Our Changing Climate We have been vegetarian for roughly 25 years and have enjoyed both Beyond Meat & Impossible burgers, especially as opposed to black bean burgers.
I'm not a vegetarian at all, and I really like the impossible burgers and I love the beyond sausages sold at grocery stores. Its also sparked a lot of discussion at my workplace and some coworkers recently told me they are doing meatless mondays now. :)
i went to a talk by an impossible foods representative, and he actually said that impossible foods actually welcomed beyond meat as a rival, because they're both making good sustainable alternatives to actual beef, and because they need more competitors to take up more of the market share and compete with the traditional meat industry. also, impossible foods seems to pride themselves on transparency. of course, that's all coming from someone who's trying to promote his company, so we should take this information with a grain of salt, but it would be great if impossible foods were genuine about this mindset.
VL (YBlvr) well, competition in the market breeds innovation! It’s great to see multiple companies get in on plant based burgers instead of one company holding all the power
It’s good for us consumers! Maybe through competitive innovation, there will emerge an even better healthier tastier alternative that is creative with half the sodium and half the fat! Who knows
It probably helps that since they're both struggling to meet market demands right now so they aren't really competing. Hopefully, even as they grow to better meet demands they don't lose that cooperative mentality
Beyond meat is also all about saving the planet and welcomes impossible and all the myriad of other competitors that will materialize. It means we can satisfy our taste for meat without the environmental impact. No matter how "sustainable" you attempt to produce animal meat it is always going to be many times more impactful than plant based protein.
Plants require a large input of agrichemicals, fertilisers, irrigation systems, and manpower (or mechanised equipment). Furthermore, plants need the right climate, soil fertility, soil type, drainage, and water availability to be feasibily grown. Rotational grazing on the other hand, uses the grass & shrubs that grows on the land. The grass regrows after the herd is moved on .
@@jonathantan2469 Plants require none of those things (well, except manpower) as long as the soil quality is sufficient. The reason soil fertility is low is because of monoculture farming that mirrors the factory/pasture farming problem, and a return to a soil-centric mode of farming could amend a lot of those problems. Proper soil can both hold and let water through, provide natural fertilisers, and have symbiotic microscopic life that help the plants find and absorb nutrients. To get proper soil you need: organic matter (humus) in the soil, appropriate bacteria and fungi, earthworms and insects. To maintain it, you need to refrain from fungi-, herbi- and pesticides that sterilise the soil, and you need to rotate or grow mixed fields with several crops so that you don't deplete the soil of any one plant's nutritional requirements. Anyway, monoculture farming is largely a feed production system for the aforementioned factory cattle farming industry, so if cattle farming were to transform into a system based on rotational grazing (and - this is key - if beef consumption were to scale down appropriately as to make that feasible) then we would have a lot of farm land freed up for growing food for people on instead, with proper soil care this time around.
@@einarssone ...and as long as the soil quality is sufficient as you said. However, few places on Earth are blessed with such good soil quality and weather that allows large-scale farming needed to feed over 8 billion people. And to get the yields per acre we need, large inputs of fertiliser (made with fossil fuels) is needed. Pesticides are also needed to prevent loss of fruit & veg crops to insect pests. Our ancestors went without modern fertilisers and agrichemicals in the past, but they were at the mercy of crop failures and pests like locusts... which meant deadly famines that could wipe out millions.
My wife hasn't eaten meats in 40 years. We have eaten various meat alternatives over the years. With the advent of Impossible burgers we have burgers nearly every week they are amazing.
wow! 40 years. amazing and thank you!! i haven't had meat for nearly eight years. i occasionally eat Impossible or Beyond Meat products 1-2 times a month. they are super delicious!
My sister has been a vegetarian for over 30 years, I was for 4 years before I got pregnant with my first. Am heavily veggies now but have to get rid of chicken. My son and his wife who are meat eaters both like the impossible burgers (I've never tried them but love Morningstar Farms items).
Maybe look into the soy leghemoglobin used in them. It is Lab-made toxic trash that made the test rats have kidney issues, yet the corrupt FDA finally approved it. No thanks, for my health I'll continue to eat veggie and black bean burgers made from whole foods.
Animal agriculture already takes up 1/3 of Earth's land, and 2/3 of all available agricultural land (FAO,2006). There simply isn't room to transition our cafos to pasture-grazing operations, without causing so much more deforestation and other habitat loss, which wouldn't be offset by the carbon sequestration of grass even if it did work. The reality is that humanity simply has to eat less meat. Cut out the incredibly inefficient middle man of the animals, and eat the plants themselves.
A lot of agricultural land is ill-suited to planting food crops because of soil types, water availability, soil fertility, weather, etc. Grass or shrubs can grow on it, which sheep & cattle can feed upon.
@@jonathantan2469 Maybe it makes sense to have cattle graze in those areas, but they'd only feed the small local population around them who would still probably have to cut back their meat consumption/demand to be sustainable. On a big scale, for the majority of humans and climates, plant based is the most ecological choice.
That still doesn't address what @Moritz stated. By reducing the consumption of meat, we can use the land that is currently meant for growing soy and corn for cattle.
