At least in the UK, they say meat is better than imported
meat substitutes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532

On Feb 12, 10:58*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> At least in the UK, they say meat is better than imported
> meat substitutes.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532

That's the UK for ya!

On Feb 12, 12:05*pm, Wim van Bemmel > wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:12:08 -0800, Chemo the Clown wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 10:58*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >> At least in the UK, they say meat is better than imported meat
> >> substitutes.
>
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532
>
> > That's the UK for ya!
>
> The best we can do is stop eating altogether. Totally.
> The earth will be saved within weeks.
>
> --
> Groet, salut, Wim.

You go first.

I'm not sure WWF is regarded as authoritative on this sort
of thing.

The United Kingdom, unlike the Republic of Ireland or the
United States, is a net meat importer. Therefore, when
a UK person consumes meat, they are adding to demand thus
adding to meat imports, even if the exact meat they are
consuming is local. So I would say it's bogus to conclude
that eating meat in the UK is resource-conserving.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> I'm not sure WWF is regarded as authoritative on this sort
> of thing.
>
> The United Kingdom, unlike the Republic of Ireland or the
> United States, is a net meat importer. Therefore, when
> a UK person consumes meat, they are adding to demand thus
> adding to meat imports, even if the exact meat they are
> consuming is local. So I would say it's bogus to conclude
> that eating meat in the UK is resource-conserving.

Does lead to an interesting question though. Usually the efficiency of
agriculture is based in energy per unit area, and on that basis
vegetarianism is a clear winner. But humans don't just need energy--if that
was all we needed we could survive fine on a diet of pure sugar. On that
basis, which is more efficient in producing complete protein, plants or cows
eating plants?