Anti-GMO fetishist? There is a Safeway or what ever to fill your needs nearby, read the f---ing labels.

Sure, some fuel works better than others.

Wes, why the criticism toward the Adventists?

Well, that's a valid criticism, but I'll remind you that not everybody who works for an SDA university follows that faith.

It is obvious that the Seventh Day Adventist [church] would benefit financially by an increase in people who follow a vegetarian diet.

Another thing I find increadibly odd is that a review paper (such as Reijnders and Soret, 2003) can make the claim "The authors have no conflict of interest..."

When in fact, Soret works for a Seventh Day Adventist Church University. A 5 minute search into the church should give people something to THINK about. (direct quotes from Adventist News Network, May 20, 2003... the same year the article I am questioning was published)

Learn to read between the lines people, learn to critically evaluate data and where it comes from.

Greenhouse production and vegetables transported by air cause the highest surplus environmental impact. Avoiding air-transported food products leads to the highest decrease of environmental impacts.

The total impact for vegetable or meat purchases may vary by a factor of eight or two-and-a-half."

"Purchases of a certain amount of food may differ by a factor of seven or nine in the environmental impacts caused for meat and vegetables respectively."

"Reducing the amount of meat consumed, might be an option for minimizing the environmental impacts due to nutrification that should be investigated in more detail in forthcoming studies."

The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meatbased diet.

For every 1 kg of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed about 6 kg of plant protein,

The beef system has a ratio of 40:1 (fossil energy input to kcal of protein produced), while the lamb has the highest, with a ratio of 57:1 (Table 2). If these animals were fed on only good-quality pasture, the energy inputs could be reduced by about half."

... to produce 1 kcal of plant protein requiresan input of about 2.2 kcal of fossil energy.

Although on average vegetarian diets may well have an environmental advantage, exceptions may also occur.

the highest change for a meat or vegetable purchase is caused by a renunciation of fresh products flown in from oversees. A second important option, is a preference for organic products" (Jungbluth, N. 2000).

What are you suggesting, exactly? Do you any evidence that the authors' work has been influenced by economic interests of the SDA chuch? If so, what is your evidence, specifically?

Jay

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

I'm not a PI. It is not my job to investsigate this stuff. I'm simply questioning their interpretation of the scientific work. Here is a bit from a recent study backing my motive for questioning the interpreted results:

You shouldn't be so sensitve and defensive, it doesn't look so good.

Do you have a source for that!?

So really, you're saying that, based on all the best science available, it's a good bet that a vegetarian diet is more environmentally friendly than an omnivorous one, though some vegetarians might eat less environmentally sound diets than some omnivores.

Also, if you are going to put statements like "For every 1 kg of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed about 6 kg of plant protein," in your paper, SPECIFICALLY DEFINING HIGH-QUALITY ANIMAL PROTEIN AND COMPARING IT TO AN AMBIGUOUS PLANT PROTEIN OF QUESTIONABLE QUALITY, you better expect someone to look into that statement. A statement like that suggests either sloppy science or easily blinded idiots in the field. It obviously takes more resources to make human grade veg protein than the low quality plant protein we feed the livestock. Where do you think all the soybean plant material that is unfit for human consumption go? At, 15-30% protein by weight my guess is down the cow's stomach. Making a statement like that is highly suggestive and easily misinterpreted...

...which I suspect is why the reported it like that, because it fits their beliefs.

You would do well to have your finger cut off

Most importantly, the FACT that where your food comes from makes more of an environmental impact than whether you eat meat or vegetarian.

if you are going to make a GENERAL claim like one diet is more environmentally friendly than another, you should be able to back it up with unambiguous SCIENCE. There is no definitive study with solid data that shows one is better than the other.

[Don't] blindly follow whatever the popular press (or even the currently flawed peer review journals) shoves down your throat, simply because it happens to fit your views, instead of objectively looking at the real science behind the issue.

... and vegetarians are pussies!

I'm not criticising the Adventists.

I am criticising the fact that the authors of an article that compares meat vs non-meat diets was written by someone who is paid by a church university (Loma Linda, a SDA church university)... a church who has an obvious financial and religious motive for promoting a vegetarian diet... yet the authors claim to have "no conflicting interests..." when writing the paper.

It is obvious that the Seventh Day Adventist would benefit financially by an increase in people who follow a vegetarian diet.