It's great to be sceptical about claims made by a company that produces plant based meats but you didn't seem to excersize the same caution when mentioning restorative agriculture farms. After all, they're a business too! You completely ignored any downsides of regenerative agriculture. Restoritive agriculture uses much more land and water (requiring much more native land to be cleared) than CAFOs and according to the study "Grazed and Confused" the amount of carbon it sequesters is minimal and comes no where near close to offsetting it's own emissions.
@@niken538 no, I don't kiss flowers, regardless of how beautiful they might be. And as for kissing a kid. You don't compare cattle, what you eat, to your own blood
Very incomplete video, doesn't even cover half the reasons raising cattle is so harmful to the environment, doesn't consider how grass fed cows live longer and therefore produce more methane, eat more feed (which consequently requires more land and water) and produces more waste in its life them cows that are factory farmed. It doesn't really go into any detail about the carbon footprint of beyond/impossible and other environmental impacts it may have. The main point of the video has been completely missed because there was hardly any evaluation of either side of the argument
Methane from cows only contribute around 0.3 to climate change, all climate change caused my humans is around 6%, the rest is uncontrollable water vapour, climate will happen but people want someone to blame, they can't accept the world has its own cycle, the meat industry shouldn't run the way it is running, feeding slop to cows but they hardly have any impact, i know what you're talking about but its just propaganda, so many people lying about reports and studies to fit their agenda, it's childish and the impossible burger is fucking poison, full of hexane and vegetable oils which are the core of plaque build up, just look at our ancestors 100,000 years ago and live like them, they didn't have words for heart attack.
@@Chxkey1 "full of hexane" is a lie, but there is indeed something to worry about, beyond meat uses carrageenan, at a very low dosis, but it can cause cancer. So yeah better just eat less 'meat' in general.
@@fatoeki to pull almost any vegetable oil except from olive oil and some others, hexane is a part of the process, bruh said "it's a lie" look into how vegetable oils are made.
I didn’t notice any real criticism of the meat alternatives, only suggestions that we shouldn’t trust ‘silver bullet solutions’ and that more research is needed. I also don’t see how animal agriculture could ever be made more sustainable than a sustainable vegan diet (I appreciate that there are sustainable and unsustainable types of vegan lifestyles).
Personally i Don't think there is a alternative solution to cattle rearing. Alternative solution would require a lot of other resources too. We simply need to stop eating meat.
Not possible for many communities around the world. Besides, villages with one or two cows aren't causing a big issue. It's the mass production factories
@@jacobzacarias I agree with you that current meat production is not sustainable. But 1. If people gave up meat they have 2 make sure they get the right nutrients 2. Some land can not be used for crops but only for cattle. 3. Meat in vats are coming
@@YupRobin Ohhh, congratulations! Yeah, the progress is huge and I hope that things will get better and better, although it's sad to see how people are ''swallowing'' fake news about veganism in the same way they do it with politics, show-biz, etc.
I’d love a video on the lab grown meat, made from some collected cells. In a few weeks you can have some meat that biologically belongs to a cow that is still walking around. It’s wild. If we had way fewer cows and did some cell collections, then we could afford to treat them far better and stop feeding them food they’re not equipped to break down. So it would cause even less methane than the reductions in overall numbers of cows would be responsible for. I know some people will still be upset, but... I feel like there will be people who want “real” meat until there’s a perfect substitute. This way the cows are fewer in number, treated well, and not killed for their meat. It looks like about as good as it’s possible to get. Perhaps in time we could use collected cells to be like... mother strains, so we don’t even have to collect from actual cows anymore. Like a yeast starter! I just wonder what those numbers would look like.
i get that we need a whole system overhaul and such, but one person is not going to be able to do that, especially by lunchtime. i feel like you kind of skimmed over the fact that avoiding meat, specifically beef, is one of the best and only things and individual can do today.
He literally did the opposite. He essentially said "hey guys you can keep eating beef, it's the beef industry that needs to change to cater you" while ignoring the fact that in terms of land availability, that's not possible. The only actual impossible burger is one made from "sustainable" beef lol
@@Czarewich yup, "sustainable" beef takes way more land, still takes just as much water, and would be twice as expensive as a veggie burger anyway. what's the point? Just so you can have real animal flesh instead of plants?
The solution I think is supporting local wholefoods producers, as opposed to trying to reinvent meat. Also produces less waste. But yeah you're right this idea was glossed over.
@@ashvio I agree with you, but that is why we have to mix solutions, to cater everyone's needs while moving away from traditional meat farming. Some people just have a big problem transitioning completely away from real beef, and having an alternative sustainable beef growing system offers a way to slowly adjust them into a more sustainable mindset.
CHANGE THE CLICKBAIT TITLE OF THIS VIDEO!!! This video has almost nothing to do with the sustainability of beyond/impossible meat! It provides no argument that such “meats” are not sustainable, only that the issue hasn’t been studied independently. It is insane to think these products have an environmental impact that even approaches that of real beef, but you are deliberately misleading people into considering that proposition! Shame on curiosity stream for sponsoring this insidious propaganda!
I gotta say, I thought this video would actually be about plant-based meats. You're right that we shouldn't rely on a single tool to fix a huge problem, but the title promised a look at the sustainability of that tool and there wasn't much beyond a single study mention.
