• expired

Free Screening of Sacred Cow: The Case for (Better) Meat Documentary


I've been following this project closely for almost a year now since reading the book and backing it on IndieGogo for $25USD. I think it's going to be great and it looks like it's going to be free from November 22nd-30th (US time).


The Case for Better Meat

At our grocery stores and dinner tables, even the most thoughtful consumers are overwhelmed by the number of considerations to weigh when choosing what to eat—especially when it comes to meat. Guided by the noble principle of least harm, many responsible citizens resolve the ethical, environmental and nutritional conundrum by quitting meat entirely. But can a healthy, resilient and conscientious food system exist without animals?

Sacred Cow probes the fundamental moral, environmental and nutritional quandaries we face in raising and eating animals. In this project, we focus our lens on the largest and perhaps most maligned of farmed animals, the cow.


  • Red meat causes cancer, obesity and heart disease.
  • We’re eating too much meat.
  • Humans don’t need to consume animal products to be healthy.
  • Raising livestock is bad for the environment.
  • It’s unethical to eat animals.
  • If we can produce meat in labs, then why should we eat animals?

The connection between nutrition and ecosystem health is starting to make some headway into mainstream media. Everyone is trying to figure out how to feed the world in the most sustainable and healthy way. However, we've allowed corporate interest, big food, flawed science, click-bait media and naïve celebrities to steer us away from what a truly nutrient-dense, ethical and sustainable, and regenerative food system really is. The mantra that “all meat is bad” influences how we're training dietitians, shaping our dietary guidelines, designing school lunch policies, and funding for nutrition-related research.

As we’ve become more globalized, the entire world is now pushing towards the "heart healthy" (and highly processed) Western diet. In the process, we're destroying entire ecosystems and human health through industrial, ultra-processed food.

Sacred Cow comes at a critical point in the nutrition and sustainability story. A meat tax is a very real possibility. Well intended yet highly misguided, The EAT Lancet Global Dietary Guidelines are calling for less than 1/2 an ounce of red meat per day, for human and planetary health.

Meat is being vilified as causing cancer, heart disease and diabetes, yet there are no solid studies to back this up. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley has invested millions in highly processed meat alternatives, with the assumption that engineering our proteins in factories will be a better alternative to something nature has already figured out: grazing animals, restoring land while converting cellulose into protein.


The truth is, well-managed cattle are the unlikely heroes of this story. We can increase biodiversity, improve soil health, increase the water holding capacity of the land and raise high quality, nutrient-dense protein, while preserving family farming communities. Removing these animals from our food system could cause more harm than good.

Related Stores


closed Comments

  • -2

    What a load of rubbish. It's propaganda from the meat industry that see the writing on the wall.
    This is the equivalent of "clean coal". Just smoke and mirrors to justify an industry that we should be retiring.


    Applegate, Belcampo Meat, ButcherBox, Central Grazing Company, EPIC Provisions, Farrier Leather, The Good Kitchen, Otto’s Cassava Flour, Paleo(f)x, PaleoValley, Thrive Market, Tribali Foods and US Wellness Meats

    • +12

      Classic vegan response. This documentary isn't funded by "Big Meat" and actually argues against factory farming. It promotes humane farming of animals and acknowledges their importance in the ecosystem and human diet. What is your alternative solution? Monocrops, Monsanto and Beyond Meat burgers?

      • +18

        I'm not vegan, I'm a hypocrite.

        The meat industry is making concessions to survive.

        Also, you realise if people didn't eat meat, there would be less Monocrops and Monsanto, right? A large percentage of crops is grown to feed lifestock.

        People can eat beyond meat burgers if they want, sure, but they don't have to.

        • +10

          And you realise that this film/idea does not support the feeding of corn and soy to livestock, right?

          • +11

            @elli0t: There is not enough land mass to support free range animal agriculture work the current levels of animal consumption. The idea we can all free range with current consumption is a fantasy

            • +2

              @afoveht: The fix for this is fewer people.

