Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
A sea change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for granted may be in store - something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil.
It’s meat.
The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally - like oil - meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.
Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.
Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost.
The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in livestock production.”
Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.
Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases - more than transportation.
To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan - a Camry, say - to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.
This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.
The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States - much of which now serves the demand for meat - contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.
Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens - heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough.
Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources.
What can be done? There’s no simple answer. Better waste management, for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income. Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research Institute, says, “There should be investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level of meat.”
Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel.
Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of “meat without feet” - meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks.
Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense.”
But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of the chicken.
Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure “lagoons” pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement annually.)
These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast as land-based methods, according to the United Nations.
Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly - even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag - the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”
Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human beings?
Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies), though we’re beginning to see them increase now. But many experts, including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, say they don’t believe meat prices will rise high enough to affect demand in the United States.
“I just don’t think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat consumption,” he said. “There may be a temporary spike in food prices, but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the burden is put on eaters, that’s not a tragic state of affairs.”
If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.
Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees “a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption - one like that around cigarettes - emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet.”
It wouldn’t surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact. “The good of people’s bodies and the good of the planet are more or less perfectly aligned,” he said.
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” made a similar point: “There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people … the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. … This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.”
In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality.
If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.
Maybe that’s not such a big deal. “Who said people had to eat meat three times a day?” asked Mr. Pollan.
Mark Bittman, who writes the Minimalist column in the Dining In and Dining Out sections, is the author of “How to Cook Everything Vegetarian,” which was published last year. He is not a vegetarian.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Reading this article made me so sad. To hear that the rest of the world is plying catch-up to American meat consumerism. The article does attempt to paint a rosy glow by mentioning sustainable meat farming, but until America goes vegetarian (which will take at least several generations), man, the most voracious predator on the planet, will continue to consume the innocent.
As meat eating in the Western world has slightly decreased it has exploded in the developing world. Its a common idea that to be a rich western you must eat lots of meat.
I dont give humans credit for being smart enough to change their behavior. Not unless they are forced to. Resource scarcity might but..
I dont see any evidence that if people had a choice between meat and other humans they would choose other humans.
Diet for a Small Planet used this very argument in the late 60s and nothing has changed.
Instead, I expect idiots in lab coats to promote all sorts of science fixes which wont work instead of the obvious, not eating meat or dairy.
You simply cannot be a progressive, nor an enviornmentalist if you eat meat. You are a hypocrite!
Having grown up on a cattle farm, I see nothing at all wrong with eating beef. That said, we should not be subsidizing the beef industry. Before all the hate mail pours in, let me say that our ranch operated on a humane scale, with plentiful grazing area and grass for the cattle. The manure was used to fertilize our crops, which allowed us to be self-sufficient. The cattle were then “finished” on grain for several weeks to turn the fat white (it is yellow on just grass fed cattle) so that it could be sold. I do not agree with the “livestock factories” that are now in vogue, as I think they are inhumane to the animals.
It takes a lot of water to grow the grain that is fed to animals to create the meat we eat. So every piece of meat we eat represents lots of water and grain that can’t be used to feed other people.
In Europe we saw animals in Nazi like trucks…inhumane. They must have been terrified. I used to eat about half a pound of meat a day. Now I eat that amount in a month and only when I know where it comes from and how it was raised. For example we have a friend that supplies us with goat.
I have perfect cholestrol.
I’ve lost my taste for meat.
According to John Robbins, author of Diet For A New America, it takes more than 2500 gallons of water to grow a single pound of beef. Depending where you go, that is enough food to feed 1 to 4 people. Talk about inefficient and wasteful.
Also, the environmental impact on raising cattle and other livestock is as bad, if not worse, than the impact that fossil fuel consumption.
I am a vegetarian. When people ask me why, I now tell them that I am trying to curb global warming, in addition to supporting humane treatment of animals and avoiding the degenerative diseases that cost us so much to treat.
Please read this article:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/truth.htm
Meet your meat (video):
http://goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp
bligh’s logic reads: Having grown up on a cattle farm, I see nothing at all wrong with eating beef.
Having grown up in Vietnam, I see nothing at all wrong with killing invading American soldiers.
Nah, something wrong with the logic there.
Eight ounces of meat per person, per day is a lot. We never ate that much growing up-most of ours was more of a “garnish” than the main course and that is how I treat the meat that I prepare today (which we buy from our local organic farmer, who pastures the animals in the growing months). One person in my household is a vegetarian, the rest only eat locally raised meat (and we’ve visited the farm).
It is a shock to the in-laws (former dairy farmers) when they come for a meal to not have meat for most meals.
WTF- WTF are you talking about?. Are you wanting to get rid of farm animals all together? Then what, keep them as pets?
My point was that animals can be raised in a humane, responsible, and effective manner. It’s not my problem if you have a problem with that
You probably have never worked a day in your life on a farm, much less hauled them food at 10 below. City boy.(or girl).
Has anyone lived abroad?
I gaurantee you the meat there is far more tender, cooks faster, and tastes much, much better than anything I have had in the US, including organically raised livestock.
Our meat consumption is extremely limited, now that we live in a small town, and have to travel miles to acquire truly organice meat and milk.
RMouse January 29th, 2008 12:48 pm
You simply cannot be a progressive, nor an enviornmentalist if you eat meat. You are a hypocrite!
Thanks for letting me know I am a hypocrite.
I never realized that fact. (sarcasm) You vegans who worship at the god of plant life amuse me at times. Even those who are herbivores must kill to live. Get over it!
If one chooses to be a vegetarian that’s fine with me. It’s a lifestyle choice-nothing more-certainly not “spiritual”.
Mankind has been eating meat, whether it be snake, cattle, cat, dog, horse, guinea pigs (they’re quite tasty) fish, shellfish, etc. . . since before the ancestors of man walked bipedally.
The problem lies in the “industrial” scale of production. But then again how do we feed the people when only a couple of percent of the population is involved in food production?
Got no answers, just questions! (and sarcastic comments at times)
OYE
“If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?!”
That’s simple, I don’t eat pudding either.
Here’s an interesting article on the interaction of fuel ethanol and beef production: Cattle Fed Byproducts Of Ethanol Production Harbor Dangerous E. Coli Bacteria
I think we need a tax on meat, say $0.50 per pound live weight.
nice post pensador-oye, i agree.
but anyway, need a little help becoming vegitarian?
whatch this vid.
http://www.meat.org/
What’s up with the NYT this week? That’s two articles I’ve seen that actually talked about something worthwhile in a somewhat intelligent way… You think they’re up to something?
