Depends on the food actually. Cooking can make carotenoids more bioavailable, denature oxalates which block the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals, and also form new compounds such as anti-oxidants.

Other foods loose nutrients as they're cooked.

Whatever. Eat what you like and at least you'll be happy.

OK, yes. That's correct. I have no personal experience in grain farming (except corn, but grown to eat on the cob, so that's also different).
I still say the same applies to OVER use of chemical fertilizers and the environment, but perhaps that's much less of an issue with grain crops.

As I said above, I admit that new crop genes paired with new chemicals could produce greater yields on more damaged land. Roundup/roundup ready crops are a prime example of this, as they artificially eliminate competition for the remaining nutrients and root space, leaving it all for the crop. That doesn't eliminate the damage though, it only hides it from the farmer. When they stop working (and they will eventually), we'll have serious trouble.

Twice what my family eats...but yes, a small subsistence farm could also be called a garden, just as my orchard of 30+ apple trees could be called a back yard. That doesn't make it produce any less.

Not true. Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

Industrial farming describes a methodology, not a size, not an incorporation. The fact that a single person or two might farm thousands of acres means they are using the same industrial methods, because non industrial farming takes more people.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive. You act like it's impossible, but it's how ALL farms operated prior to the mid century. If it wouldn't scale, please explain how it worked for thousands of years before industrial agriculture started, or how it continues to work in other countries.

It may not work for WEAK shallow root grain crops that can't compete for water and nutrients, like the one's Monsanto sells. It worked fine for thousands of years with more natural, long root crops that also held the soil together.

I didn't hear that in the video, but fine. Don't just repeat known BS and lies then. Roundup is only a pesticide in that it allows GMO crops that have modified genes to be pesticides themselves to grow without competition....and that doesn't count, and I think you know it.

No, I'm not trying to say the video is perfectly honest, it's clearly highly biased...I didn't say that. They do HINT that Monsanto's actions are "evil", but extrapolating and exaggerating from their already somewhat overboard, clearly biased but careful statements to make them insanely more overboard and biased is not helpful to anyone.

You mean this characterization..."You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people."
Um...yeah....that's completely insane. I already explained why it's wrong in so many ways, and defy you to show where they said anything resembling that. You have to listen with quite a biased ear to hear that in between the lines of what they actually said, and one must be incredibly, clinically paranoid to believe any public company does things just to be evil rather than purely for profit. The evil they do is an accepted result of their business methods, not the intent of their business, and I think the video was fairly clear about that.

You may stand by that, as I stand by my summation of your comment...that it's insane and exaggerated hyperbole that ridicules an extreme paranoid stance no one actually took.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

"Claiming to be at the top of the food chain has become a popular justification for eating animal products and an affirmation of our ability to violently dominate everything and everyone. Yet justifications for needless violence that draw on notions of power and supremacy are based on the philosophy of “Might makes right” — the principle behind the worst atrocities and crimes of human history."

"We humans are not at the top of anything. We are merely part of an interdependent web of life that forms complex yet fragile ecosystems. We choose to either participate in the protection of these natural systems, or to destroy them at our own peril. The concept of a food chain is a human construct that imposes a rigid and competitive hierarchy among species, rather than a good faith understanding of the complexity of the ecosystems to which we belong. Selectively appealing to biological determinism also ignores the fact that we are moral agents. By choosing plant foods, we can get our nutrients through primary sources of nourishment, in the most environmentally friendly and resource-efficient way possible, minimizing our harm to other animals, humans and the planet."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/breaking-food-chain-myth/

Plants take up only a tiny percentage of their nutrients from the soil. Most of the mass of a plant is from absorbing carbon from the atmosphere.

Go vegan instead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9nNa81dSoY
IT'S EASY! Just take a few weeks to get informed, don't jump into it. Read the books suggested below.

Vegetarian is a nice thing to do, but it should be really be only a stepping stone on your path to fully plant based diet. Plant foods are hearty delicious foods like pizza, burgers, lentil shepherds pies, pastas. You just swap out one or two ingredients that are from an animal origin, add more spices/herbs and you have a filling & healthy meal. You can stuff your face, and lose weight, lose the type 2 diabetes and heart disease as well. It's win win.

