News Walt Disney World restaurants to begin expanding plant-based menu options

[MMFanCipher]

Being from Iowa there is a difference between farm and ranch, but I won't go any further into that can of worms.
Also, we don't have accents the rest of you do.
The only worry I have with this is that it has the feeling of the first step of removing meat from the parks. Now, my tin foil hat might have slipped onto my head without me knowing it, but that's the feeling I'm getting.
In my opinion, the obesity problem in the US in large part comes from the fact that kids/adults sit in front of a TV/Computer/Phone more than doing physical activity. Portion size is an issue, but if you where burning some of that off it would help.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Being from Iowa there is a difference between farm and ranch, but I won't go any further into that can of worms.
Also, we don't have accents the rest of you do.
The only worry I have with this is that it has the feeling of the first step of removing meat from the parks. Now, my tin foil hat might have slipped onto my head without me knowing it, but that's the feeling I'm getting.
In my opinion, the obesity problem in the US in large part comes from the fact that kids/adults sit in front of a TV/Computer/Phone more than doing physical activity. Portion size is an issue, but if you where burning some of that off it would help.

I absolutely agree that it's an issue of activity levels. When I was a kid, all us kids were literally allowed to run wild through at least a square mile of neighborhood/paths/woods...that's not the case anymore.

 

[Incomudro]

I absolutely agree that it's an issue of activity levels. When I was a kid, all us kids were literally allowed to run wild through at least a square mile of neighborhood/paths/woods...that's not the case anymore.

Well coupled with portion levels which are massive compared to days of old.
The amount of calories that are taken in by the unwitting is beyond what almost anyone can burn off.
Particularly if people eat out, consume fast food etc.
Portion sizes at say a McDonald's or Burger King - the fries, or soda's that come with meals are huge compared to what they were when I was a kid.
Plus, refills are often free on those drinks.
Even decent restaurants serve portions sizes that are massive, because that's what consumers expect.
Then there's the frequency of junk.
In days gone by, most parents might offer one dessert after dinner - if dinner was eaten.
Maybe a pack of cookies were kept in the house.
Now most households have cabinets stocked with junk that's available all day long for the taking.
I've seen parents hand toddlers and little kids the entire bag (those large sized party bags) of chips/Cheetos/Doritos for one kid to have all to themselves on numerous occasions all washed down with limitless cans of soda, or large bottles of soda that are available to be poured from all day long.
And this is everyday.
Not just birthday parties or special occasions.
No.
We're talking 24/7.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Well coupled with portion levels which are massive compared to days of old.
The amount of calories that are taken in by the unwitting is beyond what almost anyone can burn off.
Particularly if people eat out, consume fast food etc.
Portion sizes at say a McDonald's or Burger King - the fries, or soda's that come with meals are huge compared to what they were when I was a kid.
Plus, refills are often free on those drinks.
Even decent restaurants serve portions sizes that are massive, because that's what consumers expect.
Then there's the frequency of junk.
In days gone by, most parents might offer one dessert after dinner - if dinner was eaten.
Maybe a pack of cookies were kept in the house.
Now most households have cabinets stocked with junk that's available all day long for the taking.
I've seen parents hand toddlers and little kids the entire bag (those large sized party bags) of chips/Cheetos/Doritos for one kid to have all to themselves on numerous occasions all washed down with limitless cans of soda, or large bottles of soda that are available to be poured from all day long.
And this is everyday.
Not just birthday parties or special occasions.
No.
We're talking 24/7.

Oh, I'm aware. It's way less economical, but we buy the 100 calorie sized snack packs so we're able to keep decent track of what the kids are eating, and THANK GOD neither of our boys like soda. They drink either milk or flavored water (which isn't great, but still better than soda). My husband is a huge problem for me - he thinks ice cream and junk need to be in the house at all times and will buy them even if I expressly ask him NOT to. It's a huge point of contention for us. Fortunately, the boys know they are NOT allowed to have anything from the freezer without asking first and I always make them wait until after dinner and only if they've eaten a good meal. We're also dealing with both of them having "food issues" because of their autism, so the whole food situation is a disaster regardless of what we keep in the house. I push fruit on them as often as I possibly can, and we've implemented some ways of motivating them to eat new foods/stuff they aren't wild about. Words can't come close to expressing how difficult it is when one of the adults has the taste-buds of a 12-year-old - even though the other (me) will literally eat just about anything. Our youngest isn't too horrible - he'll at least eat cheese, yogurt, an apple or banana, and stuff like that. The really bad one is my oldest - he'd subsist off chicken and hot dogs if we let him. He'll at least eat a few mouthfuls of veggies though.

