The Netherlands’ New Dietary Guidelines Take Meat Off The Menu
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The Dutch government has a new message for its residents: when it comes to meat, less is more.
This week, the Netherlands Nutrition Centre — a government-funded program that creates dietary guidelines — issued a recommendation that people eat no more than two servings of meat per week. According to National Geographic, it’s the first time that the Nutrition Centre has placed a hard limit on the amount of meat a person should consume.
The Centre released its recommendations after nearly five years of studying the health and ecological impacts of an average Dutch diet. The new guidelines recommend that a person should consume no more than 500 grams (or a little over a pound) of meat per week. Of that, no more than 300 grams should be red meat, or what the Centre calls “high-carbon.” Instead, the guidelines recommend that people incorporate other sources of protein into their diets, from things like nuts or pulses.
The Netherlands isn’t the first country to look at dietary guidelines from both a health and ecological standpoint. Last week, the U.K.’s government-backed nutritional body released updated dietary guidelines recommending that residents replace several servings of animal protein with plant-based protein from things like pulses, a category of food that includes lentils, peas, and beans. The guidelines also recommend a 7 percent reduction in dairy consumption.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/25/3763481/netherlands-cut-meat-consumption-climate/[/url]
[url]http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/23/another-nation-trims-meat-from-diet-advice/[/url]
I'm all for a greener future but I don't know if I would be okay if dietary guidelines started using "ecological impact" as a factor.
Then again, dietary guidelines are guidelines, not rules.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50109090]I'm all for a greener future but I don't know if I would be okay if dietary guidelines started using "ecological impact" as a factor.
Then again, dietary guidelines are guidelines, not rules.[/QUOTE]
So should we ignore the factor of ecological damage when there are billions of mouths to feed?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50109090]I'm all for a greener future but I don't know if I would be okay if dietary guidelines started using "ecological impact" as a factor.
Then again, dietary guidelines are guidelines, not rules.[/QUOTE]
The perfect diet for humans is not the perfect diet for the environment
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;50109110]The perfect diet for humans is not the perfect diet for the environment[/QUOTE]
Wrong. The perfect diet for humans is fine for the environment. It's a matter of the scale on which we produce food and consumer desire to eat certain things, not ecology.
Realistically speaking, people should be eating less meat anyway. Unless you are good at canning meats, making sausages, or can afford to hunt and fish everyday... Stick to having less meat in your diet.
Also, it may be hard for anyone to swallow this concept, but people should invest into the idea of cricket flour and urban aquaponics.
Not only would this reduce our reliance on the ocean for harvest, it would also keep a reliable source of food, as crickets and tilapia tend to be rabbits in terms of sex. Oh yeah, and add more rabbit or lamb to your diet. Also good meats that have less ecological impact outside of pissing off farmers.
I would love to add rabbit or lamb to my diet, but I can't get either of those for $1/lb like I can chicken.
[QUOTE=ImimI;50109152]Wrong. The perfect diet for humans is fine for the environment. It's a matter of the scale on which we produce food and consumer desire to eat certain things, not ecology.[/QUOTE]
Our current production rate would sustain us if we lived in an authoritarian regime which controlled every morsel of food via rationing. Otherwise, at best we can feed up to three billion.
One problem which will need to be dealt with eventually is the so called "ecologist" who think GMO is evil. Seriously, the majority can just stop existing in the next decade for the better of humanity. At the moment, without GMO crops, we are fucked when it comes to feeding anything past 1.5 billion people.
"GMO" has a bad rap. In actuallity only 1% is harmful to humans, however they do need to be regulated.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50109183]Our current production rate would sustain us if we lived in an authoritarian regime which controlled every morsel of food via rationing. Otherwise, at best we can feed up to three billion.
One problem which will need to be dealt with eventually is the so called "ecologist" who think GMO is evil. Seriously, the majority can just stop existing in the next decade for the better of humanity. At the moment, without GMO crops, we are fucked when it comes to feeding anything past 1.5 billion people.[/QUOTE]
The biggest issue we really face is homogeneity of the foods we produce. We grow (by and large) one type of potato, three or four types of apple, only a few variants of chicken and cattle, etc. etc. Almost all of our food is based upon one or two mass produced variants of certain species and if any of them were to suddenly be wiped out (be it by disease or other natural disaster) we'd be struggling to provide.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50109206]"GMO" has a bad rap. In actuallity only 1% is harmful to humans, however they do need to be regulated.[/QUOTE]
What examples are you including in that 1%?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109164]I would love to add rabbit or lamb to my diet, but I can't get either of those for $1/lb like I can chicken.[/QUOTE]
Can you hunt? If yes, rabbits are usually considered a pest species on most farms, and most farmers would gladly let you hunt for them. Not to mention that you also get pelts that way, which can be sold.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50109218]Can you hunt? If yes, rabbits are usually considered a pest species on most farms, and most farmers would gladly let you hunt for them. Not to mention that you also get pelts that way, which can be sold.[/QUOTE]
I live in the LA sprawl of Southern California. So no, I can't hunt. I doubt hunting is even legal anywhere within 100 miles of my house.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109213]What examples are you including in that 1%?[/QUOTE]
Actually not a gmo species, more like cost cutting research got people sick.
[QUOTE=Tophat;50109102]So should we ignore the factor of ecological damage when there are billions of mouths to feed?[/QUOTE]
No, what?
