Has the thought of going vegetarian ever crossed your mind?

[Just a DK]

I've got news for you...it might well be true...

Even the circadian rythm affects the effect of many medicines, a largely unstudied realm of science, but undeniably so.

DNA specific medicine is getting closer and closer, have a look at how the formula for glomerular filtration rate changes for being male female or black recently.

I think my response to them was something snarky along the lines of please explain to me how penicillin impacts me differently than my mixed race wife.

 

[MarcelNL]

I think my response to them was something snarky along the lines of please explain to me how penicillin impacts me differently than my mixed race wife.

You may be surprised that it might be true, yet the explanation invariably is lengthy, detailed, and difficult to understand.
Yes male and female bodies and body chemistry differ, and vastly so. At the same time racial differences do exist, not just the differences in outward appearance but also internally and also within a race (which IMHO is just a very crude group denominator anyhow).
We've just begun to scratch the surface.

 

[aporigine]

I guess also interesting tidbit from Asian culture, many people believe that because we are X people that we have to eat differently and even to the point medicine applies to us differently...

had some very interesting eyebrow raising convos about this with the aunties and uncles.... like how we need to eat more veggies than white people....

Excellent advice. I eat very few white people, and my digestion has markedly improved.

 

[WildBoar]

Your comment can be interpreted as somewhat cynical.

Baby steps—everyone can't do everything to make the world a better place—some do it through food/cooking, size of car driven, voting, or whatever.

Okay, so an ever-increasing world population doesn't strain the ecosystem. Got it.

As far as cynical goes, if you review my 5,800+ posts you may be able to detect a bit of a trend... That being said, I can't help but laugh when someone with 4 kids and three dogs, and who can afford to shop every other day at Whole Paycheck, goes on tirades about meat purchased at Giant or Safeway.

 

[Jovidah]

I guess also interesting tidbit from Asian culture, many people believe that because we are X people that we have to eat differently and even to the point medicine applies to us differently...

had some very interesting eyebrow raising convos about this with the aunties and uncles.... like how we need to eat more veggies than white people....

Apart from the latter part it's not actually as unreasonable as it is sounds. The assumption that all people (whether they're different race, regional heritage, or simply different individuals) is not necessarily a correct one. The simplest example of this is lactose intolerance , which varies vildly depending on how much of a tradition of milk consumption exists amongst someone's ancestors.
It's not altogether unreasonable to assume that there might be other differences in this regard. Even within the same 'group' there's been more and more research that an individualized approach is needed because people vary wildly in how their body responds to certain food inputs, even on a basic level like glucose / insulin response.
But it's going to be a while before we figure this out, especially since it's long been a blind spot in research (and still often is).

Although I'm skeptical about the last statement. If there was something there I'd expect it to be more along the lines of 'group X does better on veggie Y' or for example 'east Asian populations do better on soy protein because they have a history of eating it in the region'. That was a completely speculative hypothethical example by the way, don't quote me on it.

 

[Jovidah]

Okay, so an ever-increasing world population doesn't strain the ecosystem. Got it.

As far as cynical goes, if you review my 5,800+ posts you may be able to detect a bit of a trend... That being said, I can't help but laugh when someone with 4 kids and three dogs, and who can afford to shop every other day at Whole Paycheck, goes on tirades about meat purchased at Giant or Safeway.

Reducing population is a tricky balancing act though. Most western countries are already struggling with an aging, and in many cases projected to be shrinking population. That creates havoc for economies and supporting stuff like pensions.
Pets are tricky. Though I won't make excuses for them (they're basically a hobby with a significant footprint), I get the impression that pet food is mostly made using waste streams like all the parts we don't eat. What's the last time anyone here not named Michi ate lungs for example?
The animal industry is actually similar in that regard; they process a lot of waste streams that are considered unfit for human consumption. If you truly wanted to minmax efficiecny of food production or carrying capacity of the earth in both cases you'd end up with at least some animal husbandry.

 

[azn_knives_4l]

Just adding my $0.02... Penicillin example is 'correct' in that it works the same over these boundaries but this is largely because it doesn't target the human.

About differences in diseases over sex and ethnic boundaries, there are relatively obvious examples of inherited conditions like CFJ and then, say, everything that separates the Finnish due to repeated population bottlenecking. It shows in DNA and susceptibility or resistance to various conditions relative to continental Europe. Sickle cell anemia is another pretty obvious one and then there are sex-specific conditions like ovarian cancer and prostate cancer.