I used to be a vegetarian, even flirted with veganism for a few months. Since then I did a lot more learning, and I eat meat once again. I don’t eat industrially produced meat. Instead I eat what belongs where I am. I hunt (the over-populated deer and elk who have no natural predators here), I fish, and I support local farmers and ranchers who graze native animals on native prairie grasses. All of which is to say that as a revolutionary progressive, I must be a cruel, inhumane hypocrite…
I wonder how many militant vegan/vegetarians have actually seen the monocrop farms where their soy is grown. There’s nothing natural or sustainable about them, and their runoff is killing the aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that dietary choices are wrong if they don’t line up with mine. What I’m saying is that there’s a whole lot more to consider in deciding which lives to take to feed oneself than many would like to believe. Take the time to figure out where all of your food comes from (the supermarket or co-op is only the first step), and decide for yourself if your choices line up with your values.
I’d say that Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma is a good place to start looking at different food systems, while Robbins’s Diet for a New America does a great job breaking down industrial meat production.
Good luck to all.
Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government.
like oil - meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of
Why do the capitalists subsidize commodities we should consume less of? Because the capitalist obsession is maximum economy activity/growth. But the capitalist obsession has become catastrophically unsustainable. No surprise the capitaists try to sweep their gargantuan catastrophes under the rug.
The people should be completely aware of these gargantuan capitalist rackets/coverups. You can tell your friends, family, coworkers and neighbors. Short soundbites repeated over and over become beliefs. Only truths, not lies, should become beliefs.
You may help banish the capitalist lies, rackets and catastrophes by shifting your individual exchange/association away from the capitalists, and to your local economy. Set the terms to be limited size enterprises (organizations in general) and sustainable, closed-loop methods (e.g. full cost accounting, permaculture bio-production).
Thus you do your civic duty to help serve the better interests of the individual/society/biosphere - all the same. Dependency on “dear leader” was a part of the capitalist hierachical “division of labor” and is now fully discredited.
Get your protein from legume/grain mix, e.g. beans/rice. Get only the darker color whole product, e.g. black/red rice from asian markets, and black runner beans (ayocote) and blue corn from latino markets or grow them yourself. Celebrate your self-determination and enlightenment. Enjoy the fantastic benefits.
I am concerned about rising meat demands, but I don’t appreciate being told I am not a true progressive because I eat meat Nothing compares to meat as a single source of essential proteins that the human body cannot produce. Nevertheless, I eat way more meet than I should and recently found out my cholesterol is very high. I thought about eliminating meat entirely, but plant proteins are high in carbohydrates (except soy, which I am allergic to) and makes me tired. I have started to have vegetarian meals during the daytime and a small portion of meat at dinner. My daughter is also small for her age and needs the iron and protein found in poultry and beef. My point is that meat is a healthy, desired, and sometimes necessary part of a diet. I agree we can and should reduce our consumption, but can’t the vegetarian/vegan crowd show a little more sensitivity? The holier-than-thou attitude alienates people like me.
Read the Omnivore’s Dilemma
“When a human kills an animal for food, he is neglecting his own hunger for justice. Man prays for mercy, but is unwilling to extend it to others. Why should man then expect mercy from God? It’s unfair to expect something that you are not willing to give. It is inconsistent. I can never accept inconsistency or injustice. Even if it comes from God. If there would come a voice from God saying, “I’m against vegetarianism!” I would say, “Well, I am for it!” This is how strongly I feel in this regard.”
- Isaac Bashevis Singer
What came first, the chicken or the egg? 6.5b and growing owes much to the availability and flexibility of petroleum, including not only meat production but all vegan goodies. Take away petroleum (and we are hell bent on this) and the equation changes completely.
To all those posting here who are conscientious about what you put in your stomachs, you humble me. Someone above pointed out that man was carnivorous before we were man and that the real problem is industrial agriculture. Take the next step: cheap petroleum and hyper-consumption are behind that.
Canibalism? Any evolutionary psychologists here? How about run-of-the-mill biologists? What or how many species eat their own?
Hi all,
Lots of myths about veganism floating around here..
For example, the idea that one must eat meat to get all the ‘essential proteins’, which has never been true. All 9 essential amino acids are found in virtually all plant foods in varying degrees. Current nutritional science assures us that as long as there’s variety in consumption, all amino acids will be consumed. And it doesn’t have to be in the same meal, it’s within a 24hr period. In the US and Canada, as long as one is getting enough calories, it’s virtually impossible not to get enough protein (which is actually a very low amount, 25-50 grams/day for most of us.) Protein is much more commonly an issue of health due to overconsumption, not under-consumption.
As for carbs, refined carbs can leave you feeling tired, yes. Eating an orange or apple or bunch of kale should not make you ‘tired’, in spite of the carbs. If it does, you had best seek medical attention, because there is something wrong with your body. The carbs in fresh, whole foods, are very useful for our bodies; our brains are fueled exclusively by glycogen, which, yes, is a carb.
A vegan whole foods diet is best for both our bodies and the environment. A shame the author didn’t highlight this more, although everything written points in this direction.
I am a vegan, and I don’t disparage anyone who still eats meat. My husband eats fish and poultry, and I don’t give him a hard time. I just have to be true to myself. And after seeing what we humans do to animals, which IMO is nothing short of mass murder and torture, I just decided then and there that I could no longer eat animal flesh.
I also don’t eat dairy because, to me, the dairy industry is also complicit in the murder and mistreatment of animals as well, and even when you’re talking organic, free range farms, the chickens still end up jammed into the trucks that bring them to the slaughter house after they’ve served their purpose, and the calves and cows end up there as well.
Even if I lived on a farm and raised my own animals, I couldn’t eat them (and yes, I have worked on farms - in fact, that’s what led me to become a vegetarian years ago, when I saw a beautiful calf crammed in a cage to be fattened up as “veal” for someone’s dinner plate). If I raised my own animals, I know I’d grow too attached, just like I couldn’t eat my dogs.
The bottom line for me: we don’t need animal flesh to survive. We can get all our nutrients from plant-based foods. I also think it’s healthier. And in response to the person above who said, what are we going to do with the animals if we all become vegetarians — make them all pets? My answer is: if we stopped breeding animals for meat, there wouldn’t be nearly so many animals.
“I wonder how many militant vegan/vegetarians have actually seen the monocrop farms where their soy is grown. There’s nothing natural or sustainable about them, and their runoff is killing the aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico.”
