People are used to seeing stark warnings on tobacco products alerting them about the potentially deadly risks to health. Now a study suggests similar labelling on food could help them make wiser choices about not just their health, but the health of the planet.

The research, by academics at Durham University, found that warning labels including a graphic image – similar to those warning of impotence, heart disease or lung cancer on cigarette packets – could reduce selections of meals containing meat by 7-10%.

It is a change that could have a material impact on the future of the planet. According to a recent YouGov poll, 72% of the UK population classify themselves as meat-eaters. But the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government on its net zero goals, has said the UK needs to slash its meat consumption by 20% by 2030, and 50% by 2050, in order to meet them.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But “finishing” is most of the weight gain of the animal and all the flavor.

    It’s like arguing all cows are milk-fed because they were calves once.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like arguing all cows are milk-fed because they were calves once.

      i’m not arguing all cows fit the definition of “grass fed”. i’m saying most cows mostly eat grass.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But “finishing” is most of the weight gain of the animal and all the flavor.

      no, it’s not. its about 4-6 months of an 18-20 month lifespan. most of their growing is done when they get to the feed lot.

      edit:

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The US is highly unusual in just how much Corn dominates food production and that most definitelly impacts the beef production which does included the feeding of corn to cattle (it’s actually what creates the “marbling” in american beef) which would otherwise not be done because it’s actually bad for the digestive system of cattle (there’s a book called “The Omnivore’s Dilema” that’s well worth reading) and is linked to other problems like the preventive use of antibiotics with cattle because the animals are more susceptive to disease (which in turn affect humans because it leads to increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria).

        However in countries were Corn is not so insanelly dominant, the cattle is actually grown the proper way, so mainly grass fed as per your illustration.

        Both you and the other poster are correct, IMHO, it’s just that each is talking about a very different locally dominant version of the beef production industry than the other.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          each is talking about a very different locally dominant version of the beef

          no, we’re both talking about american beef.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right, then either things changed lot in Industrial Cattle Raising in the US since “The Ominvore’s Dilema” was written or you’re only talking about a whole different segment of the industry that’s not most of the beef production in the US.