              • +12

                @cheapsk8: Yeah, you want people to breed less but can't imagine them even changing what they have for breakfast.

              • +2

                @cheapsk8: Soylent green!

              • +1

                @cheapsk8: Great idea, Thanos! 😋

        • +5

          Good opportunity to snapshot all the anti-vegan responses here - perhaps one day if/when you drop the hypocrisy you'll look back and cringe and laugh at the old camp.

      • +5

        Millions of hectares (no that’s not a mistake) of bush land have been cleared over the past decade (especially in QLD) almost entirely for beef production, and yet we can still buy beef at the supermarket for as cheap as $15-20/kg. That is bizarre. The beef industry in Australia is almost certainly receiving all kinds of welfare in the form of subsidies and lenient approvals to destroy native habitat at an unprecedented rate. This is a propped-up industry. It is fairly common sense that it is not economical to mass-produce beef and to encourage the population to eat it. It is also not ethical. If we’re going to farm on a small, environmentally friendly and sustainable scale, we’ll need to eat on a small scale, which means most of the population will rarely, if ever, eat beef.

        • $15-$20 per kilo for beef at the supermarket is certainly something you can buy. But it's god awful, gnarly, poorly trimmed and packaged and once you denude it and remove all the silverskin, tendons, sinew, excessive fat and rinse it of whatever tenderizing agents it's packaged with you're getting maybe 60% of what you paid for in edible weight.

          Your problem is you're forgetting that much of this -the deforestation, the industrialized grist mills of HVP and Soya fattened cattle - is being done and escalated in scale so quickly as a result of us collectively profiting off of foreign markets, at our collective expense monetarily, environmentally and dietarily. We're actually paying way too much for our beef, because we're being subject to the 'market' we've created and we're now second class citizens.

          Go to England or Japan, tiny islands with masses of people, and look at what they pay for their beef and foodstuffs. Think mate.

      • "humane farming" eh?

        Is this what you had in mind: https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch

    • I second your opinion. Rupert Murdoch possibly behind this too :-D

    • +2

      Hi, long time meat eater, first time commenting, what a load of rubbish your comment is. I refuse to eat lab grown meat, beyond burgers every now and again maybe but I dont want to eat steak, sausages or mince grown from a lab and I should have the damn option to eat whichever one I prefer, the same way you can CHOOSE to eat lab meat. Do what suits you but dont shove your opinion down everyone's throat. Im sure my comment will be downvoted by the vegan army (they always vote in groups) but someone has to tell you how it is! Humans love meat!

      • +2

        Not sure if you meant to reply to me or Elliot, but you realise that none of the fake meat at the supermarket is lab grown, right? That might well change, but for now that's the case.

        Just on a sidenote: I wouldn't eat lab grown meat either.

        • +8

          The modern "farm animals" people eat today already are largely lab grown. They have been manipulated in various ways and selectively bred to be nothing like their predecessors, even 50 years ago. Today's dairy cows produce 8000 litres of milk per year, 50 years ago it was half that. You need to have been stranded on a desert island to know today's broiler chickens are freaks compared to those 50 years ago.

          So much talk about lab grown meat by the same people who eat frankenanimals that wallow in their own shit in confined spaces their entire lives. They're still labs, just filthy, disgusting, agricultural labs.

          I too probably wouldn't eat the upcoming lab meat made without sentient beings being the hosts - there's no compelling reason to, any more than there is to eat meat from natural animals. Tastes change with time, with cultural norms, with availability, with ethical standards - I used to love KFC and BBQs and all that, now much of it revolts me aesthetically, all of it revolts me morally . I can understand lab meat perhaps as a manufactured product that is a good delivery mechanism for nutrients, and maybe made to taste nostalgic, and if no-one gets hurt well then eat whatever you want. But the idea that futuristic lab meat is somehow disgusting as opposed to animal ag today leaves me bewildered.