So, Simple Sauce manages to eat meat that doesn’t come from the factory farming system- but all vegans and vegetarians eat industrially produced soy? This argument is total garbage, especially when you consider that the majority of soy in the United States is grown to feed livestock. In my area, at least, it’s quite easy to find local, sustainably produced soy. It’s absolutely not necessary to have soy in your diet to be a healthy vegetarian/ vegan, either.
Dude who wrote this article is not even vegetarian- it is about the harmful effects of factory-style meat production and excessive meat consumption. Meat eaters should calm down.
Actually, WTF, I don’t get your point about Vietnamese fighters killing invading soldiers. Isn’t that their right? Or do people only have the right of self defense if they are invaded by non-Americans?
The article didn’t touch on the assembly killing of animals, which is the worst part for me.
If you read Omnivore’s Dilemna, he talks about how the USDA makes it illegal for a small farmer to slaughter humanely.
I met a farmer who raises about 6-8 head of cattle a year. He isn’t allowed to slaughter them. He takes them to auction, where they are taken to a feedlot and then slaughtered on an assembly line. He doesn’t want to, but he doesn’t want to go to jail or be fined either. What kind of country is this, where it is illegal to be humane?
A nicely toned, high-consciousness Yoga teacher and massage therapist handed me the book, “What’s wrong with Eating Meat,” published by Ananda Marga back in l982. I have not eaten red meat since. Occasionally I will eat chicken, and I do eat fish. I believe it was Dr. Diamo who published some research suggestive of the types of diet that favor specific blood-type groups. (Mine is “supposed” to eat meat.)
I notice that I feel lighter and cleaner not eating meat, and I’ve kept a very good weight, considered quite thin by current US standards, which is great news since so many women, especially those over 40 struggle with weight.
It really comes down to balance and consciousness. I had an argument with my male companion because he eats certain things for “taste,” and does not want to be educated as per the contents. When I told him that ice cream can be made from over 200 industrial byproducts, a fact that made me read food labels thereafter, he became visibly agitated. To those who appreciate astrology, and or the Divine Comedy, there is something pretty gallows humor to the fact that now a person informed about ACTUAL events can come off as more paranoid then the zodiac sign (hello, Mr. Nixon) given to that orientation! There’s probably more truth to the adage, “You are what you eat” then many would chance to discover. Still, by trying, we indeed help to clean up the planet. I had no idea how much meat consumption contributed to global warming and the polluting of precious water preserves (a huge problem here in North Florida which is the head zone of many pristine springs) until I read articles like this one on C.D.
I’ve always found it curious that a lot of “vegetarian” products are basically meat replacements: engineered food, usually manufactured by large food conglomerates (Kellogg’s in particular), that resembles meat. I always wondered about that. Although I’m sure many vegetarians steer clear of such stuff, I suspect many more don’t.
Humans have indeed eaten meat for millennia. The main issues nowadays, as correctly pointed out by a few previous posts, is the manner of production, which at least partially stems out of overconsumption. I do recall a recent Michael Pollan article where one of his pieces of food advice was basically, “eat less.” Not just less meat: less of everything.
I don’t mind people who choose to eat a vegetarian or vegan diet, inasmuch as they don’t get militant about it. Thankfully, most aren’t.
killyt, more complete vegetable sources of protein include soy, hempseed, amaranth, buckwheat and quinoa. Combinations for complete proteins include rice/lentils (India), corn/beans (Mexico), and chickpeas/wheat (Middle East), the general idea being a legume plus a grain. They should be whole, not refined, and are better selected for rich taste and dark colors (as typically practiced in non-anglo cultures), and best sprouted and eaten raw instead of cooked. The sprouting approach has much less formal research backing but appeals to common sense.
Vegetable protein seems a nice general approach to help stop degenerative diseases, resource wars, and biosphere destruction. So why not build societal norms and cultural traditions around truth, justice and health?
Population control of wild animals (currently deer and turkey in east N. America) is the best way to get animal protein. Notice how this starves the capitalist beast, maximizes human nutrition from meat, and preserves ecological sustainability all at once. Compare that to factory meat which does the exact opposite.
Threecolors-
My comment about militant vegans was about militant vegans, you know, like the ones who say things about how anyone who eats any kind of meat has no right to call themselves progressive. If you read the rest of my comment, you probably know that we likely have a lot in common advocating for a lower-impact, sustainable, local, bioregional type of diet and lifestyle. My comment about soy came from my experience with the militant vegans where I live - every one of them goes off on meat eaters while eating tofu, tempeh, soymilk, &etc.
I come to CD and see a great article about the problems with industrial meat, and what is comment #3?
Getting away from industrial agriculture and industrial meat is in the interest of all of us. It just so happens that where I live, large quantities of sustainable food come in animal form, while common “alternatives” are trucked in from thousands of miles away.
I’m a perfectly calm meat eater, and I’m glad that we both noticed that a major theme in the article was about the problems with industrial meat, not all meat. Now how about the same discussion about industrial grains and produce?
“Diet for a Small Planet”
That was a pretty good book. I also have the recipes book.
Another factor folks might want to consider a bit is that industrial meat production is not only “inhumane” for animals, it is even more inhumane for the human beings who work in these massive factories under horrendous conditions — including astounding rates of injuries and long-term medical problems such as carpel tunnel syndrome –at extremely low wages.
Have a Nice Day
I grew up on a farm where we raised all of our beef, pork, chickens and rabbits, and my dad hunted our venison and caught our fish. I watched the butchering of everything from the time I was born, and never thought anything of it, until age seven, when my “pet” calf, and pet chicken were both butchered while I was in the hospital having my tonsils removed.
That was when I finally understood what it was all about, and when the next calf was penned up and being fattened for the kill, I turned it loose and told it to run away. It did. Right into the garden where it had a feast. And I - well, I’m sure you know.
I seldom eat meat now.
pensadore-oye–The Chinese eat human placenta and fetal material. They say it’s quite tasty.
The answer to your question is we feed the people by not feeding the grain to the animals and feeding it to the people themselves. And stop breeding animals for consumption.
“But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of the chicken.”
My meat consumption is almost exclusively chicken and fish, with occasional pork and very very rare beef intake, and I feel what I eat is healthier and higher in quality for the lack of ground beef and sausage and other things Americans typically eat. I won’t touch a steak, and when I want luxury food it’s sushi for me. I’ve found I like veggie burgers better than the real thing, the taste is cleaner and more complex. And when I need ground meat for a recipe, I opt for ground turkey or chicken. I’m also learning how to incorporate more soy in my diet, as it’s so healthy and I really do like it. I’ve also tried to cut carbs by switching to brown rice and whole grain pastas rather than the refined white versions, and I’ve learned to appreciate their more complex flavors as well.
