Test-Tube Burgers????

[dogofwar]

Here's what Taco Bell's "Taco Meat Filling" is:

http://jezebel.com/5742413/this-is-what-really-hides-in-taco-bells-beef

Beef, water, isolated oat product, salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, oats (wheat), soy lecithin, sugar, spices, maltodextrin (a polysaccharide that is absorbed as glucose), soybean oil (anti-dusting agent), garlic powder, autolyzed yeast extract, citric acid, caramel color, cocoa powder, silicon dioxide (anti-caking agent), natural flavors, yeast, modified corn starch, natural smoke flavor, salt, sodium phosphate, less than 2% of beef broth, potassium phosphate, and potassium lactate.

The USDA says that any food labeled as "meat taco filling" should at least have 40% fresh meat. According to the Alabama law firm, Taco Bell stuff only has 36% meat.

I don't know the exact percentage content of "test tube beef" that went into the burger was, but I'll bet that it was more than 36%...

Matt

Well, then Taco Bell "meat" is also 100% beef, by your logic.

 

[dogofwar]

From the UN study I linked before:

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Matt

AS IF meat production creates "major" environmental destruction in the USA.
Who do you work for, dogofwar?

 

[dogofwar]

What specifically are the cancers and health risks of eating GM foods?

Where did I argue that US agriculture (agribusiness) isn't horrible and dysfunctional and bad for the environment? And subsidized with taxpayer subsidies.

That's not what this thread is about though.

Matt

And causing the cancer and health risks to us from eating GM foods. Good idea......not! What happened to the natural foods these days? Or did the society got too lazy and depends on junk foods? Where did the chemicals go after being used on the crops for weed/insect control? Why is the insects and birds are dying from the chemicals that was used in the crops? Why is that you think that beef industry is major issue for the environment if you refused to address about other issues that caused the environmental destruction? After all the agriculture IS NOT ONLY ONE THING that can caused environmental destruction? Or are you just cherry picking again?

 

[MN_Rebel]

Please answer my questions if you can. Or are you just go google up on them and cherry picking them as usual? Why you thinks that the meat industry is the major issue to the environment and why are you refused to address other issues on the environment destruction?

 

[dogofwar]

Is your question: What are other causes of environmental destruction (than meat production)?

There are lots: slash and burn destruction of rain forests (as you linked), automobile exhaust, coal-fired power plants, excess nutrient and pesticide run-off, oil spills, use of ozone-depleting chemicals as refrigerants...

Would you argue that we shouldn't pursue scientific advances to address each and every one of them? For example, should we not do research to replace ozone-depleting refrigerants with ones that don't don't react with the environment? Abandon V1.0 of promising new refrigerants because they're not quite as good as the old (polluting) ones?

Matt

 

[MN_Rebel]

Is your question: What are other causes of environmental destruction (than meat production)?

There are lots: slash and burn destruction of rain forests (as you linked), automobile exhaust, coal-fired power plants, excess nutrient and pesticide run-off, oil spills, use of ozone-depleting chemicals as refrigerants...

Matt

So therefore, meat industry are not only most significant contributor to the environment destruction is that correctly? Why didn't you mentioned other issues when you brought the meat industry as a contributor to the environment destruction?

 

[dogofwar]

No, and I never claimed that it was the only significant contributor.

But it's a major one:

Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation...

As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 per cent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 per cent of pastures considered degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops.


So what's your point? That we should be talking about windmills or solar panels in this thread?

Matt

So therefore, meat industry are not only most significant contributor to the environment destruction is that correctly? Why didn't you mentioned other issues when you brought the meat industry as a contributor to the environment destruction?

 

[Pyramid_Party]

Guys that are complaining about agriculture/crops destroying the environment, just remember nothing lives without plants. Plants make their own food, animals do not. Plants are at the bottom of the food chain, they feed the herbivores that feed the carnivores. Plant production is more important than meat production. No plants= no life.

 

[dogofwar]

And Brawndo has the electrolytes that plants crave

[YT]-Vw2CrY9Igs[/YT]

Matt

Guys that are complaining about agriculture/crops destroying the environment, just remember nothing lives without plants. Plants make their own food, animals do not. Plants are at the body of the food chain, they feed the herbivores that feed the carnivores. Plant production is more important than meat production. No plants= no life.

 

[MN_Rebel]

No, and I never claimed that it was the only significant contributor.

But it's a major one:

Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation...

As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 per cent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 per cent of pastures considered degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops.


So what's your point?

Matt

Why is that you thinks that meat industry is a major issue to YOU but didn't bring up other major issues that caused environment destruction? My point is that you have been cherry picking the information that you want the whole time.

Your argument is that you thinks its a great idea to introduce the test-tube beef to the food industry because of the environmental issues. But you are using products that is harmful to the environment and the GM foods are not even safe products and pose a threat to the environment or the health. Not mentioned that this fake beef was never tested if there are no negative side-effects from eating a lab product. And we still have overabundance of food supply here and there's plenty of alternatives (environment-safe and health reasons). If you want blame on beef industry for the environment destruction, go after the urbanites whose never set a foot on a country land before and they are reason why the agriculture demands are high.