      • +4

        Whats this garbage. No one is going to force you to do anything…

        But I don't see why ANYONE would reject lab grown meat, provided it has the same taste and nutrients. There literally no reason for rejecting it. Not only would it be more moral, it also would be more sustainable as there would be far less waste.

        • +6

          There literally no reason for rejecting it.

          You're forgetting stubbornness and spite. These same people would have complained that automobiles would always be inferior to horses.

        • +1

          How about cancer? Is cancer a good reason for rejecting it? Same taste and "nutrients", oh and cancer risk

          • +1

            @realrift: Ah yes, the cancer risks of the products we haven't made yet that will no doubt face huge scrutiny from all food regulators. Yes, definitely a valid concern.

            • @Adoses: Something causing cancer is a valid reason for rejecting it and a valid concern.

              • +1

                @realrift: Except it doesn't cause cancer, because it doesn't even exist yet… How are you worried about the cancer causing possibility of something hypothetical when there are so many real threats in your life right now?

        • +1

          You do realize we don't even know ALL the nutrients in red meat?!?

          We only discovered vitamin K2 in 2012, CLA in 2018, etc

          How do you expect "all the nutrients" to be in lab grown slop if we don't even know about them, let alone understand what they do :/


          • +1

            @7ekn00: I don't see why this means anything.

            There are not many nutrients (maybe none actually) which you can only get from meat (red or otherwise).

            Also, according to this source, vitamin K2 was recognised in the 1950s.

            And like I said, meat is hardly the only or even primary source of it

            The point is, most people would gladly take lab grown meat if presented as an option.

      • +1

        @Iwant the best price: You might not have noticed, but we are no longer a country of 10 million people, and the global population is no longer 3 billion. Australia's population is now over 26 million, and global population is approaching 8 billion. This is 10 times what it was 150 years ago. The notion that 8 billion people have the right to eat beef is absolutely absurd. If 8 billion people ate beef on a daily basis, there would be no wilderness left anywhere on the planet. The beef industry is already caused tremendous damage worldwide, and is completely unsustainable going forward, especially with the global population still rising.

        • +1

          Tell that to White Oak Pastures that have pulled CO2 from the atmosphere and increased ground deposits by 2% each year for the last 10 years!

          Please let me know of any other farming practice that has been certified CARBON NEGATIVE ;)


          • @7ekn00: I wasn’t even talking about carbon. Millions of hectares (no that’s not a mistake) of native Australian bush land have been cleared over the past decade (especially in QLD) almost entirely for beef production. The scale is almost beyond imagination.

  • +30

    Are there any ozbargain specials on popcorn? Might need some for this thread.

    • Won't be for long unfortuantely.
      My valid criticism will be downvoted and removed in 3, 2, 1…

      • +11

        Except that it wasn't a valid criticism. In fact you didn't really criticise anything specifically..

        • +1

          Okay, I criticise the above posted conclusion and the sponsorship of the meat industry.

          • +4

            @MEnergy: "sponsorship of the meat industry" - what is inherently bad about this? Who else is going to help support it apart from project backers like myself? Films are expensive to make. Have you actually looked into all of the companies that you listed? They all promote or are in support of regenerative agriculture. Can you tell me why you're against them and how their ethos don't align with yours?

            • +16

              @elli0t: @elli0t
              What's inherently 'bad' about corporate sponsorship of a feature length 'documentary' promoting and supporting certain products that are the core products of those corporate sponsors? Oh, I don't know, maybe a conflict of interest?

              Prior to coming to this thread, I knew nothing of this film, but the headline on the main page made it clear just from the first line that you obviously felt passionate about it, so I clicked to check it out. Reading the posted blurb, a number of alarm bells sounded for me - there are a number of factors that suggest this was a film produced for the purpose of pursuing and promoting a specific agenda. And then I read the comments, the first listing a number of corporate backers for a film whose outcome provides a direct and tangible benefit to many of them. Then I read your responses, which are really quite aggressive - I mean, you open with a pejorative statement 'Classic vegan response'. If you wanted to argue a reasonable position, you definitely didn't start out in a way that an objective reader could take anything else you wrote following that as coming from a position of logic and reason.