I don’t appreciate being told that I’m not a progressive because I take a balanced approach and don’t hold meat as a religious taboo like some here. I’m pretty sure that my eating patterns are more ecologically sustainable than most of the hamburger in everything average american crowd, and I’d prefer to be acknowledged for my contribution rather than be mocked and ridiculed for not attaining some kind of monklike ascetic perfection as demanded by holier than thou militant vegans. And I can garauntee you if I feel that way, then the average american is going to be more resistant still. And rather than looking down looking down at and criticisizing people, encouraging them might be a much better tack. I can’t help but think “concerned with global warming? eat less beef and more chicken and fish! You’ll not only help the health of the planet, but your own health as well” would be a lot more effective at making an actual positive change than shouting “if you eat any meat you’re a murdering sack of scum!”.
Of course, that would presume the militant vegan crowd is actually interested in creating a positive change benefit rather than petty moralizing to boost their own egos. I’m yet to be convinced.
It’s tough for alot of folks when you are conditioned to accept things the way they are, and everyone in your family and circle of friends “pretends not to know” there is a problem in the paradigm, where and how they get their food from, and turn their heads and eat this mass produced meat crap likes is going out of style. Its funny that it finally is going out of style.
It’s great that what’s in style now is a shift in consciousness. My take is this article shows that. I see right now in America, the regular guy is finally saying, “well, I guess if you give me a burger, or a meatball, or a sausage and peppers hero, that really tastes like it, and without the cholesterol and saturated fat, I guess I can give it a try, since my wife and my doctor have been bugging me for such a while”
That’s the great thing about these “meat analogs”, which is what these mock meats are called. If you don’t have the moxy to give up eating meat cold turkey (pardon the pun), they can help.
The best can be found at VeggieBrothers.com http://www.veggiebrothers.com/
I remain a meat eater. My body, and I truly feel everyone, needs high quality dense protein. As an athlete, my muscles couldn’t do without it. But the meat I choose to eat now is “wheat meat” and “soy meat” and it tastes great (less filling).
Well, I guess all of us who considered ourselves progressives and environmentalists, or at least liberals, and who found sustenance at this site, have now been condemned to the outer reaches of Hell because we eat meat. Does that mean that we can’t be part of this group? Do we now have to vote Republican because we eat meat, even though we agree philosophically with the vital expressions on Common Dreams? That’s a pretty damn tough test to pass and it won’t do the causes for which we all labor any good by expelling us meat eaters into outer darkness. Choose your own way of dealing with life. But don’t condemn everyone who disagrees with you on this one issue.
The cattle concentration/death camp shown in the pic is probably the one just north of Kettleman City, along Hwy. 5 (the main north-south route through the Central Valley-in other words, how you go from SF to LA).
You can easily tell when you get within a few miles of the place.
The smell stays with you for awhile.
“Thou shalt not Kill.” ….. and oye is saying being a vegetarian doesn’t have anything to do with beings spiritual… better check your commandments.
Most of the great enlightened souls taught their diciples to be vegetarians and if this prohibition is no longer represented in their teachings (which more then often have degenerated into religion and priestcraft) it is because these teaching have been repressed, eliminated or watered down to further easy growth and expansion of said religion. More converts mean more wealth and power for the keepers of the “godly” keys. Look at the christian religion where the Seventh Day Adventists are the one sect left that follows the vegetarian diet. Some like the Catholics had some limitations on meat eating such as Friday and meat only once a day during lent but that too has disappeared since sometime in the early 60’s.
There is much evidence that christ was a classic master mystic (by master we mean an enlightened one who accepted diciples) that spent the greater part of his life in India and like seekers on the path at that time and place was a vegetarian. India today has hundreds of millions of vegetarians although the affluent western lifestyles are challenging this. My wife and I just came back from India and she playfully pointed out a “VegeDog” stand right next to the boarding gate as prepared to leave from the airport.
As to vegetarians murdering their celery every morning one has only to look to almost any society in the world to realize there is a fairly standard hierarchy of life… Example: If I pick a flower from your yard you may have some negative words for me. If I steal your chicken you may call the the authorities and I might get a fine or some other mild punishment. If I steal your horse I might well go to jail. And lastly, if I kill you I might well be hanged. Obviously there are variations to this theme depending on place and culture but in general it is true.
So the Saints teach up that there is a karmic price to play for killing any living thing be it a sprout or the king of Siam but the karmic price goes up exponentially as you go up the chain of life. They recommend the vegetarian diet as the karma created by eating a vegetarian diet is slight and can be paid off with a few good actions (kind of like carbon trading). Then fish and fowl would be the next level up on the karma indebtedness scale, followed by smaller mammals and then larger mammals. Of course the biggest Karmic price comes by taking human life and we can see in the modern era that cannibalism has almost completely died (pun intended) out.
Remember with every freedom there is a responsibility and this includes our choice of foods.
“Now how about the same discussion about industrial grains and produce?”
This may be of interest. I don’t think this sounds any better than the factory meat farms, in fact. The scariest part is there is no way to know what you’re eating or whether it is really safe. What about those terminator seeds, too? So I guess unless you’re in a position to have a small farming operation yourself, there is no harmless food supply.
This is from the Green Guide,
To date, scientists and farmers have focused GMO production on three staple ingredients in many food products—canola, corn, and soy. Engineered to survive massive doses of the ubiquitous herbicide Roundup or to resist insects, they’ve now found their way into over 60 percent of foods on U.S. grocery shelves, from cake mixes to cornflakes. Soybeans and corn, including genetically modified varieties, are also making inroads into fields in places like Mexico, Guatemala, and Brazil, threatening genetic diversity and contributing to already acute rates of deforestation…
Fearing that contamination is inevitable, some organic farmers now source their seed outside of the U.S. In Brazil, large mechanized soy monocultures are replacing small farms, some providing poor working conditions and using slave labor for clearing, planting, and harvesting. Large Brazilian farms also use massive doses of pesticides, impacting human health and contributing to over 200,000 deaths per year. …
… Yet being largely process-based, the standards don’t require specific tests to verify that organic foods are free from GMO contamination.
http://www.thegreenguide.com/reports/productprint.mhtml?id=62
And this all only one of the problems with the industrial vegetation problem. We can go on to the pesticides that won’t come out of your tomatoes, or out of the produce workers systems. Those tomatoes find their way into co-ops too, I have seen them. Yeah, each foodway has its own set of problems and harm.
