I think that’s bad phrasing in the article. The paper (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/17/3795; open access) talks about equivalent ounces of beef per 220kcal consumed (thus ≈scaling by body size)
I looked at the study (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/17/3795) and you're right. As far as I can tell the data source asks people to recall the food they ate on a previous day. The authors are aware of this limitation - they write that "One limitation of this work is that it was based on 1-day diet recalls, so our results do not represent usual intake." But on the other hand the abstract ends "Efforts to address climate change through diet modification could benefit from targeting campaigns to the highest consumers of beef, as their consumption accounts for half of all beef consumed" which implies that they're thinking of this as being a consistent group. What they've shown is that there are 12% of person-days that represent half of all the beef-eating (subject to that their data is based on people remembering what they ate) - but that doesn't mean that those 12% of person-days are concentrated among 12% of people. I'm sure that 50% of the beef is eaten by less than 50% of the people, but it's probably more like 30% than 12%.
I am tired of this people "shamming"/virtue signalling. You have a handful of corporations fucking up the environment but let's blame average Joe for eating beef. We are literally throwing away a sustainable future for the next quarter earnings. If things are to change we need to stop prioritizing money over anything else.
Blaming corporations alone isn't enough; individual choices fuel their actions. It's a dual responsibility: pressuring corps for change while adopting sustainable choices ourselves. Only collective action can drive the shift we need.
I disagree. We should start at placing the blame where it needs to be. Not gaslight people.
One example is the whole plastic straws debacle. Let's virtue signal and blame the peasants for the plastic in the oceans. In reality more than 50% of the plastic that ends up in the oceans is from commercial fishing nets. Oh... Did you know that the paper straws that you are hailing as a solution have even more PFAs than your regular dumb straws?
Carbon emissions? Let's slap that on the suckers and demand that their cars do 100mpg while not emitting a single CO2 molecule. Meanwhile... How much emissions do the top 10-20 diesel powered large ships in the world put in the atmosphere?
This needs to be done systematically and at policy level considering a multitude of social factors. Telling everyone how bad beef is? Not helpful
The beef industry is an enormous producer of greenhouse gases, both directly and indirectly. They manipulate the government to make their product cheaper, and they manipulate their customers to consume more than is healthy for them.
We should absolutely fight their government abuses, but we can also push back at the consumer level. It's bad for them personally, as well as for the environment.
Even at best that would only fix a tiny fraction of the problem, and we do need to push at the corporate level. But unlike the stupid straw thing, reducing meat consumption really does have environmental benefits.
That demonstrates not only that governments are unable to solve the problems at the production side but also that they're choosing the minimum they can do to pretend they're making an effort, all while minimizing disruptions to the markets. I'd argue that the capitalism and the need for growth is the problem.
> In reality more than 50% of the plastic that ends up in the oceans is from commercial fishing nets
> This needs to be done systematically and at policy level considering a multitude of social factors. Telling everyone how bad beef is?
It's the same problem as with beef. If everyone insists on eating beef and fish, governments won't regulate the industries or remove their subsidies. The population has to want those regulations, otherwise it won't ever happen.
So the solution is the same as with beef. Switch to plant based diets personally, then demand changes on the political level.
In case of the straws where people tried doing something that something is worth very little. You don't solve the tragedy of the commons by shaming people to fish less.
> How a mere 12% of Americans eat half the nation's beef, creating significant health and environmental impacts
Vs. the first para:
> A new study has found that 12% of Americans are responsible for eating half of all beef consumed on a given day, a finding that may help consumer groups and government agencies craft educational messaging around the negative health and environmental impacts of beef consumption.
The quality and quantity of actual facts heads downhill fast from there. Even ignoring the article's dreary left-wing political agenda...if a mentally-competent grown-up actually wanted beneficial (for the climate & environment) changes in American eating habits (vs. yet more performative activism, and sermons to the choir), then he might take into consideration the huge number of Americans who identify as being on the opposing side of that sensitive culture war issue, and plan accordingly.
I have yet to see any sign, anywhere, of that last bit.
Please assume that I know about HN's character limit.
> > rest of the drivel
Please do not quote me as saying thing which I did not say.
> Your opinions are a result of... {mile-tall wall of text and links}
I don't think you have any idea of what my actual opinions are. But you appear to be a pro at "more is better" performative activism in the current culture war. Hopefully that was your intention.