What many vegetarians don't know is that the milk and dairy industries are often more cruel, than farms that just use animals for meat, and often they are also intertwined. For example, for a cow to produce milk, it must be pregnant. Where do all of the offspring go? Veal if they are male. Or they become milking cows if they are female - destined to be constantly impregnated for their short 4-5 year lives until they die of exhaustion, or can no longer produce milk from exhaustion, and turned then eventually into meat. There are plenty of videos online where a cow gives birth and the calf is dragged away by it's hind legs. They both cry out to each other for days until they're voices give out.
Also cows milk GIVES people osteoporosis because it siphons out calcium from your bones, since it is so acidic. If you measure the amount of calcium in a glass of milk, let someone drink it, and then measure the calcium in their urine, then the urine contains more calcium than what went in. And it's being leeched from the bones.

It's a similar story for chickens. Male chicks get thrown into a grinder ALIVE. Because they're no use if they can't lay eggs.


The toxic waste produced the by milk and egg industries (animal poo etc) destroys environments.

The antibiotics used to keep all of those animals of course ends up in the environment and it will eventually make a super bug which medicine cannot kill.

The job loss portion seems silly, since anyone farming animals is capable of farming plants like rice, potatoes, wheat and grains etc. Those are some seriously nutrient and energy dense foods, and very efficiently produced, and very healthy. Carbs have just gotten a bad reputation thanks the Atkins people. And well we know that Atkins died of a heart attack, he had a history of heart attacks infact. He died overweight.

It is much easier just to go "cold turkey" for 3 or 4 weeks, and become completely plant based since it means your taste buds will adjust and you'll never crave animal products again. Everyone wins, the planet, your health both physical and mental, and of course the animals.

There are plenty off great books with recipes that are familiar and hearty that can help people get started, it's easier than you think. Books such as:
The Starch Solution, Dr. John McDougall.
Negative Calorie Effect, Dr Neal Barnard.
Power Foods for the Brain, Dr Neal Barnard.
Engine #2 Diet, Rip Esselstyn.

The best evidence you have for your claims (as I see it) is anecdotal at best.
3rd world countries 1) are not at all vegetarian and 2) don't get most cancers Westerners do largely because they don't eat processed foods or expose themselves to carcinogenic chemicals constantly....we do.
Again, NEVER get your science from the internet.

"Pro-life" is by definition "anti-choice".

If you're really pro-planet, a MUCH better way to go about it is try to get people to have fewer children. That will make exponentially more difference than some people eating fewer animals. In fact, if past human behavior is a guide, if we all stop eating animals, animals will cease to exist for the most part, so that's not helpful to them at all.

Again, fewer people is the proper answer, not forcefully change biologically engrained behavior. I made that choice, so I can eat all the animals I ever possibly can and I've done more for the planet and it's animals with that single action than 1000 vegans with vegan children...or more positive difference than one vegan with children, depending on how you want to look at it.

As a living being, I'm standing up for all living beings who certainly object to your choice to breed, both the voiceless and those with voice, and saying stop making choices that negatively impact us all, like having more children and grandchildren. If enough people would do that, eating meat won't be an ecological issue. ;-)

I didn't watch the videos, I don't get my science from the internet. I read scientific publications that contain peer reviewed science papers, and I've never seen one that said ALL the nutrients found in meat could be replaced with vegetable nutrients easily, simply, viably, or without excessive expense.
Also, it ignores that fact that most produce available in the first world comes with a huge carbon footprint and massive ecological damage because of the production methods, so it's not the 'clean' trade off you seem to assume.

Small family farms were plenty to meet demand for all of human history until about the last 50 years. Quit having kids, and it will be enough again and we can stop abusing animals and the eco system just to make enough food for humans.

A short, good life is preferable to no life at all.