You folks that are trying to make a religion out of being a vegetarian should read your Bibles and notice that God gave detailed instructions on which animals were to be eaten. Cloven hoof and chew cud is acceptable, which means cattle qualify, but not horses (hooves) and not pigs (chew cud). If we are not to be hypocritical, we should stop using corn to make fuel to run up and down the roads when it could feed people. One wonders how farmers are going to be paid for raising grain for poor starving people in other lands as it is quite expensive to produce. Corn is just now getting to a price that will pay land taxes and expenses and leave enough for a profit, but it is doubtful those hungry nations could scrape up the cash to buy much. Today`s farmers will not work for nothing as some of the older generation did. How many ships would it take to export all of the grain that livestock would not be eating? There are a few problems involved in this sort of radical thinking that would take decades to bring about.
Noone should be condemned for eating meat but perhaps the environmental cost could be passed to the consumer through a tax. Certainly subsidies don’t make sense. The high consumption of meat in the Us and many parts of the world are not natural to the human system. Humans evolved eating very little meat compared to today. We will adapt to this high rate of consumption, but mostly by the death of those who cannot tolerate it, and the survival of those who can, and those who don’t overindulge. Since we don’t live in the wild though, the fatties aren’t going to be overrun by tigers so the process of selection will be slow, and we will have a sickly society instead. Already 50% of the population would be unable to outrun a mouse.
Or what if we choose a religion that is outside the history of civilized culture? What if we choose to live more in harmony with the ecosystem where we live and that happens to involve hunting as one of the predators in a particular environment? What if we base our decisions of right and wrong on what the landbase that supports us requires for health and balance?
What if we are really that radically crazy?
I like the talk of freedom connected to responsibility. The ethics of eating is deeply personal, and I prefer to judge for myself based on my understanding of the world around me. I find belief structures that profess to transcend time, space, and circumstance to be less useful to my understanding of my life where and as I live it.
Traditions are useful and valuable. So is the willingness to question whether they are useful and valuable under different circumstances. Regardless of one’s answer to these questions, it’s healthy to ask them.
bligh wrote: My point was that animals can be raised in a humane, responsible, and effective manner. It’s not my problem if you have a problem with that
I don’t have a issue with that at all. I think that is a wonderful idea! I do, however, take issue with their wholesale slaughter. I was given a tour of an abattoir 42 years ago, and have since been offended by meat-eaters who know nothing of what goes on within those windowless-buildings. Anyone who supports this practice lacks compassion.
And, FWIW, it was 6 degrees (fahrenheit) when I mucked the stables, hauled hay and water, fed the chooks and milked the goats in 20″ of snow this morning. The forecast for tomorrow is -2. Coldest day this year was -26.
I’m 61. Punk.
greenerthanthough, my comment was a sarcastic analogy. Bad analogy, sorry about that. Perhaps a better response would have been: “Having grown up in a city, I see nothing wrong with buying meat on little white plastic trays.”
There is a disconnect in people’s knowledge of what happens between the farm, and the supermarket. Advertisements do not help when they portray smiling cartoon farm animals. Meat eaters deliberately remain ignorant for they are too cowardly to visit a slaughterhouse and witness firsthand what happens inside.
I am puzzled by the notion several have mentioned that the livestock business should not be subsidized. Having raised cattle (humanely) for many years, the only subsidy I ever received was a small disaster payment for a killing drought one year. I believe sheep have a wool subsidy, but that is a different story and not related to meat. The crops have been subsidized, but that only makes the livestock feeding business less profitable due to the cost of grain. We need to remember, agriculture is a giant business in this country, and changes have to be made slowly, or the entire country would suffer from disruption of commerce, income, and jobs. We all would prefer animals would never have to suffer, but that ia true of people also, and think of the suffering generated by our experiment in Iraq!!
The latest scientific studies show that most hunter/gatherer societies were largely plant based with meat eaten on special occasions or in small amounts after being dryed. So at best we are ominvores not carnivores. We do not have the kind of teeth or digestive system that carnivores have. All the other primates eat a 90% to 100% vegan diet once they are weaned.
That said, I suggest that those of you who are concerned with getting people interested in a plant based diet take a leaf out of John Robbin’s books and be non-judgemental. He founded a great organization called Earth Save. Its purpose is to educate rather than judge or condem them.
There is a lot to be said for eating locally and organically even if it includes some meat. If you feel you really need meat and are not into hunting, then I suggest Bison. Bison is free ranged and actually helps regenerate our native prarie grasses.
Please, let us not condemn fellow Progessives just because we disagree on one or two issues. We need to be united and supportive to battle our common enemy the Corporate State or as Nader calls it the Industrial Military Complex.
That article does not go into the details and problems with eating meat, both for the consumers heath and the animals feelings (yes they do have them).
Only the basics which are, meat can cause heatrt disease, diabeties and cancer. Also that peopel protest to factory farms.
For more info on both of these go to
www.goveg.com
Now if only people relise how easy being vegitarian is
Americans are not eating more meat, it is the developing world that is eating more, as they have more disposable income in places like India (no beef for them though) and China (they still don’t take our hamburger).
We can always eat more GMO grains and dairy products that have never been tested for safety in humans (Europe does not allow them). Monsanto says it’s safe, FDA says “yes sir”. I bet you did not know you are guinea pigs.
Some facts on US meat and agriculture from William Engdahls “Seeds of destruction”:
Due to the farm bills of 1996 and 2002, the Family Farmer is almost extinct, and certainly an endangered species. Whats left are mainly contracted farmers working for the big agribusiness, enslaved by debt, using illegal immigrants to get by. The number of farmers decreased by 300,000 between 1979 and 1998. The food and agriculture sector of our economy has become to resemble the banking and oil industries, simply a defacto unregulated cartel. Some of the increases in the food prices not related to oil prices and a devalued dollar are due to cartel pricing practices.
Farm animals are an endangered species. Only 3% of the hog farms produce 50% of the hogs. These factory farms grow up in a cage no bigger than they are, never being allowed to lie down and developing serious foot problems, never seeing daylight, and some go mad and hurt themselves trying to bite through the steel bars. Chickens and cattle are grown under similar conditions. Stress supposedly makes the meat tastier, but 10% of the Cattle and Hogs and almost 30% of the chickens die before fully grown as a result.
The largest number of antibiotics being used in the country are consumed by animals, given prophylactically to prevent them getting sick and fatten them up. As a result of antibiotics in meat and consumed by consumers means when you get sick, the bacteria is likely to be resistant and you get sicker or use more expensive antibiotics that have more severe side effects. People are not allowed to get prophylactic antibiotics because it promotes antibiotic resistance, but animals are. Thats ok though, since you buy less antibiotics, you pay more per dose than the animals do.
