Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

Wolf kills calf on WA Fish and Wildlife lands in Asotin Co.

Video: KREM 2

Based on the combination of tissue damage with associated hemorrhaging and wolf locations, WDFW staff classified the even as a confirmed wolf attack.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The video above is about a different story where Washington lawmakers looked to find non-lethal methods of curbing wolf issues in Eastern Washington.

ASOTIN CO., Wash.– The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife announced Friday that an investigation into the death of a calf in Asotin County indicated a wolf was responsible for the calf’s death.

WDFW discovered a dead 400 to 450 lbs. calf in a 160-acre fenced pasture while working on the agency’s Ranch Wildlife Area July 8, according to the report posted on WDFW’s website. Conflict staff contacted the livestock producer, who has authorization to graze livestock on the land through a lease with WDFW and conducted an investigation on site.

WDFW staff’s investigation of the calf’s carcass revealed hemorrhaging and tissue damage on the calf’s left side, including the chest and lower neck area, front and back of the front leg, lower portion of the rear leg and tooth punctures and scrapes on the inside of the lower leg and groin, according to the WDFW report. WDFW also documented hemorrhaging and tissue damage on the calf’s right side, including the chest and lower neck area, rear side of the front leg continuing into surrounding tissue behind the leg, the area in front of the rear leg and the lower half of the rear leg, according to the report.

The report says most of the calf’s hindquarter had been consumer. WDFW removed the carcass and buried it after the investigation.

WDFW’s report says the damage to the carcass was indicative of a “wolf depredation,” the term used when a wolf kills a domestic animal.  Location data from the collared wolf in the Grouse Flats pack also showed at least one member of the pack in the vicinity during the approximate time the calf died, according to the report.

Based on the combination of tissue damage with associated hemorrhaging and wolf locations, WDFW staff classified the even as a confirmed wolf depredation, the report said.

The producer who owned the calf monitors the her by range riding at least every other day, the report said. The producer maintains regular human presence in the area, removes or secures livestock carcasses to avoid attracting wolves and avoids areas known for high wolf activity, according to the report.

The producer deployed Fox lights in the grazing area following the attack and will increase the frequency of range riding until cattle can be moved to a different pasture, the report said.

The Grouse Flats pack was involved in three depredation incidents in 2018, according to WDFW.

Washington Ranchers vs. wolves

RELATED: Washington OKs killing of wolf pack members preying on cattle

RELATED: Conservation group offers cash reward in killing of wolf in NE Wash.

RELATED: Number of gray wolves in Washington state continues to grow

Researchers want the world to eat differently. Here’s what that diet might look like

.

NEWS: HOW TO SURVIVE ON A VEGAN DIETX

The world of plant-based mock meat is quickly taking over the vegan market, but many health experts agree, faux-meats aren’t as healthy as they sound. Here’s how to survive on a vegan diet.

– A A +

The way most of humanity eats is bad for us and bad for the environment, a new report contends. And the authors are proposing a new diet that addresses both.

three-year research project published in the Lancet Wednesday outlines what a panel of nutrition, agriculture and environmental experts believe is the best way to eat for our own health and the planet’s — and it looks very different from what most people eat. Big changes are necessary, the report contends.

It recommends a plant-based diet, based on previously published studies that have linked red meat to increased risk of health problems. It also comes amid recent studies of how eating habits affect the environment. Producing red meat takes up land and feed to raise cattle, which also emit the greenhouse gas methane.

“The food we eat and how we produce it determines the health of people and the planet, and we are currently getting this seriously wrong,” said one of the report authors professor Tim Lang of the City University of London, U.K.

“We need a significant overhaul, changing the global food system on a scale not seen before in ways appropriate to each country’s circumstances.”

The diet that they propose focuses on eating lots of vegetables, getting most protein from plant-based sources like lentils and other pulses, eating more soy and nuts, and for Canadians anyway, much, much less red meat. Eggs should be limited to fewer than about four a week, the report says. Dairy foods should be about a serving a day, or less.

READ MORE: What an early draft tells us about Canada’s new food guide

“It is a substantial shift from what we are currently eating here in Canada,” said Jess Haines, an associate professor of applied nutrition at the University of Guelph.

However, she said it’s not that different from what’s in the current Canada Food Guide.

