"If you really want a dramatic change in consumption of meat and dairy products, you need a radical policy, like a tax or quota system," he said.....LOL I sure hope the libs do not read this a dream after their heart...

You have GOT to be kidding me.

"For countries like Brazil, which rely heavily on meat imports to the West and to Japan, global nutritional advice could potentially be devastating."

I hate to be the grammar police, but I believe it should say "exports". It is sort of like the wine stain on your new carpet. Once you see the stain, it is all you notice.

Now, my main takeaway from this article is that the AP doesn't use editors.

WHAT? I should feel guilty that I eat as local as possible, shopping at farmers markets where I get not only vegetables but also meats and cheeses that come from Colorado (where I live) vs Brazil/Chile/Mexico?? This 'reporter' can go blow it out her...

Oh my, I often wonder how an academic can have so much free time to design such a valuable study which will undoubtedly impact the quality of our meat free lives. May I suggest finding something more worthwhile to contemplate? Try your navel. LOL

For you liberal bashers, this has nothing to do with one's political persuasion. I myself am a steak loving progressive liberal. For the ranters who bash libs all the time, I also suggest contemplating your navel. You might actually learn something.

Who paid for this study? McDonald's?

This is just a stupid study, and it is ridiculous to blame it on liberals.  I am one of those horrible liberals, and all I can say is that we can't take poison because some country gets its income from poison.  Yes, people may get jobs from producing food but you have to consider all the consequences--deadly diseases from eating unhealthy food, destruction of the rain forests, etc.  If people want to eat that way, go ahead, but it is way out there to say we should do it to give a Brazilian a job.

Now I must adjust my eating habits, so that I don't create an imbalance in the world economy. I just.... you know.... uh..... COME ON!

Yes, what we need is MORE tampering with what is natural: the animal. Lets see how we can mutate it and in the process, kill ourselves with more chemically treated crap! Our food is already at the breaking point in reference to its lack of vital nutrition. Wonder why Americans are becoming so obese? Yes, it is because we eat too much junk, (made up of more genetically altered crap, and ingredients that have NO food value at all), but it is also due to what we do eat that we think is healthy is only genetically altered stuff made by mostly the Monsanto group of pharmaceuticals that hold patents on GMO foods. That tomato you are eating has not only toxic chemicals on it to prevent spoiling, but is Genetically modified to prevent it from spoiling through its GENES. That means you can't wash it off, you are eating stuff never intended for human consumption! And that is simply one example. Buy local, and organic! Support your own neighbors and your own state, and stop buying food from companies that treat or use chemicals or GMO products. Be Healthy! Other countries can do whatever, I am not going to let that 'fear' ruin my health! (BTW: you can "make" better, healthier meat, just raise humanely and in small 'batches', no hormones and let them eat what is natural to them rather than feeding 'fortified' cardboard, other animal products, and the like)

Meat and dairy are not the problem -- chips, cookies, snack foods -- those are the problem!! Over consumption of fast food is a problem. Lack of exercise and too much time infront of the boob tube.

Let's start serving pundits up for dinner. They would make good Soylent Green stock. Fat, rich and tasty! And would solve overpopulation and starvation at the same time!

The tenor of this article seems to be that we are hurting all the meat producing countries by cutting our intake of this food; and we now somehow have a moral responsibility to take care of them. Curious premise. If we do cut our meat consumption and by doing so become a healthier people, let it be so. The greatest good for the greatest number of people should always be kept first and foremost. We now have overwheming scientific proof that overeating meats is the road to heart problems and has a negative effect on life expectancy. Consequently, I for one am not going to cry if the Columbian meat farmers take a hit. My first concern, and it should be the first concern of all Americans, is how now we can move forward toward nutritionally sound eating habits. Think of it this way, when people quit riding horse-drawn buggies back at the end of the 19th Century, buggy the whip manufacturers went out of business and found other ways to make a living. The transition for them was no doubt a little painful but the product they were selling was no longer necessary. Meat farmers, whether in Columbia, here in the U.S. or wherever, need to do the same thing. Don't cry over the plight of this subgroup of business people. They, like the cigarette industry, are selling a product that the overeating of is undermining the health of people here as well as all around the World.

Note: I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that we all turn into full blown vegetarians, just that with the scientific proof we now have that we make a concerted effort to move in the direction of healthier lifestyles by cutting our consumption of the food.

If people switch from horse and buggy to cars, all the horse and buggy stores will close and tens of thousands will be out of a job. And we'll have to pave more roads, and we'll go bankrupt trying to pave all those roads!

If alcoholics stop binge drinking on a nightly basis, think of all the revenue that the liquor companies are gonna lose. Not to mention less tips for bartenders, and all the fat girls that won't get laid.

If I stop giving this lazy @!$%#ed up bum all the free money he wants, he's just going to shrivel up and die. On an totally unrelated note, the subway platform was dirty and could use mopping, but apparently no one wants that job.

Why the @!$%# does this article exist?

He went to school to learn this crap? I'd recommend shooting this idiot, but it might have unintended consequences on the economy.

Darn the luck.

If fewer resources go into the production of food, we are better off. GDP is one metric for measuring well-being, but it has obvious and well known flaws. The title might as well be: End War, hurt the economy? Somtimes. Well-being is the true measure of wealth (not GDP), but unfortunately it's tricky to quantify...and so we're stuck with silly writers who confuse the two.

What a great excuse for eating in a way that makes/keeps people obese, as well as continuing the factory farm system. Something tells me there's some fishy funding behind this study.

This article (and likely the research) was obviously pushed to press by the elitist groups to try to convince some of the less intelligent population that they should 'buck up' and eat that poison for the greater good of everyone else. I think the contrary is actually true. Health expenses actually decline with a healthy population. It seems more than obvious that the less you need 'conventional medicine' the more healthy you will be. Improve your family health and go organic.

The meat industry in Brazil, remember, has been responsible for the destruction of large portions of the rain forest there, upon which the earth relies for the production of much of the planet's oxygen supply. You decide which is more beneficial, eating Brazilian beef and supporting that economy, or avoiding beef and contributing to the survival of the planet. The wise choice seems obvious.

I like carrots in my meaty stew.