He just happens to be an animal rights zealot (meat=murder), as are most of his endorsers. That's one thing I give Campbell some credit for- it's clear he actually believes his diet is best and isn't just harping on about it because he wants a new world order where chickens have rights. It's also a little suspicious that his site never says what his doctorate is in. I suggest everyone check out Simon Fairlie's book Meat.

Also, what is it with vegans and youtube videos? Do they think we all have time to watch videos for hours? Can't they just write a blog post with references? I looked at his book preview on Amazon though and he makes the completely stupid mistake of basing his numbers on as if we kept consumption constant, which wouldn't happen because grass-fed meat is more expensive. As any economist will tell you, that affects demand. He also acts as if the water drunk by cattle simply disappears and is gone forever and totally wasted, which violates physics and also ignores the fact that opportunity cost of water use is a localized issue. He also says that XYZ amount of quinoa could be grown on the land that cattle are grazed on without telling us how soil fertility will be maintained.

It's pretty telling that his last chapter is basically a guilting chapter about the poor sad animals and how evil humans are.

Blergh is what I say to Dr Oppenlander. This "lecture" (and I put lecture in brackets because if this was delivered to any of my classes in university it would have gotten holes shot through it starting about his fifth sentence) is definitely meant for his target veggie audience and it delivers well to his applauding audience. I find it terribly absent of REAL facts.

I love when he talks about water consumption he never goes near water consumption of the kale or quinoa or tomatoes; apparently they do not need water.

And boxing up your tomatoes, kale and quinoa and send it to starving children in Ethiopia while being a nice thought comes with sustainability issues also. He really should have defined what sustainabilty means to him in the outset of this lecture, especially if he is talking about what is and is not sustainable. Sustainable for what and to whom?

EDIT - just got to the part where he's hugging a koala bear - oh boy, can't argue with the cuddly baby koala

Can I be comfortably "do not care"?

"What's good for the planet?" and "what's good for my physical health?" are two entirely unrelated questions.

People can talk till they are blue in the face about how much better a vegan diet is for the planet, but if eating meat is healthier for my body, then eating meat is healthier for my body. End of story.

I would counter with the argument that grassfed ruminants are probably the answer to our food and environmental crises, not the cause of them. As far as I know you don't have to supply water for wild ruminants noshing on grass, so I'm a little confused about his whole water thing. Are modern cows diabetic, and extra thirsty? I bet they could be if fed grain. If so, answer solved, just raise more primitive varieties of cattle on native grasses.

I'd like to see what he has to say after spending a few weeks with Sergey A. Zimov in his Pleistocene Park up in Siberia, or with these guys doing rewilding work at the Savory Institute: http://www.savoryinstitute.com/

Check out the book "Meat a Benign Extravagance"

I will say first I am new here and new to Paleo. So I am going to respond to the question from the perspective of a farmer who raised 100% grassfed beef for 10 years. It is infinitely sustainable. Scientists and philosophers crunching data in their Ivory towers need to come down once in awhile and see real life. Eating naturally fed animals has less impact on the environment and is completely sustainable we just need to keep moving backwards in how we raise the larger ones like cattle and we need to eat more of the smaller ones that have less impact like rabbits. We also need to expand our diets to include some of the wild species that are currently over running and ruining parts of America like white tail deer and feral hogs. Those who eat meat really need to learn how to raise or hunt their own food. They need to truly become Paleo.

one bite one meal

I think I'll invite a duck to dinner tonight for a few bites. Wonder who Jane's having for her dinner? No doubt she's been comfortably paid for her book endorsement and could splurge on a low fat chicken breast.

Dr. Oppenlander, meet Richard Manning.

All of these responses are quite interesting. Not only are they emotional and defensive, they are irrational and obviously come from extremely small minds. Dr. Oppenlander backs up all of his statements with years of research and personal experience. If any of these people actual read his book or listened to more of his presentations or did any research themselves, they would find endless factual studies and reports explaining the situation in more detail. Also, it is always intriguing to me how someone trying to advocate a healthy, peaceful way to live while also trying to save the earth and protect the environment gets met with such immature hostility and aggression. There is a way to intelligently and rationally debate a point you may disagree with, yet I see none of that here.

Finally - an intelligent post, thanks to Cassie! I have met and heard Dr. Oppenlander several times, and he is an intelligent, compassionate man who backs up every single sentence he writes with extensive citations from sources such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, World Health Organization, Scientific American, and 15 more pages of citations. Lierre Keith, on the other hand, relies extensively on Wikipedia as a source for the claims she makes in her extremely poorly researched book. No serious journalist considers Wikipedia a credible source, and many Universities will give a paper a failing grade if it's used as a source.

The science is in - the human addiction to eating animals and their emissions is devastating to the environment, human health and animals. And it is entirely unnecessary. Those who become aware of those facts and modify their food choices accordingly, will be joining a growing league of individuals who are committed to a sustainable and compassionate human civilization. Those who refuse to become aware, or become aware and don't care (which seems to define most of the people commenting here) will suffer increased health insurance premiums and taxes. Why? Because those of us who eat a plant based diet will not consent for long to continued subsidization of those who continue to consume animals in the form of increased medical costs for animal eaters' heart diseases, cancers, obesity, diabetes and other diseases caused by lifestyles. And we won't subsidize for much longer your incredibly high carbon footprint, which exacerbates the climate change already on us.

www.Waterfootprint.org we'd better start to drink beer than eating meat. Oppenlander is right. We eat too much meat. All against this fact are a bunch of meat junkies. I myself love meat, once a week and high quality, superb taste and accompanied with terrific vegetables.