Sort of explains why no new antibiotics are on the horizon, the big market is for animals, they just need larger doses to keep increasingly resistant bacteria down, then move on to the more expensive drugs when thye do not work even for that.
That milk you drink? From cows that are given the genetically engineered growth hormone, loaded with antibiotics given to reduce mastis infection that result from the hormone. Those who have infections still give you milk, with a nice dose of puss to go along with the antibiotics. And people worry about giving their children toys with lead from China (I am assuming they do not eat toys).
Corporate agribusiness now is largely vertically integrated, so prices increase dramatically going forward since the same people who control the oil control the food.
We paid over 100 billion in crop subsidies between 1995-2003, much of the crops were used to feed animals. Corporate farms received most of these subsidies (10% of the largest farm groups received 72%). David Rockefeller, the man who owns a big piece of almost everything received millions in subsidies, and Bill Gates got a share as well.
But with Americans lower standard of living, soon to be much lower, and with oil prices expected to rise in coming years, and the dollar expected to continue it’s fall, food prices will increase, and most of you will be eating less meat, like it or not, because you will not be able to afford it. What you do not eat will be exported to those who can afford it, so do not pity the poor corporate farmer.
I am glad I am not young, the future does not look very bright for those who are.
Industrialized food production is just not a great option for anything anymore.
Living in the midwest, I still am amazed at how many folks don’t know where their food comes from. Kids spend a morning at the farm or petting zoo once in grade school-that won’t go far enough.
Luckily, farmers markets and backyard gardens seem to be making a small comeback here.
As for BGH in milk. I have found Deans offers a pledge on one type of their milk that their famers do not use extra BGH/synthetic BGH.
Now if we could only get better labeling on our foods!
One visit to a factory chicken farm or a slaughterhouse and y’all would be puttin down the nuggets and the burgers. Meat is killing us and the planet. It’s not a moral thing (although there is a moral argument to be made about the suffering of animals). It ought to be a no brainer for anyone who says they want a more sustainable and just economic system, and better stewardship of the ecosystem. The folks who raise procedural issues about a transition… well, yeah, but that problem is staring us in the face about EVERYTHING we do: transportation, energy production, building materials, and food. The obstacles to change are not primarily technical, they are socio-economic, because no one wants to start the chain reaction of livelihood and capital movement shifts that would result from a serious effort at transition to a sustainable liffestyle. I recognize the difficulties, I think we all do if we think about it. But nonetheless, we are totally fucked if we don’t find a way to make it happen.
Meat and dairy, and protein in general, are promoted as the key to health, but in fact Americans eat twice as much protein as they need. Did you know that excessive protein and fat causes: kidney problems, heart disease, diabetes, calcium LOSS (that’s right, too much milk and dairy leaches calcium from your bones), cancer through exposure to chemicals in feed which are then processed in your intestines? Did you know that meat production multiplies by 16-fold the amount of energy and water required to create edible calories?
I don’t have to be a “militant” to want to stop eating meat, and to hope that you will too. It’s love, not hate or moralism, that drives this concern.
Peace, y’all
“The latest scientific studies show that most hunter/gatherer societies were largely plant based with meat eaten on special occasions or in small amounts after being dryed. So at best we are ominvores not carnivores. ”
I’d like to see more on this, anybody?
Let’s face it folks. The only solution to almost ALL of the worlds major problems is for a severe and massive depopulation to occur. Consider this while you eat your next hamburger. The probability for spontaneous occurence of BSE (bovine spongiform encaphalopathy)- also known as mad cow disease- is ~1 in a million. The article claims that over 10 billion cows/year are processed and consumed! Do the math, that means roughly 10,000 cows every year will be a carrier for BSE. They may not show the symptoms, but they will be carriers. There ARE NO tests for BSE, only post-mortem tests of the infected brain tissue! BSE is caused by prions- self replicating proteins- that can infect humans and these prions are not destroyed by cooking (this is even stated by the USDA website).
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Bovine_Spongiform_Encephalopathy_Mad_Cow_Disease/index.asp
The prions that cause mad cow disease, or vCJD, can remain dormant for many years inside your brain; however, once active, the disease manifests itself as a neurological disorder exhibiting the same signs of parkinsons and alzheimers. In fact, a great deal of mad cow disease today are misdiagnosed as parkinsons or alzheimers.
Once infected with these prions, there is no cure. There are no known drugs, antibiotics or such to cure these diseases. Cases where younger people (in their 40’s) diagnosed with alzheimers and parkinson like symptoms are becoming more frequent. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are millions of people out there carrying the BSE-vCJD prion. They are clueless that they are infected, but their fates are sealed. I expect a huge epidemic of alzheimers and parkinsons like diseases to manifest itself in the next few decades.
“I’m a perfectly calm meat eater”
You are perfectly calm because you are morally blind, like all of the other pro-meat posters here. A “progressive meat eater” is indeed an oxymoron.
I am so tired of meat-eaters dismissing vegetarians as “holier-than-thou.” If you claim to be an environmentalist yet eat animals, your right wing is showing. And the guy who claims to need meat because he is an athlete needs to look at all the world-class athletes who are vegetarians. Your excuses are nauseating.
Three cheers (in Chinese) for all you phony progressives:
Phooey! Phooey! Phooey!
And Siouxrose, if you continued eating chicken and fish after reading that world-famous Ananda Marga booklet, you are even denser than I thought…a true astrologer you must be.
obmaj wrote: Please, let us not condemn fellow Progessives just because we disagree on one or two issues. We need to be united and supportive to battle our common enemy the Corporate State or as Nader calls it the Industrial Military Complex.
I credit obmaj with attempting the kumbaya-thing, but I contend that advocates of violence against animals (i.e., meat-eaters) pre-disposes such people for advocating violence against people. Yes, meat-eaters will swear blue that they are peaceniks, but that is just lip service.
Eliminate the slaughter of animals for consumption (and product-tesing etc), you go a loooong way to eliminating the need for war and violence against people.
As a vegetarian for 14 years who is currently doing her grad school thesis on this exact subject, I feel the need to comment on this topic that is near and dear to my heart. The truth is livestock production is highly accountable for every major form of ecological devastation, including land and water degradation, loss of biodiversity/extinction of species and yes, climate change. There is not way around it and it is something in dire need of being addressed on the same level as our use of transportation. The FAO is calling for an immediate halving of all livestock production worldwide.