This was my issue with the video too. I typically enjoy OCC but this felt like they were arguing a healthy skepticism of Impossible/Beyond claims prevents us from saying they (or other plant-based alternatives) are likely the best ways of replacing CAFOs. The argument just felt sort of weak considering it didn't directly compare the pros of sustainable animal ag versus plant-based meat. If they'd have listed some ways Polyface farms benefited the environment that Impossible/Beyond didn't or couldn't, the video would've been stronger.
How was the question "Are plant-based meats actually sustainable?" answered? It wasn't. They just said that more needs to be done in the traditional meat industry. This was pure click-bait.
It's marketing, no more. This stuff is detrimental to biodiversity. Pastures with grazing farm animals (as opposed to battery farms) create entire and very complex ecosystems of plants, insects, critters, birds and other animals. Cut those pastures out and you destroy all of that. The real solution is cultured meat, not this genocide of farm animals.
It has been answered by showing the infographic of percentages regarding gas emissions, land usage etc. regarding producing plant vs. "real" meat. The only thing was that the narrator told us to not believe these percentages fully, as this was a science study backed by the company. In conclusion, the amounts of percents may vary, but for sure are quite reasonable.
@@katarzynapuchaa128 No, they really aren't reasonable. They compare apples with oranges. Their studies are really just marketing dribble aimed at hipsters and vegans. In reality grazing cows not just drastically reduce greenhouse emissions, but also remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It also deliberately ignores a myriad of tangential effects, e.g. biodiversity. Because at the end of the day the obvious conclusion is to send more cows grazing and boost investment into cultured meat. But since that would destroy the entire premise of their product, which they invested Billions into, they choose to conveniently omit anything that shows how shortsighted their stunt was.
@@nal8503 That seems weird to me at first, but I do believe there may be more factors playing role in it I didn't know. Do you have some interesting sources on that? I'd like to get more information about the impact of freely grazing cows on climate. Can you remember some sources you found reliable? I'd like to get to know more and form further opinions on this subject, thanks!
Look you dont have to shill for beyond/impossible but this framing is dishonest. 1st we looked at the meat industry and asserted its evident problems. Then we looked into the plant based solution and _assumed_ the studies are biased, that it is an insufficient solution and that there are no silver bullet solutions. Then back to the meat industry and present a solution which, apparently, very few people are willing to adopt, and that somehow equates both plant based and meat industry… EDIT: Glad to see the comment section is also aware.
Yeah I was expecting there to be some revelation about how plant-based meats are actually unsustainable for other reasons, but the only negative mentioned was the nebulous idea that it’s made in a lab and therefore ~questionable~ which is not nearly strong enough to convince me not to eat them
he was most likely trying to defend and justify his own meat eating because he really had no argument againts plant based meats, so said a silver bullet wont solve anything, i dont know alot of facts but if this is the information were given and if i look at it only in context to this video, it just seems like plant based meats are surperior and probably would solve alot of issues
Maybe - and I’m being super charitable here - maybe the idea was to state that, even if plant based industries are less harmful, the meat industry won’t go away any time soon, the transition will take years, so in the meantime, the meat industry should adapt to more environmentally conscious practices.
You should really put portuguese subtitles, it would be amazing for your brazilian viewer, especially since brazil is a huge driver in all of this, I am a teacher and wish I could show this video to my students
Yeah, I think you missed the mark on this one. Any solution to the carbon impact of our food system involves us drastically reducing the amount of meat we consume, not just changing how we grow it. There's simply not enough land to grow all the meat we consume using pasture, free range chickens and the like. We are well past that point.
"We are well past that point." There is no WE. When it becomes actually true that there is not enough land to grow the meat, then the meat will not be grown. Until then, there IS room and meat is grown and eaten by those that wish to do so.
@@thomasmaughan4798 can you reread the comment. I said there's not enough land to grow free range/pasture raised meat to support everyone's meat consumption.
@@sandpiperbf9767 " said there's not enough land to grow free range/pasture raised meat to support everyone's meat consumption." Precisely. Therefore it cannot happen. Therefore it is not a problem.
I think the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can come up with good alternatives to meat while also scaling back on the amount you consume. In the end, the cost of meat just needs to reflect its actual cost on the environment. That's the best way to adjust consumer attitudes.
That's why he said we need to do both. We can still have livestock in a regenerative agriculture system - in fact, they are necessary. But raising meat sustainably means we have to eat less of it and change our diets around that.
You give the impression from your approach to plant-based alternatives that they somehow not being the whole solution to climate change makes them deceptive, or bad in some undefined way. I guess it's the only way you could think of to get clicks.
you make something that was researched in a lab sound so scary. The amount of research that went into these plant-based products should give you more confidence in their health and safety benefits, not less.
As an organic vegetable farmer I can appreciate this video. To all my vegan friends I love your enthusiasm for a more vegetable based diet! However I must inform you that almost all organic fertilizers are animal based. Of course you can get fish or kelp, but those both have equally high environmental impacts. This means you can either buy petroleum aka synthetic fertilizers or organic ones that are by products of the meat industry I.e bone,feather,blood meals. Sure you can use compost to hold those nutrients longer (which I do) but every vegetable out needs to be replaced with nutrients in.
