UN Pushes vegan agenda

This is an old report from a few years ago, but still very relevant given the recent global warming data.
Basically the premise is that as the worlds population increases to 9 billion by 2050 the current consumption of meat and dairy products is unsustainable, here is a quote from the report..

"As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management"

and

"A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said"

The report also goes into the issue of land required to raise cattle and the amount of agricultural land required just to provide food for cattle, the report also states biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as burning fossil fuels.

Link to Guardian article

a reply to: korkythecat

Regardless of whether we agree the vegan diet is a potential solution, I think we can all agree sustainability is very likely a serious issue at such an increase in global population.

a reply to: korkythecat

I think before we start talking about taking a way meat, we should first work on eliminating waste. So much food is discarded do to concerns of legal liability it boggles the mind. Also more effective means of transportation and storage would go a long way too.

There is plenty of food, we just need to be better at getting it to people.
They try taking away my meat I'll just start eating politicians and their pets.

a reply to: korkythecat

Interesting *contemplatively chewing on Bratwurst*

Have the UN forgotten that our economic policies in the first world (like the so-called RAI Principles) are first and foremost designed to protect our investments, markets and economies here, thus impairing (or even destroying) potentially competing markets in developing and emerging countries in the first place?

No one needs that kind of 'help', and we can't afford it anyways.

In other words: a big part of the alleged imbalance between supply and demand in food (especially in developing countries) is artificially generated. How about they fix that first, then we can talk about my Bratwurst.

well they do have artificial meat...i give you in vitro meat.....www.new-harvest.org...

Why cultured meat? Because animals are removed from the process, cultured meat will have a far smaller environmental impact on our planet Animals will not have to suffer

and dairy...lets see now...wait for it...
www.progressivedairy.com...

TBH i am not so sure macdonalds,kfc,pizza hut etc are actually feeding people real food as it is.....the reality is as our population grows they will find ways to keep the consumer happy and let me tell you vegan food will not cut it......

Sustainability is so very important but in the current way of thinking we will just destroy everything.....we need a change in thinking not the food we eat ... this capitalist society is past its point of usefulness to the masses it only feeds the rich and destroys our biosphere in the process....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No I don't think vegan food will cut it either....
They need to get good at synthetic meat, I'm sure McDonalds could do some research.

I'm really concerned about meat and dairy products. Being European we have some rather "annoying" laws for producers, like you have to say exactly where the food comes from. With the TTIP getting enforced we will lose that.

I eat meat and fish and some mozzarella and I don't feel particularly guilty, but I would vouch for every practical change that reduces by far the meat consumption. Today is a big issue especially because you end up having cattles eating ogm products which are cultivated in 3rd world countries at the expense of local farming. You also have to "cultivate" animals, which isn't at all the same as our ancestor did. They used animals to help in the farming work, they used animal to recycle and boost soil, they used animals to run around and move weights.

Today we don't use animals for that, we use them as companions, or meal, while we don't really need it. Also meat and derivatives are frankly the base of most health issues.

There are things that shouldn't be produced en-masse, for moral, environmental and health reasons. Livestocks weren't a reserve for food, that's why sacrifices were made with animals: they were a big asset so getting rid of one was a "sacrifice".

Mass food production must become a crime of the past, not of the future. People can mass produce technologies and other useless stuff we think are "needed" today. If we invested the money that have been spent in useless marketing campaigns to sell this # we call food we would have super healthy products for a low cost, but there wouldn't be a lot of ill people to cure and BigPharma would be upset.

Don't worry about that. Our for profit medical systems will kill us off by then with the guidance of the Pharmaceutical and chemical industries. They just need to worry about getting that seed bank stocked for the few survivors.

Speaking as a vegetarian (not vegan), I don't think humanity necessarily has to give up meat. It's the practices in which humans raise meat and frankly all food that has to change. Farming doesn't have to negatively impact the environment or the climate and we can learn to feed increasing population.

