Credit Crunch? The Real Crisis Is Global Hunger. And If You Care, Eat Less Meat
A food recession is under way. Biofuels are a crime against humanity, but - take it from a flesh eater - flesh eating is worse
Never mind the economic crisis. Focus for a moment on a more urgent threat: the great food recession that is sweeping the world faster than the credit crunch. You have probably seen the figures by now: the price of rice has risen by three-quarters over the past year, that of wheat by 130%. There are food crises in 37 countries. One hundred million people, according to the World Bank, could be pushed into deeper poverty by the high prices.
But I bet that you have missed the most telling statistic. At 2.1bn tonnes, the global grain harvest broke all records last year - it beat the previous year’s by almost 5%. The crisis, in other words, has begun before world food supplies are hit by climate change. If hunger can strike now, what will happen if harvests decline?
There is plenty of food. It is just not reaching human stomachs. Of the 2.13bn tonnes likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01bn, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, will feed people.
I am sorely tempted to write another column about biofuels. From this morning all sellers of transport fuel in the United Kingdom will be obliged to mix it with ethanol or biodiesel made from crops. The World Bank points out that “the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol … could feed one person for a year”. This year global stockpiles of cereals will decline by around 53m tonnes; this gives you a rough idea of the size of the hunger gap. The production of biofuels will consume almost 100m tonnes, which suggests that they are directly responsible for the current crisis.
On these pages yesterday Ruth Kelly, the secretary of state for transport, promised that “if we need to adjust policy in the light of new evidence, we will”. What new evidence does she require? In the midst of a global humanitarian crisis, we have just become legally obliged to use food as fuel. It is a crime against humanity, in which every driver in this country has been forced to participate.
But I have been saying this for four years, and I am boring myself. Of course we must demand that our governments scrap the rules that turn grain into the fastest food of all. But there is a bigger reason for global hunger, which is attracting less attention only because it has been there for longer. While 100m tonnes of food will be diverted this year to feed cars, 760m tonnes will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals - which could cover the global food deficit 14 times. If you care about hunger, eat less meat.
While meat consumption is booming in Asia and Latin America, in the UK it has scarcely changed since the government started gathering data in 1974. At just over 1kg per person per week, it’s still about 40% above the global average, though less than half the amount consumed in the United States. We eat less beef and more chicken than we did 30 years ago, which means a smaller total impact. Beef cattle eat about 8kg of grain or meal for every kilogram of flesh they produce; a kilogram of chicken needs just 2kg of feed. Even so, our consumption rate is plainly unsustainable.
In his magazine The Land, Simon Fairlie has updated the figures produced 30 years ago in Kenneth Mellanby’s book Can Britain Feed Itself? Fairlie found that a vegan diet produced by means of conventional agriculture would require only 3m hectares of arable land (around half Britain’s current total). Even if we reduced our consumption of meat by half, a mixed farming system would need 4.4m hectares of arable fields and 6.4 million hectares of pasture. A vegan Britain could make a massive contribution to global food stocks.
But I cannot advocate a diet that I am incapable of following. I tried it for about 18 months, lost two stone, went as white as bone and felt that I was losing my mind. I know a few healthy-looking vegans, and I admire them immensely. But after almost every talk that I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.
What level of meat-eating would be sustainable? One approach is to work out how great a cut would be needed to accommodate the growth in human numbers. The UN expects the population to rise to 9 billion by 2050. These extra people will require another 325m tonnes of grain. Let us assume, perhaps generously, that politicians such as Ruth Kelly are able to “adjust policy in the light of new evidence” and stop turning food into fuel. Let us pretend that improvements in plant breeding can keep pace with the deficits caused by climate change. We would need to find an extra 225m tonnes of grain. This leaves 531m tonnes for livestock production, which suggests a sustainable consumption level for meat and milk some 30% below the current world rate. This means 420g of meat per person per week, or about 40% of the UK’s average consumption.
