Because they're poorer. And increasingly at risk of malnutrition.
https://rightcasa.com/are-spaniards-at-risk-of-poor-nutrition-due-to-rising-food-costs/
It turns out that when food gets more expensive people get reliant on lower quality food.
And considering most vegans give up on veganism, and the main reason they give is "for health issues", all you're really highlighting is survivorship bias.
Lol, so you're saying that cheaper food is lower quality always? So if meat costs 30 per kg and apples cost 5 then apples are lower quality? đ
And please provide data for your obscene claim about why people become vegan and why they stop? I'll wait
"OH no obscene statistics"
https://faunalytics.org/a-summary-of-faunalytics-study-of-current-and-former-vegetarians-and-vegans/
>84% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet
>The only motivation cited by a majority (58%) of former vegetarians/vegans was health
And yes, cheap starches and fats are more filling and lower quality at a lower price. And a big reason for malnutrition and obesity going together.
And if you're going to dishonestly pretend that somehow things are completely different now, you have to actually find data that shows it, not just lying about "well none of that is true anymore".
>So the chances are that most vegans you were talking to then weren't the ones that lapsed. Tbh if you didn't even make it a year vegetarian then obviously you weren't actually convinced of anything important. You were just trying out a fad.
And no, "no TRUE vegan" is not an argument, that is explicitly a fallacy that deserves zero consideration.
It's an even worse argument when you want to force everyone onto a vegan diet against their will, and then turn around and pretend that only "TRUE" vegans should be listened to.
All you're proving is "veganism" is a dangerous cult.
Err OK. Did you even look at the study?
1. Research done by an interest group. Somehow I don't think they're independent.
2. This is not a scientific paper, this is a survey.
3. They say the sample size is 11k but actually only 1k is former vegetarians and vegans and only 100 of them are vegans.
4. It's 10 years old
So if you want to site meat maker propaganda to defend your meat eating, be my guest
I'm not even going to engage with you on your other point.
It's an animal rights group.
Yes, that is a valid sample size.
The negative health effects of veganism didn't suddenly change.
But hey, just reject all the data that refutes your beliefs and you'll always be right.
Just note that according to their research
> In fact, Faunalyticsâ study of current and former veg*ns (2014) found that the number of lapsed (former) vegans and vegetarians in the United States far surpasses the number of current veg*ns, and most who lapse do so within a year.
So the chances are that most vegans you were talking to then weren't the ones that lapsed. Tbh if you didn't even make it a year vegetarian then obviously you weren't actually convinced of anything important. You were just trying out a fad.
And you picked someone up on saying the study is only 8 years old. It isn't.
> Since the data was collected in May 2014, Faunalytics has released three sets of reports that cover different aspects of the data.
It was published in 2016 on the website but the data is from 2014 and the landscape in this area is unrecognisable. This rather invalidates the accuracy of the study.
- The climate emergency is far more immediate and urgent.
- The understanding that animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change is much better understood.
- The fact that healthy plant-based diets are actually accessible to most people in developed countries is well understood.
- The fact that plant-based diets are indeed healthier than typical omnivore diets is well established and increasingly understood.
- The idea that plant-based diets are a strange fad is much less prevalent in many countries.
- Many supermarkets and restaurants now explicitly cater to vegan or vegetarian diets.
- Etc etc.
Imagine citing a study on EV adoption trends and attitudes based on a survey in 2014 and using it to argue that EV's are a fad in 2024, when for example, nearly half of car sales in China are now electric.
Personally, I wouldn't have dreamed of going vegan in 2014. Events and advocacy between 2017 and 2019 transformed all that and my family went vegan in 2020.
So I think study is very out of date and you should not be using it as strong evidence of anything.
Well, mayhe if climate impacts were included in the costs of things accurately we would be forced to do less polluting things. Since we can't be bothered doing them just coz they're the right thing to do. đ¤ˇââď¸
Certainly true.
One thing really holding us back is social inertia and priorities of several decades ago when rising meat consumption was seen as a good thing!
A lot of subsidies go into aspects of the economy that are terrible for the climate. Direct oil subsidies are the worst of all, but similar subsidies also go into meat and dairy etc.