> Your opinions are a result of... {mile-tall wall of text and links}
TLDR: Insisting on a particular diet, regardless of how destructive it is, is selfish, short-sighted, and unfair to the rest of the population, to future generations, and to the world we should be taking care of.
Are they saying that the same 12% of people eat half of the consumed beef each day? Or that 12% of beef consumers eat half of the daily consumption but that group’s membership changes each day?
If I eat a steak and cheeseburger in the same day, am I part of that group or am I never part of the group because I only eat beef 1x per week?
I mean, even if it was that 12% of Americans eat 50% of the US's beef—over a year and not just a day—number wise, that's not at all that strange or unexpected, and it doesn't really mean anything.
A quick rule of thumb I have is that an 80/20 rule translates to the 50/1 rule after repeated application. For example, if 20% of a population has 80% of the wealth, and 20% of 20% of the population has 80% of 80% of the wealth, etc, then 20%^3=0.8% of the population (approximately 1%) should have 80%^3=51.2% (approximately 50%) of the wealth.
According to the ‘Global wealth Report 2021’ from Credit Suisse, 1.1% of the adult population owns 45.8% of the wealth (pretty close to an 80/20 distribution). So distribution of beef consumption is less lopsided than wealth distribution.
I don’t see how that’s a decent metric to compare it with. Of course it’s less lopsided. It’s not like 12% of the population drink half the milkshakes or eat half the Big Macs, either.
They do, actually, according to this methodology. It's a broken methodology.
The study asks only about the previous day's diet.
Assume a population where everyone has the same diet of a milkshake randomly about once a week. If you ask the question asked by this study you will find similar results. About 12% of the people will report having a milkshake "yesterday" if everyone is uniformly consuming around one milkshake every 8.3 days.
> "a finding that may help consumer groups and government agencies craft educational messaging around the negative health and environmental impacts of beef consumption."
One problem right here. This pernicious narrative that eating beef/meat is bad in absolute terms.
There is no negative impact of eating beef. The negative impact always comes from excess. When it comes to human impact on the environment this is compounded by the excessive population on this planet.
There is a negative impact to eating beef in the form of negative externalities. Humans are excessive in just about everything. We consume excessive amounts of materials and this consumption has the price of polluting the whole world.
If we produced exactly what we consume then there would still be massive amounts of waste. There would still be pollution on a global scale and still be toxic chemicals pumped into the environment. There would still be a mass extinction level event that is caused by humans.
> "If you're getting a burrito, you could just as easily ask for chicken instead of beef," Willits-Smith said.
if you’re getting a burrito, this is quite possibly an offensive suggestion. people are eating slabs of beef in fancy restaurants, and you’re getting hassled over the ground up scraps wrapped in a tortilla.
but the whole thing feels disheveled. steak and brisket accounted for a third of consumption, but, what normal person lumps steak and brisket together? if i place my brisket on white bread with onion and pickle, is it now a mixed dish?
> The study, published in the journal Nutrients, analyzed data from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which tracked the meals of more than 10,000 adults over a 24-hour period.
well that seems like it might impact things.
> The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a program of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The survey is unique in that it combines interviews and physical examinations.
There isn't public support for a carbon tax, since neither party has proposed it recently. If there isn't support for the most efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions, don't go around pestering people with lots of restrictions, such as dietary ones, that would be far less efficient. They won't work politically once the restrictions begin to bite.
Thatlle 12% makes any given day is around 14.2857% of the week.
I would expect if you added up all the days and all the "I had a huge steak last night" responses, you'd get much closer to 50% of Americans eat half the beef...
Anyone follow the carnivore space? I tried it for gut issues and it made me feel like shit however it's interesting how many people seem to be jumping on that bandwagon.
29 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadOne example is the whole plastic straws debacle. Let's virtue signal and blame the peasants for the plastic in the oceans. In reality more than 50% of the plastic that ends up in the oceans is from commercial fishing nets. Oh... Did you know that the paper straws that you are hailing as a solution have even more PFAs than your regular dumb straws?
Carbon emissions? Let's slap that on the suckers and demand that their cars do 100mpg while not emitting a single CO2 molecule. Meanwhile... How much emissions do the top 10-20 diesel powered large ships in the world put in the atmosphere?
This needs to be done systematically and at policy level considering a multitude of social factors. Telling everyone how bad beef is? Not helpful
We should absolutely fight their government abuses, but we can also push back at the consumer level. It's bad for them personally, as well as for the environment.
