole food plant based diet should be adopted by every nation. The leading cause of resource consumption and environmental degradation today is animal agriculture (Cowspiracy). Our environment would be protected and current problems that plague the environment would subside. All animals could enjoy the status of companion animals. Neglecting to recognize that eating plant based saves 1100 gallons of water, 45 lbs of grains, 30 sq feet of forest and reduces the bulk of greenhouse gases is prematurely escalating mankind’s own extinction (Cowspiracy). Becoming plant based is the most sustainable method of feeding the planet’s increasing population (Food Inc.). Hippocrates famously

On the other hand, the leading cause of obesity is not just meat consumption. The article puts all the blame on meat eaters and fails to give statistics about how much of an impact eating meat has on obesity. To put it another way recent studies have focused more of their attention on the amount of sugar and fast food products being consumed rather than the amount of meat consumption. Indeed, the flexitarian diet is a good idea but the article does not provide enough information about the means of the diet. For instance, does the diet consist of only cutting out one meat meal a week or once every six months? Therefor to provide a stronger foundation to get people to follow the idea, there needs to be more studies on the effect of eating meat

Deciding what you eat has arguably the most direct impact on yourself and on the environment. This means everyone should understand the consequences of their diets and take responsibility for what they eat.

Consumption of meat by humans creates several problems. First and foremost, raising animals for food compromises the environment. For example, it takes a large amount of natural resources to sustain the meat industry. The use of water, land, and food to raise animals for human consumption is not an efficient use of our limited resources. In contrast, it is more efficient to feed humans directly than to use land, food, and water to feed animals to be used as food. There are shortages of fertile land, clean water, and food in several third world countries. Many of these countries’ resources are allocated to produce feed for animals in developed countries around the world. As a result, the citizens of these countries are stricken with water and food shortages, while their crops are feeding cattle from across the globe. However, this problem can be solved by adopting a vegan diet. The vegan diet will allow a more efficient use of resources that in turn can be used to feed starving men, women, and children throughout the world. Consequently, more people in the world could be fed if the land used to grow feed for animals was used to grow food for humans.