              You could have rightly questioned spludgey's lack of specific, detailed objections beyond just listing the corporate backers of the film - he does have a valid point, but his argument could have been made stronger by going into more detail. But once people start throwing insults around no one gets anywhere - people take up position behind the walls of their ideological predisposition and fling mud at the other side, and everyone unlucky enough to wander into the middle of it makes haste to rapidly depart, having learned nothing but a one sided ideology is attempting to push a specific agenda, and another ideology is railing against it. Which is fairly idiotic, because it's a subject that can be approached from the perspective of objective fact, if only people could step back from ideology and discuss the science calmly.

              So on this specific point, spludgey does have a valid criticism - sponsorship of a film where the conclusions have direct bearing on the profitability of those same sponsors is a direct conflict of interest. That's not contentious, that's just a fact. Yes, that makes it tricky to get scientists to perform studies that are objective, which is why you have government funded research, in the hope that the conclusions can be objective. Yes, it makes it difficult to get a documentary made about valid research that supports reasonable arguments supporting such an industry if you're not allowed to funnel a single cent or other incentives from that industry into the documentary, but there are ways of doing it at arms length without exerting any influence at all (but then you have to be happy that the conclusions may not in fact support your position if the facts don't stack up that way. Them's the breaks).

              But getting angry and attacking people who are merely pointing out quite valid and reasonable criticisms so that others are more informed about the context? That's not helpful, and in fact suggests even more strongly that there's more to worry about in terms of bias in this film's content than would have otherwise been apparent, because if it could stand on its own merits and basis in fact, it certainly wouldn't need vociferous support from ideological quarters on the Internet…

              • +4

                @TrevorX: It must be easier to get funding from businesses that may benefit from your work, rather than companies your work vilifies.

                • +4

                  @cheapsk8: Haha yes absolutely, of course it is! But it's precisely why it's so important that there is full disclosure and the audience remain not only informed, but well versed in critical thinking and analysis, which is frankly lacking in a terrifyingly large proportion of coughvotersImeanrepublicanscough people.

              • +1

                @TrevorX: Good reply, many points covered which is always good for a robust argument. But one thing seems to be missing here, why is it ok for the meat industry to be attacked from everywhere with claims such as meat causes cancer and animal cruelty etc, and they are not allowed to defend themselves. I understand the perceived message that a movie funded by the very people being attacked may be biased, but these companies also have an absolute right to defend themselves and put out facts. To ask for a goverment to fund a pro meat documentary is laughable, no goverment would because they don't want to be seen as pushing a specific agenda.

                So again if a company or business, or certain group of business are being criticised by a vocal minority on social media and baseless claims they should, and have, the right to correct those claims..

                And I don't think anyone here expected PETA or the Animal Human Society to fund this film, let's be real.

                It seems no matter how hard this industry tries to do better as per the points mentioned by the OP from the film, they will be completely ignored because they funded getting that message out…

                • +5

                  @Iwantthebestprice: Okay, animal cruelty is an easy one. Obviously, it doesn't apply to all meat grown everywhere, but just have a look at videos that were secretly shot in factory farms, especially piggeries. It really makes you lose faith in humanity.
                  I know that's not neccesarily relevant to the film, as from what I've read it doesn't advocate that either, but since your premise was about the meat industry, that's very much true.

                  As for cancer, I'm not a medical professional, but I don't think there's much debate in the medical community of whether eating especially red processed meat increases your risk of cancer, particularly bowel cancer.
                  I like to think of the Cancer Council's advice as very much fact based and I hope you can agree with that. They state that even just 50g of meat a day increases your risk of bowl cancer by 18%.


                  • @MEnergy: Please watch this in regards to the cancer claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up__RB_rgRM

                    • @elli0t: The fact that processed meat causes cancer and red meat probably (a mathematical probability) causes cancer are not mere claims. They stem from scientific research and are published by the World Health Organisation.

