The meat in France and in the world: production, conso ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Omnivore "which feeds indifferently on food of animal or plant origin" suits me very well. This is clearly what defines the human being.

Not really, omnivorous is an "ability to", and indeed humans are omnivorous. Then the diet can vary from one extreme to another, between the "historical" Inuit (I don't know if there are any yet?) Who only ate meat / fish and the vegan suffered or chosen. .

[GuyGadebois]

Omnivore "which feeds indifferently on food of animal or plant origin" suits me very well. This is clearly what defines the human being.

Not really, omnivorous is an "ability to", and indeed humans are omnivorous. Then the diet can vary from one extreme to another, between the "historical" Inuit (I don't know if there are any yet?) Who only ate meat / fish and the vegan suffered or chosen. .

"Indifferently". The Inuit have no choice when it comes to veganism, it is a "modern case" that has probably never existed before. Biologically we are omnivorous. Our digestive system is designed to assimilate "indifferently" meat and vegetable foods.

[Janic]

janic wrote: Some use the term flexitarian.

Not me, because I find that this word is singularly lacking in descriptive criteria (except if it has an "official" definition which would have escaped me).

No official definition, that of es-specialists of the French language, that I know; but:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexitarisme
Flexitarism (a flexible word word combining vegetarianism1), sometimes called semi-vegetarianism2, is a food practice whose daily basis is vegetarian BUT WHICH AUTHORIZES [*] an occasional consumption of meat3. A person who has greatly reduced his consumption of meat without being a vegetarian is therefore commonly called a flexitarian.

I have a good friend, quite meaty, who jokes that he is flexitarian because out of 14 meals a week, there is at least one where he only has a mixed salad. Certainly it provokes, but what are the "criteria"? Personally, there is at least one in two meals where I eat neither meat nor fish: am I flexitarian? In short, my "almost vegetarian" seems to me more meaningful, at least we can see which side are the sliders.

Would you eat animal products only once a year, that would be flexitarianism hence your notion of slider.
Suppose you are heterosexual most of the time and homo from time to time (or vice versa) you would call that how?

PS: we are very happy for your friend, but this is not the subject.

On the contrary ! Our current world wants to put everything in a well-closed drawer with a label that only opens when pulled. In biology it's the opposite, pulling a drawer moves all the others more or less like when an insect that gets caught in a spider's web and where the moving threads indicate to it, the size, the force or danger. So all aspects related to meat consumption move all labeled drawers: pollution, dietetics, ethics, philosophy, lifestyle, etc ... and in the case cited the health affecting these different factors and not only an industrial production or not.

sicetaitsimple wrote:

GuyGadebois wrote: Omnivore "which feeds indifferently on foods of animal or plant origin" suits me very well. This is clearly what defines the human being

Not really, omnivorous is an "ability to", and indeed HUMANS ARE OMNIVORES. Then the diet can vary from one extreme to another, between the "historical" Inuit (I don't know if there are any yet?) Who ate only meat / fish and the vegan suffered or chosen. .

Do not mix omnivorous culture, food opportunism, habit or taste and omnivorous anatomical constitution. Otherwise, the cannibals would naturally be made for that ... since they do it, they like it and digest well (in appearance)

Biologically we are omnivorous. Our digestive system is designed to assimilate "indifferently" meat and vegetable foods.

This is the mistake of confusing social culture and anatomobiology.

[*] subject treated by a non-VG or vegan type. Why allow himself as if it were a ban to cross as a diabetic for sugar. (see the ad on TV on flexis!)

[GuyGadebois]

Do not mix omnivorous culture, food opportunism, habit or taste and omnivorous anatomical constitution.

We have been biologically omnivorous since the dawn of humanity. Our dentition and our digestive system attest to this. After, the food plasticity makes that there exist disparities of regime in the world, mainly due to the cultural and climatic differences, but overall, we are mainly omnivorous.

[sicetaitsimple]

Sicetaitsimple wrote: PS: we are very happy for your friend, but this is not the subject.

On the contrary ! Our current world wants to put everything in a well-closed drawer with a label that only opens when pulled.

No, no, the subject is "meat in France and in the world, production, consumption".
Your friend with osteoarthritis, if we let you go, after boasting your advice to go vegan in the first post, you'll soon tell us that if he had not been vaccinated it would certainly have been different, then with a little homeopathy it would have been better ....
We know the music, hold on to the title of the wire, or stay in your favorite sandboxes.

[sicetaitsimple]

Sicetaitsimple wrote: we are very happy for your friend, but this is not the subject.

Janic: On the contrary! Our current world wants to put everything in a well-closed drawer with a label that only opens when you pull it.

6 or 7 posts above, Janic wrote:
Almost vegetarian gold is a euphemism! It's like saying that such a doctor is almost a surgeon, or almost a dentist, or almost a gendarme! We are or we are not!

[GuyGadebois]

Suppose you are heterosexual most of the time and homo from time to time (or vice versa) you would call that how? << Bisexual.

GuyGadebois wrote: Omnivore "which feeds indifferently on foods of animal or plant origin" suits me very well. This is clearly what defines the human being. Biologically we are omnivorous. Our digestive system is designed to assimilate "indifferently" meat and vegetable foods.

This is the mistake of confusing social culture and anatomobiology.<<< A herbivore that is fed with meat will die (mad cow), a human will not. It is therefore that by nature, physiologically, biologically, traditionally, zoologically it is "designed for". Culturally, he can go from a 100% meat diet (Innuits) to 100% vegetable (Vegans) through blood, dairy products and honey (Peul Shepherds) without damage.

[Janic]

This is the mistake of confusing social culture and anatomobiology.

An herbivore that is fed with meat will die (mad cow), a human no.

No, because an herbivore does not seek to feed on its kind, the case of the mad cow is the example with the KJ disease with animal meal and the same signs of KJ found among the cannibals tribes.

It is therefore that by nature, physiologically, biologically, traditionally, zoologically it is "designed for".

This is propaganda made by the manufacturers of the bidoche who completely despise all the knowledge acquired during the last century on the scientific level.
Exactly none of these criteria are for the benefit of this type of consumption. This subject has been seen and reviewed, just refer to it and it demonstrates the opposite.

Culturally it can go from a diet 100% meaty (Innuits) to 100% vegetal (Vegan) without damage.

This is a superficial speech on the subject All these aspects have been deciphered and scientifically and biologically this is unfounded.

[GuyGadebois]

...............

Either it's superficial, or it's propaganda ... It's hard to stay polite in the face of your surge of chronic stupidity invariably assaulted with the same ready-made sentences and pre-digested concepts.

[Janic]

Either it's superficial, or it's propaganda ... It's hard to stay polite in the face of your surge of chronic stupidity invariably assaulted with the same ready-made sentences and pre-digested concepts.

you should not TE judge so severely.