I think this title is very misleading. We know that a whole foods plant based diet is the most sustainable.. and the healthiest. So u can eat a plant based meal made up of lentils, rice, beans. And lettuce. And these things are easily the most sustainable foods. And I am not talking about mono crops which is purposed to grow feed for cattle and farm animals. We know mono crops are not sustainable. But these methods were only developed to feed farm animals.
It's not sustainable long term for the environment or humanity. Pesticides would destroy the ecosystem and cattle are needed to graze lands that can't grow plants well or where plants may cause damage to the soil. The best solution is one in the middle where we can get more food.
if you have to have your food shipped from 3rd world countries where food is limited and its hard to even feed themselves then it is not sustainable. if you buy food grown in your country that is sustainable but that doesnt mean it is sustainable for the whole population.
Rice, lentils, beans, lettuce, etc. are mostly grown in large monoculture farms. Rice cultivation in fact, produces a lot of greenhouse gases... rivalling that of beef, and more than other types of meat & dairy.
Jonathan Tan show me the study that says that that does not come from the EPA. ? Yes everything is mono cropped.. but mono cropped food is only here because we need to feed 70 billion farm animals a year. We only eat 6% of all soya. If we didn’t have to feed 70 billion animals we wouldn’t need to mono crop. We could vertical farm. We already grow enough plants to feed all of humanity a few times over. We cannot feed 70 billion land animals.
@@cquinnvegan3602 Monoculture is defined as a single crop planted in a certain area, on a large scale. Rice & wheat, which is eaten by us, are usually grown as monocultures. Palm oil are also grown as monocultures, used to make biodiesel, vegetable oils, and dairy-replacement ingredients. Large fields of tomatoes/strawberries/apples/lettuce/any plant crop... are considered monocultures.
100% agree. True free range ranching can't even begin to satisfy the meat demand of 8 billion humans, much less if they all want to eat like Americans. The only way to meet that demand is plant-based meat.
You are wrong. I'm sorry, but there is no sustainable method of cattle raising, it's a myth. The amount of land required for rotational grazing like on Polyface's Farms is not sustainable at any type of large scale. The demand for beef has to massively reduce for that to happen. It would take more land than the USA currently has to meet their own current demand for beef alone, never mind exports. Farmers should not receive subsidies to adapt to those methods. In fact, all beef subsidies should end immediately so that the price of beef is adjusted to where it should actually be in order to drive demand down significantly. If the cattle ranchers can't adapt to the demand at true market price, then the cattle ranching industry should die. Furthermore, vegetarians and vegans should not be paying extra taxes to bail out a dying, environmentally damaging industry (especially when said industry is also spending millions trying to suppress plant-based alternatives and spread fake propaganda about the healthiness and sustainability of their products). To even suggest that as an option is reckless and profoundly hypocritical. Other meats? Sure, I'd concede that. People who eat chicken are, in terms of CO2 output, basically vegetarian. Beef? Nope. There is no sustainable way to eat beef. You don't have to go vegan, but if you care about the environment at all and continue to eat beef, then you're a hypocrite plain and simple. It isn't an option we should even somewhat consider.
@@Faustobellissimo they literally went through why eatting beef is not sustainable no matter how its raised, nothing about going vegan and you're calling them a nazi? Fs grow up
How about government subsidies on meat? That’s why the price is so low. Imagine if they spent all that money on plants. Meat is not healthy, not sustainable, it’s bad for the environment, it causes animals to suffer, etc etc. so many reasons to not eat it. I personally buy vegan “meat alternatives” less than once a month anyways. You don’t need it on everyday basis. Lots of better, healthier, and cheaper options out there.
I know this was made nearly 2 years ago, but I can't get over how bad of a take this is. It endorses plant based meat alternatives, yet at the same time tries to undermine them with no evidence and only assertions like impossible foods is struggling to meet demand and the main study on their environmental impact is biased. Okay but are they sustainable or aren't they? Just answer the question you posted in the title. On top of that, he ends with the claim that we need to also use more sustainable and "humane" methods of killing cows for beef, yet fails to research further on that to realize that this is MUCH less capable of meeting demands for our current food system even compared to meat alternatives, and isn't even that much better environmentally compared to factory farming. It's like he stopped his research as soon as he got to an answer that fits his desire to continue eating beef.
Yeah I generally like these videos, but I think he has a clear bias against private sector techie solutions. If plant burger companies were run by worker coops I think he would've been all for it.
The video is authoritarian in tone but Lacks any serious research In the plant bas ed diet. There are hundreds of Studies demonstrating The climate benefits of plant-based diets.
The purpose of this video is to compare the environmental impacts of meat and "plant-based alternatives". While any vegan produce can be considered an alternative, we are specifically targeting the products that aim to mimic and recreate the taste of meat. This industry, progressed by companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, is still relatively new to the market and requires further independent research to completely validate the environmental factors. Furthermore, if you view other videos of his, his tone generally remains similar throughout all of them. It would be discrediting the author for trying to be unbiased and trying to actually use facts to support his argument. If one would simply take the time to click the "read more" segment, you can clearly see the sources he used for his video, and they are from credible sources too. I don't mean to target or offend anyone, but when the creator takes the time and effort to produce well-scripted, informative content like this to influence us to be more critical of our diets to be more responsible for the environment that we are destroying through such choices, I think it is our onus as the audience to credit such creators and support them instead.