                      Heres a link to the WHO statement: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf

                      Introducing fake experts is a common denial tactic.

                      Stick to real experts and peer reviewed evidence.

                      • +1

                        @realrift: Think you mis-understand "association" vs "cause" … pretty relevant term in science "association does not imply causation"

                        All those studies that show "red meat is associated with cancer" did not control for heathy user bias (somebody not eating meat will also not smoke and also exercises) nor unhealthy user bias (those that eat red meat also smoke and over consume fast food calories, etc)

                        Then there is relative risk ratios: the relative risks for smoking association with cancer were 2000 - 3000%, the relative risk for red meat and cancer is -5% to 20%, which does not even meet the bradford-hill criteria (200%) for any relevance at all!

                        Think you need to review the comments of the doctor that invented the term "evidence based medicine" (to which all modern medicine is founded), with all the studies performed, he has stated that there is no evidence that meat is associated with cancers.

                  • +4

                    @MEnergy: I think you've conflated those figures a little - that 18% risk increase is for processed meats like ham, bacon, sausages - pretty much everything sold in the deli counter at your local supermarket (if it's not a clean cut of meat (ie identifiable muscle tissue), it's probably processed). Red meat on its own doesn't increase the risk nearly as much. That's not really your fault - the Cancer Council have chosen to present their figures like that, lumping red meats together with processed meats, which I feel is unfair - yes, there is risk posed by both, according to the WHO studies, but the extent of risk is significantly different.

                    Statistics, hey? :-/

                    • @TrevorX: Yet people still chow down on processed meats without a second thought. Think of all the cheap ham sold on pizzas every day.

                      • @donm: Yes, the WHO report was FIVE YEARS ago, concluding that eating processed meats is the equivalent cancer risk as smoking, yet it hasn't slowed consumption in the slightest…

                • +5

                  @Iwantthebestprice: Hi Iwantthebestprice, that's a fair question, I'm glad you asked :-)

                  The way things like this play out is, you have a large industry that has built up over decades or maybe hundreds of years, that's highly profitable because it sells lots of stuff people want, and as a result it's in its interest to continue to promote its products through ongoing marketing. Marketing is a form of unapologetic propaganda - you're trying to create perceptions within the minds of people through advertising, but according to the rules of the market people's minds are fair game - that particular ideological conundrum is best left for another day.

                  So you're not exactly starting from a clean slate - you're starting from a position where billions upon billions have already been spent framing the ideological position to advantage the existing industry. And for the most part, we accept that this is relatively fine behaviour - they have something to sell, so they're keeping their market 'informed'. Fair enough.

                  But then someone comes along and provides some new information. They say, inconveniently, that the industrial farming methods used by the industry cause harm, and this harm affects human health, and it's also having a measurable detrimental effect on the environment, which in turn has the potential to dramatically affect human health (ie climate change kills lots of humans). This person, followed by more people, and then further groups of people, aren't saying these things due to a vested interest in destroying this industry or these companies, they're scientists who collect data, analyse it, then publish it. And then other scientists look at that data, where they got it from (their methods) and their conclusions, and if they spot a problem, they write their own paper that disagrees with the first paper, pointing out what was wrong with it. This is the scientific method, and for the most part it has proven to be one of the most robust processes humanity has ever developed. It's how we got electricity and computers and mobile phones and the Internet and modern healthcare and why you didn't die when you cut your hand in the garden as a kid and why we're not all stricken with polio anymore.

                  So, as consensus builds within the scientific community, we start to see cracks - this isn't an industry selling products that at best don't cause any harm (let alone being good for us) - it turns out that they're causing a very great deal of problems. This is not a situation where you have well funded critics trying to destroy a poor, defenceless, penniless, otherwise virtuous industry, this is a situation where ideologically and legally disinterested scientists have come to the unavoidable conclusion that a great deal of harm is being done, and finally, slowly people are beginning to pay attention. The industry is large and extremely wealthy, so they're funding their own research, studies and papers, but you can't change demonstrable facts - without changing the inputs, the results will always be the same, so having a small group of naysayer scientists who object to published and demonstrated peer reviewed evidence is irrelevant. The industry is also funding lobby groups that influence government policy and even laws to protect their industry from these perceived 'attacks'.