Some people recommend eating a “Meatless Monday,” she said. With the tiny amounts of red meat in this diet — maybe one burger or steak a week.

“It certainly wouldn’t just be a Meatless Monday. It might be Meat Monday,” quipped Haines.

The diet set out in the paper contains about 2500 calories a day, which registered dietitian and owner of Wellness Simplified, Amanda Li, said is likely more suitable for a man.

Here’s what a day eating the paper’s “healthy reference diet” might look like, with examples from a few different cuisines, as the dietary guidelines are meant to be applied around the world.

Breakfast:

Oatmeal with peanut butter and a banana could be the basis of breakfast under the Lancet-recommended diet, thinks one dietitian.

Oatmeal with peanut butter and a banana could be the basis of breakfast under the Lancet-recommended diet, thinks one dietitian.

iStock / Getty Images Plus

A North American-style breakfast could be oatmeal, said Li, with two tablespoons of peanut butter and a whole banana mixed in. You could eat two small containers of flavoured fat-free Greek yogurt.

A Middle Eastern breakfast would start with a cup of coffee with milk and sugar, said registered dietitian Sarah Hamdan, who operates Nurtured Mama Nutrition in Ottawa. It could include a toasted sandwich made with a slice of pita bread, three pieces of halloumi cheese, some sliced tomatoes and parsley. It could finish with a clementine.

For a Chinese-style breakfast, you could drink a glass of sweetened soy milk and eat one serving of steamed rice noodles with soy sauce and sesame paste or peanut butter, Li suggested.

Lunch:

A fattoush salad would be a good addition to a healthy Middle Eastern lunch that fits these dietary guidelines, according to dietitian Sarah Hamdan.

A fattoush salad would be a good addition to a healthy Middle Eastern lunch that fits these dietary guidelines, according to dietitian Sarah Hamdan.

iStock / Getty Images Plus

For a North American lunch, Li suggests a salad bowl. Using romaine lettuce and field greens as a base, she’d add bell peppers, a cup of corn, roasted sweet potatoes, two and a half ounces of chicken breast, some feta cheese and pecans and a slice of bacon — with a dressing that includes oil.

This would make a “hefty” salad that could be recreated at a salad bar if you prefer to eat outside of the home.

READ MORE: With mock meat on the rise, here’s how to survive on a vegan diet

A Chinese lunch could be a bowl of congee — a rice porridge — with fish, green onions and ginger as a garnish. You could dip a piece of fried dough into the congee, and wash it down with Hong Kong Style milk tea, she said.

A Middle Eastern lunch that fits the recommended diet might be three-quarters of a cup of mujadara — a dish that’s mostly lentils, with a tiny bit of rice and olive oil, Hamdan suggested. It would be served with fattoush salad and half a cup of plain yogurt.

According to research presented in the report, of major world regions, the Middle East and North Africa likely come the closest to eating the reference diet already, though people there would likely still have to make changes. “There is definitely less of a focus on meat in that part of the world, for sure,” Hamdan said.

Dinner:

Mapo tofu would be a healthy Chinese dinner option that would fit the dietary guidelines, said dietitian Amanda Li.

Mapo tofu would be a healthy Chinese dinner option that would fit the dietary guidelines, said dietitian Amanda Li.

iStock / Getty Images Plus

For dinner, Li thinks an Indian meal would be a good fit in this diet. She recommends cooking a cup of chickpeas in a garam masala spice with ginger, garlic and oil, for a chana masala-style dish. You could serve it on top of two cups of brown rice to get in your whole grains and have some steamed vegetables like broccoli on the side.

A Middle Eastern dinner could be based around mulukhiyah, a stew of a green vegetable called Arab’s mallow in English, along with some chicken and spices, served with rice, Hamdan suggested.

A Chinese dinner, Li said, could be mapo tofu — a spicy dish made with lots of tofu and a little bit of minced pork — cooked with peanut oil. It would be served with rice, three cups of steamed Chinese greens like gai lan or bok choy, and a bowl of pork bone soup, which she says actually contains very little meat, as it’s mostly flavoured by the bones.

For dessert, she recommends a persimmon fruit and a small bowl of sweet walnut soup if you’re following a Chinese menu.

For North Americans, two Oreo cookies are a good choice, she thinks, as they don’t include eggs or dairy and will round out your added sugar allotment for the day.