That's the weakest of your videos yet, on probably the most important topic you've picked so far. I'm disappointed and am worried you haven't been doing due diligence researching subjects you've covered in the past that I'm less knowledgeable about.
Grzegorz Widła I agree with you. This is a topic I myself find extremely important but was missing all the science based results in this video which worries me that this video won’t have any impact on others.
I think it’s always questionable when their resources is tons of news articles or news platforms. With just one “.gov” and one “.org” , im sorry, im not here to waste 11minutes on unreliable sources .... so I hear you
No I haven’t. I’ve been vegan/vegetarian for years and I’ve just left meat behind. I’m not sure what the purpose of these pseudo meats is - perhaps to help people to transition to vegetarianism. The whole factory farm thing I find truly grotesque. As Paul McCartney said, if abattoirs had glass walls, we’d all be vegetarian.
Recent research published by the University of Oxford said that global land use would drop by 75 PERCENT if everyone stopped eating beef and went vegan. The change would also free up crops that are currently being grown exclusively for livestock. The majority of alfalfa, oats, grain, and corn produced is fed directly to factory farmed animals when it could be feeding humans.
There is no way in hell a grazing rotation system is capable of negating the incredible ruminant methane emissions. You're pointing to some new technology and saying "Look now we can make meat sustainable." But we can't. Plant-based meat alternatives are clearly the better option and here you are telling me that they have their own problems and that they are in fact the "easy tech fix". I disagree.
This video doesn't really end up answering the question it poses; it just presents the question and a small bit of data that should be considered when answering it. Plus the conclusion seems to imply that continuing to farm animals for meat is not at all an ethical concern in addition to the obvious environmental concerns. I.e. it isn't addressed here the factor that many people are seeking more sustainable meat alternatives because they want to move away from the practice of killing other animals when we have other ways to get the protein and taste satisfactions, thereby removing the cruelty/suffering factors.
Nothing wrong with capitalism. Capitalism gives people exactly what they want, cheap meat, the problem is people demand cheap meat regardless of the impact and don't absorb the environmental cost. A carbon tax would fix the problem.
The livestock industry emits more greenhouse gasses than the entire transportation industry combined (so all cars, airplanes, boats, busses and trains etc)
That's actually not true. The study based upon which this claim was spread counted only the tailpipe emissions of transport industry but included the entire Life Cycle Assessment of livestock farming. Not a fair comparison at all.
"if you're exhausted of hearing my voice" lol no way, man, learnt a lot from you. a documentary narrated by you would actaully be so great, u're like the morgan freeman of environment related videos
Demand-side solutions are a huge part of directing resources away from unsustainable options to create long-lasting change. Supply systems follow demand, not the other way around. Fixing broken supply systems by employing things like rotational grazing does not revamp the very basis of the system. Rotational grazing, for instance, has huge problems associated with it, primarily the large amount of resources it needs and its inability to actually meet global protein needs. "Everything all at once" is true; the disavowal of market solutions... not so much.
Rashmit Arora Hey, could you explain more what you mean by demand-side solutions? Does that mean shifting public demand for beef to plant based alternatives through advertisement and public service announcements? Or am I understanding wrong? I’m interested in seeing all sides of how to solve such a complex problem, so I would really appreciate if you could explain
Although I like the video and agree with much of what was presented, I see two problems and I'm not sure if he's over-simplifying the issues or misinformed. First - rotational grazing. Great idea and although I'm vegan, this is a relatively humane and sustainable solution EXCEPT there simply is NOT enough land on the planet to implement this solution. According to his own figures, 26% of the earth's usable land is already used for raising cattle and that includes the feed lot/factory farming method. Take away that system and try to implement rotational grazing and there simply isn't enough land available - the best we could hope for in this scenario is meat so costly only the very wealthy could afford it. Second - I doubt that anyone is pushing the idea that plant-based meats are the "silver bullet solution" to climate change; however, it is one viable piece of the multifaceted approach to climate change. I do appreciate he pointed out that the sustainability research was produced by the plant-based meat industry and in order to have any real validity we need independent peer-reviewed research. Overall, I'm glad I watched the video and now have more information. Thanks
Does your plant based meat have the ingredient "natural flavor" in it? It sounds so nice and polite but how many chemicals can be in the ingredient called natural flavor which are hidden and unknown to the public unless you are the chemist that creates this stuff in the lab? As many as 100? Does your unflavored and unsweetened soy or almond milk have something called natural flavor in it? Can the term natural flavor wreck your metabolism?
Interesting video, but I think it's a bit misleading to think of simili carne's purpose as a mean to reduce climate change. Plant based replacement are first and foremost alternatives to animal products, and appeal to customers much like myself who out of ethical reasons, do not consume animals. Ecological reasons may also play a role, but they are not the main purpose. And it is crucial we keep that in mind, because one may be vegetarian or vegan and still engage in a non sustainable lifestyle.
