News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Consumers told to cut meat consumption to 90g/day 

Consumers told to cut meat consumption to 90g/day

2/10/2008 3:32:00 PM
There will be greater pressure to cut down meat consumption to 90 grams a day, says Dr Sharon Friel, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University.

Dr Friel told the Go Grains conference in Sydney on Wednesday that a review of Australian agriculture would be needed in the coming years, particularly the livestock industry, which accounts for 80pc of the greenhouse gases produced by agriculture.

"Globally there is the suggestion we need a sort of contract and converge model of red meat consumption," Dr Friel said.

"And that we get red meat consumption down to 90 grams per person per day - I think America is up to about 200 grams (consumption per person every day) for some groups."

* More reports from Go Grains will appear in The Land , NSW, October 9 edition.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
She looks like she needs a decent feed of meat.
Posted by Brindi on 2/10/2008 9:21:02 PM
Unfortunately, so many of these "experts" get so consumed by their own narrow fields of expertise they are unable to sort the wheat from the chaff. Many of these conclusions on how much red meat should be eaten are derived from population studies that totally ignore what else high consumers of red meat may eat and do. They really can be flawed studies. There is also the other side of the ledger - an individual's physical activity - that is so critical to his/her health outcome.
Posted by Winton Observer on 3/10/2008 7:55:11 AM
Where the hell do all these people come from? maybe we should just shut down agriculture in Australia and import everything from the greennhouse gas producing countries. Agriculture producing 80% of greenhouse gases? Where do cars, power stations, methane from coal mines etc fit in?
Posted by jerangle on 3/10/2008 8:51:45 AM
The good Doctor loooks like she needs a good meal as she apepars a little pale. I'm off to BBQ my two inch steak right now. But I'll offset it with a barley juice drink to assuage my carnivorous gorging. That will give me the energy to chase down the kangaroos ready to send to the saleyards.
Posted by mbh on 3/10/2008 9:07:49 AM
A livestock nutritionist once hypothesised that Germans were thiamine (Vit B1) deficient because of their white bread preference. This deficiency causes the brain to soften. I suspect many of our leading scientists are also suffering similar problems today probably from a lack of B vitamins caused by not eating meat. Good luck with the roo muster mbh - will you use the lassoo or 222?
Posted by Common Cents on 3/10/2008 10:19:27 AM
Aren’t we there already? If you eat a balanced diet you would easily be at 90grms per day. I don't think we can compare with Americans, their portion serves are ridiculously large.
Posted by concerned on 3/10/2008 10:38:13 AM
Jerangle is so typical of a rustic closed mind and so steeped in rigid beliefs that any suggestion of a solution to global warming that impinges on their way of life becomes a profound threat. They become so psychologically threatened that they cannot even read a simple statement correctly. Dr Friel said that the livestock industry contributes 80% to the overall output of greenhouse gases by the agriculture industry. It has been calculated that the industry overall contributes 30% to Australia's total output. So calm down jerangle and perhaps you will eventually see the error of your ways. As the woodchipping of trees in Tasmania is fundamentally bad economic business so too is animal farming. So much so that the Premier David Bartlett has told the Midlands animal farmers that if they don't change to more lucrative crop farming then they won't get the proposed piped water for irrigation. Studies have been done jerangle so get out while you can and get into more profitable plant food! PS. I doubt if the gluttony of MBH will ever allow him to see the light.
Posted by slamina evas on 3/10/2008 10:43:01 AM
Yet another ideology dressed up as science with employment of the ideology courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.
Posted by Dr Bob on 3/10/2008 12:09:15 PM
It is a pity that the critics out there continue to defend these damaging meat production and dietary choices with snide and tedious ignorant attack lines. Why not do some research instead and open your minds to more progressive, environmentally sustainable, humane and healthy options? Facts are cattle and sheep industries are the largest cause of ghg emissions (AGO), biggest users of irrigation water (ABS & MDBC), responsible for 85% of our cleared land and rangelands degradation. There are plenty of peer reviewed studies and information out there proving that a well-balanced vegetarian diet provides all the nutrition we need and vegetarians have a lower rate of cancer (colorectal in particular), heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Even the CSIRO have come out with a lower meat higher plant foods diet to reduce heart disease (not funded by MLA and Dairy Australia like the first industry driven lucrative diet book)! Yes there are other lifestyle factors that influence, but diet is a major one that cannot and should not be ignored.
Posted by Food4thought on 3/10/2008 12:33:38 PM
Yet another example of vegetarian FUD masquerading as facts from Food4thought. The facts are that the biggest users of water for irrigation in Australia are rice and cotton growers. Instead of focusing on the Murray-Darling, have a look to the north at the massive irrigation schemes (ever heard of Ord River?). As for being responsible for 85% of our cleared land, I suspect broadacre cropping (wheat, barley, etc.) would win that one. I don't deny vegetarian's right to their diet choices, just leave me with my choice & right to eat meat. Last time I checked my teeth they were designed for eating meat.
Posted by cows800 on 3/10/2008 3:21:08 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Dr Sharon Friel
Dr Sharon Friel

Q: Do you believe there is a discernable difference in food quality between organic and non-organic farm produce?

Organic is superior
(55.7%)

There is no difference
(32.4%)

Conventional produce is superior
(11.8%)

Total Votes: 861
Poll Date: 29/09/2008

26/11/2008 | If we're serious about roo farming, we'll need to start with a breeding program and kangaroo EBVs for marbling and tenderness.
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
S&L Advertising
 
Horse Deals Australia
 
Rural Bookshop
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...