To further tailspin us into death from global warming. methane people were supposed to be cutting back!! First off termites must go then the vegans. I grew up on a milk farm then lived with a Vegan for 3 long years I'll take the cows any day at least you could get away from them!

originally posted by: Kali74
Speaking as a vegetarian (not vegan), I don't think humanity necessarily has to give up meat. It's the practices in which humans raise meat and frankly all food that has to change. Farming doesn't have to negatively impact the environment or the climate and we can learn to feed increasing population.

I wish I could give this at least 99 more stars.

Otherwise I'm confused - I thought the UN agenda for overpopulation was to have all but 500 million of us killed? According to some rock in Georgia or something...

I was ready to take my chances with that lottery, but giving up bacon? Hell. No. They've gone too far.

originally posted by: Kali74
Speaking as a vegetarian (not vegan), I don't think humanity necessarily has to give up meat. It's the practices in which humans raise meat and frankly all food that has to change. Farming doesn't have to negatively impact the environment or the climate and we can learn to feed increasing population.

Agreed, partially. It's not the meat that is the issue, it's the practices surrounding rearing it. Replenishment is also an issue. Animals can only breed so fast, and if our consumption outpaces the number of breeding stock & breeding stock's gestation, we're in trouble there. I think, and this is from a meat eater's perspective here, that we rely a little too heavily on meat multiple times a day. Once daily should be sufficient, and we can switch over to an egg or bean centered meal (protein replacements) to reduce the impact on livestock production. However, that has a benefit on it's own. Less meat being reared equals less field space for things like corn being shoveled the livestock's way. That equals more field space for more produce for humans. We can certainly do it, be meat eaters & eat our veggies, we just need to get back to moderation.

Now, I already only eat meat once a day at most and usually just a few days a week (call me a former full-time carnivore, I got tired of it all day, every day) but let's throw out a hypothetical. I could always go back to eating meat in excess. I may have a huge honkin' pile of bacon with a side of sausage for breakfast, a thick ham & cheese for lunch, and a big juicy burger or roasted chicken for dinner, but if reducing meat from my diet by even one meal a day, along with many other people (ten or hundreds of millions, not just a few thousand) could help by way of cumulative effect, and that led to everyone else have that much more to eat from freed up produce fields because there was less demand for meat and thus less fields for less feed for less animals, I'd do it. I'm not going to do it because some vegan harpy shrieks at me, I will because it's the right thing to do to seek balance through moderation.

I wish people would understand that instead of getting all "DON'T TOUCH MAH MEATS!" defensive. Idiots abound will shortchange all of us. A little forethought & planning for a little agricultural shift is better than being hungry because we didn't think too far ahead.

I don't think veganism gets to the core of the problem, which is rich nations alternately ignoring and exploiting poor ones. That said, I love going vegan during the summer! a reply to: korkythecat

Yes! It makes sense to focus on sustainability, especially by 2050 when the worlds population is expected to tip over into nearly 10 billion (wow!)
Our utterly barbaric practice of herding, slaughtering, and devouring land animals has caused numerous problems that stretch from health to agricultural - Also, our aquatic ecosystems have been damaged from over fishing and out right destruction via polluting. Being a Pescetarian, I will make an initiative to lower my consumption of sea flesh and focus primarily on a Vegetarian diet.

~Sovereign

The future is in insects to get our protein.
I agree eating like we do is not good for the planet.

Not here they don't.

a reply to: korkythecat
you can have ny wiener when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

(or any of the other tubular meats I'm so found of)

And so it was, the humans of earth, grassed; as the cows, as the horses, as the sheep.

Because of too many people

a reply to: mc_squared

Haha thanks

I think this is true of most things actually. Changing ourselves doesn't have to mean giving up our way of life. Sadly, as you know, innovation is poo-pooed and sabotaged and the billionaires that have us in a death grip, foster science denialism.