Mate, i feel like your videos are declining in quality. That they arent as whole and well rounded as they were. Maybe take more time for each one and not post as regularly? I vote for quality over quantity any day.
I thought this after the nuclear video. The research seemed to consist of some biased googling and reading info exclusively from political interest groups. It was a shame to see
We don't have multiple stomachs like ruminant animals, nor do we re-eat our undigested food for another round through our system... like rabbits & gorillas do. Better not give any bright ideas about the second one... too many diet fads out there....
@@jonathantan2469 the national dietetic society, hundreds of nutrienist took part, all over the world. A vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life. I mean you're saying things that vegans have had to argue for years. As if we go into this blind, no, it takes a lot of looking before making a decision. On a personal level, my friend is 64 and has been vegan for 40 odd years, he is in the best shape and has top bill of health, I always out of breathe and sleepy, now, being lent based, I feel amazing have have done for years. 💚💚 please do research. And always look at both sides of the arguement in full detail before giving you're input. This is part of the problem in today's society.
@@kaykay1570 Hundreds vs. tens of thousands of nutritionists who disagree and believe a well-balanced omnivorous diet is better. I know healthy people above 70 and they live on a well-balanced diet of animal & plant based foods too.
the problem with the lab-grown burgers is that they're going to be less nutritious. beef hamburger ≠ plant burger and it never will because animal-based foods will always be more bioavailable. considering beef contains every essential nutrient, i would still argue it's the better option, unless there's a study somewhere claiming you can live off only impossible burgers. especially since the actual effects on GHG emissions would be a reduction of 2.6% if every american stopped eating meat, i would rather choose proper nutrition than more processed plant foods like the food companies are already selling
The beef in burgers does not have every essential nutrient either. Unless you are eating every part of the cow (and most ppl in the US don't eat any part of the cow except muscle) you aren't getting a complete nutrition from beef alone. Not many foods are nutritionally complete, hence why it's preferable to have a diverse diet.
"transition from feedlots" - there simply isn't enough space on this planet to feed the growing demand for beef based on the rotational grazing system.
Never sick of your videos. Very informative and exposed the raw truth. Thank you! And I can’t imagine all the work and research you put into your videos!
Farmers are not interested in more humanely farming practices, they are interested in making money which goes against humanely farming practices. If it is really humane, It's called a sanctuary not a farm.
What no one seems to realize is that factory farming, despite being horrible, it's actually the most efficient and least resource consuming method of farming animals. It uses less land, less water, less feed and it maximizes production, and despite this it's still absolutely unsustainable.
Thanks for mentioning Polyface farms, as everyone isn't going to be vegan it's a good alternative. However that will mean we have to reduce meat consumption as this type of farming isn't going to produce the same quantity of meat, but it still doesn't get rid of meat altogether.
He should have mentioned lab grown meat instead. Why would we apply a band aid (changes in live animals farming) if we're on track to having complete solution in a decade (lab grown meat that's sustainable and will let people enjoy the taste without ethical or ecological qualms)? Farms should be reforested immediately, as many as we can. Removing cows from our food production systems would mean vast amounts of land free to be used for natural carbon sequestration - swamp lands and forests.
Wait, you didn't talk at all about the sustainably of meat substitutes beyond saying we should be skeptical of a study that says they're ridiculously better than beef for the environment and then you went on to praise beef farming that doesn't use feed lots. Very misleading title.
I think Beyond Meat Burger/Impossible Burger are great, not only in taste but the cruelty free aspect as well, but I agree, they will not repair the broken system. What is needed is a new way of looking at nutrition and stop companies from constantly advertising unhealthy fast food as a everyday snack. I think fast food is a nice way to treat yourself to an unhealthy but tasty dish, but eating it everyday is just unhealthy and dangerous. Occasional Impossible Burgers are the future!
Rotational grazing is totally unsustainable, just from a land-use standpoint. There is no good reason to consume any animal foods, morally, environmentally, or for one's health.
I didn't really see any specific downsides to the impossible burger mentioned here, other than that they're currently struggling to meet huge demand (a good problem to have!). Would be interested to know if there are any.
The Impossible Burger is fantastic. I actually emailed Impossible to express my delight in their product. They emailed me back, being very kind, asking for my shirt size and address. A week later I got a nice thank you card and an Impossible teeshirt.
Multifaceted problems require multifaceted solutions. Addressing farming concerns and climate issues require a spectrum of solutions, many of which you list in this video. Popularization of a reduced meat diet, meat alternatives, better farming techniques, government subsidizing for adopters of better farming practices AND penalties for noncompliance farms. A focused, and well communicated video. Par for the course of this channel.
Shauday Smith It’s easy to blame meat for all the problems in the agricultural industry. It’s also wrong. Plants are also unsustainable. Getting rid of meat is a band-aid at best. These issues are compounded greatly by movements including (but not limited to) organic and non-GMO.
Is a world without animal exploitation sustainable? I dare you to make that video. Because you always leave the ethics out of it, when it is the most important aspect. It's like asking 150 years ago, if making all slaves free would be sustainable...