This estimate is complicated by several factors. If we eat less meat we must eat more plant protein, which means taking more land away from animals. On the other hand, some livestock is raised on pasture, so it doesn’t contribute to the grain deficit. Simon Fairlie estimates that if animals were kept only on land that is unsuitable for arable farming, and given scraps and waste from food processing, the world could produce between a third and two-thirds of its current milk and meat supply. But this system then runs into a different problem. The Food and Agriculture Organisation calculates that animal keeping is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impacts are especially grave in places where livestock graze freely. The only reasonable answer to the question of how much meat we should eat is as little as possible. Let’s reserve it - as most societies have done until recently - for special occasions.
For both environmental and humanitarian reasons, beef is out. Pigs and chickens feed more efficiently, but unless they are free range you encounter another ethical issue: the monstrous conditions in which they are kept. I would like to encourage people to start eating tilapia instead of meat. This is a freshwater fish that can be raised entirely on vegetable matter and has the best conversion efficiency - about 1.6kg of feed for 1kg of meat - of any farmed animal. Until meat can be grown in flasks, this is about as close as we are likely to come to sustainable flesh-eating.
Re-reading this article, I see that there is something surreal about it. While half the world wonders whether it will eat at all, I am pondering which of our endless choices we should take. Here the price of food barely registers. Our shops are better stocked than ever before. We perceive the global food crisis dimly, if at all. It is hard to understand how two such different food economies could occupy the same planet, until you realise that they feed off each other.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
Holy christ–Monbiot you are a joke.
You recycle the oldest red neck stereotype of vegans because you cant come to doing what you know is right.
Visit some vegan websites or check out vegan celebrities and you will see lots of healthy vegans from birth to adulthood.
The man who coined the word vegan died a few years ago at age 99 something and he was climbing mountains.
You are just unable to practice what you preached. Maybe not untypical for a columnist.
Is there really a food shortage, or do the poor have too little to buy the food? This seems like a simple question, but I keep hearing different stories. Without an answer too this question, how can one formulate a solution?
But, at any rate addressing this urgent problem does not mean having to be a vegan.
Or for that matter, nor does it require having to swear off meat all together. I eat no red meat, but I do eat cheese and eggs. I eat poultry or fish - but usually no more once a week, and mostly as flavoring addition rather than the main part of the meal.
Moderation, people; moderation. There is too much dietary elitism among bourgeois “progressives”.
Monbiots analysis, is spon on as usual.
And Mr. obvious, as a rebuttal to a previous discussion, it appears you never actually read the link in my post. Please read this link:
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=51&blogid=104
USAn - Out of respect for the other bloggers on this site, I am going to try to stay on topic a little more than in the past. I skimmed your link. As you know I generally am skeptical of sources that don’t point me to the empirical literature/evidence.
Mr. Obvious: “Without an answer too this question, how can one formulate a solution?”
Mmmmm… Permaculture. Delicious and nutritious and harmless to people, critters and the planet.
I hope everyone will consider going vegan. See www.freemanwicklund.com for tons of information and reasons!! (:
“Vegan”, for me, is a commitment too far. “Mostly vegetarian” seems attractive and attainable, though.
We all recently saw the Humane Society video of the treatment of “downer” cattle. That alone ought to have been a wake-up call to help us go a step further toward eating less meat for lots of reasons–including world hunger and the stewardship of sharing.
puckamok - Permaculture sounds good, but it is not a solution that is well developed enough to work yet. We use annual crops for a reason. Disrupting the ecosystem disrupts the other organisms (pests) that compete for the resources that we want to harvest. Also, I don’t find apple orchards (for example) to be diverse habitats capable of supporting wildlife that is compatible with human’s needs for production. Maybe some day?
Gut the bloated argicorps. They are wasteful on a titanic scale, and generate toxins and waste that poisons the environment on a colossal scale.
Eliminate the legal loopholes that grant corporations ‘personhood’
Go back to community and home gardens. Stop eating imported fruit. Personal permaculture and cultural shame enforced low tech green building techniques are a must if humans are to survive.