Going to medicine, trials are largely conducted on men so dosage, side effects, etc. are calibrated as such. Controlling for body weight and height alone are not adequate as differences in metabolism, body composition, hormones, etc. are real and interact strongly with medications. This effect is so substantial that overdose resulting in death at prescribed doses is significantly greater for women. Scary, too, is that we have various 'safe' medications that simply kill some ethnic groups though the mechanism remains unclear.

Blending ethnicity with medicine we get something like the fairly common East Asian mutation responsible for dry earwax and reduced BO strongly interacting with pretty much any drug that alters sebum production or otherwise affects the skin.

Hope this helps!

 

[Jovidah]

All true. But there isn't one culprit or a silver-bullet solution. And if there was, it certainly tied to any form of personal consumption but likely the policies and practices of large corporations and governments. However, I don't believe perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good when it comes to making ethical or philosophical choices.

Agreed but it seems like eating meat is often elevated up to a level that doesn't make sense,when other aspects (often far more impactful ones) are left on the table.
The cynical highlight of this year was when Greta Thunberg took a plane from Sweden to the Netherlands to join some environmental protests for a day...

While consuming less meat may not be all that impactful in the grand scheme of things it's among the easiest changes to make. In contrast, personal use vehicles might be one of the biggest single-sources of emissions in the US. Yet it's only responsible for something like 15% of all US emissions. However to make any sort of significant dent in personal vehicle miles traveled we have to undo a hundred years of bad land use/urban planning, and create (from basically scratch) new mass transit options. Work, school, and errand commutes are simply not feasible without the automobile in most places in this country; reducing red meat consumption by 1/2 or more can be done tomorrow. Of course the Dutch context is different but I'd imagine many of your other more significant options to reduce emissions are also politically, practically, or economically infeasible, or require long time horizons.

Frankly, I don't think moving to less meat is an easy change to make. Because what I see happening here in the Netherlands is that people replace meat with highly processed meat replacements. It's one giant health experiment that's unlikely to have positive results on people's health.

I think vehicle use is actually far easier. Look at the US car inventory: there's so much low hanging fruit there. People could do the same distances in smaller more efficient cars and you would have massive gains!
That's just one example but there are still plenty of other options and consumption patterns that are fairly easy to change that have huge pay offs, but are left on the table.

My biggest gain was probably when gas prices started going up and I basically made the decision to stop using my central heating (admittedly allowed by living in a fairly modern appartment building with good isolation). While it meant giving up some comfort because you have to habituati to about 17 degrees C in the winter, and the motivations were mostly financial and geopolitical, the difference in carbon output is if I'm using anti-meat propagandist's numbers in the same ballpark as going from an average meat-eater to a vegetarian.

Overreliance on non-seasonal, non-local produce should also be criticized too.

I live in California so I cannot and will not defend nut production lol.

Well 'it depends'. As a person whose bowel system cannot tolerate brassica I don't have much of a choice but to buy non-seasonal stuff in at least some months because otherwise the diet would become incredibly monotonous in certain months.
Also 'non local' isnt necessarily problematic. For example non-local regular farmfield produce will have a lower footprint than local greenhouse stuff. And as long as transport is by sea the extra foot print of non-local isn't necessarily all that problematic.

I understand your point that pound for pound it's less (environmentally and economically) efficient to raise "happy" animals. I don't think we have any disagreement. "Happy" animals are more environmentally damaging than conventional factory farming if they are consumed in the same amount or whatever the equilibrium point making them equivalent is. I'm making separate points that, 1: that the amount of consumption is in large part driven by prices which are artificially low because of terrible practices as well as other unaccounted for costs, and 2: that consumption should be lower. The increased cost of animal products from happy animal policies would likely reduce consumption. Would it reduce consumption enough to be less ecologically damaging than the current factory farming state of affairs? I don't know, maybe. But throw in prices that also reflect externalized costs and we'd eat very differently.

Contrary to popular belief the price of 'happier animals' isn't necessarily all that large. Its mostly supermarkets that make it large. The extra cost to the farmer isn't necessarily all that big, especially since the price of carbon output is negligible.
There is still a cost difference though (I think it's about 25 to 50%, not the 100+% the supermarket charges) and this actually reflects the reduction in efficiency. I'm not going to guess as to what extent that really impacts consumption or not; there are plenty of other factors at play and I'm not sure whether Jevons paradox really applies here.
Prices being artificially low applies to almost all agricultural production, not just meat. So in meat vs vegetarian that's a bit of a wash IMO. The only exception to that is 'animal suffering' but beyond the individual animal that is not an environmental concern - though it certainly is an ethical one.

