The BBC website today has an item titled "Hungary world must eat less
meat".  It's at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559542.stm

The scientific approach of the authors is useful: looking at the volume of
water required to produce one kilogram of meat (up to 15 cubic metres of
water)and to produce a kilo of cereals (0.4 to 3 cubic metres).

I posted a request here earlier in the month asking for arguments about
this from a Paleo perspective.  I received a few useful ones (some off-
list).  Perhaps if you look at this article you'll have some other
arguments to share with me.  I want to put a Paleo perspective on this on
my website (www.evfit.com).

The underlying assumption that the whole planet must bend, crack and
eventually break just to accommodate the plague species Homo sapiens is
what gets up my nose most.

I think the full 'water load' of the different foods would tell a
different story.  Grass-fed beef would require less water than grain-fed
beef.  Few people eat cereals in an unprocessed form and the processing
uses water.  When you take it all into account, I think (but can't
demonstrate) that the 'water loads' would be much closer.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on all of this.

Keith