Meat: Bad For The Environment, Climate and Health

If you are someone who likes to refuel with a juicy steak, there is a long list of reasons why you should not choose meat, according to new studies.

Although meat can be an important source of protein and nutrition, it also has a drawback, and there is even more than the apparent increased risk of certain types of diseases, such as colorectal cancer – and this is a serious problem all over the world.

There are scientific reasons why meat is bad for our climate, environment, agriculture, behavior, ethics and even the use of antibiotics.

. However, researchers say that people “do not know about the range and severity of the impact on the environment of meat,” especially when compared to other eating habits.

They also found that environmental sustainability is unlikely to motivate people to stop eating meat, because they are more concerned about their money and health.

“Meat consumption, at least from a global point of view, is one of Moscow’s environmentally damaging everyday behaviors that people perform,” said researcher Garrett Lentz of the University of Otago.

“This is due to the wide range and severity of the impacts associated with the growing of animals for food production, including land and water degradation; habitats and loss of biodiversity; and contribution to pollution, dead zones of the ocean and climate change.

“Regardless of which driver for change, whether environmental sustainability, improving public health or animal welfare, reducing meat consumption will result in a more efficient food system, can feed more people with fewer resources, thereby minimizing at least some of the associated environmental impacts that are observed today. ”

. Consumption of processed meat is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer, and processed and red meat can also increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes.

A new survey published in Science found that the transition from high meat to a more plant-based diet can reduce mortality in the world by 6-10

Researchers from the University of Oxford said that although tantalizing heterogeneous factors such as smoking and obesity were complex, large-scale studies of Western They describe how meat production has led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy compared to plant-based products.

Although a change in the behavior of people’s meat consumption has been difficult, the researchers said that some options have demonstrated success.

One example was certification programs conducted by the private sector or non-governmental organizations that provided reliable evidence of welfare or environmental standards.

They said that steps such as Denmark to raise taxes on meat also showed promise.

The World Cancer Research Foundation recommended that people who consumed red meat should have less than 500 grams per week, while the Global Burden of Disease project suggested that people ate no more than 100 grams per week.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow by Email