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