Hamdan would also include snacks of an apple and some mixed nuts in her daily diet.

“I don’t think it’s hard for people to follow this way of eating,” Li said. “It’s very realistic in my opinion.”

She recommends increasing your intake of plant-based protein gradually, incorporating it bit by bit into your dishes. Adding tofu to your beef stir fry would be one example.

“If I was going to give a major recommendation to follow this diet from this journal article, it would be recommending just choosing one meal of the day to go completely plant-based.”

– With files from AP

Meat Substitutes Market perspective, studies, developments and forecast to 2026

Many animal-related disease outbreaks that include swine flu and bird flu over the recent past have led consumers across the globe to shift toward a more vegan diet, influencing meat substitute consumption as a result. Trend toward vegan diet is also being supported by surging prevalence of health problems such as diabetes and obesity. Rise in living standards of consumers coupled with their higher GHDI is further posing a positive impact on demand for not-so-cost-effective meat substitutes. R&D initiatives are being undertaken by global leading food product manufacturers, in a bid to develop novel and superior quality meat substitutes to increasing number of health-conscious consumers globally.

A new report of XploreMR offers forecast and analysis on the meat substitutes market on a global level. The report delivers actual data related to the market for the historical period (2012-2016) along with an estimated intelligence on the market for the forecast period (2017-2026). The information is presented in terms of both value (US$ Mn). Macroeconomic indicators coupled with an outlook on the meat substitutes demand pattern around the world have also been encompassed by the report. The report further imparts key drivers and restraints for the global meat substitutes market, and their impact on regional segments included over the forecast period.

Get Sample Copy of this report @ https://www.xploremr.com/connectus/sample/751

Report Structure

The executive summary chapter, which initiates the report, offers key market dynamics and numbers associated with the global meat substitutes market, along with key research findings related to the market segments comprised. The market numbers included in this chapter are a blend of compound annual growth rates, market shares, revenues, and volume sales.

A concise introduction to the meat substitutes market is offered in the chapter succeeding the executive summary, along with a formal definition of “meat substitutes”. Elaboration of the market dynamics that include future prospects, growth limitations & drivers, and trends has been delivered in the chapters subsequent to the overview. These chapters also inundate insights apropos to bottom line of enterprises in detail, along with the fiscal stimulus and the global economy.

Market Taxonomy

REGION PRODUCT TYPE CATEGORY SOURCE DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL
North America Tofu Frozen Soy Food Chain Services
Latin America Tempeh Refrigerated Wheat Modern Trade
Europe Textured Vegetable Protein Shelf-stable Mycoprotein Departmental Stores
Japan Seitan Other Sources Online Stores
APEJ Quorn Other Distribution Channel
MEA Other Product Types

Competition Landscape

A complete package of intelligence on leading participants supporting expansion of the global meat substitutes market has been offered in the concluding chapter of this analytical research report. This chapter elucidates the competition landscape of the global market for meat substitutes, providing information on key strategy implementations of the market players, their product overview, key development, company overview, and key financials. A SWOT analysis on each market players has been provided in this chapter of the report.

The geographical spread of the market players included, along with their future growth plans, intended mergers & acquisitions, overall revenues, and market shares are elaborated in detail in this chapter. The report has employed an intensity map for portraying key market players located across geographies.

Research Methodology

Credibility of researched statistics & data is backed by a unique research methodology used by analysts at XploreMR, ensuring high accuracy. This research report on global meat substitutes market can assist readers in acquiring detailed insights on several aspects that govern the market across the regional segments contained in the report. The report readers can use slated strategies to tap the vital revenue pockets, thereby gaining benefits over intensifying competition prevailing in the market. Intelligence presented in this report has been scrutinized & monitored thoroughly by XploreMR’s industry experts. The figures and numbers offered by the report are validated by the analysts for facilitating strategic decision making for market players.

Get Full Report Access @ https://www.xploremr.com/cart/738/SL

Most “Meat” Will Be Meat-Free Or Lab-Grown By 2040, Experts Predict

LOUIS HANSEL/SHUTTERSTOCK

By 2040, most “meat” will come from alternative sources and not dead animals. That’s according to a report led by AT Kearney, a global consultancy firm.

The basic conclusion, based on interviews with industry experts, is that 60 percent of “meat” eaten in two decades’ time will be either lab-grown (35 percent) or plant-based (25 percent).