By the way I wasn't trying to argue against 'happier meat', just pointing out the awkward paradox that exists there... I don't have a good solution to it either; I wished happy animals were also the most efficient environmental-friendly animals but it just doesn't work like that.

Just quickly looking up the stats, Americans consume 124 kg of meat per year, Dutch people consume 76 kg of meat. It's not half but it's a significant difference. Considering how tall, fit you Dutchies are compared to us I'd hardly say you're starving.

Honestly I've mostly been talking from the Dutch and my individual perspective. You Americans are all a weird exception anyway.
I would expect average height to go down over here in the future though, looking at dietary trends. I'd actually be willing to put money on that.

 

[blokey]

Reducing population is a tricky balancing act though. Most western countries are already struggling with an aging, and in many cases projected to be shrinking population. That creates havoc for economies and supporting stuff like pensions.
Pets are tricky. Though I won't make excuses for them (they're basically a hobby with a significant footprint), I get the impression that pet food is mostly made using waste streams like all the parts we don't eat. What's the last time anyone here not named Michi ate lungs for example?
The animal industry is actually similar in that regard; they process a lot of waste streams that are considered unfit for human consumption. If you truly wanted to minmax efficiecny of food production or carrying capacity of the earth in both cases you'd end up with at least some animal husbandry.

Education is the best condom, that and long working hours, China already had the first year of population decline and India seems to be on the same trajectory…

 

[blokey]

BTW when talking about population alot of times people could sound borderline genocidal, especially towards third worlds... I honestly believe reproduction is an individual choice, and shouldn't be discussed as some sort of policy matter, that's how forced sterilization and abortion were born

 

[Jovidah]

BTW when talking about population alot of times people could sound borderline genocidal, especially towards third worlds... I honestly believe reproduction is an individual choice, and shouldn't be discussed as some sort of policy matter, that's how forced sterilization and abortion were born

Apparently AIDS was a significant factor in limiting Africa's population growth.
I think the one-child policy and its disastruous effects are a good example of how meddling with reproductive rights can cause serious unintended and unforseen consequences.

On the flipside though, if a Malthusian catastrophe were a serious possibility in the future, what other means does one truly have to prevent it? But just like with global warming I don't see 'global birth control' ever being a topic where countries can truly get beyond their national interests.

 

[azn_knives_4l]

Apparently AIDS was a significant factor in limiting Africa's population growth.
I think the one-child policy and its disastruous effects are a good example of how meddling with reproductive rights can cause serious unintended and unforseen consequences.

On the flipside though, if a Malthusian catastrophe were a serious possibility in the future, what other means does one truly have to prevent it? But just like with global warming I don't see 'global birth control' ever being a topic where countries can truly get beyond their national interests.

Disastrous, huh I mean, 11 men to 9 women in some areas and the resulting increase in the population replacement rate from ~2.5 live births per woman to ~3.0 live births per woman... How bad could that be, really

Edit: Fr tho it's really, really bad.

 

[Jovidah]

Disastrous, huh I mean, 11 men to 9 women in some areas and the resulting increase in the population replacement rate from ~2.5 live births per woman to ~3.0 live births per woman... How bad could that be, really

It's not just that, but if you're looking at their demographic projections...well... China has 'challenging times ahead' in the coming decades.
Shrinking populations are a massive headache for a government to manage. Stable is fine. Shrinking is a nightmare.

South Korea and Japan have similar problems but no one has it as bad as China because of their one-child-policy.

 

[azn_knives_4l]

It's not just that, but if you're looking at their demographic projections...well... China has 'challenging times ahead' in the coming decades.
Shrinking populations are a massive headache for a government to manage. Stable is fine. Shrinking is a nightmare.

Yeh. It's on the level of the Four Pests campaign as far as blunders

 

[Jovidah]

Yeh.. It's on the level of the Four Pests Campaign as far as blunders

What worries me most is that it will have a 'closing window of opportunity effect' on decision making by Chinese leaders. Similar conditions led to Japan starting a war it knew was a risky gamble at best against the USA, and potentially played a role in why Russia decided to go to war against Ukraine.

