China's plan to cut meat consumption by 50%

[liuzhou]

China's plan to cut meat consumption by 50%

 

I wish them well, but can't see it happening. Meat eating is very much seen as a status symbol and, although most Chinese still follow a largely vegetable diet out of economic necessity, meat is still highly desirable among the new middle classes. The chances of them willingly giving it up, even by 50%, seems remote to me.

[Porthos]

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading.

[Deryn]

It always amuses me how much governments love to conduct giant experiments on the people they are supposed to serve.

 

I notice that no mention is made of the antibiotics and hormones, and the kinds of feed being fed to the animals they condemn as being the cause of diabetes and obesity (and I think there is a good chance those, not the 'meat' itself, are the problem there) - just the supposed effects on the environment when methane is released. Honestly, that article sounds like a load of propaganda which isn't even well written .. the dots are not connected. I am not a big meat eater but my intuition tells me that meat per se is not the cause of obesity. In fact, I would probably be slimmer (thanks, Dr. Atkins) if I did eat a lot more meat - but, I would want to make sure that meat was pasture raised and as free of hormones and antibiotics as I could get it.

 

And frankly I cannot see (cow made) methane blasting major holes in the atmosphere either (or if I can, it is just a funny scenario in my head when I dream in cartoons - a billion cows standing around in fields, clothespins on their noses, emitting a constant stream of bubbles of smelly gas orbs that float skyward. The earth itself has released large amounts of methane (which may indeed cause some warming I gather) several times in history apparently long before people (and cows) were even present. But, now .. along with a carbon tax I am sure there will be a methane tax. Hmmm .. what will be next that can be taxed? What else that is key to the food supply and food cultures around the world will be declared as bad for you and the environment? Not much left to criticize. Save the minnows (but don't eat those either) - get rid of the cows and pigs and chickens, and the vegetables and fruit (unless they are GMO and use loads of pesticides), and the grains (because carbs are bad for you) and the fish (unless farmed in 'sustainable' farms and fed hormones and antibiotics)? Meal worms anyone?

 

My note to the Chinese people - enjoy the meat if you like it and can afford it - but buy local and from farmers who raise their animals without those hormones and antibiotics.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Deryn (log)

[liuzhou]

28 minutes ago, Deryn said:

And frankly I cannot see (cow made) methane blasting major holes in the atmosphere either (or if I can, it is just a funny scenario in my head when I dream in cartoons - a billion cows standing around in fields, clothespins on their noses, emitting a constant stream of bubbles of smelly gas orbs that float skyward.

 

Very little cow meat (beef) is eaten in China (although it is rising). The vast majority of meat is pork, so much so that the word for meat, 肉, means pork unless specified otherwise. Of the other mammal meats, mutton is probably next, mainly in the north and west of China. Beef is a poor third, and very often isn't beef at all, but water buffalo. Chicken and duck (probably more duck than chicken) are No.2 to pork. One good thing is that most animals are eaten nose to tail, so very little is wasted.

A surprisingly high proportion of meats are organic. Those  antibiotics etc are expensive. All the poultry and egg I buy is organic. However, there is no legal definition of "organic" in Chinese legislation, so who really knows?

Edited June 21, 2016 by liuzhou
clarification (log)

[Deryn]

Liuzhou - Then what is it about meat that these 'experts' seem to think is causing obesity and diabetes? Why is meat the (current) culprit in 'public health'? And why talk about methane if there are few cows (although all animals emit some, cows are the most notorious 'producers' as far as I know). CO2 is probably not a major contributor to 'climate change' (despite 'experts' still spouting that it is) but in any event, plants produce more of that and environmentalists want lots of trees/plants for that very reason and bemoan the razing of the Amazon because millions of trees and jungle plants are being lost every day. Fertilizers and land clearing - well those are more about plants than animals - unless indirectly for animal feed (but those fertilizers may get into the meat too through feed - are they good for any of us?). Water usage, pollution .. serious issues .. the former more in some places than others, the latter everywhere, and especially in Chinese cities from what I understand -  and to my mind those are really the issues we should all be addressing. But, those are inconvenient problems to solve because they require a buy-in by powerful corporations and governments, and not much they can directly blame or shame the 'people' for.