Alternative “meats” range from traditional meat substitutes (think: tofu, seitan, mushrooms, and jackfruit) to insect protein (mostly mealworms and crickets) to novel vegan meat replacements, which use hemoglobin and binders to imitate the sensory profile of meat. Cultured meat (aka clean meat, cell-based meat, and slaughter-free meat) is newer to the scene and – at least for the time being – more exclusive, costing $80 per 100 grams as of 2018. It is grown in a lab and only requires a single cell extracted from a living animal, but the end product is identical to conventionally produced meat.

As of 2018, the combined market for plant-based meat alternatives stood at $4.6 billion. That’s projected to grow 20-30 percent per annum for the next several years. Cultured meat, on the other hand, is not currently commercially available and is only just starting the process of being accepted by global food regulators, with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreeing to regulate cultured meat jointly for the first time last year.

Nonetheless, the report’s authors predict cultured meat will win out in the long-run, securing 35 percent of the market by 2040. In comparison, vegan meat will be “more relevant in the transition phase towards cultured meat”. Traditional meat substitutes and insect protein, they say, are less likely to see growth “as they lack the sensory profile to convince average consumers”.
More than a third of US land is used for pasture. mark reinstein/Shutterstock

One obvious benefit of alternative meats is that they are more sustainable than regular meat. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates close to half (46 percent) of the world’s harvest is dedicated to livestock feed. In comparison, 37 percent of agricultural production is food humans consume directly.

Calorie-wise, a lot gets lost in translation – 1 kilogram of chicken meat, for example, requires 3 kilograms of grain. Considering that 1 kilogram of meat equates to the same number of calories as 1 kilogram of grain, 46 percent of world harvest adds less than 7 percent to the world’s available food calories. In comparison, 1 kilogram of vegan meat and 1 kilogram of cultured meat require 1.3 and 1.5 kilograms of arable crops respectively, equalling a 70 and 75 percent calorie conversion rate.

Right now, two big problems are cost and consumer appeal. A 100-gram beef burger costs about 80 cents, whereas a 100-gram vegan meat burger will cost you $2.50 and a 100-gram burger made of cultured meat costs $80. But as technology improves and it becomes possible to produce these foods en masse, costs will likely fall. A 100-gram burger made of cultured meat could cost just $4 by 2031. As for consumer appeal, studies have shown people in Western countries, China, and India are most open to the idea.

One more benefit of vegan and lab-grown meat: they are cruelty-free. ebenart/Shutterstock

As the report authors point out, the benefits of alternative meat aren’t just environmental. As well as being cruelty-free, they offer advantages as far as product design goes (you could replace fatty acids with omega, for example) and have lower Salmonella or E.coli risks, unlike conventional meat. What’s more, there is not the same level of epidemic risk (e.g. bird flu) and production does not require large-scale use of antibiotics, which experts warn could be a huge contributing factor to antibiotic resistance.

And if all goes well, it might not just be “fake” meat we see on the market – but plant-based and cultured seafood, leather, silk, egg white, milk, and gelatin too.

Fake meat: Don’t go bacon my heart, say butchers

Sausage dummies are pictured at the international meat industry fair IFFA in Frankfurt am Main, western Germany, on May 6, 2019. — AFP pic
Sausage dummies are pictured at the international meat industry fair IFFA in Frankfurt am Main, western Germany, on May 6, 2019. — AFP pic

FRANKFURT, May 12 — Slicing through juicy cuts of pork belly alongside rarer delicacies of ox brain and sheep intestine, young butchers at a Frankfurt trade hall cast a suspicious eye towards the so-called fake meat products on display.

Puzzlingly, for the butchers, the fake meat seems to be popular.

“As a butcher, it just can’t be that we have to get into plastic!” said Paolo Desbois, an 18-year-old French butcher, referring disparagingly to the synthetic burgers, sausages and nuggets at the IFFA meat industry convention.

The concept that animals are meat—and plants are not—never used to challenged.

But increasingly plant-based protein products are trying to muscle in on the meat market.

Derived from sources like soy, peas or beans, the synthetic products are being manufactured without using animals.

And Desbois, who placed second in a young butchers competition at the convention, feels they undermine “the essence of the profession”.

“It’s just not possible to work with synthetic meat,” he said.