Think very carefully about having children.
Modern cattle are genetic mutants who have no chance at survival in the wild. They are UTTERLY dependent upon DAILY human intervention just to survive. And they are still reservoirs of Mad Cow disease.
We will have NO CHOICE very soon to live the ‘100 mile diet’.
Abandon consumer society and all it’s trappings. Get to know your neighbors.
Get used to being cold in the winter, hot in the summer, wet when it rains.
Hard times are coming down on us. Faster than you think.
To paraphrase: “Get busy livin’. Or get busy dyin’.”
As a person who has grown up with weight issues - mostly family inherited - that have brought with them problems with regulating blood glucose levels, I can speak for those who have a very difficult time, physically, living a vegan or even vegetarian lifestyle. That said, my wife and I have begun to focus the bulk of our diet on fruits, vegies, nuts and seeds, and are using hemp-based protein powder in our shakes. Furthermore, the meat we do eat, which is only a small amount of chicken, eggs and tuna, are all organic free-range based, and wild caught fish. The main thing to remember is that he majority of the population is not going to move to a vegan or vegetarian diet overnight, especially folks like myself who need to make that transition in a very slow and healthy manner. So, what we need to do is encourage the consumption of ONLY organic, locally grown (whenever possible) foods, wild caught fish, grass-fed cattle, and free-range chickens on farms that use no artificial pesticides.
Vegans, of which I know many, tend to be very unforgiving toward those who are trying to make the slow transition, for very good reason. Just something to consider.
Galen: Well, ain’t that it in a nutshell? Bang on.
I greatly admire Mr. Monbiot and I’m grateful for this important and well-written article.
Having said that, his stereotype of vegans as gray-skinned weaklings is silly, and if he really “lost two stone, went as white as bone” after 18 months of a vegan diet then he must have been eating some very bizarre, unbalanced diet.
Certainly anyone making ANY major change in their diet or eating habits should know something about nutrition, and how to meet their nutritional needs with their new food choices, and certainly it is often easier on your system to change gradually rather than abruptly. But what Mr. Monbiot describes will NOT happen to you if you consume an adequate amount of calories from any reasonably balanced vegan diet comprising fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes.
I have been a vegan for 20 years (and a lacto-ovo vegetarian for 14 years before that). I’m in my mid-fifties, physically fit and healthy. I personally know a number of long-time vegans and they are without exception vibrantly healthy and many of them are athletic (certainly more so that I am). And there are numerous world-class vegan athletes, including body builders and weightlifters.
If you don’t want to give up meat because you enjoy eating it, then do as you will. But forget this nonsense about a vegan diet being difficult, or nutritionally inadequate, or boring. Eating a vegan diet is easy, a vegan diet is nutritious and in general MORE healthy than a comparable meat-based diet, and there is an infinite number of delicious vegan foods and meals available from various cuisines all over the world.
We all seem to have anacdotal accounts to share. My father-in law has lost so much bone marrow that he has limited time left. The doctors can find no cause. He has been eating a mostly vegetarian diet for 20 years and has been in excellent health for someone in his eighties for some time, although very thin. He also ingests copious quantities of herbal remidies. I cannot tell you what caused his sickness, but I can tell you that when he visited us for 5 weeks for the last three years, his bloodwork amazingly improved each time. My wife convinces him to eat red meat on a regular basis during his visits and he feels better. Unfortunately he returns to his friends in the land of fruits and nuts and in a short time he is ill again and his blookwork plummets. He is not senile, so he makes his own choices. Take from that what you will.
Mr. Obvious–For someone so concerned with empirical evidence, your last post is highly anecdotal. Your father-in-law, a man in his eighties who has been in excellent health and has been eating a mostly vegetarian diet for 20 years, has limited time left. All people in their eighties have limited time left! And your point is what? That not eating red meat has caused his sickness, even though his doctors can find no cause? That he feels better when he visits you and eats red meat, yet chooses not to when he returns to his friends in the land of fruit and nuts and yet he is not senile? Are you saying your father-in-law is just plain stupid? I think you and your wife feel better when he eats red meat. Your reasoning is bizarre, like a lot of people who rationalize killing and eating animals.