 

[MarcelNL]

Going to medicine, trials are largely conducted on men so dosage, side effects, etc. are calibrated as such. Controlling for body weight and height alone are not adequate as differences in metabolism, body composition, hormones, etc. are real and interact strongly with medications. This effect is so substantial that overdose resulting in death at prescribed doses is significantly greater for women. Scary, too, is that we have various 'safe' medications that simply kill some ethnic groups though the mechanism remains unclear.

that is only true for first in human trials, from phase 2 onwards a normal mix of men and women is required to get a drug registered (unless it's targeted at one of the two sexes, but you still need to do some safety studies in the other gender)
Race is captured by requirement of the regulatory agencies too, and data are scrutinized.

What safe medication killing some ethnic groups are you referring to?

 

[blokey]

What worries me most is that it will have a 'closing window of opportunity effect' on decision making by Chinese leaders. Similar conditions led to Japan starting a war it knew was a risky gamble at best against the USA, and potentially played a role in why Russia decided to go to war against Ukraine.

I’d like to not think about that…

 

[azn_knives_4l]

that is only true for first in human trials, from phase 2 onwards a normal mix of men and women is required to get a drug registered (unless it's targeted at one of the two sexes, but you still need to do some safety studies in the other gender)
Race is captured by requirement of the regulatory agencies too, and data are scrutinized.

What safe medication killing some ethnic groups are you referring to?

Were all drugs re-evaluated as part of the protocol you mention? This was made standard in the 1990s, right?

Carbamazepine (Tegretol) is a big one.

Edit: Have to add I speak regarding the US. I'm sure this is different elsewhere.

 

[MarcelNL]

Were all drugs re-evaluated as part of the protocol you mention? This was made standard in the 1990s, right?

Carbamazepine (Tegretol) is a big one.

Edit: Have to add I speak regarding the US. I'm sure this is different elsewhere.

for sure not all drugs have been evaluated according to todays standards, progressive insight works with us. A study protocol is written to investigate a specific aspect of a drug according to the rules in place at the time of executing the study, rules and regulations do not change that rapidly.

Carbamazepin was introduced in '68 for what i know, yet it has been registered for different indications later so those studies will have been more in line with todays standards...you can find pretty much the whole approval history on the internet these days.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/pre96/016608_Tegretol.cfm

A drug like aspirin would not make it to the market by todays standards, not with FDA (US) not by the EMA (EU) not with KIKO (Japan).

What many folks do not know is that regulatory agencies cooperate and communicate and procedures and rules are getting closer and closer.
You can find the whole process explained on the FDA website, rules differ slightly across regions but the principle is the same.
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/drug-development-process

 

[Jovidah]

What safe medication killing some ethnic groups are you referring to?

Well there's this experimental treatment involving Kryptonite...

 

[DitmasPork]

Although I think in the US people seem far more nutty and obnoxious about meat (or diet in general) than I've seen here in Europe.

Difficult to generalize the US, a vast country that can differ greatly depending on where one is—I’ve encountered similar views about Europeans, etc.

 

[MarcelNL]

Difficult to generalize the US, a vast country that can differ greatly depending on where one is—I’ve encountered similar views about Europeans, etc.

I've seen both extremes and anything in between everywhere travelled...heck I often sway between the extremes of eating meat only one day and vegetarian the next day.

Though the numbers per capita do speak for themselves to some extent.

 

[DitmasPork]

I've seen both extremes and anything in between everywhere travelled...heck I often sway between the extremes of eating meat only one day and vegetarian the next day.

Though the numbers per capita do speak for themselves to some extent.

I typically don’t judge people for their views—but have little tolerance for entering discussions with people who have their minds made up, not open minded enough to have a constructive dialogue, listening to pros/cons of an issue—the subject of GMO crops a good example of a complex subject with many pros/cons.

 

[WildBoar]

Reducing population is a tricky balancing act though. Most western countries are already struggling with an aging, and in many cases projected to be shrinking population. That creates havoc for economies and supporting stuff like pensions.
Pets are tricky. Though I won't make excuses for them (they're basically a hobby with a significant footprint), I get the impression that pet food is mostly made using waste streams like all the parts we don't eat. What's the last time anyone here not named Michi ate lungs for example?
The animal industry is actually similar in that regard; they process a lot of waste streams that are considered unfit for human consumption. If you truly wanted to minmax efficiecny of food production or carrying capacity of the earth in both cases you'd end up with at least some animal husbandry.

So we are back to economics trumping environment. Same reason factory farms, etc. exist. It's a big circle.

That why it's a bit of a joke to me when people opine what others should be eating, etc. In the end, for EVERYONE, it comes down to money over all else.