Another budding elite butcher from Switzerland, 20-year-old Selina Niederberger, agreed.

“As a butcher, I’m for real meat. I think a lot of people would see it the same way,” she declared.

Non “real” meat products have been making headlines lately, backed by investors with an appetite for supplying plant-based burgers and sausages to the trendy diet-conscious masses.

The celebrity-backed vegan burger start-up Beyond Meat, for example, made a sizzling Wall Street debut on May 3 when it more than doubled its share price.

Backed by Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, the firm and its competitors aim to turn plant-based foods mainstream and capture a huge potential market.

Ethical concerns

Whether meat substitutes will ever be able to 100 percent replicate the taste, colour, smell and texture of a freshly chopped up slaughtered animal is debatable.

But some young butchers suspect their growing popularity will inevitably have a transformative effect on their trade.

“It’s just shifting with the world and working with it rather than against it,” said 19-year-old British butcher Lennon Callister.

Trade skills are “what sets butchers apart from supermarkets,” he argued, but accepted consumers are starting to look at food differently.

Josja Haagsma from the Netherlands, who won the young butchers competition, agreed that synthetic meats were changing opinions.

“It makes you think about how you can use meat and how you can change it, how you can use more vegetables,” she said.

“Maybe the next generation” will be the ones pressed to apply their knives and creativity to the task, Haagsma said.

Vegetables used to be considered a side dish, at best, for carnivore connoisseurs.

But in increasingly health conscious societies, where governments warn about the dangers of consuming too much red meat, plant-based products are widening in appeal.

Alongside ethical concerns over animals bred for the dinner table and green advocates urging the public to eat less meat to save the environment, the scope for more no-meat products is growing.

‘They aren’t sausages!’

“It’s very important that we think about it, that we consume less” but “good quality meat,” said Haagsma.

“You can use organic meat and homegrown cows, and not the cows from the big companies,” she said.

The growing numbers of people turning to plant-based meat alternatives include vegans, who shun all animal products, and flexitarians, who advocate moderate consumption of meat.

One sign of their expanding popularity? Silicon-valley company Impossible has linked up with Burger King to offer a plant-based version of its signature Whopper.

Nestle and Unilever are also aiming to cement their presence in the sector.

The move by big conglomerates into the sector has made young butchers note that changes are on the way.

“There’ll be less of this mass-produced stuff, which is also really, really bad for the climate,” said 23-year-old German Raphael Buschmann.

However, while recognising environment-conscious citizens are rethinking their diets, Buschmann predicted a limit to the industry changes.

Vegetarian sausages would not be added to his displays any time soon.

“They aren’t sausages,” he said. “That’s just the way it is.” — AFP

Would You Change Your Eating Habits to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint?

What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner yesterday?

Take this short quiz to find out how much your choices contribute to climate change. Then, tell us: How did you score? How do your eating habits compare with those of other Americans?

In “Your Questions About Food and Climate Change, Answered,” Julia Moskin, Brad Plumer, Rebecca Lieberman and Eden Weingart answer questions about the impact that food shopping, cooking and eating habits have on climate change:

Does what I eat have an effect on climate change?

Yes. The world’s food system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming greenhouse gases that humans generate each year. That includes raising and harvesting all the plants, animals and animal products we eat — beef, chicken, fish, milk, lentils, kale, corn and more — as well as processing, packaging and shipping food to markets all over the world. If you eat food, you’re part of this system.

How exactly does food contribute to global warming?

Lots of ways. Here are four of the biggest: When forests are cleared to make room for farms and livestock — this happens on a daily basis in some parts of the world — large stores of carbon are released into the atmosphere, which heats up the planet. When cows, sheep and goats digest their food, they burp up methane, another potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Animal manure and rice paddies are also big methane sources. Finally, fossil fuels are used to operate farm machinery, make fertilizer and ship food around the globe, all of which generate emissions.

Which foods have the largest impact?

Meat and dairy, particularly from cows, have an outsize impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases each year. That’s roughly the same amount as the emissions from all the cars, trucks, airplanes and ships combined in the world today.

In general, beef and lamb have the biggest climate footprint per gram of protein, while plant-based foods tend to have the smallest impact. Pork and chicken are somewhere in the middle.

Is there a simple food choice I can make that would reduce my climate footprint?