 

Meat is not that caloric in the grand scheme of things - and supplies protein which is good and necessary for life. My thought is that they are feeding these animals corn and soy crops - and those feeds I believe may be contributing to obesity in an indirect form perhaps, and I suppose even to diabetes. However this article does not really say what it is about meat that supposedly is the problem - other than methane, CO2 and fertilizers. But if one reduces the amount of meat people eat they will eat more plants to make up for it. And plants require farming - and water, and land clearing and fertilizers. Merry go round.

 

This article is just not well written - I think it rambles all over the place and doesn't really provide any proof about one of its leading premises - that obesity and diabetes are being caused by eating meat and that public health can be improved if everyone eats less meat. It is blatantly a propaganda tool for promoting the global warming/climate change 'message' - and more importantly ensuring  that commoners know they are responsible for (and need to fix) all that. Nature has nothing to do with it at all of course, despite the fact that climate changes all the time, has since time immemorial and will continue to do so after we are gone. Mantra 'du jour' now is that only 'we' can save the earth (as though we were that powerful) if we eat less meat. Right. It's about money and control. Do you really believe that the powers that be that issue these statements (plans) saying that the people should do this or that, actually follow those 'rules' themselves? No, this is another of those ... do as I say, not as I do .. things.

 

Maybe people should eat less meat but we need far more information than a general statement that says that the consumption per person is x amount - MANY people in China (and elsewhere) are probably still eating meager amounts of meat ... as you said, meat is status there .. so the more wealthy are probably consuming more of it on balance .. but why is that happening ... they got wealthy in recent years doing what? Reduce their incomes and they will eat less meat. Therefore if eating meat causes climate change, it follows that affluence probably causes climate change. Move them out of the cities and reduce pollution. Stop industry and commerce, ensure people are unemployed. Send them back to farm meager plots of land by hand and make them use handmade tools and no fertilizers and they will get more fit and lose weight. Let's go back in time. Sure, let's go back to primitive times ... without bathrooms they will pollute the waters even more, and with charcoal for cooking they will still pollute the air - but they will consume less meat and there will be fewer animals and less land clearing and .. and ... and ... and ...  perhaps they will die off sooner again .. and when they do their carbon footprint goes down considerably. China tried a one child policy to reduce the population growth - now they have other problems as a result of that even if it did reduce growth for a while. And China's industrial growth has been unchecked for years too.

 

These are complex issues - but commanding the people to eat less meat is probably not going to solve anything for anyone. That is why I said it is a giant experiment.

 

Yes, I know some (perhaps even many) here will not agree with my view on this subject - but when an article like that is published, it really irks me. It is so illogical, badly written and see-through - and yet people buy it.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Deryn (log)

[liuzhou]

Sorry, but I'm going to take issue with your last post @Deryn.

 

For a start the article is a news report. It reports an announcement by a department of the Chinese government. I shared it out of general interest. It does not pretend or aim to be a scientific analysis of the causes of obesity or anything else.

 

12 minutes ago, Deryn said:

it rambles all over the place and doesn't really provide any proof about one of its leading premises

 

The article makes no premises. It reports someone else's.

 

13 minutes ago, Deryn said:

Do you really believe that the powers that be that issue these statements (plans) saying that the people should do this or that, actually follow those 'rules' themselves?

 

I haven't indicated what I believe. I merely passed on a report. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

18 minutes ago, Deryn said:

 It is so illogical, badly written and see-through - and yet people buy it.

 

Please remember it is a translation of a Chinese government statement. It is perfectly logical in Chinese terms. And how are you so sure people "buy it"? As I said in the first post, I doubt it will make an iota of difference.

[liuzhou]

5 hours ago, Deryn said:

Liuzhou - Then what is it about meat that these 'experts' seem to think is causing obesity and diabetes? Why is meat the (current) culprit in 'public health'? And why talk about methane if there are few cows

 

Why are you asking me this?

 

I just linked to an article I found interesting and thought others may do, too.

I didn't write it!