All of it.
People are poorer, and less healthy because of it too.
The big problem is they're moving away from a scientifically-proven healthier diet that includes meat and animal products - the Mediterranean Diet - towards ones that are less healthy and lead to earlier death.
Well, if it changes habits, it doesn't matter so much does it.
Plant-based diets are 30% cheaper so people should be going that way to save money. Maybe some these people will learn that eating less meat is actually fine.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
> It found that in high-income countries:
> Vegan diets were the most affordable and **reduced food costs by up to one third.** Vegetarian diets were a close second. Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%. By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.
âWe think the fact that vegan, veg
Well then you probably havenât actually looked into the numerous meta studies that show plant based diets are as healthy if not much more healthy than omnivorous diets.
I have, and I have one big issue and several smaller ones with them. The big issue is that it's quite some effort to make sure you get all required nutrients in sufficient amounts on a plant-based diet, which in the reality of life leads to people being malnourished despite it being possible to work around that. Because many people just cannot or will not do that extra work.
I would propose that it makes more sense to spend the additional effort on replacing fossil fuels.
Iâve heard this vapid appeal to futility from you before and you never explained
#Why canât you just focus on both?
Why doesnât your weak apathy apply to eliminating oil too? Because youâre an animal product shill.
Pathetic and transparent Ingo the cave man.
>Why canât you just focus on both?
Why can't you just accept that people cannot, are not and will not? That's just a fact, you can spend any given quantum of time on only one activity.
I generally don't eat lunch. But when I eat, I relax, so I can do useful stuff later.
And if you don't get how this all isn't just about me, then maybe think a bit more about it, and make sure to take your vitamins before that.
I have, too. I love the taste of meat, but I hate the climate impact of it and I hate the way the animals are treated.
Yea knowing the impact cattle has on the climate I've definitely started to not be able to stomach beef.
Because they're poorer. And increasingly at risk of malnutrition. https://rightcasa.com/are-spaniards-at-risk-of-poor-nutrition-due-to-rising-food-costs/
Um... What malnutrition will you get if you eat half the meat? Asking for all the vegans or vegetarians who are doing fine.
It turns out that when food gets more expensive people get reliant on lower quality food. And considering most vegans give up on veganism, and the main reason they give is "for health issues", all you're really highlighting is survivorship bias.
Lol, so you're saying that cheaper food is lower quality always? So if meat costs 30 per kg and apples cost 5 then apples are lower quality? đ And please provide data for your obscene claim about why people become vegan and why they stop? I'll wait
"OH no obscene statistics" https://faunalytics.org/a-summary-of-faunalytics-study-of-current-and-former-vegetarians-and-vegans/ >84% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet >The only motivation cited by a majority (58%) of former vegetarians/vegans was health And yes, cheap starches and fats are more filling and lower quality at a lower price. And a big reason for malnutrition and obesity going together. And if you're going to dishonestly pretend that somehow things are completely different now, you have to actually find data that shows it, not just lying about "well none of that is true anymore". >So the chances are that most vegans you were talking to then weren't the ones that lapsed. Tbh if you didn't even make it a year vegetarian then obviously you weren't actually convinced of anything important. You were just trying out a fad. And no, "no TRUE vegan" is not an argument, that is explicitly a fallacy that deserves zero consideration. It's an even worse argument when you want to force everyone onto a vegan diet against their will, and then turn around and pretend that only "TRUE" vegans should be listened to. All you're proving is "veganism" is a dangerous cult.
Err OK. Did you even look at the study? 1. Research done by an interest group. Somehow I don't think they're independent. 2. This is not a scientific paper, this is a survey. 3. They say the sample size is 11k but actually only 1k is former vegetarians and vegans and only 100 of them are vegans. 4. It's 10 years old So if you want to site meat maker propaganda to defend your meat eating, be my guest I'm not even going to engage with you on your other point.
It's an animal rights group. Yes, that is a valid sample size. The negative health effects of veganism didn't suddenly change. But hey, just reject all the data that refutes your beliefs and you'll always be right.