Global hunger could easily be eliminated in a couple of generations by every family, worldwide, abiding by an agreement to have only one child. The population could then be stabilized at a level at which our negative impact on the planet would no longer be unsustainable.
Tha alternative is to find a way to support 9 billion, then 15 billion, then 25 billion and so on. Let’s face it, at some stage this quasi-exponential growth in population has to stop. And stop it most certainly will. So do we want it to be by starvation, thirst, disease, war or do we want to take control of it in an intelligent manner?
SecularAnimist April 15th, 2008 1:32 pm
Sensible and coherent. Good points.
“Your reasoning is bizarre, like a lot of people who rationalize killing and eating animals.”
This kind of talk is bizarre. Do as you like, but extremists that claim to know whats best for others are invariably wrong. For example, refer to the governments conduct for the last 7 1/2 years.
Can’t live on a vegetarian diet? I wonder how elephants ever grew to be so big. I wonder how horses run so fast. How kangaroos can jump so high.
“A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite.”
Leo Tolstoy
(By the way, that comment about needing more protein is also highly questionable, if not outright crap — see comment about animals above.)
blessthebeasts - My father-in-law gets blood tests every two weeks, so I guess the doctor must be in on the scam too and be fudging the results. I said it was anecdotal in my last post, but want to let you know that there are stories on both sides. Your reaction should allow you to walk in my shoes for a moment.
Parallax - one child per couple will work faster, but two children per couple will actually result in a decreasing population long-term. We need to do something.
A vegetarian or vagan diet can be eaten with good health results, but it is not “natural”. Even chimps eat meat. No question that we eat way too much for good health.
How about a combination. Eat less meat AND drive 20% less. E85 is 15% corn based ethanol and is a net energy loser compared to plain gasoline.
bbr-001 - While I do not like biofuels based on the need for more agricultural land, the experts disagree on the net energy balance and CO2 footprint of corn-based ethanol. They are modeling this, and disagree on how to construct the model. Without more definitive evidense, we can keep arguing this until we turn blue.
It is so refreshing to see somebody writing something like this who is not a member of PETA or some other animal rights organization.
Myself, I am just out of college and a vegetarian for about a year, and I have never felt healthier. I play sports, lift weights, and run frequently. I am confident this would continue as a vegan, as I am in the gradual process of attaining it. For me, there is no better reason to stop eating animals than the desire to not contribute to the killing of them. But it is HARDLY the only one, and HARDLY the only great one.
One of my old roomates just became a vegetarian purely for the environmental benefits. Not even close to an animal rights person. For example, the meat industry is responsible for a greater share of global warming than the transportation industry, according the UN. Do not forget the massive amounts of water these animals require, I wish I had the stats on me. Also, while organic and free range is certainly better and more humane, the market for “free range” cattle and such contributes to deforestation, and desertification of the land they graze on. But it seems like only those who become or are in the process of becoming vegetarians are capable of realizing these things. So kudos to Moonbiot, although, as others have already stated, disagree that going vegan makes you unsightly skinny and grey skinned. But with a childhood obesity problem–that seems like a mild consequence. Besides, every diet should be planned, and if Moonbiot planned his, he certainly would not be white as bone.
There are so many things that I, and many of you, feel powerless over these days. But it is nice to know you can vote with every meal every day, by refusing to contribute to the industries that lead to global warming, human starvation, animal abuse, and deforestation. With that in mind, I would encourage everybody to give a vegetarian diet a shot, even if it is a long process that starts with the simple reduction of meat, say, for lunch.
Leobixby- You said you were in a gradual process, and I just want to say that is AWESOME. keep it up, just try not to get stuck in a rut of being unable to continue the reduction… Don’t be afraid to just say, “no more!” when you get close.
