[Pants-of-dog]

The supplements producers have the added benefit of being more resource efficient.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

[ThomasNewton]

You also have to be careful when choosing which vitamins to take, because many of them do not actually contain the things they say they do.

I feel it's also important to distinguish between a diet and a lifestyle. I have no concern over anyone's diet but some lifestyle choices can be dangerous. Here's a warning to any vegan/vegetarian: see a real doctor about your nutrition requirements, not any holistic medicine person. I had a friend who was recommended by a holistic medicine person to take 25,000 IUs of Vitamin A a day. Only after looking it up on Wikipedia did she find out that is a lethal dose of Vitamin A. Cavaet emptor indeed.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Pants, I'm afraid I can't. I'm merely supposing based upon the law of entropy, basic knowledge about the waste processes of life, and the economies of scale in manufacturing. Research on land-use, water consumption and fuel consumption differences between arable and animal farming has not progressed particularly far as of yet, never mind looking at highly specific cases such as the difference in efficiencies of producing and consuming iron from animal and supplement sources. However, my theory has pretty sound premises in my opinion, so I'll stick to it.

TN, I'm fully aware of that, and stick to daily recommendeds. It's one of the issues with having a profit driven economy around health.

[QatzelOk]

Locally produced, organic, ruminant meat is far more eco-friendly.

You never demonstrated this. All you did was write that bottom-trawlers and truck transportation are terrible. But you haven't demonstrated that locally raised meat is cleaner or better in any way.

And I don't believe that it is. In fact, even if there is a slight difference in pollution/destruction between fish and local green-certified meat... consuming organic local meat encouraged all sorts of other kinds of meat consumption, thus contributing to overall meat consumption which is awful.

I realize you need to win this one, but I feel that the point that you tried to make was eclipsed by the false information it may have contained.

[Pants-of-dog]

You never demonstrated this. All you did was write that bottom-trawlers and truck transportation are terrible. But you haven't demonstrated that locally raised meat is cleaner or better in any way.

And I don't believe that it is. In fact, even if there is a slight difference in pollution/destruction between fish and local green-certified meat... consuming organic local meat encouraged all sorts of other kinds of meat consumption, thus contributing to overall meat consumption which is awful.

I realize you need to win this one, but I feel that the point that you tried to make was eclipsed by the false information it may have contained.

Well, I showed you the environmental impact of fishing. Why don't you show me th eenvironmental impact of locally produced, organic, ruminant meat? Then we can decide which is worse.

[QatzelOk]

Well, I showed you the environmental impact of fishing.

No, you didn't.

You mentioned that many forms of modern fishing - trawling and large nets - damage the environment.

Most fish isn't caught this way.

Then you mentioned that fish was bad because it's transported by truck. So is tofu.

Truck transportation is evil in its own right, but you can't say fish is particularly bad because the trucking industry carries most of it. There is no link between fish and trucking. It's more practical to transport fish by boat, for obvious reasons. And boats carrying fish can be far more environmentally harmless than the big trucks that carry organic meat and hemp bags.

Why don't you show me th eenvironmental impact of locally produced, organic, ruminant meat?

Because I already did. Why don't you read other people's posts before leaving your own?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Most fish isn't caught this way.

How is it caught then?

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you didn't.

You mentioned that many forms of modern fishing - trawling and large nets - damage the environment.

Most fish isn't caught this way.

Then you mentioned that fish was bad because it's transported by truck. So is tofu.

Truck transportation is evil in its own right, but you can't say fish is particularly bad because the trucking industry carries most of it. There is no link between fish and trucking. It's more practical to transport fish by boat, for obvious reasons. And boats carrying fish can be far more environmentally harmless than the big trucks that carry organic meat and hemp bags.

http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12273/en

# Overfishing and excessive fishing can reduce the spawning biomass of a fishery below desired levels such as maximum sustainable or economic yields.
# When there is sustained overfishing, changes in species composition and biodiversity can occur with progressive reduction of large, long-lived, and high value predator species and the increase in small, short-lived, and lower value pelagic and demersal prey species, a process described as 'fishing down the food chain'. Important macroscopic changes have been observed in many ecosystems such as the North Sea, Yellow Sea, North Atlantic (e.g. George's Bank and Barents Sea), Gulf of Thailand, and southeastern Australia. Intensive fishing can also reduce genetic diversity of wild populations (e.g. rapidly depressing the proportion of fast growing and late spawning individuals) and changes in species composition or dominance can also be provoked through competition for food between fisheries and marine apical predators.
# Non-selective fishing gear that is not modified to exclude or otherwise deter the entanglement of fish, turtles, or seabirds, and as a result, may take a significant bycatch of juvenile fish, benthic animals, marine mammals, marine birds, vulnerable or endangered species, etc. that are often discarded dead. While bycatch and discard problems are usually measured in the potential loss of human food, the increased risk of depletion for particularly vulnerable or endangered species (e.g. small cetaceans, turtles) can be significant. In the North Sea, for example, the impact of discarded fish on the food chain and species composition is consequential because the discards can represent up to 30% of what some birds' would otherwise consume.
# Ghost fishing can occur when certain gear such as pots or gillnets have either been lost or abandoned at sea and, although untended, continue to catch and kill fish until the gear falls apart.
# Impacts on the bottom can result from the intense use of trawls and other mobile bottom gear (e.g. dredges) can change bottom structure, microhabitats, and benthic fauna. The effect is particularly obvious when these gears are used in sensitive environments where there are sea grass and algal beds, coral reefs, sponges, and tube worms. Where fishers work the same area year after year much like a farmer's fields, the long-term impacts of such repeated activities are less obvious on soft bottoms, although the scraping or ploughing the bottom to depths of as much as 30 cm can seriously disturb the substratum habitat and productivity.
# Fishing entailing the use of dynamite and poisons can have severe and broad-reaching impacts, particularly on coral reefs.