Nope. I should have scheduled the one in that picture that's mine to end his life at least a year earlier, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. NOT doing it was immoral. If someone had been willing to eat him, I would be all for it. If someone wants to eat me, go for it...I suggest slow smoking and a molasses based BBQ sauce. Eating my dog would be ecologically sound, as opposed to the cremation we ended up with, or burial, being the only other option available.
If I raised dogs for food, I would not think twice about ending their life in their prime. That would be the reason they existed in the first place, and without that reason they would never get that chance.

Again, milk cows only exist because someone wanted to partner with them to benefit both. Without that symbiosis, they would not get the opportunity to exist at all. IMO, existence is preferable to no existence. Yes, they need to get pregnant at least once, but as I understand it, that's it so long as you keep up with milking them. Veal, now there I'll totally agree with you that IT'S abuse.

Animals are not people. They do not usually have the same need for freedom, and those that do have that need were never domesticated. It is not immoral to form a symbiosis with another species as long as you both benefit in some way, otherwise you're just a parasite.

? Taste, as in how animals taste? BS, that's not all. That's a component, sure, but there's incredibly more to it than that.

I prefer to give animals a reason to exist, knowing that without that human centric reason, they simply won't get the chance, but I do my best to purchase animal products that are created with the least distress and best conditions for the animals in question...granted that's not always possible to know.

Trust me, I've tried vegetarian 'meats', I know the difference, and absolutely don't prefer vegan fare, or vegetarian fare that attempts to emulate meat. If I want meat, I'll eat meat. You'll get my butter only by prying it from my cold, dead hands. ;-)

I don't think taste is quite as simple as you imply. Yes, there is a component of 'addiction' to certain foods, especially sugar rich foods.
There's no such thing as vegan cheese or chocolate, you mean tofu and carob...and I agree, they both suck.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. A poor eating vegan can certainly negatively impact the planet with their food choices. It's easy. Oreos for instance, are most certainly made with ecologically damaging factory farm methods creating the ingredients...well, those methods and chemists. I don't know off hand the carbon footprint and ecological impact of an oreo, but it's not "none".

A foetus is a living entity. You'll be going down a fairly preposterous set of arguments that go against all of our understanding of life if you try to maintain that it isn't a living entity. It is in many ways a parasite that has latched onto the mother's body and is trying to suck nutrients from it long enough to be able to be born. The foetus releases hormones to fight against the mother's immune system to prevent the mother's body from rejecting this invasion by such a vastly different genetic entity. At least, that's one way to look at it. There are many others that are correct. None of those suggest that the foetus isn't a living entity.

It is somewhat true that the foetus is part of the mother's body. Her body certainly envelopes the foetus' and the foetus couldn't live without it.

To say that it's her choice whether to terminate is clearly not true. The state has permitted women to make that decision in some places around the world, in some periods of time. It certainly isn't an inalienable right as you seem to be suggesting. It's a fight that women have had and continue to have in order to be able to express control over the bodies and lives. A simple expression of what you think should be the law isn't an argument for why the law should be that way.

But, but, my pee is full of Vitamin C and other nutrients so I should drink it to improve my health. Right?

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

Notice not a single mention of nutrients it has.

How much beef in a quarter pounder comes from Cali?
How much water does the nutritionally equivalent amount of veggie require? This can't be measured pound for pound and veggies and grains are not as nutrient dense as meat. I have a feeling if an honest look was done at the math, Moby might end up missing a shower.

True for many simple domestic species, but exotic gardening of foreign trees until they reach the point where they are bearing fruit takes a lot of knowledge on top of sourcing the seeds. How much water? What's the pollination process? Soil chemistry? Fertilization and nutrients? Diseases and pests to manage?

There are a lot of failed gardens out there.

For a Venus Flytrap

The process continues until all that's left of the insect is its hard exoskeleton. (Unlike humans and other vertebrates, who have an internal rigid skeleton made out of calcified bone tissue, insects and arachnids use a more flexible, external exoskeleton to both protect and form the framework for their bodies.) Once the nutrients are depleted from the acidic bath, the plant reabsorbs the digestive fluid. This serves as a signal to reopen the trap, and the remains of the insect are usually either washed away in the rain or blown away by the wind.
See more @ http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/venus-flytrap4.htm

Also before and after video http://youtu.be/pFGoZMld_Gs