The super sad part is that I used to love cooking for people...but after 13 years of cooking multiple meals every dinner-time, fighting over what gets purchased, and trying to make sure everyone has something they like (and on a budget)...it's getting to be very tedious and depressing.

 

[bUU]

We can use innovation to figure out a way to collect and deal with the manure that may increase cost a small amount.

But they won't do that because it will cost money and the American voter cares more about saving money than about innovating a way to deal with the environmental disaster caused by their insatiable hunger for meat. Until CAFO lagoons are cleaned up, apologism on their behalf is moot.

However, unless the entire world agrees to do it, it would make American farmers uncompetitive.

Actually, what makes American farmers noncompetitive is mostly their higher labor costs. Until the corporations turn America into a third world nation so it can compete on labor costs with the low cost providers, those corporations will continue to consider American farmers noncompetitive.

As it is, we're far worse than any other nation in regard to CAFOs. We can eliminate half our CAFOs without reaching the level where other nations are at this point, so pointing at other nations for this doesn't hold water.

I don't deny that CAFOs exist for cows and hogs. However, the cow and hog farms that I've personally seen are pastures and I've spent a decent amount of time driving in the Midwest (Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana).

So what you're saying is that the corporations that operate large Industrial Animal Agriculture hide their operations from your personal view while you're leisurely driving by (and even have armed guards to ward off journalists from getting close enough to take photos and video) instead of having you view and smell the vile and putrid ramifications of American's hunger for meat.

All About Animal Factories

The modern farm looks nothing like the lush fields with happy animals pictured on packages in the supermarket. After World War II, an industrialized approach emphasizing the bottom line rather than planet and consumer welfare muscled out the small-scale, organic way of farming common up to then...

www.sierraclub.org

That's actually a primary imperative for the industry: Keep Americans from understanding how these corporations are destroying the environment, leaving that legacy to our children, so they can continue to earn money now based on their mortgaging of our children's future health and well-being.

How nice of them.

When having a reasonable discussion it is best not to invoke hyperbole like comparing CAFOs to Chernobyl. A nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl leaves an area uninhabitable. There are plenty of CAFOs that will eventually be developed as suburban sprawl continues over the next decades. They are not comparable.

CAFO lagoons off gas NH4-N plumes that would prevent human habitation. The cleanup for all the existing CAFO pollution sites would far exceed the cost of cleaning up Chernobyl.

I don't understand why vegetarians and, especially, vegans are hell bent on imposing their diet choices on others.

I said nothing of the sort: I said to go back to 100% pasture farming. The fact that you have to lie about what I wrote shows that you know that your perspective has no merit. You just want to eat meat with a clear conscience and working hard to rationalize your choice. You can't. The only effective path forward that leaves you buying beef at Publix is to turn a blind eye, which is what most Americans do.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

But they won't do that because it will cost money and the American voter cares more about saving money than about innovating a way to deal with the environmental disaster caused by their insatiable hunger for meat. Until CAFO lagoons are cleaned up, apologism on their behalf is moot.

Actually, what makes American farmers noncompetitive is mostly their higher labor costs. Until the corporations turn America into a third world nation so it can compete on labor costs with the low cost providers, those corporations will continue to consider American farmers noncompetitive.

As it is, we're far worse than any other nation in regard to CAFOs. We can eliminate half our CAFOs without reaching the level where other nations are at this point, so pointing at other nations for this doesn't hold water.

So what you're saying is that the corporations that operate large Industrial Animal Agriculture hide their operations from your personal view while you're leisurely driving by (and even have armed guards to ward off journalists from getting close enough to take photos and video) instead of having you view and smell the vile and putrid ramifications of American's hunger for meat.

All About Animal Factories

The modern farm looks nothing like the lush fields with happy animals pictured on packages in the supermarket. After World War II, an industrialized approach emphasizing the bottom line rather than planet and consumer welfare muscled out the small-scale, organic way of farming common up to then...

www.sierraclub.org

That's actually a primary imperative for the industry: Keep Americans from understanding how these corporations are destroying the environment, leaving that legacy to our children, so they can continue to earn money now based on their mortgaging of our children's future health and well-being.