Even at best that would only fix a tiny fraction of the problem, and we do need to push at the corporate level. But unlike the stupid straw thing, reducing meat consumption really does have environmental benefits.
That demonstrates not only that governments are unable to solve the problems at the production side but also that they're choosing the minimum they can do to pretend they're making an effort, all while minimizing disruptions to the markets. I'd argue that the capitalism and the need for growth is the problem.
> In reality more than 50% of the plastic that ends up in the oceans is from commercial fishing nets
> This needs to be done systematically and at policy level considering a multitude of social factors. Telling everyone how bad beef is?
It's the same problem as with beef. If everyone insists on eating beef and fish, governments won't regulate the industries or remove their subsidies. The population has to want those regulations, otherwise it won't ever happen.
So the solution is the same as with beef. Switch to plant based diets personally, then demand changes on the political level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Meat-eati...
Plant-based diets are the only way to feed 10 billion people sustainably.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets?
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
What humanity should eat to stay healthy and save the planet
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03565-5
> 12% of Americans eat half the nation's beef
Vs. the article's full title:
> How a mere 12% of Americans eat half the nation's beef, creating significant health and environmental impacts
Vs. the first para:
> A new study has found that 12% of Americans are responsible for eating half of all beef consumed on a given day, a finding that may help consumer groups and government agencies craft educational messaging around the negative health and environmental impacts of beef consumption.
The quality and quantity of actual facts heads downhill fast from there. Even ignoring the article's dreary left-wing political agenda...if a mentally-competent grown-up actually wanted beneficial (for the climate & environment) changes in American eating habits (vs. yet more performative activism, and sermons to the choir), then he might take into consideration the huge number of Americans who identify as being on the opposing side of that sensitive culture war issue, and plan accordingly.
I have yet to see any sign, anywhere, of that last bit.
> way over HN's 80 chars
Please assume that I know about HN's character limit.
> > rest of the drivel
Please do not quote me as saying thing which I did not say.
> Your opinions are a result of... {mile-tall wall of text and links}
I don't think you have any idea of what my actual opinions are. But you appear to be a pro at "more is better" performative activism in the current culture war. Hopefully that was your intention.
TLDR: Insisting on a particular diet, regardless of how destructive it is, is selfish, short-sighted, and unfair to the rest of the population, to future generations, and to the world we should be taking care of.
If I eat a steak and cheeseburger in the same day, am I part of that group or am I never part of the group because I only eat beef 1x per week?
A quick rule of thumb I have is that an 80/20 rule translates to the 50/1 rule after repeated application. For example, if 20% of a population has 80% of the wealth, and 20% of 20% of the population has 80% of 80% of the wealth, etc, then 20%^3=0.8% of the population (approximately 1%) should have 80%^3=51.2% (approximately 50%) of the wealth.
According to the ‘Global wealth Report 2021’ from Credit Suisse, 1.1% of the adult population owns 45.8% of the wealth (pretty close to an 80/20 distribution). So distribution of beef consumption is less lopsided than wealth distribution.
The study asks only about the previous day's diet.
Assume a population where everyone has the same diet of a milkshake randomly about once a week. If you ask the question asked by this study you will find similar results. About 12% of the people will report having a milkshake "yesterday" if everyone is uniformly consuming around one milkshake every 8.3 days.
One problem right here. This pernicious narrative that eating beef/meat is bad in absolute terms.
There is no negative impact of eating beef. The negative impact always comes from excess. When it comes to human impact on the environment this is compounded by the excessive population on this planet.
if you’re getting a burrito, this is quite possibly an offensive suggestion. people are eating slabs of beef in fancy restaurants, and you’re getting hassled over the ground up scraps wrapped in a tortilla.
but the whole thing feels disheveled. steak and brisket accounted for a third of consumption, but, what normal person lumps steak and brisket together? if i place my brisket on white bread with onion and pickle, is it now a mixed dish?
> The study, published in the journal Nutrients, analyzed data from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which tracked the meals of more than 10,000 adults over a 24-hour period.
well that seems like it might impact things.
> The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a program of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The survey is unique in that it combines interviews and physical examinations.
I would expect if you added up all the days and all the "I had a huge steak last night" responses, you'd get much closer to 50% of Americans eat half the beef...