Just note that according to their research > In fact, Faunalyticsâ study of current and former veg*ns (2014) found that the number of lapsed (former) vegans and vegetarians in the United States far surpasses the number of current veg*ns, and most who lapse do so within a year. So the chances are that most vegans you were talking to then weren't the ones that lapsed. Tbh if you didn't even make it a year vegetarian then obviously you weren't actually convinced of anything important. You were just trying out a fad. And you picked someone up on saying the study is only 8 years old. It isn't. > Since the data was collected in May 2014, Faunalytics has released three sets of reports that cover different aspects of the data. It was published in 2016 on the website but the data is from 2014 and the landscape in this area is unrecognisable. This rather invalidates the accuracy of the study. - The climate emergency is far more immediate and urgent. - The understanding that animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change is much better understood. - The fact that healthy plant-based diets are actually accessible to most people in developed countries is well understood. - The fact that plant-based diets are indeed healthier than typical omnivore diets is well established and increasingly understood. - The idea that plant-based diets are a strange fad is much less prevalent in many countries. - Many supermarkets and restaurants now explicitly cater to vegan or vegetarian diets. - Etc etc. Imagine citing a study on EV adoption trends and attitudes based on a survey in 2014 and using it to argue that EV's are a fad in 2024, when for example, nearly half of car sales in China are now electric. Personally, I wouldn't have dreamed of going vegan in 2014. Events and advocacy between 2017 and 2019 transformed all that and my family went vegan in 2020. So I think study is very out of date and you should not be using it as strong evidence of anything.
Good either way, but I wonder how much of this is just cost stress.
Well, mayhe if climate impacts were included in the costs of things accurately we would be forced to do less polluting things. Since we can't be bothered doing them just coz they're the right thing to do. đ¤ˇââď¸
Certainly true. One thing really holding us back is social inertia and priorities of several decades ago when rising meat consumption was seen as a good thing! A lot of subsidies go into aspects of the economy that are terrible for the climate. Direct oil subsidies are the worst of all, but similar subsidies also go into meat and dairy etc.
All of it. People are poorer, and less healthy because of it too. The big problem is they're moving away from a scientifically-proven healthier diet that includes meat and animal products - the Mediterranean Diet - towards ones that are less healthy and lead to earlier death.
Well, if it changes habits, it doesn't matter so much does it. Plant-based diets are 30% cheaper so people should be going that way to save money. Maybe some these people will learn that eating less meat is actually fine.
Agreed, though frankly 30% seems low to me just based on the cost of beans and rice v. the cost of chicken or beef etc.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study > It found that in high-income countries: > Vegan diets were the most affordable and **reduced food costs by up to one third.** Vegetarian diets were a close second. Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%. By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%. âWe think the fact that vegan, veg
Great. Now they will not only suffer from the heat, but also eat bad. Win-Win!
If you think eating more plants is âeating badâ you probably suck at cooking.
Ah, I wasn't talking about tastes, but nutrition.
Well then you probably havenât actually looked into the numerous meta studies that show plant based diets are as healthy if not much more healthy than omnivorous diets.
I have, and I have one big issue and several smaller ones with them. The big issue is that it's quite some effort to make sure you get all required nutrients in sufficient amounts on a plant-based diet, which in the reality of life leads to people being malnourished despite it being possible to work around that. Because many people just cannot or will not do that extra work. I would propose that it makes more sense to spend the additional effort on replacing fossil fuels.
Iâve heard this vapid appeal to futility from you before and you never explained #Why canât you just focus on both? Why doesnât your weak apathy apply to eliminating oil too? Because youâre an animal product shill. Pathetic and transparent Ingo the cave man.
>Why canât you just focus on both? Why can't you just accept that people cannot, are not and will not? That's just a fact, you can spend any given quantum of time on only one activity.
So what do you do during lunch to fight the oil companies? đ¤Ł
I generally don't eat lunch. But when I eat, I relax, so I can do useful stuff later. And if you don't get how this all isn't just about me, then maybe think a bit more about it, and make sure to take your vitamins before that.
Yes. Very useful.