PURE BULLSHIT ! Switch to vegetarian and try going strictly local on meats. Our rural SC farms have been dying for the past 30 years and both the Democrats and Republicans made sure that Big Agri had the upper hand at all times especially since they took money from them.
All of these paranoid scare stories about livestock are mostly wrong and exaggerated. For instance, the amount of water a full sized cow would drink in a day would probably not exceed a shower or two depending on lengh, or a few bathroom flushings, so let`s stop those also.
The idea that because we have all seen a tape of animals being abused in a few cases does not mean that is the norm. There are cases of dog and cat farms that are horrible places of abuse, but does anyone call for the complete elimination of all pets to stop that? Of course not, because the vegans have those pets and shut their eyes to abuse there.
As for the idea that constant chattering about the evils of eating (dead) meat, (you prefer eating live meat), are ever going to stop that habit which is as old as time, forget it. You may as well tell people that sex is harmful to their health so they should refrain from such a medieval practice.
Mr. Obvious: regarding your question about food shortage and empirical evidence, Lester R. Brown dealt with this issue in his book “Full House”.
He translated typical per-country diets in terms of kilograms of grain per year (dealing with meat is tricky, having to account for the grains consumed by animals; and other fruits and vegetables may be even trickier.)
He said the country that has closest to the ideal diet in terms of both energy consumed and meat:grain ratio was Italy. Following the data he presented, however, shows that worldwide grain production is insufficient to provide all people of the world with the equivalent of the Italian diet.
His data are typically from the UN and USDA.
In “Credit Crunch? The Real Crisis Is Global Hunger. And If You Care, Eat Less Meat
A food recession is under way. Biofuels are a crime against humanity, but - take it from a flesh eater - flesh eating is worse.” posted on Commmon dreams and Published on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 by The Guardian/UK
by George Monbiot, he writes:
“The Food and Agriculture Organisation calculates that animal keeping is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions”
However, in “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet
by Derrick Z. Jackson” it is stated that:
“Agricultural greenhouse gases are about 22 percent of all emissions around the world.”
my question is this: “how much difference does 4% make???
Mr Obvious
Where is the scientific evidence that vegetarian diets are not natural?
Buddhist and Hindu families in Asia and India have been eating only vegetarian and vegan diets for thousands of years? And many of them enjoy excellent health and live to a ripe old age.
Carnivores naturally eat meat and it would be wrong to stop them, but the human digestive system more closely resembles that of herbivores so vegetarianism is an excellent choice.
The secret is a balanced vegetarian diet.
More on vegetarianism verses meat.
I have said this before but it appears appropriate right now:
Vegetarian diets are healthy, being typically high in fibre and low in fat, and devoid of meat borne toxins as well as meat linked food poisoning.
The poor can benefit from a vegetarian diet being cheaper than a meaty one, while vegetarianism is better for the environment, as meat production requires far more land and animal manure pollutes waterways, and methane from meat production exacerbates climate change. Vegetarian diets will help end world hunger as meat production is an inefficient method of producing food.
There are no indigenous vegan cultures anywhere in the world, period. There are some lacto-ovo-vegetarian cultures out there, but all of them not only use animal products, but treasure them.
Organic ag will require animal ag; where do you think the organic material comes from?
A few people found the REAL problem — overpopulation! That’s the real underlying issue, but it’s still quite taboo, even amongst progressives, to discuss that. Smaller family sizes, around the world without exception, will solve many problems.
As is almost completely hidden in the article, the truth is that many of the meat-eating problems are connected to the feeding of livestock on unnatural diets.
Of supreme importance and often ovelooked is the fact that a World of only grass eating cattle would result in LESS cattle and therefore LESS beef consumption.
Feeding non-cow food to cows isn’t just a side issue, it’s the source of the whole problem! It’s what makes it cheap enough to industrialize this food system, what turns the cattle’s waste from fertilizing boon to polluting waste, AND what makes that quarter-pounder so cheap that one can eat it 10 times a week!