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50109244]Actually not a gmo species, more like cost cutting research got people sick.[/QUOTE]
Like what? I actually have no idea what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50109244]Actually not a gmo species, more like cost cutting research got people sick.[/QUOTE]
What?
A vegetarian diet is healthier for both people and the environment. I just wish meat wasn't so damn delicious! Makes it so hard to not eat
[editline]11th April 2016[/editline]
But I mean you gotta eat an adequate amount of greens and beans & peas and such to get enough protein and iron
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;50109110]The perfect diet for humans is not the perfect diet for the environment[/QUOTE]
Two pounds of chickey a day, no less.
Increasing our reliance on farm animals such as goats, sheep and fish will definitely have a positive effect. Pork could also be used to reuse animal wastes formed from processing, as pigs will eat just about anything.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109226]I live in the LA sprawl of Southern California. So no, I can't hunt. I doubt hunting is even legal anywhere within 100 miles of my house.[/QUOTE]
All though you can take jackrabbit pretty much anywhere so long as airgun ordinances don't get you shot, fair warning: Your politicians are trying to make hunting nigh-impossible. Seriously, some of the laws I read, make my brain physically hurt.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50109334]All though you can take jackrabbit pretty much anywhere so long as airgun ordinances don't get you shot, fair warning: Your politicians are trying to make hunting nigh-impossible. Seriously, some of the laws I read, make my brain physically hurt.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I know. If my family and friends weren't all in California I would be long gone. I know a ton of people leaving for Texas, Colorado, etc.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50109334]All though you can take jackrabbit pretty much anywhere so long as airgun ordinances don't get you shot, fair warning: Your politicians are trying to make hunting nigh-impossible. Seriously, some of the laws I read, make my brain physically hurt.[/QUOTE]
You live in South Dakota though: a part of the US that is currently experiencing a boom in population that still leaves you with so many less people than the LA sprawl it's not even comparable.
Like, some of your neighboring states are reverting to pioneer era population densities.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50109090]I'm all for a greener future but I don't know if I would be okay if dietary guidelines started using "ecological impact" as a factor.
Then again, dietary guidelines are guidelines, not rules.[/QUOTE]
soylent green is the anwser, no longer do you need to produce meat with stinky carbon producing animals. You just wait for humans to expire and re-purpose them..
I like this dark future we are approaching.
Two servings of meat [b]per week[/b]?! Shiiiiiiit, I eat more than that every time I sit down just about. Fuck yo' guidelines I'm having New York Strip for dinner.
[editline]10th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Badballer;50109277]A vegetarian diet is healthier for both people and the environment. I just wish meat wasn't so damn delicious! Makes it so hard to not eat
[editline]11th April 2016[/editline]
But I mean you gotta eat an adequate amount of greens and beans & peas and such to get enough protein and iron[/QUOTE]
If that was true we would not have incisors, we would not have a GI tract capable of processing meat. Indeed, we would not exist, as it was our omnivorous appetites that paved the way for the big brains that make us humans in the first place.
Like it or not, we are designed to eat meat. We're [i]omnivores[/i]. We need delicious steaks as much as we need the potatoes we put next to them.
I don't know about other countries, but in the US everybody I have met eats a massive amount of meat, often daily.
I know this is a bit off topic but why?
[QUOTE=Aircraft;50109513]I don't know about other countries, but in the US everybody I have met eats a massive amount of meat, often daily.
I know this is a bit off topic but why?[/QUOTE]
Why do they eat meat? Probably because it's relatively cheap and delicious.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50109471]Two servings of meat [b]per week[/b]?! Shiiiiiiit, I eat more than that every time I sit down just about. Fuck yo' guidelines I'm having New York Strip for dinner.
[editline]10th April 2016[/editline]
If that was true we would not have incisors, we would not have a GI tract capable of processing meat. Indeed, we would not exist, as it was our omnivorous appetites that paved the way for the big brains that make us humans in the first place.
Like it or not, we are designed to eat meat. We're [i]omnivores[/i]. We need delicious steaks as much as we need the potatoes we put next to them.[/QUOTE]
With modern medical knowledge, no. We don't. It is entirely possible to live healthily on a completely vegetarian (or even vegan, with some very meticulous planning).
I seriously can't even go a day without eating meat.
And that's not going to change in my lifetime
[QUOTE=ImimI;50109353]You live in South Dakota though: a part of the US that is currently experiencing a boom in population that still leaves you with so many less people than the LA sprawl it's not even comparable.
Like, some of your neighboring states are reverting to pioneer era population densities.[/QUOTE]
North Dakota*
As for the hunting laws, it's realistically how some people feel towards certain things. I'm use to hunting laws in a variety of states. I lived in Buffalo, NY as a child, teen years were spent in Arizona, and my twenties thus far have been North Dakota.
New York is well... New York. You physically cannot buy a hunting rifle or hunting pellets unless you are eighteen and gone through a certain hunting course. Arizona being Arizona just bitches at you if you walk on Native American land with a gun. North Dakota, we have WMA's or Wildlife Management Areas, which is the only place you are physically allowed to hunt, unless you are authorized by the local landowner to clear out what you are hunting. Which honestly, if you say coyotes, rabbits, or seagulls, they'd probably let you bring an M60 onto their property :v:
Each state has it's own laws, but California is special in the regards to their politicians being so influenced by public sway. What's even more odd, is that regulations regarding things which are usually handled by the US Departments of Game and Fish, are being handled by California's State Government.
Yeah, when you get down to it, its' confusing as fuck.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.