Consuming less red meat and dairy will typically have the biggest impact for most people in wealthy countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan. You might just eat less of the foods with the biggest climate footprints, like beef, lamb and cheese. If you’re looking for substitutes, pork, chicken, eggs and mollusks have a smaller footprint. But plant-based foods like beans, pulses, grains and soy tend to be the most climate-friendly options of all.

How much would changing my diet actually help?

It varies from person to person. But a number of studies have concluded that people who currently eat a meat-heavy diet — including much of the population of the United States and Europe — could shrink their food-related footprint by one-third or more by moving to a vegetarian diet. Giving up dairy would reduce those emissions even further.

If you don’t want to go that far, there are still ways to shrink your individual footprint. Just eating less meat and dairy, and more plants, can reduce emissions. Cutting back on red meat in particular can make a surprisingly large difference: According to a World Resources Institute analysis, if the average American replaced a third of the beef he or she eats with pork, poultry or legumes, his or her food-related emissions would still fall by around 13 percent.

Students, read the rest of the green “Big Picture” section of the article, then tell us:

— What were the most interesting or surprising facts about climate change and food you learned? What questions do you still have?

— How climate-friendly is your diet? Do you tend to eat a lot of meat and dairy? Or do your meals mostly consist of plant-based foods? How do you feel about the impact your eating habits have on the environment?

— Why do you choose to eat the way you do? Do your parents do most of the meal planning, food shopping and cooking? Do you make any personal choices based on moral, religious, environmental or health reasons? Or, do you just simply eat what tastes good?

— After the “Big Picture” introduction, the article goes on to detail five specific areas that contribute to climate change: Meat, Seafood, Dairy, Plants, and Shopping and Food Waste. Choose one and read the related section. What did you learn about this topic? If you were to alter your diet in this area to make it more environmentally-friendly, what changes would you have to make? How difficult would these changes be for you and why?

— Now that you know more about the impact your eating habits have on the environment, would you actually be willing to change any of them to reduce your carbon footprint? If so, what specific changes would you make and why? If not, why not?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

READ 24 COMMENTS

“Clean Meat” Hoax Website Now Posted

Clean Meat Hoax

A banana on the floor with title: Clean Meat Hoax (Don't fall for it)

http://upc-online.org/diet/190401_clean_meat-hoax_website_now_posted-check_it_out.html

Dear Friends,

Philosophy professor and animal rights advocate, John Sanbonmatsu, has launched a new website where concerns about “clean meat” are being aired. Proponents of clean meat technology, also called “cell-based meat” and “cellular agriculture,” are predicting, in the words of Paul Shapiro’s 2018 book Clean Meat, that “growing meat without animals will revolutionize dinner and the world.”

Clean meat is still in the research & development phase. It is not available in stores or restaurants. Eventually, however, it will be, though on what scale, in what variety, and at what price remains to be seen.

Technical and regulatory hurdles aside, questions are being asked, including: will people who eat animals buy clean meat? If so, will they like it well enough to choose it over slaughterhouse flesh? Will the commercialization of clean meat actually reduce the numbers of chickens, fish and other animals currently suffering and dying for meateaters? Or will clean meat end up as nothing more than just another food choice for the human omnivore, with little or no effect on the numbers of animals suffering and dying for cuisine, and with little or no effect on how humanity views and treats our fellow creatures?

Of concern to many of us is that clean meat is being promoted by the Good Food Institute and its allies as a response to the “fact” that human “nature” is incapable of not eating meat; therefore, the only choice is to grow cellular meat to satisfy the growing human population and reduce the destructive environmental effects of industrialized animal farming.

Many of us are pushing back against the claim that plant-powered foods will never satisfy most people. Current growth of the vegan food market suggests otherwise. Contrary to some assertions that vegan advocacy has already failed, within the mere 40 or so years of vegan advocacy, incredible progress has been made and encouragingly continues. Plant-powered foods are not just a fad – they’re a growing trend. One reason for this is the increasingly sophisticated taste, texture, and variety of products that resemble, but are free from, animal bodies.

I am pleased to present Clean Meat Hoax to our readers and to contribute to the conversation. At this point, I am neither radically for nor against clean meat, except to say that if it could significantly eliminate animals from being born into the misery and murder of meat, this, in my view, would be 100 percent better than the daily global holocaust of animals.