                  Now, of course if somehow you can change the variables, you can alter the outcome. Industrial farming is demonstrably damaging for a slew of reasons, so shifting to more sustainable, less ecologically destructive farming methods will make things better. Enough to significantly alter the scientific consensus? Not really - cattle farming is inherently, unavoidably harmful and inefficient, and there's not a great deal you can do about that - you're breeding and growing cows, and those cows need feed. The industry understands down to the calorie exactly how much feedstock is required to get a cow to optimal size for maximal profit, they know what it costs and how to produce the feed as they've been doing it for so long with a truly staggering number of animals - they have so much data, and so much money, they know exactly what can and can't be done, and they know they can't begin to compete with a protein source like chickens, and they certainly won't exist once industrial scale meat protein is readily available for a fraction of the price (and importantly with almost zero environmental impact).

                  Please understand, this is not a question of whether or not the cattle industry will survive and become sustainable - the writing is on the wall because you can't change fundamental facts about cattle production because cows; there's only a decade or two before it will be completely gone. This is about muddying the waters to maximise profitability during the twilight years, because the more people continuing to eat meat the more money they make and the longer they can sustain what's left.

                  So, back to your original question - the reason the industry has to produce their own film is because independent research disagrees with their conclusions. Contrary to your statement that they're being damaged by the baseless claims of a vocal minority on social media, the reality is quite the opposite. Yes, there are 'green warriors' on social media and elsewhere who seem ideologically bent on opposing meat for purely moral reasons, who don't base their arguments in well acknowledged fact, which is unhelpful, but just because you disagree with someone who's a bit unhinged doesn't make you right - that's a strawman argument. The scientific consensus is quite unequivocal on the matter, so from a factual basis there's no longer any argument.

                  Yes, if you're part of that industry, that sucks. But guess what? Lots of people find themselves retrenched because the world changes and your skills and experience are no longer relevant, and you have to go and find something else. Look at the changes in Detroit over 50 years. Look at the way industrialisation reshaped the world, and how rapidly the factories constructed at the end of the 19th century were shut down as production either moved to more efficient methods or to less expensive jurisdictions (eg China). The difference is that most people who are retrenched don't have hundreds of billions of dollars they can use to go and do something else, so the more efficient solution would be for them to stop spending their money complaining about something they're not going to be able to change anyway.

                  What they should do is go and build their own industrial scale protein factories, as they already have much of the production for packaging and distribution infrastructure that will be required anyway, so they could gradually transition the industry themselves with lower costs of production than any competitors due to fully realised investments in infrastructure.

                  Context - I eat meat, because it's impossible for me to derive sufficient protein through non-meat products due to my gastrointestinal function, but I've been on almost 100% chicken for about 15 years. I personally look forward to a future protein source that looks and tastes identical to the meat I currently eat that's cheaper to produce and has no environmental impact (and hopefully I can eat manufactured 'red meat' again one day). I've worked in IT for 20 years designing and working with network and server infrastructure, with a background that includes several years of scientific research in genetics, so my life has been spent analysing and reporting on facts and data.

                  • @TrevorX: How on earth did you write all that without a single spelling or grammar mistake?

              • +1

                @TrevorX: Just like how James Cameron funded the Game Changers documentary but is also heavily invested in a Pea Protein company? That wasn't disclosed. At least this film lists their corporate sponsors openly. Spludgey also edited his comment to add the film sponsors which is why I wasn't sure what he was actually criticising. I didn't get angry or attack spludgey, I just meant that his comment was very typical to that of a vegan

                • @elli0t: I did edit it and include it, as I didn't have it at hand when I first commented. I thought I edited prior to you commenting, but I'm not entirely sure of the timeline, so I'm happy to go with your assertion that it wasn't there when you commented (or at least started to write your comment).