Personally, I think that sustainability and health is really what's important; ethics should be left to the individual. If one person believes that eating certain meat/meat from a certain farming method is unethical, then it's their choice to avoid it.
@@boneappletee6416 Ok, fair, but do you also believe that racism, sexism, rape, pedophilia should be left to the individual? It's all ethics. If there is a victim, it's not a personal choice.
@@sleepycatgamer I agree that when there's a human victim, that's what's important (see 'health' in my comment). Obviously rape, racism and sexism are bad.
@@boneappletee6416 So animals victims don't matter? That means you would be ok about me beating my dog to death right in front of you right? Or slitting my cats throat. Is that something you agree with? And before you say, "there's a difference between killing for food and killing for no reason"... What if i ate the dog and the cat, would that be fine then?
@@boneappletee6416 OK, so it's fine to kick every homeless dog and cat I see on the street? No human will be hurt by that, right? What if I told you I get pleasure from that? Would you be fine with my "personal choice"?
I'll never understand how the pain and suffering of animals like cows and pigs is always an afterthought when dicussing if plant-based meats are better alternatives. Even if the environmental impact of plant-based meats is the same as cattle meat.. the lack of suffering and pain should be enough to make us transition to plant-based meat.
you crush ants unknowingly when walking on the street , but a cow, pig or chicken (that barely look at you or care about you) being used for food is far worse ? If morality is the reason why you switched to a low nutrient diet, then you prob don't wanna know how many insects and small animals die due to agriculture via pesticides, harvest etc , in order for you to have fruits and vegetables in your store/market
Good video,but where do people get their statistics about cows making 14 to 18 procent ? Agriculture is in USA around 10% ,in the world less, So from the 10% lets say only 4 % is cow related And the most IMPORTANT is that this in reality is 0! Why 0? In the case of a car,burns gas,that came from underground,now the CO2 is above ground ,so we have an increase Cow:Plants are eaten by cows,cows poop out methane, methane desintegrates in the atmosphere in CO2 and H20 ( after a long time), than the CO2 is taken by plants,than the cow eats the plant; no additional CO2 emissions brought to the atmosphere
4 года назад
Why we should care about it being sustainable or not? Why something being 'sustainable' actually matters? Isn't it more accurate to focus on the suffering that it prevents on sentient beigns on this planet?
Juan Rodríguez because climate change is the focus of this channel 🤷♀️ also not everyone agrees that its cruel to eat animals but its fact that the meat industry is bad for the environment.
4 года назад
@@smallperson8697 I know it is the focus of the channel. Maybe a deeper sense would be, why climate change matters? I think answering that questions begins a thought process in which we realize reducing suffering is actually what matters, and whether or not something is sustainable isn't actually a priority.
@@smallperson8697 but its a fact that to eat animal products animal cruelty happens. The debate isnt about if it happens but if its wrong to inflict cruelty onto them, while most of the time the person arguing agianst veganism isnt aware of the extent of the cruelty...
Methane reason is absolutely overrated, because its less than 14% and still its the smallest proportion. What about decreasing the other 86% that comes from induatrial side? "What I've learned" youtube channel elaborated on it very well and Cows aren't that big of an issue, apart from antibiotic use though
@am py You can't talk about discrimination and enslavement when it comes to animals lol. Sure, the way we farm them could be considered cruel for some but talking about slavery and oppression is just ridiculous. Or are lions enslaving and oppressing antelopes?
Cattle really account to 3.9% of GHG emissions,not 14+. As you mention in the video, practicing real sustainable cattle farming has a negative carbon footprint. Less corn and soy depleting crops and core grazing would greatly reduce our impact on environment.
How can you say "humane" and "farming (cattle)" in the same sentence? It's contradiction at best. Tell me a way to humanely slaughter an animal? The end result is always - death which is NOT humane!
The plants we eat wanted to live too. Just because they can't scream and try to run away doesn't mean they did not want to survive. Death is the way eating works unless you're an autotroph, and even they need organic matter in the soils from things that have died and broken down to survive. Edited to add a second "o" to my "to".
Napalm Candy they don't have nervous system or pain receptors. Yes they do want to survive but that's not equal to pain either. Yes everyone needs matter to survive but everyone is not killing to survive.
They don't have nerves like animals, but they DO react to damage because they ARE living things; some produce toxins in their regrowth if they survive an attack to ward off another attack, and some will send out chemical signals to others in their species to warn them of danger (trees are known for this). Either way they are alive by the definition of life in biology, so yes we are still killing them if we dig them up to eat, or cause enough damage to prevent survival. FYI sponges have no nerves at all, yet they are animals and we can kill them same as plants. But since they don't have a nervous system they'd be fine to eat by your definition. Keep that in mind.
Napalm Candy being alive doesn't mean concious. Those are stimuli and does not relate to pain etc. It is more for survival DNA not immediate threat resolution. Anyways if one is so concerned for plants then they can become fruitivore. No need to kill any plants too.
@@NiranjanBendre I'm an omnivore so I'm not concerned about actually killing things to survive. But in your first comment you said the end result is always death, which is not humane, so I wanted to point out the flaw in your argument. Death itself is neither humane nor inhumane, it's a fact of life. There are ways to kill animals that minimize their suffering, just like there are ways to kill plants that minimize the depletion of their populations and environmental degradation. What irks me is that so many vegans think they aren't killing anything by eating plants, when they very much are killing something.