The fight against meat-eating is the fight against cheap meat, is the fight against cheap corn, is the fight against CHEAP FOOD.
Why are people suprised that this approach is failing?
Its all well and good for someone of the economic class of Mr. Monbriot to try and convince people of the moral, environmental, and economic wrongness of meat. But until a working person can get more calories, more fats and sugars in a ready to consume form from the organic produce section than they can from a Super-Size Big Mac Meal- nothing will change.
The fight should be against industrial agriculture, and for Local Sustainable Organic ag.
If this fight can be won, then the fight against meat might just have a chance.
Also, of course, people on the Internets can be relied upon to steer every resource issue to the Overpopulation issue, but “one child-per-family”? In what sort of anti-democratic Police State could this possibly be enforced?
Oh yeah, the “People’s Republic” of China.
Quite a role model for the progressive Left.
-matti.
I’ll mention a true little story that happened to me. Here in Honolulu there’s an all vegetarian (not vegan) Health food store on one side of the street and a Burger King on the other. For a long time there was a very alcoholic looking older homeless man who panhandled outside the health food store. He looked horrible and desperate like some street alcoholics. I will not give money to alcoholic or drug types as they buy more poison but I will occasionally buy them some food.
I offered to get him a vegiburger from the health food store. He replied: “Oh, I only eat at Burger King!” So, I replied ” why don’t you panhandle over there?” His reply? “Oh, I have no luck over there.”
Well maybe, just maybe, meat eating does harden the heart… both physically (heart problems) and metaphorically (in one’s generosity)?
ralph 422 - Maybe lack of meat softens the head?
Here is a great conspiracy theory for you all. Foriegn oil producers are limiting supplies. This has created an economic problem for America. America is a major food producer and as such has power, but limiting food is a politically unacceptible practice. Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone? Subsidize ethanol from corn with the excuse that we need the energy and that we care about the environment, and at the same time show the world what happens when we don’t produce cheep food. And you guys think that our leaders are stupid…
Sluggysan
You say “Organic ag will require animal ag; where do you think the organic material comes from?”
Don’t confuse organic and vegetarianism.
You can farm meat, milk, eggs etc organically.
Secondly, many organic farmers do not require animal manure for fertilization.
You can balance or replace the nutrients potassium, calcium and phosphorous in organic farming which does not allow artificial chemical fertilizers by using potassium sulphate, which uses a type of rock ground into dust, instead of potassium chloride which is not acceptable in organics.
Rock phosphate is used to balance phosphate deficiencies, and lime dust which is ground limestone is used where calcium is needed. These are natural fertilizers acceptable for organically certified crops.
To increase nitrogen organic farmers plant legumes which fixate nitrogen in th esoil, and also use green manures, which are crops ploughed into the land while still green.
It is a myth that an increase in animals are needed for increased organic farming, but then organically produced animal products are better for human health and the environment anyway, so meat eaters should insist on organic meat.
There are millions of Bhuddist and Hindu families that have survived without meat or eggs for generations. In India the cow is sacred to many people, and milk, butter and ghee are cherished.
Mr Obvious
You say, “Maybe lack of meat softens the head?”
It would be good to do an IQ test on the meat eaters and on the vegetarians in this debate and see who has “soft heads”.
Sluggysan - You are right on. Anyone with any agricultural background knows that legumes or cover crops are not sufficient for the nitrogen needs of crops. Phosphate and potassium are mined for use in both conventional and organic production. Somehow you need to get the nitrogen from the atmosphere. You can use fossil fuel to extract it, or you can let plants do this and then decompose or get digested by animals. Either way (digested by cows or microbes), the carbon in the plant material ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. The use of animal manure is the predominent method used by organic farmers, but either method means more land in agriculture, either by rotation to cover crops, or grazing by animals. “Smoke and mirrors” will not change this.
Andy - An IQ test is not needed. Your intellect is obvious to all.
Ah thanks for the compliment.
Mr Obvious
You appear to be very happy to promote meat from grain fed animals, but suddenly get twitchy that organic agrriculture may increase the number of animals. Why?