I am not a purist or a militant vegetarian, I don’t believe eating meat is that bad, and for the purpose of rural development or even holistic farming practices, can even be beneficial. So there is something to be said for eating “green” meat–that that is pasture/grass-fed, hormone- and antibiotic free from small-scale farms and that is locally-sourced (or at least regionally-sourced), just as there is something to be said for hunting overpopulated deer. However, there is no way that this method can satiate the demand for meat as it exists today. Just as driving hybrids and using wind energy will not stem a problem without serious strides in conservation, the harmful effects of meat production cannot be stemmed by sustainable practices without a substantial decrease in meat consumption (and we must take into consideration the “Asia factor” the Westernization of their diets combined with a booming population). In fact, if we were to try to feed our current demand for meat on sustainable sources it would dilute these practices and make them unsustainable. It’s an oxymoron. We need to dissolve all subsidies to industrial meat producers and instead TAX them heavily (as with a carbon tax), we need to phase our factory farming and replace it with a sustainable agricultural system that favors vegetarianism and a minimal to moderate supply of sustainable meat, emphasizing smaller ruminants.
For the record, most vegetarians I know are very ecological in their food choices. I, for one, eat very little, if hardly any, soy products and purchase most of my veggies, dairy and eggs from CSA’s, farmer’s markets, Co-Ops, etc. Many vegetarians I know also agree that some meat under sustainable and humane conditions can be acceptable, but we ourselves choose to abstain from meat to compensate since so many show no such descrimination in their food choices. And yes, please consider the population factor, this definitely is in need of scrutiny…
Interesting discussion.
Purist finger-pointing is alive and well, I see. Ahhh, it reminds me of the 1960’s. We had that holier-than-thou attitude then too. As I recall it chased more than a few decent folks away from the progressive agenda.
But who am I to judge? I wasn’t a “true hippie” then and I’m guessing many of you would not judge me a “true progressive” now.
I just do my best day by day. I try to be the change I wish to see in the world, and I’d rather see us all get along.
But finger-point and accuse if you must. The rightwingers will love you for it. They did back in the 60’s and 70’s.
lakiesel:
Thanks for getting back at the root of the problem: the industrial agricultural system as a whole. The meat portion of it is only the tip of the iceberg, and it’s propped up by an unsustainable and ecologically devastating commodity grain production system.
Again, I can see that many of us agree that local, seasonal, organic, permaculture-type food systems are the way to go, and it’s heartening to see support for more sustainable food systems from many different perspectives. Of course the stereotypical US diet is unsustainable, and trying to replace the industrial system and still maintain levels of meat consumption would be unsustainable as well.
In talking about sustainable food systems, I think it’s important to emphasize that not all ecosystems are interchangeable. What’s sustainable in coastal Florida is nonsensical in Utah, and what works in eastern forests doesn’t transfer to western ones. Some parts of the world are not very suitable for agriculture yet lend themselves well to seasonally grazing ruminants, while some have access to marine fisheries and others to woodland wildlife. Sustainability is situational. It depends on when and where you live.
Muggles:
“It ought to be a no brainer for anyone who says they want a more sustainable and just economic system, and better stewardship of the ecosystem.” Let’s talk about stewardship for a minute. I grew up in Michigan, where wolves were wiped out long before I was born. Some 70,000 deer are killed by humans driving cars every year, and the rest of the herds are suffering from starvation and Chronic Wasting Disease from their overpopulation. Humans adopted the role of primary predator in that ecosystem by removing the other predators, and it’s immoral to disregard that responsibility for maintaining balance in an ecosystem.
Now I live in Colorado, where wolves were again extirpated. The deer and elk are overpopulated, and not only do I hunt them, I also do ecological restoration work to help mitigate and repair the damage that their overgrazing is doing to the ecosystems here. Would you prefer that we not intervene and allow them to die from mass starvation and disease because they are out of balance with the land through no fault of their own? What is the morally correct choice in this real life situation from your perspective?
Furthermore, what do we do about the people who live here? We cannot eat prairie grasses on the plains, but we can eat ruminants like bison. Should we dam the rivers, plow up the prairie (thereby extirpating indigenous species and fundamentally altering the natural balance of the ecosystem), and irrigate the normally arid land to grow grains and legumes which are not native to this place?
WTF:
Your argument about killing animals to eat where appropriate (and where necessary) leading to a willingness to kill humans does not make sense. I can kill a deer as a participant in my ecosystem, eat its meat over the course of the year (thereby honoring the giving of its life to sustain mine), and not once consider doing violence to another human (or non-human) for any other reason.
Besides, there’s more to consider in most situations than being able to choose blind, unthinking, universal violence or blind, unthinking, universal nonviolence.
–
I’m enjoying this spirited discussion of how to live sustainably in the world into which we were all born and did not choose. I think I’ve made clear my perspective that what’s sustainable depends on where and when one lives. My proposal is that we each and all look to the ecosystem where we live for guidance on how to live within it as a contributing member of it and not condemn one another for making informed choices about how to sustain our lives.
The eater-eaten relationship says something interesting that I think is worth bringing up here. By taking the life of another to sustain my own (whether it’s a plant, animal, or fungus), I am committing myself to ensuring the survival of what I eat. It’s common sense that eating in relation with an ecosystem is not a one-time event but a relationship that lasts as long as I hope my species will last. The same goes for eating in relationship with the industrial food system - doing so commits one to its perpetuation for as long as one hopes one’s society will exist.
What an honor it is to be alive and to face such real, consequential decisions.
I think that the idea that people who are vegetarians are more “peaceful” and less violent than meat eaters is just plain silly. I seem to remember that Adolf was a vegetarian, so bad people are bad people-no matter what they eat.
Hear, hear, bligh. I am certainly with you on that!
“Agriculture in the United States - much of which now serves the demand for meat - contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.”
The logic: Industrial food production must necessarily at all times pump fresh water out of rivers, lakes and aquafirs only to dump waste back into them, therefore destroying the planet, which is another reason meat is bad.
No! C’mon!
How about this: Cities/Counties/States mandate that no industrial food production take place unless they pipe off their fields/grounds and provide a manner to re-process such waste as opposed to taking from and dumping back into the municipal water supply so some other guy has to deal with it later.
That would make it a little harder to operate a death camp, wouldn’t it? Maybe encourage the growth of co-oped small farms to raise healthier, more humanely treated animals? Huh?
My point is that we can’t fix problems by running around screaming about how the sky is falling, which is why the sky is bad…and all air must be stopped.
Take the problem apart piece by piece–and remember the world is growing exponentially, but its old-world suppliers are not investing in sustainable growth, i.e. their infrastructure.