At the same time, as contributors to Clean Meat Hoax point out, and I am one of them, the issue is ethically complicated. If this potentially animal-free technology could help liberate animals from the plate and from the belittling attitudes most people hold about the individuals they carelessly consume, then I would welcome it. But if all it does is add one more option to the smorgasbord of omnivorous “food” choices, then it is just another tedium that sows depression and despair, particularly when (former) animal advocates insist that ethical advocacy for animals “doesn’t work.” – Karen Davis

Ocasio-Cortez: We reacted to 9/11, so where’s the reaction on climate change?

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., appeared on MSNBC Friday to address the Green New Deal with host Chris Hayes and discussed the dire world she’s convinced lies ahead for Americans if climate change is not addressed.

“So this issue is not just about our climate. First and foremost we need to save ourselves. Period. There will be no future for the Bronx. There will be no livable future for generations coming, for any part of this country in a way that is better than the lot that we have today if we don’t address this issue urgently and on the scale of the problem,” said Ocasio-Cortez.

POLL SHOWS: OCASIO-CORTEZ MOSTLY UNLIKED OR UNKNOWN

The freshman congresswoman believes America has seen dire situations before and mobilized, but mostly in connection with conflict and war. “Historically speaking, we have mobilized our entire economy around war. But I thought to myself it doesn’t have to be that way, especially when our greatest existential threat is climate change,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“First and foremost we need to save ourselves. Period.”

— U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

“And so to get us out of this situation, to revamp our economy to create dignified jobs for working Americans, to guarantee health care and elevate our educational opportunities and attainment, we will have to mobilize our entire economy around saving ourselves and taking care of this planet.”

Ocasio-Cortez also addressed critics of the Green New Deal legislation she’d co-sponsored, after MSNBC played a montage of Republicans and pundits, including some on Fox News, criticizing her and talking about “cow farts” and accusing her of wanting to take away their “hamburgers.”

“I didn’t expect them to make total fools of themselves,” Ocasio-Cortez said, saying she expected the criticism.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The congresswoman also said Hurricane Maria and the devastation caused on Puerto Rico was a sign that climate change problems are “here,” invoking the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and criticizing the government for the lack of response.

“You know that this is here. This is not something that’s coming. … On the events of September 11 2001, thousands of Americans died in one of the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. And our national response — whether we agree with that or not — our national response was to go to war in one, then eventually two countries. Three thousand Americans died in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. Where’s our response?” Ocasio-Cortez said to loud applause.

Butterball recalls 78,000 pounds of raw ground turkey due to salmonella concerns

LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

Butterball is recalling more than 78,000 pounds of raw ground turkey that may contaminated with salmonella.

Investigators discovered the problem during an outbreak of Salmonella Schwarzengrund, that sickened five people from two states, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Wisconsin officials took three samples of Butterball ground turkey from a home where four of the patients live. The samples were “closely related genetically” to those taken from the sick people.

The nationwide recall is for:

  • 48-ounce plastic wrapped tray containing Butterball everyday Fresh Ground Turkey with Natural Flavoring (85% lean/15% fat), with sell- or freeze-by date 7/26/18, lot code 8188, and UPC codes 22655-71555 or 22655-71557
  • 48-ounce plastic wrapped tray containing Butterball everyday Fresh Ground Turkey with Natural Flavoring (93% lean/7% fat), with sell- or freeze-by date 7/26/18, lot code 8188 and UPC code 22655-71556
  • 16-ounce plastic wrapped tray containing Butterball everyday Fresh Ground Turkey with Natural Flavoring (85% lean/15% fat), with sell- or freeze-by date 7/26/18, lot code 8188 and UPC code 22655-71546
  • 16-ounce plastic wrapped tray containing Butterball everyday Fresh Ground Turkey with Natural Flavoring (93% lean/7% fat), with sell- or freeze-by date 7/26/18, lot code 8188 and UPC codes 22655-71547 or 22655-71561
  • 48-ounce plastic wrapped tray containing Kroger Ground Turkey Fresh (85% lean/15% fat), with sell- or freeze-by date 7/26/18, lot code 8188, and UPC code 111141097993
  • 48-ounce plastic wrapped tray containing Food Lion 15% fat ground turkey with natural flavorings, with sell- or freeze-by date 7/26/18, lot code 8188 and UPC code 3582609294

Chick-fil-A’s latest: The chain is welcoming spring Monday with new Frosted Key Lime treat

Don’t say goodbye yet: These 4 tax breaks expired, but they could return and boost your refund

The 78,164 pounds of prepackaged poultry was produced on July 7, 2018, and have establishment number EST. P-7345 inside the USDA mark of inspection.