Edited June 21, 2016 by liuzhou (log)

[Deryn]

Rhetorical questions, Liuzhou. I have no quarrel with you or you posting the article. Sorry .. didn't mean for you to take it that way, believe me. I was merely giving my opinion of the way the article was written. I also question the idea that a 'suggestion' that people eat 50% less meat (and the supposed reasons why) will work and I worry that if that is the case, will they decide to 'enforce that' and how? The article first says 'plan' to get people to eat less meat and then implies that all this will be is a change to what may be like our western 'food pyramid' 'suggestions about what is good for you. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions there - you would know better - but 'freedom' is not always a word one associates with Chinese government, etc. Even here, if a 'suggestion' doesn't work to achieve whatever aims government might have, they often pursue other avenues (like laws and regulations and taxes, etc.) to get better results.

 

I guess my point is - I don't think it is a well written article - it seems mostly slanted editorial to me more than 'reporting' much. I just can't see either how reducing people's meat consumption by 50% will fix obesity and diabetes or rid the world of pollution - air, water, etc. .. there is much more to it all than that.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Deryn (log)

[chefmd]

And now this:

Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron: Actor and Director Appear in Campaign to Limit Meat Consumption

The men, along with Chinese actress Li Bingbing, appear in a WildAid campaign to encourage Chinese consumers to reduce meat consumption as a way to curb carbon emissions, news outlets reported.

[liuzhou]

On 21/06/2016 at 11:03 PM, Deryn said:

I just can't see either how reducing people's meat consumption by 50% will fix obesity and diabetes or rid the world of pollution

 

No one is suggesting that. The article certainly doesn't.

[AlaMoi]

8 hours ago, liuzhou said:

 

No one is suggesting that. The article certainly doesn't.

 

from the article:

" The report warns that unchecked Chinese meat consumption will also degrade its arable land and worsen the country’s problems with obesity and diabetes. "

[liuzhou]

19 minutes ago, AlaMoi said:

 

from the article:

" The report warns that unchecked Chinese meat consumption will also degrade its arable land and worsen the country’s problems with obesity and diabetes. "

 

er, yes. But that doesn't answer the question at all. Where does it say

 

Quote

reducing people's meat consumption by 50% will fix obesity and diabetes or rid the world of pollution

 

?

 

Too many straw man arguments around here. So much more useful if you argue with what the article actually says rather than arguments you raise just to denounce them, but which were never in the article in the first place. Old trick.

Edited June 23, 2016 by liuzhou (log)

[AlaMoi]

well, good luck with slicing your straws that thin.

 

whether the article correctly or incorrectly asserts, it does assert.

where?  in the quote you quoted back.

 

are you slice your straws on which part of which assertion the 50% applies to?

 

perhaps they should hire an editor instead of a spell checker?  the article clearly implies cutting meat consumption is going to solve global warming  as well as solve the (apparent? - who knew) problem of obese Chinese with diabetes.

 

[blue_dolphin]

48 minutes ago, AlaMoi said:

the article clearly implies cutting meat consumption is going to solve global warming  as well as solve the (apparent? - who knew) problem of obese Chinese with diabetes

Interesting.  That's not my take from the article at all.  My take is the proposed lower meat consumption guidelines, if followed, might mitigate negative environmental and health impacts that would likely occur in the future if meat consumption rates continue to follow their upward trends.  So offering some mitigation of future issues rather than solving entirely the current problems.

 

It certainly does strike me that with the vast size of China's population, almost ANY broadly adopted dietary changes there are likely to have significant environmental and public health impacts.  I am reminded of this 2014 article, "What Do Chinese Dumplings Have to Do With Global Warming?", that discusses the increased use of refrigeration in China's food chain.

[AlaMoi]

well,

 

In 1982, the average Chinese person ate just 13kg of meat a year

 

The average Chinese person now eats 63kg of meat a year, with a further 30kg of meat per person expected to be added by 2030 if nothing is done to disrupt this trend.

 

New dietary guidelines drawn up by China’s health ministry recommend that the nation’s 1.3 billion population should consume between 40g to 75g of meat per person each day.

 

all the quotes from the cited article.  some fun with multiplication:

 

40 grams of meat per day x 365 days/year = 14.6 kg of meat per year
75 grams of meat per day x 365 days/year = 27.4 kg of meat per year

vs, per quoted above, 63 kg current consumption.

 

pick a number - both proposed consumption levels are less than 50% of current.