                • +1

                  @elli0t: Hey I'd be the first to point out the hypocrisy in that - transparency is vital because it exposes not just wrongdoing, but also eliminates the perception of potential wrongdoing. That's why we need things like a federal anticorruption body, but also wide ranging laws prohibiting and criminalising malfeasance and wrongdoing regardless of the source. The status quo is poor because all sides have dirty hands, so it's only when enough of those in power are prepared to take it on the chin for the greater good that we have any hope of things improving.

                  Good to hear that wasn't your intent, hopefully you can see why I thought it might have been though? I think in general the conversation today has been of a much higher level than it could have easily devolved into, which I think reflects well on everyone.

          • +2

            @MEnergy: Yet you praise all the plant based studies done by admitted vegans funded by monsanto, etc?!?

            Funny hypocrisy ;)


            • +1

              @7ekn00: Just which vegan funded study have I praised?
              Apparently multiple, but can you please name at least one?

              • +2

                @MEnergy: Your general premise that "meat is unhealthy" comes from vegan investigators (6 out of the 7 WHO panel that decided "red meat causes cancer" were vegans - the other panelist even has a podcast explaining the situation in which he was strong armed)

                • @7ekn00: So you don't trust the WHO, Donald?

                  • @MEnergy: @spludgey Pathetic rejoinder to a perfectly reasonable citation of facts, 3/10, have another go

                    @7ekn00 I award you the other 7/10 I'd saved for this very moment due to banality and base reduction on your learned friend's part, spend them well

      • I will give you +1 for effort

    • I thought the BLM PS4 Theme was wild lol. Can I get the TLDR pls (also I'm for this kind of education, but I don't think people should be forced into anything (militant activism etc.) but hey ill try anything once

  • +5

    Thanks OP, this is great!

  • Lol of course it's free, it's an industry ad. Can you find an example of this being screened somewhere where people had to pay for it?

    (happy meat-eater here, btw)

    • +5

      It's only available for free for the first week or so. The film hasn't screened yet and I'm not sure what the retail price will be. I paid $25 USD to pre-order/back it on IndieGogo.

  • a baby died when their parents forced them on a vegan only diet, there must be some benefit in the diet we have followed for thousands of years

    • +6

      I don't think anyone in this thread advocates feeding babies a raw fruit and vegetable diet (as was the case here).

      Coincidentally, when my son was a baby, he was on a vegan diet, as he couldn't stomach any kind of milk (including breast milk). I tasted his special baby formula (without a script, it would have cost $60 for a 500g tin) and it was horrendously bad! I still have no idea how he drank it.
      He's still not great with some dairy, but cheese is fine.

      • +1

        Yep just highlighting how dangerous it can be when people are too militant in their views, same in religion and many other aspects of life

        • Agreed!

    • +6

      All this childhood obesity and you call a plant-based diet because of one set of bad parenting?

      If you want to make a fallacious appeal to nature then have a look at what the Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, are eating.

      We sure haven't been eating hamburgers for thousands of years.

  • +3

    vegans triggering in 3..2..1

  • +8

    Thanks for sharing! ex- vegetarian here. Fully support the effort in this movie. Regenerative Ag is the way to go.

    • +4

      To me it's the same argument as organically grown food: To produce the same products, you'll need more land to do so. That land has to come from somewhere.

      • Or step change agriculture, repeating the green revolution of the 1960s through something like genetic modification.
        People have no idea how the breeding of those new varieties of grain back then have meant so many more people have affordable food to eat

    • +23

      and ultimately
      have major health issues due to lack of protein.

      I'm not a vegan but this is complete bullshit mate.

      • -8

        no its not.

        • +6

          Yes it is. There are plenty of protein sources for vegans.

        • +7

          You should tell the liars that packaged the red lentils that I had for breakfast about that! They actually have the gall to claim it contains protein!