“Because these products were packaged nine months ago, it’s pretty unlikely any of this product is still in retail stores,” said Butterball spokeswoman Christa Leupen. “Obviously, we’re concerned consumers have this product in their freezers.”

People who have packages of the recalled turkey should throw them or return them to where they were bought, the FSIS said.

Customers with questions may call Butterball at 800-288-8372.

Could lab-grown meat actually make climate change worse?

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2019/02/could-lab-grown-meat-actually-make-climate-change-worse/

Meat grown in a lab may become more detrimental to the planet than some types of cattle farming, a new study suggests. Published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, the findings show that this form of food production could generate large quantities of carbon dioxide that will go on to shape climate change hundreds of years into the future.

But, the research also comes with some major caveats–chiefly, that it overlooks the potential for this emerging new industry to switch to green energy.

We’re currently making big technological leaps in culturing meat from animal cells, which is increasingly touted as a better alternative to other forms of meat production, like cattle farming. Growing meat in a lab side-steps the environmental and ethical impacts of raising beef in pastures, and killing these animals for food; producing meat this way is especially celebrated for generating much less of the methane and nitrous oxide that cows are famous for emitting, both of which are particularly powerful greenhouse gases.

Yet, making cultured meat does still require large amounts of energy to power production and maintain growth temperature for cells–and that results in carbon dioxide emissions, the Oxford University researchers point out in their study. CO2 also comes with its own unique set of challenges: methane may be more potent but it lasts in the atmosphere for only 12 years, whereas CO2 lingers for thousands, meaning it accumulates and worsens climate change in the long-run.

So, to truly compare the impact of farmed cattle and lab-grown meat, the researchers separately considered the amount of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide arising from each types of food production. That’s a departure from previous emissions estimates, which have typically relied on ‘carbon dioxide equivalents’, a standard way of measuring emissions impact that equates the likes of methane with carbon dioxide–without taking their very different climate effects into account.

Using this more nuanced measure, the researchers were able to closely compare the climate impact of three beef production systems, and four possible methods of culturing meat, and to project their impacts 1000 years into the future. This was also modeled according to different possible consumption pathways–including a global decline in meat consumption to more sustainable levels.

This revealed that if both types of meat production were ramped up in the future to satisfy a continually growing global demand, initially the more potent effects of methane from live cattle would increase global warming. But over time these effects diminish, as methane dissipates in the atmosphere. Conversely, greater amounts of CO2 generated by labriculture would then start to accumulate, and ultimately intensify warming in millennia to come, because of the gas’s incredible longevity. Overall, labriculture is “increasingly outperformed by all of the cattle systems the longer that production is maintained,” the researchers write.

Even if humans started to reign in their appetite for meat over the 1000-year period, they found that the CO2 from cultured meat production would continue to accumulate and persist, still exceeding the warming impact of some types of beef production. However, this comes with a critical caveat. Expanding pasture land for cows–which often means deforestation–is itself a huge source of CO2 emissions in cattle farming, but the researchers say they weren’t able to include this factor in their analysis. That would likely skew the results.

Similarly, producing large amounts of meat in the confines of a lab would reduce the conversion of forested land into pasture for farming cattle–in turn keeping more CO2 trapped in the ground. This is a benefit of lab-grown meat that wasn’t thoroughly explored in the study.

The paper makes another potentially problematic assumption, which is that labriculture will always rely on fossil fuels to power its operations. However, renewable energy could potentially provide some of that energy in the future–especially likely in an industry that’s trying to be green. If that happened, it would completely change the high emissions profile of lab-grown meat that’s presented in this study.

Nevertheless, what the research does prove is that when estimating the climate impact of food, relying on CO2 equivalents alone could be misleading. Methane doesn’t have the same long-term climate impact as some studies suggest, and this way of thinking about emissions may actually minimise CO2’s cumulative role in altering our climate.

The study also underscores the valuable fact that renewable energy streams will be essential to producing lab-grown burgers and the like, if they’re to have a place in our sustainable food future.

Lynch et. al. “Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2019.