If the problem is with industrial meat production, attack the producers, not the people who eat stuff ’cause they’re hungry and can’t be bothered to go on a friggin crusade about everything.
“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”
Albert Einstein
ps–For those who think eating chicken and fish is healthy, they are among the most contaminated foods available, by salmonella and mercury, respectively.
Adolf was a Roman Catholic. He avoided meat because he had a weak stomach. The argument that vegetarianism is somehow tainted because Hitler was a vegetarian is truly pathetic. Is Roman Catholicism somehow suspect because he was one of them? Keep trying to justify the unjustifiable, meat-eaters. You are a part of the problem and you need to wake up.
“You are a part of the problem and you need to wake up.”
What problem is that exactly?
What would the illegal Mexicans and others do with out the slaughter house industry? So on humanitarian grounds Americans should continue to eat meat and lots of it.
What has happened to CD? This used to be the site of reason and understanding. That’s why I came here, and now everyone dissolves into name calling and insults. I can get that in my narrowminded hometown comment section. This really a sad thing.
I love animals. I have been the one who takes in strays on a regular basis all my life. I was raised that way. But I was raised on a farm. A dairy operation. We took good care of our cattle, and our pet chickens. The abandoned horse. My dad always spent time with sick animals, staying nearby overnight right in the barn if needed, and he felt bad if there was, say a painful calfing, and would do whatever needed to be done to help the animal.But we ate meat, too.
I also eat meat, and I probably won’t stop because I don’t like most grains and cereals. Sorry. I don’t think it will change.
I think the biggest objection here is to feedlots, and we certainly didn’t have one of those. Family farms with meat consumption have been around for a long time,and I don’t think that is bad.
I don’t tell other people what to eat and I don’t usually tell them my belief is there is no god. But here, we seem to be getting sermons and diatribes on our evil ways every day now. I had hoped for better understanding from people who call themselves progressives.
“Adolf was a Roman Catholic, he avoided meat because of a weak stomach”. Untrue on both counts. Hitler made it absolutely clear from his statements that he hated Christianity from his numerous statements on the matter, not to mention the killing of thousands of priests in the camps. He wanted it to “die a natural death”. He also was a vegetarian on principal. Indeed, according to Albert Speer, he would belittle others for eating meat and discuss the slaughter of animals in nauseating terms whenever anyone tried to eat a steak in his presence.
I am against the factory assembly line processing of animals, but vegetarians are NOT morally superior just because of what they eat.
Our family has over the course of the last two years reduced our meat consumption by 75%. We are centering our protein needs around soy products and enjoying a better quality of life. Try it you may like it!
Soy can just as harmful to the environment as meat, most soy farmers in South America and China cut down large areas of rainforest for instant profit, kill the wildlife and destroy the land.
So when buying soy products make sure it is not chinese os South American.
So Vegitarians have to be careful as well to minimise environmental desttruction which is very annoying
Vegitarianism is still healthier and more human then being an omnivore or carnivor though (of course)
Rethinking the meat-guzzler was one of the most prominent, extensive and widely circulated explorations of animal products impact on the environment.
As a vegan and an environmentalist, I can appreciate the excitement over this level of exposure to these issues. However, upon considering the full content and impact of the piece, I am equally inspired and appalled.
While the problems of meat were explained in considerable, accurate detail, the solutions posited revealed a startling logical and ethical disconnection
Writer, Mark Bittman and others such as Michael Pollen who was also cited in the story, do, as slightly-more attentive carcass chompers, like to raise some portions of the environmental, anti-meat arguments. Sadly, they lack an ethical center, and so miss the larger picture. There is no humane meat, nor environmental solution for the meat-kills-planet dynamic.
False hope for Green Eggs and Ham was laid thickly in this article as Bittman seeks to cling to his steak dinner while the planet crumbles around him. For instance: “Mark W. Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research Institute, says, ‘There should be investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level of meat.’”
Perdue, Cargill, and Smithfield have already capitalized on hundreds of years of selective breeding, coupled with new, intensive production methods, feed refinements, and genetic shenanigans to arrive at our current factory animals. While not exactly intended to “reduce the footprint” industry priorities have included minimizing feed and water inputs while maximizing animal products. Further “improvements” in this field will yield tiny advancements at best.
Bittman went on to offer false hope of energy abatement:
“Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel.”
This overlooks the fundamental problem that the most efficient factory animals (chickens) only return at best one ninth of the energy used to produce them (one twelfth to as little as one fortieth efficiency may be expected elsewhere in animal production systems). To reclaim a fraction of the waste material, by investing more labor and energy, to then eek out a bit of energy in return is a fools’ journey. Think ethanol, but worse.
The article failed to cite any meat industry insiders defending their products and also failed to cite any vegan or vegetarian sources with demonstrated environmental concerns. Instead, Bittman turned to fellow New York Times veteran and like-minded carcass-knosher Michael Pollan to recite the illogical defense of green meat:
“In places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense.”
That’s just grass-fed bullshit. Drive around my region upstate NY, and note that most “grass-fed” beef cattle are grazing principally on arable land. Through winter (half the year in pasturing terms), they must be fed hay (and/or other feed) that is almost entirely grown on cropland that could feed actual humans. Hay’s majority cost input is fossil fuels. Hay may come from land in our region, but also often comes from Canada and the Midwest. Given the bails per day requirements of beef cattle and distances from fields to farms, the hay-miles aspect of local beef means the product is always food-mile intensivee. Grass-fed beef is a mere boutique product sold at premium prices to assuage the environmental guilt of carcass-munching would-be greenies.
When compared to industrial meat production methods, grass-fed or free-range animal products may reduce the risk of catastrophic localized environmental disasters. However, small, local meat production systems are likely to require greater per-animal inputs of feed, water, labor and fuel. I would love to see an objective head to head comparison of industrial meat vs Green Eggs and Ham.
Bittman does make important concessions toward more plant-based diets. It’s great that he suggests that, “meat may become a treat rather than a routine” and argues in favor of real cost pricing and some limited consumer awareness, but what makes flesh slices a “treat” anyway? How is it ever appropriate to spend the environmental or humanitarian currency to purchase this “treat”?
In his 2,000 word treatise, Bittman gives exceedingly short-shrift to animal welfare concerns, dismissively offering just a single sentence: “Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react.”
Aside from being dead wrong about Green Eggs and Ham, Bittman, Pollan and other daily overlook the key ethical issue that their dinners were thinking, feeling beings who never deserved the horrific fate of a trip to the slaughterhouse.
While “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler” may be remembered as a sea change moment in environmental reporting, I can only give him a “D” for environmental understanding and an “F” in ethics.