      • +3

        Wouldn't say it's complete bullshit but it's not just the lack of protein that's the issue. Many vegans, especially long-term ones become sarcopenic or have very low muscle mass. The other health issues can be due to many other things such as anti-nutrients in plants (lectins, phytates, glucosinolates, oxalates, salicylates etc) or lack of essential nutrients from animals (B12, heme iron, choline etc).

        • +4

          Anti-nutrients are only a problem due to excessive consumption of certain plant-based foods, not a lack of animal products. You can easily encounter the same issue on a meat and dairy diet if you have spinach smoothies and drink tea all day like so many hipsters seem to think is healthy.

          As for b12, we're only lacking it due to how clean our modern environments are. It's a bacteria formed in the soil. Washing of vegetables, hands, etc washes away all that bacteria. Just take a $10 supplement 4 times a year. Even non-vegans should take a B12 supplement, and grain-fed cows beef are supplemented with B12, so all you're really doing is filtering your vitamins through someone else.

          Heme iron isn't an essential nutrient, it's just more readily bioavailable than plant-based iron. Despite this, vegans tend to have the same blood iron levels as their body up-regulates their iron intake, and all the vitamin C from the fruits they eat assists with iron absorption.

          Decent amount of Choline in soy products, so the soy boys should be fine.

        • Sources please.

          Somehow, despite all the claimed deficiencies and lack of nutrients, vegans and vegetarians still manage to have lower mortality rates. Go figure.
          Link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

          • @realrift: okay, so what exactly were the non-vegetarians in that study eating? Processed food and vegetable oils? Were they drinkers? Smokers? Did they exercise?

          • +1

            @realrift: How did they control for healthy user bias?
            (hint: they didn't and in fact, read the study, the rate of smoking doesn't even match in their epidemiology groupings - couldn't all the findings be easily explained by less smoking in vegans/vegetarians?)

      • +2

        pretty easy to verify, just youtube search "ex-vegan" and listen to all the commonalities to the stories ;)

  • +1

    If majority of people turn vegans, I can get meat for cheap price

    • +4

      I really don't think so.
      Democracy works in a very different way. If the majority of people are vegan, meat would likely have a lot of tariffs imposed on it (if it wasn't banned outright).

      But veganism is growing at a phenomenal rate. Every time I go to the supermarket, there's seemingly a new vegan product.
      Quite a few of them are pretty bad, but some are really nice!

      • +2

        That doesn't help people who literally can't eat any of it - I have a sensitivity to soy, most nuts, most high-iron (green) vegetables… about 90% of foods, really. If the only option was vegan protein, I'd be dead of bowel cancer complications in a decade as my stomach acid gradually dissolved my oesophagus :-/

        • +2

          Sorry to hear that mate!

          I wasn't advocating for that in my post above, I was merely showing how democracy often works.
          Plus then there's economies of scale. Currently, meat is cheap and vegan alternatives are expensive because there are few vegans and many meat eaters. If there were many vegans (and it happened over a decade, not overnight) and few meat eaters, meat would definitely become more expensive, not cheaper.

        • +2

          Lab meat will hopefully be a cruelty-free option for people with conditions such as yours in the future.

    • +1

      only for a short time then the farmers will have killed off all the excess animals and the price will go back up.

    • +1

      Err, not really - you lose economies of scale, so the price will go up pretty substantially, all other things being equal.

  • If it doesn't come with a free steak, i'm not watching.

  • lemme guess, it's taken a documentary and various studies to realise we figured it out pretty well a few hundred years ago and crop rotation with fallow and grazing periods supporting a nutrient-replenishing cycle of mixed of vegetable and meat products, and that the abhorrent current trend of American farming of monoculture crops and hyper intensive "factory farming" of livestock is destroying both the local ecologies and the quality of the food produced?

    • It was better in those golden olden days.

    • +1

      Can't feed 7billion+ people with that method though.

      • +1

        With the progress of desertification you'll only be able feed those 7billion for a limited time with the status quo

        • I 100% agree, that's why cutting down meat intake, lab-grown meat, etc are all possible answers to the status quo.

Login or Join to leave a comment