How nice of them.

CAFO lagoons off gas NH4-N plumes that would prevent human habitation. The cleanup for all the existing CAFO pollution sites would far exceed the cost of cleaning up Chernobyl.

I said nothing of the sort: I said to go back to 100% pasture farming. The fact that you have to lie about what I wrote shows that you know that your perspective has no merit. You just want to eat meat with a clear conscience and working hard to rationalize your choice. You can't. The only effective path forward that leaves you buying beef at Publix is to turn a blind eye, which is what most Americans do.

I wouldn't quote the Sierra Club if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[ynahtebwdw]

I wonder how much carbon dioxide is produced in generating the energy required to process all those vegetables into a patty that looks and tastes like meat...

It's not just about carbon footprint, eating beef (and to a less extent other meats) is detrimental to the environment in three main ways:

1) direct deforestation and habitat loss to provide pasture for cattle grazing
2) indirect deforestation to grow soy and other crops to feed cattle in the winter
3) greenhouse gas (methane) emissions - extremely high because cows have a four chambered stomach structure

Producing imitation meat requires very little land in comparison, and sure, there is an electrical/mechanical component that at the moment still requires fossil fuels (probably), but this pales in comparison to the amount of energy that is required to raise a cow to slaughter or to milk cows on a daily basis. These processes are all mechanised and require huge amounts of energy.

 

[John park hopper]

I love how the uncontrolled world population is never addressed by the supposed environmentalist. More people means --more waste, more land clearing to feed the masses, more energy use, more demand for water, more lost habitats required to house, more resources needed etc etc As the human species increases all the other species on this planet have decreased and will continue to decrease to the point of extinct. All this talk of don't eat meat don't do this don't do that is just putting your finger in the hole in the dam --- there are just too many people.

 

[bUU]

I love how the uncontrolled world population is never addressed by the supposed environmentalist.

That's been tried. The problem is that there is such an overwhelming society bias against it that it is utterly counter-productive. Even China couldn't make it work.

I'm sure some people who desire things that cause pollution would prefer that environmentalists spend all their energy pointlessly banging their heads up against a wall that won't budge rather than actually pushing for things for which there is a path forward in society toward progress.

More people means --more waste, more land clearing to feed the masses, more energy use, more demand for water, more lost habitats required to house, more resources needed etc etc As the human species increases all the other species on this planet have decreased and will continue to decrease to the point of extinct. All this talk of don't eat meat don't do this don't do that is just putting your finger in the hole in the dam ****--- there are just too many people.

Let's test whether an approach to control world population could work: How about we put into meat, along with the hormones and anti-biotics, something that renders the eater of meat sterile. That should cut down overpopulation a bit. Would you be in favor of that approach? /sarc

 

[bUU]

how about the Centers for Disease Control?

The increased clustering and growth of CAFOs has led to growing environmental problems in many communities. The excess production of manure and problems with storage or manure management can affect ground and surface water quality. Emissions from degrading manure and livestock digestive processes produce air pollutants that often affect ambient air quality in communities surrounding CAFOs. CAFOs can also be the source of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change.

Concentrated animal feeding operations or large industrial animal farms can cause a myriad of environmental and public health problems.

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf

 

[ImperfectPixie]

how about the Centers for Disease Control?

The increased clustering and growth of CAFOs has led to growing environmental problems in many communities. The excess production of manure and problems with storage or manure management can affect ground and surface water quality. Emissions from degrading manure and livestock digestive processes produce air pollutants that often affect ambient air quality in communities surrounding CAFOs. CAFOs can also be the source of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change.

Concentrated animal feeding operations or large industrial animal farms can cause a myriad of environmental and public health problems.

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf

The CDC is light-years ahead of the Sierra Club. I don't disagree with your opinion about CAFOs. I'm of the opinion that mass-produced food - while convenient and necessary - contributes to shameful levels of wastefulness, over-exposure to dyes and other chemicals we shouldn't be ingesting, health issues, environmental issues, and many more problems.

This is a public forum, there was no nose-butting involved.

The Sierra Club is to environmentalism what Autism Speaks is to those who love someone with autism or who have it themselves - it spreads misinformation under the guise of good intentions in order to further their own agenda.