And I'm fine with that. I'm just not fine with the 'holier then thou' people.

Not that it's a issue here on KKF. We are largely about excessive consumption (way more knives, kitchen equipment, etc. than needed to survive). All of those products needed to be manufactured, and all had some impact on the environment. So at least here there is no room for the 'environment first' perspective without being a hypocrite.

 

[DitmasPork]

Not that it's a issue here on KKF. We are largely about excessive consumption (way more knives, kitchen equipment, etc. than needed to survive). All of those products needed to be manufactured, and all had some impact on the environment. So at least here there is no room for the 'environment first' perspective without being a hypocrite.

I believe the viewpoints of KKF members are much more diverse than your comment appears to suggest. Personally I don't call out people’s hypocrisy/contradictions online, but will do in-person if appropriate/constructive. If I did often point out hypocrisy/contradictions, I'd likely be ostracized from family and not have any friends. The world's a great place to me—despite its problems—I do applaud any effort of people doing what they can for the environment, like driving an EV, using public transport, recycling, cutting down on plastic use, whatever they can.

 

[MarcelNL]

I get both points of view, it's easy to become holier than thou and hide behind what ever it is one does 'for the environment'

It's also easy to hind behind those folks and point at their inconsistencies....while not making a step in the right direction.

In the end what matters is our combined effort, I do not mind that driving an EV is a costly hobby (I plan on driving it many years since manufacturing new cars really is not real green anyhow)...or that installing a bunch of PV panels will not save us a dime until 15 years or so from now (if anytime).

No money incentive involved in any of that, at the same time I keep my DAC and music server on 24/7 because they sound better, is that hypocritical...for sure!

 

[azn_knives_4l]

for sure not all drugs have been evaluated according to todays standards, progressive insight works with us. A study protocol is written to investigate a specific aspect of a drug according to the rules in place at the time of executing the study, rules and regulations do not change that rapidly.

Carbamazepin was introduced in '68 for what i know, yet it has been registered for different indications later so those studies will have been more in line with todays standards...you can find pretty much the whole approval history on the internet these days.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/pre96/016608_Tegretol.cfm

A drug like aspirin would not make it to the market by todays standards, not with FDA (US) not by the EMA (EU) not with KIKO (Japan).

What many folks do not know is that regulatory agencies cooperate and communicate and procedures and rules are getting closer and closer.
You can find the whole process explained on the FDA website, rules differ slightly across regions but the principle is the same.
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/drug-development-process

But corrections going forward doesn't restore the lives lost to the lack of oversight. All's well and good but pharmaceutical companies make mistakes and people lose their lives. It seemed like you were trying to say this doesn't happen and that's plain false. We have a history of excluding black Americans and women from drug trials in the US and this has proven deadly. Please don't forget this.

 

[MarcelNL]

I am more than aware of the ridiculous misstakes in doing research, but a lack of oversight is something that is always in place when having the benefit of 20-20 vision in hindsight.....

Without issues the oversight will not improve, there is no way that all signs and signals can be detected before they exist, you can argue about detection levels but the principles remain the same.

I have NO indication to believe there was malignent intent at any point other than perhaps the crazy stuff happening that lead to ICH-GCP rules (experiments during WWII by Mengele et al, Tuskageegee experiment etc)

Was everything w.r. to drug surveillance as good as it could be, 40-50-60 years ago? for sure not, yet where we are today is a much better place, both in drug surveillance as in medicine.

 

[azn_knives_4l]

I am more than aware of the ridiculous misstakes in doing research, but a lack of oversight is something that is always in place when having the benefit of 20-20 vision in hindsight.....

Without issues the oversight will not improve, there is no way that all signs and signals can be detected before they exist, you can argue about detection levels but the principles remain the same.

I have NO indication to believe there was malignent intent at any point other than perhaps the crazy stuff happening that lead to ICH-GCP rules (experiments during WWII by Mengele et al, Tuskageegee experiment etc)

Was everything w.r. to drug surveillance as good as it could be, 40-50-60 years ago? for sure not, yet where we are today is a much better place, both in drug surveillance as in medicine.

There is no requirement to malignant intent. It is why we have laws against disproportionate impact. My point way up above stands. Let's move on.

 

[MarcelNL]

There is no requirement to malignant intent. It is why we have laws against disproportionate impact. My point way up above stands. Let's move on.

a point without a reference makes no sense IMHO, women and all races are a part of all studiesdone in the US (but a few where it makes sense) these days, but I agree to move on !