Is it environmentally irresponsible to eat meat? A forage agronomist weighs in.
Peter Ballerstedt, Ph.D., and Mike Giardina sit down at the Symposium for Metabolic Health in San Diego, California, to discuss the intersection of metabolic health and sustainability. When speaking about sustainability, Ballerstedt describes three areas of interest — social, environmental, and economic — though the focus is often on the environment only.
Some experts recommend eating less meat and more vegetables as a way to improve climate outcomes. According to Ballerstedt, these recommendations are unfounded. Humanity’s diet is largely plant-based, he argues. Most people eat a significant proportion of their calories from plant-based products. However, some amount of animal-sourced food is necessary for human health and development.
When it comes to greenhouse emissions, which are often at the crux of environmental arguments in favor of plant-based diets, the removal of animal agriculture would only reduce these emissions by 2.5% in the U.S. and 0.5% globally. Meanwhile, the cost of such a reduction would be an imbalance in the food system and the exacerbation of essential nutrient deficiencies, Ballerstedt says. This is a big price to pay for small improvements, which are likely within the margin of error.
Ballerstedt states that removing animal-sourced foods for plant-sourced foods would require increased land use to grow more crops. Doing so would reduce grasslands in favor of growing more crops. Since grasslands are actually sequestering gas emissions, this could have a counterproductive effect.
According to Ballerstedt, focusing on our own metabolic health may be a more impactful way to contribute to sustainability, both environmentally and otherwise. The three pillars of sustainability — social, environmental, and economic — can all be affected by personal responsibility. As an example, eliminating the need for Type 2 diabetes medication would reduce our carbon footprint 29% more than shifting from a high-meat to a vegan diet, Ballerstedt says. In discussing economic sustainability, Ballerstedt notes that by 2030, chronic disease will cost the global economy 47 trillion dollars. If we all focus on improving our own health, he argues we can drive sustainability in more ways than one.
Comments on Sustainability and Metabolic Health With Peter Ballerstedt
I am glad to see that Crossfit hasn't fallen for the nonsense Vegan agenda that is being pushed by big ag and the other climate activist psychos out there. Every study, not conducted by a Vegan ideologist, has repeatedly found that meat does not cause negative health effects, nor does it even correlate with negative health effects, when controlling for lifestyle.
Now there is this massive push, by huge companies that stand to profit tremendously off of selling their garbage fake meats, that animals cause climate change. If that were true then the world would've been destroyed long ago as there were many, many more ruminants on this planet at one point hundreds of thousands of years ago than now, not to mention much larger versions.
The fact is, grasslands are integral to this planet and most of the land that isn't being used in the US and the rest of the world is land we cannot farm on. Letting some cows graze it will not only improve people's health since meat is the most nutrient dense food there is, it would also provide even more food for the world and improve local habitats as healthy habitats are supposed to have ruminants incorporated alongside all of the insects, birds, fish and other mammals.
Dear Crossfit, it is embarrassing that you would publish such misleading information. The statement that "growing more crops" for human consumption "Could" actually cause negative carbon sequestration is just wrong. This man is no expert. Look Crossfit community, if you want to eat meat fine. It's not good for the environment that is fact. But you can go ahead and do it. But what you can't to is promote misinformation in order to try to make you feel better about yourself and the poor environmental choices that you are making. Do better CROSSFIT, you need to do better.
This Ballerstedt interview is laughable in how unsophisticated this so-called "expert" appears to be in understanding sustainability. For example, his argument that converting grass lands into crops could have the harmful effect of reducing gas-emmission sequestration effected by grasslands is just so misleading: The issue IS NOT about comparing grasslands to crop lands. The REAL issue in that particular comparison should be about deforestation. Forests sequester WAY MORE carbon emissions than grasslands and cropland combined. How is grassland for animals produced? By cutting down forests! Arguing that "grasslands" are important to the health of the planet, relative to cropland, is just missing the whole point. Huge swaths of the rainforest, aka the lungs of this planet, are being cut down year after year to expand cattle production and its a huge problem that apparently Peter Ballerstedt has no awareness about? Give me a break. How is this joker even getting platformed by crossfit?
The arguments for going plant based isn't about about environmental issues it is about the animals. Environmentalists should be working towards healthy lifestyles to prevent diabetes and chronic disease. Prephaps some traditions involving meat and dairy should align to these.
This is a sham article and clearly biased. Less animal agriculture leads to more crops being grown. Come again. Has he counted the number of animals slaughtered each year??? My 5 year old knows better than to make that statement. What a clown. Plant based cruelty free has no equal
I am grateful that CrossFit opened up a discussion on a very controversial topic and did not shy away from it. It is better for all of us.
So basically, your "expert", has a PhD in philosophy... so basically ZERO formation in science nor medicine. He is a forage seller for ruminant animal agriculture.. bitch please !!!! https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Ballerstedt
Here is my opinion, There is an alternative in plant kingdom for almost every benefit meat provides, then why do people prefer meat? Being a past meat eater, I can tell for most of the meat eaters, taste buds come first and then the health benefits. Eating or not eating meat is supposed to be a moral choice rather than which one is best for health. For example consider this scenario carefully and think deeply about the answer you are going to give.
You are driving a car on a two lane road, one lane has live chickens and other lane has live plants, you have to pick one lane or else you are gonna die, which one do you take? Most of the humans would prefer the option without blood. Why??? Your answer to this question is going to be crucial to determine whether to eat or not eat meat because it is going to tell who we are at the core of our beings. We always need to consider making a conscious choice when we put something in our mouth. If we can live very well off smaller life, why hurt bigger life with nervous systems? Whatever you say PAIN is inevitable when life is taken away, its all about the intensity and using our freedom of choice to prefer lesser pain. That is just my take on it and I will leave the choice to your conscience. Peace. Love.
"I sense that some animal sources are essential for development and flourishing, I think that evidence would support that..." - No, it wouldn't.
Where do you find these "experts"?
To balance the opinion please have a look at what a whole panel of scientists came up with: EAT Lancet 2019 Report - a diet for human health and environmental sustainability. It sounds pretty close to the CrossFit recommendation. There is no need to be vegan or a carnivore - but there is a need to reduce animal derived foods to a human and planetary measure. https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/07/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf Enjoy! Sascha
I agree that there is no need to be vegan or carnivore but to assert that we exceed what an appropriate amount of meat is already is grossly incorrect. Meat consumption as part of total calories in a diet has dropped tremendously in the last 100 years and that has not made us any healthier nor would reducing our cow populations have really any effect on "climate change." There were far more ruminants such as bison and mammoths a million years ago than there are cows now and yet there wasn't any major climate warming catastrophe back then.
Just another opinion from another so called expert, this one states we need meat for a couple of health reasons, don't agree with his statements but there we go, another opininion. Just follow what you feel is right and I don't need animal based food, I feel far more healthier as a vegan...
Sustainability and Metabolic Health With Peter Ballerstedt
17