The assertion that eating less meat reduces heart disease is absurd in the face of the fact that heart disease has declined all around the world while meat consumption has gone up.
Your link is about death rates, not heart disease rates. Can you give me some graphs of heart disease rates over time with sources? There are plenty of studies which show that societies that eat more meat have higher rates of heart disease. I have yet to see a study showing the opposite which is why I said it's absurd.
I also read some more of the "articles" on that site you linked to and they were absurd on their face. Here is one example. They are attempting to refute the claim that animal farming is an efficient use of land.
"Much of the land used for animal farming, cannot be used for arable farming. With a rapidly expanding world population, a large proportion of whom are already starving, how can taking this land out of production help?"
This completely ignores the fact that large percentages of our corn and soy farming is used to feed animals. Ignoring this single data point either makes them ignorant or dishonest.
Much of the land used to grow corn and soy should rightly be used to graze animals. It is only used to grow plants because of federal subsidies. Remove the subsidies and special water rights, and it would revert to grass lands best used for sheep and cattle.
I'd go google up the data about heart disease declining in Japan and continental Europe in the post-war era, but I get the impression you're blind to facts.
It's fascinating that you refused to give data in your past two posts.
Regarding land, if we used the land used to grow animal feed to grow plants for human consumption we'd get a lot more food. This is clearly more efficient, yet the page you linked to tries to claim the opposite by ignoring facts and building logic on that false basis.
Animal feed is only grown on this land because it is subsidized. Growing plants on it is economically inefficient. If agriculture in the US were unsubsidized, nobody would try to grow plants on this land. It would be grasslands. And the only human use for the land would be to graze animals on it.
that's only true for a subset. I grew up in an area that had a lot of vegetable farming for 200 years or so, naturally and a wide variety, and it was replaced by soy farming due to the retarded policies we currently have in place. Anyway you cut it, growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production.
I agree with you about the current absurdity of our system.
> growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production.
Dairy cows and egg laying chickens and farmed catfish are much more efficient at turning vegetable matter into complete proteins than humans. If you accept the premise that humans need almost a gram of complete protein per kg of body mass per day, animal production is more efficient and quite necessary.