Please show me a boat route for transporting fish to anywhere west of Kenora, Ontario and east of the Rockies.

Because I already did. Why don't you read other people's posts before leaving your own?

I must have missed your link to a verified source discussing the impact.

[QatzelOk]

transporting fish to anywhere west of Kenora, Ontario and east of the Rockies.

I don't live in these remote, boat-free places, so now I don't get your point about "localism" at all. It seems to me that you are frequently willing to demolish a legitimate point just to score "smart points," Pants.

"Perfect meat" might very well be greener than carrying a trawled-cod to Banff in a Porche Cayenne, but what exactly are you trying to do when you make points like this one?

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't live in these remote, boat-free places, so now I don't get your point about "localism" at all. It seems to me that you are frequently willing to demolish a legitimate point just to score "smart points," Pants.

"Perfect meat" might very well be greener than carrying a trawled-cod to Banff in a Porche Cayenne, but what exactly are you trying to do when you make points like this one?

Your experience is not universal. While you live in a city that is an island in a major seaway (how toxic are your local fish?), many people do not. If the goal is to create a sustainable food industry that adequately satisfies our nutritional needs, then proximity to food sources is an issue.

[QatzelOk]

Your experience is not universal.

No one's is.

But your point about "local meat" seems to be about localism.

And yet you ask me in your above-post to ignore my own localism, as well as the fact that most of the world's people live near waterways.

Smart points aren't the same thing as good advice.

Your "point" what that fish are bad. But what you really said was "living far from waterways is bad."

Please try again.

[Godstud]

What I think he's saying, is that the fishing industry that YOU support is actually worse than the meat industry you choose to demonize.

[QatzelOk]

What I think he's saying, is that the fishing industry that YOU support is actually worse than the meat industry you choose to demonize.

Exactly.

And what I'm trying to say is that his "points" - as true as they may technically be if a lawyer analyzes the exact words of each phrase - often lead to this kind of false conclusion from readers.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one's is.

But your point about "local meat" seems to be about localism.

And yet you ask me in your above-post to ignore my own localism, as well as the fact that most of the world's people live near waterways.

Smart points aren't the same thing as good advice.

Your "point" what that fish are bad. But what you really said was "living far from waterways is bad."

Please try again.

Yes. You finally understood about the environmental benefits of local food. Well done.

Unfortunately, you still have not addressed the other issues associated with fishing.

[QatzelOk]

you still have not addressed the other issues associated with fishing.

There was no need to.

Eating fish is like eating venison: it is a sustainable way of living off the earth's natural productivity.

Cattle-eating - by contrast - is about creating a cattle population boom, and stuffing these overpopulated species with chemicals and fattening agents.

Fish-farming is similar to the cattle industry in many ways. And over-fishing is like over-hunting: stupid, but not as potentially damaging as changing the chemical composition of the environment with cow farts.

producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

[Pants-of-dog]

There was no need to.

Eating fish is like eating venison: it is a sustainable way of living off the earth's natural productivity.

I had no idea that hunting deer caused substantial drops in prey populations, changes in species composition and biodiversity, important macroscopic changes in many ecosystems, reduction in genetic diversity of wild populations, changes in species dominance, the entanglement of fish or turtles or seabirds, bycatch of other non-edible animals (including endangered species), ghost kills, and involved the use of dynamite and poison.

Like fishing does.

Cattle-eating - by contrast - is about creating a cattle population boom, and stuffing these overpopulated species with chemicals and fattening agents.

Fish-farming is similar to the cattle industry in many ways. And over-fishing is like over-hunting: stupid, but not as potentially damaging as changing the chemical composition of the environment with cow farts.

Then it's a good thing I was discussing local, organic, ruminant meat instead.

[Paradigm]

Fish is a dodgy one; some stocks are okay, some methods are okay, but most stocks are dwindling unsustainably, and many fishing methods are damaging, such as deep ocean trawling that knackers the sea bed.

There are lists that will tell you which ones are bad for the environment and which ones are okay to eat. I saw catfish on the safe list, which is awesome because I love me some catfish. Lately, fish has been the only kind of meat that I eat, which technically makes me a pescetarian. Not a strict one, though, because it's not that I've "quit" eating other forms of meat. I just don't buy it at the supermarket anymore.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I know, I printed off one of these lists. I noticed that most of the fish in the shops were not in the "sustainable" column.

[Godstud]

Could you link the site? I'd be interested to know.

[QatzelOk]

Like fishing does.

Fishing is as harmless as hunting venison. It's less harmful than venison consumption as long as it's done within the limits of not altering the natural population.

It would theoretically be perfectly green to eat fish if they are caught - like venison - by hand in a primitive way that guarantees that their numbers remain ideal. With both wild fish and wild game, it's theoretically possible to live off the interest.

But this would probably mean a 95% vegetarian diet complimented by occasional fish or venison. Most people can't afford venison, and with 7 billion people, it's probably best to think of how to eat minnows or other small fish that mature quickly. Or insects or pests, as another poster suggested.

In the meantime, a 95% vegetarian diet complimented by fish or dairy products is the safest and sanest diet for our current planet. This is the advice I would give to most people. Advising them to eat purely vegetarian, or to consume organic-fairtrade-local makes it too easy to slip back into high-meat, low veg eating. And pure vegetarianism can make you really sick, even if you think you know a lot about nutrition. I wouldn't want my advice to make people really sick, would you?

As a significant number of humans become vegetarian, the dietary science will accumulate, and we will understand nutrition enough to completely forgo unsustainable dietary cultures.