Please explain to me how animal farming can be "humane". I struggle to understand how raising a living being just for it to be murdered and enjoyed in a 5 minute meal can be even considered "humane".
@@GKFIGHTMEDIA you dont have to but its the natural process. you can see this pattern everywhere even in plants...almost every life survives by consuming life. it is humane and everything is programed to survive and everything dies anyway so not wanting to die is not really a factor here
Every few months I’ll give one of your videos another try and leave disappointed. Introducing FUD on plant-based meats does nothing other than encourage people to eat animal-cruelty products like dead flesh, and exacerbate climate change. Secondly, you hardly brought up the issue of animal wellbeing which is far more important than water usage or methane release. The only time you mentioned it was in reference to factory farming, as if cows are okay with being tortured and killed if it’s not in a factory. Shame on this channel, again, unsurprisingly.
First, excellent video! Love your presentation. Thank you for the research and facts! With my limited knowledge of rotational grazing operations I would want to know how this could possibly be scaled up to provide the same amount of product that factory farms currently provide. It seems that the amount of land necessary for this type of operation would be enormous at full scale. That’s the reason why factory farming exists in the first place. We don’t need to subsidize factory farms when in fact they’re already heavily subsidized. If they weren’t, beef wouldn’t be as cheap as it is in this country. The future is plant based.
ok, but we’re not trying to end climate change one burger at a time. the pressure to do so relies on governments and big companies. all that we’re doing is choosing an option that is undoubtedly less hurtful
ABSOLUTELY!!!! Less death No murdering Less land use Less crop use Less water use .....it’s still a burger and a burger is never the most healthy option.
@Hugh Nelson Less than factory farmed or CAFO produced meat, but a lot more than plant based meats. Grass fed meat is actually worse for climate change per pound of beef, since it takes more time for cattle to get to slaughter weight on grass than by eating corn and soy. During that time, they are producing methane.
I don't understand which were the environmental issues with plant-based meat, apart of a seemingly general mistrust in technology. Are they bad for the environment just because they were developed on the basis of a new technology? Why would that be? After watching the video I was actually convinced that plant-based meat is indeed better for the environment
Straightforward informational video; very informative. My only criticism is you don’t really mention the ETHICAL reasons for eating a plant-based diet. The factory farming portion talks about the cruelty and inhumane treatment of animals but much of the reasoning for choosing to be vegan or vegetarian is based on moral concerns vis-a-vis, right and wrong. I think you set up a bit of a false equivalency between eating animals or plant-based diets and their impacts on not only the environment but the human psyche.
I only care about taste when it comes to food, I hate plant based foods unless it's Ketchup, French Fries and Bread. Vegetables and Fruits and Meat Substitutes can go die in a fire for all I care
Coming from a country (new Zealand) where all cattle are free farmed and rotated through different paddocks I can tell you now that it makes very little difference in pollution and greenhouse Gas emissions. Now the beyond burger on the other hand is a real solution to an issue. An issue that could easily be solved if America got over it's stubbornness and stopped pumping all its money into military to "defend themselves" and used the money for something worth while..
I was hoping for a more in depth analysis of the environmental impacts of meat alternatives, like you did with the milk alternatives. Maybe another video :) I've personally never seen fake meats as a means to 'save the planet' really. Yeah, meat is bad, but like, potatoes exist, not every meal needs to include meat or meat-like products. Fake meats are a treat, for those who like the taste but are also looking at their carbon footprint. Sometimes I'd like to see more tech used for food. We live in a highly technologised world, a completely 'natural' way of farming might not suit it. Like, most people live in cities, there isn't much soil there to grow stuff. But you could have indoor garden towers, tended to by robots, growing things that might spoil quickly if they had to be imported from another place (also CO2 emissions for transport).
Can the Impossible Burger be considered vegan when to get the FDA’s approval for the ingredient heme meant submitting to three separate experiments on rats - a total of 188 rats. As part of standard animal testing procedure, the rats were then killed.
that is an exceptionally bad summary of what meat-alternatives can change. i really admire your other videos, but this is not one of them. raising cattle in a different way won't change anything about water usage, land use, and the amount of manure produced. if cattle is raised more "sustainable" (and meat consumption remains the same) we will actually need even more land. the only benefit: some reduction in methane production, less use of antibiotics. these improvements may be substantial, but not as substantial as with plant-based alternatives.
Also, c.70% of crops grown in the U,S. are to feed food animals. Could be used to grow crops for human consumption here and for export to feed the world.
This video is so misleading and hypocrisy. The video does not answer the question in the title. Just says we should not depend on the tech-fixes without saying why or how bad it is in middle part of the video. In the end takes a U turn and says yes we should eat more veggie burgers. Just keeps repeating why startups cant fix the complex problem with simple solutions. The reality is those veggies burgers did not promise to solve whole of the global warming. They are at least reducing some emissions. The solution they are coming up is not a simple fix and it is at least tackling the problem. So disappointed with the video I clicked it just to know if plant based meats are really bad.