I love how the uncontrolled world population is never addressed by the supposed environmentalist. More people means --more waste, more land clearing to feed the masses, more energy use, more demand for water, more lost habitats required to house, more resources needed etc etc As the human species increases all the other species on this planet have decreased and will continue to decrease to the point of extinct. All this talk of don't eat meat don't do this don't do that is just putting your finger in the hole in the dam ****--- there are just too many people.

There are far too many people. And yet we continue to provide food and resources to those who live in areas where meeting the needs for survival is impossible, perpetuating the problem. What would the solution have been just a few hundred years ago? Relocate or face the consequences. What about medicine? At what point do we allow nature to run it's course and let disease do it's population-controlling job? And how do we get the entire world to be on the same page when it comes to population concerns? I don't envy the decisions our future generations will have to make...there are no easy choices when it comes to fixing the myriad of problems we and those before us have created.

 

[larryz]

Unclear, but based on anecdotal evidence, I'd guess that it's less than the green house emissions produced by this week's bean burrito lunch in my school's cafeteria.

So it isn't really "less" because it's additive to whatever CO2 was generated making the processed burritos...

 

[larryz]

In my opinion, the obesity problem in the US in large part comes from the fact that kids/adults sit in front of a TV/Computer/Phone more than doing physical activity. Portion size is an issue, but if you where burning some of that off it would help.

And don't forget the calorie-dense HFCS... you gotta put that somewhere if you're not burning it off.

 

[Incomudro]

Perhaps try not gatekeeping? It's ok to enjoy eating unhealthy clumps of fried protein without wanting to directly cause harm to an animal.

Still don't get why a person who abhors the idea of animal protein due to ethical reasons would consume a product that mimics the taste of it.

 

[larryz]

Still don't get why a person who abhors the idea of animal protein due to ethical reasons would consume a product that mimics the taste of it.

The same reason people want gluten-free bagels.

 

[Incomudro]

The same reason people want gluten-free bagels.

Huh???
People don't consume gluten for ethical/environmental reasons? Because they don't want to harm gluten, and/or they don't like the toll that "gluten farms" impose on the environment?

And don't get me started on gluten...
If a person is not allergic to gluten - there is no reason to avoid it.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Huh???
People don't consume gluten for ethical/environmental reasons? Because they don't want to harm gluten, and/or they don't like the toll that "gluten farms" impose on the environment?

And don't get me started on gluten...
If a person is not allergic to gluten - there is no reason to avoid it.

It's just another means for one segment of people to scare another segment of people into spending money they wouldn't have otherwise.

ETA: And I agree with your statement about allergies.

 

[Incomudro]

It's just another means for one segment of people to scare another segment of people into spending money they wouldn't have otherwise.

ETA: And I agree with your statement about allergies.

Yes, the latest food scare hype that gets scores of people to jump aboard - the majority of whom don't even understand why.
It sells lots of products for sure.
Remember when seemingly every other person was lactose intolerant?
Then seemingly every other person had a peanut allergy, or more likely - their child had one?
I remember when "fat free" labels appeared on items that never had fat to begin with.
Now I see "gluten free" labels on foods that never had gluten, such as meats, vegetables, rices...
Gluten is a wheat protein - it's neve been in anything that's not wheat or wheat based.
And so the wheel turns.

 

[John park hopper]

All I can say is thank god our early ancestors began to eat meat or we would all be still swing from the trees eating nuts and berries grunting at each other rather than debating the merits of eat meat or don't eat meat on this forum

"Although this isn't the first such assertion from archaeologists and evolutionary biologists, the new studies demonstrate, respectively, that it would have been biologically implausible for humans to evolve such a large brain on a raw, vegan diet and that meat-eating was a crucial element of human evolution at least 1 million years before the dawn of humankind."

 

[ImperfectPixie]

All I can say is than god our early ancestors began to eat meat or we would all be still swing from the trees eating nuts and berries grunting at each other rather than debating the merits of eat meat or don't eat meat on this forum

"Although this isn't the first such assertion from archaeologists and evolutionary biologists, the new studies demonstrate, respectively, that it would have been biologically implausible for humans to evolve such a large brain on a raw, vegan diet and that meat-eating was a crucial element of human evolution at least 1 million years before the dawn of humankind."

Not surprising. There was a while there that people thought it would be a good idea to give their toddlers fat-free and low-fat milk - until the children began having seizures. Turns out kids need the fat for brain development and at that age, milk is the most likely source for them to get it.