Secondly, “smoke and mirrors”, I would not trust someone who promotes pesticides, rBST, and GM seeds to give advice on number of animals needed for organic agrciulture.
One would have to have a solf head to fall for that.
Andy - I promote tools that decrease the footprint of agriculture by increasing yield with negligable risk (pesticides, GM, rBST etc.). If meat is to be produced, I favor intense production because it also uses less land. I know that you already put this together considering your superior intellect. I also believe that it is very wise to consume much less meat than is typical for an American, both for environmental and health benefits. However, I believe that in a free country, people have a right to be stupid (not refering to you of course).
Smoke and mirrors?
Negligable risk of pesticides, rBST and GM, absolute twaddle Mr Obvious.
If you farm animals sustainably, the land can support them, and you have less grain fed methane into the environment from intensive feedlots.
The manure is absorbed into the pasture land or prairies and masses of manure produced by feedlots does not end up in waterways.
You should look up the research showing that organically grown crops produce similar yields to industrial chemical agriculture.
Anyone wanting to read a scientific peer-reviewed review article that deals with organic and conventional agriculture might want to check out:
Crop Protection: Volume 23, Issue 9, September 2004, Pages 757-781
Review
“A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture”
Anthony Trewavas ,
ICMB, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3 JH, UK
Some food for thought:
1) ‘Can Organic Farming “Feed the World”?’ Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
2) Advances in Agronomy, Volume 70, 261 - 327 (2001), “Agronomic and Environmental
Implications of Organic Farming”
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/organicresearch.htm
3) “Can Organic Farming Feed The World?” by Doctor Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher
(Ethiopia) and Susan Burnell Edwards:
http://www.ethioembassy.org.uk/Can%20organic%20farming%20feed%20the%20world.htm
Got any peer-reviewed papers to offer up. You know, the ones where independent scientists review them before they get published.
Andy - It just occured to me. With organic yields just as high as conventional agriculture and with all those lower inputs and sustainability, why are organic products more expensive? Is this just greedy organic farmers capitalizing on the ignorant masses? With food shortages and hunger throughout the world, how could these efficient farmers sell their products, produced under such an efficient system, sell them for more than conventional food? Off with their heads!
Mr. Obvious April 15th, 2008 5:12 pm
There is an element of urgency, you know.
Parallax - I will keep producing food in a high-intensity manner. This will be the cheapest food that I can produce with as little environmental harm. However, the tide is moving toward low-output retro food production. We know what that achieves, and hunger will follow. The developed world can afford this, but the poor countries cannot. We have a new world religion, neo-paganism, and this new trend will have to take its course because people cannot learn from history. They must see for themselves.
kelmer says,
“Holy christ–Monbiot you are a joke.
You recycle the oldest red neck stereotype of vegans because you cant come to doing what you know is right.
Visit some vegan websites or check out vegan celebrities and you will see lots of healthy vegans from birth to adulthood.
The man who coined the word vegan died a few years ago at age 99 something and he was climbing mountains.
You are just unable to practice what you preached. Maybe not untypical for a columnist.”
Actually, he’s a brilliant writer. I assume this is the first time you’ve ever read him.
Yes, there are lots of vegans out there, and like Monbiot, I have the highest regard for them (except for the elitist, close-minded ones like you). But some people’s bodies do not adjust well to a vegan diet, and it is NOT a copout; you would know that if your body was like that.
Mr Oblivious, you missed the point. Lack of meat softens the heart and right now the world could use a little compassion and generosity.
“Where is the scientific evidence that vegetarian diets are not natural?”
Dr Weston Price (http://www.westonaprice.org/) was a dentist who accomplished an astonishing study of the diets of original indigenous societies of our world, and determined that almost NONE had a vegetarian diet or a diet that included grains. Quite the contrary, humans clearly evolved eating meat, animal fat, and a lot of it.
The problem is not the eating of meat. The problem is bad industrial farming practices. Humans should be eating LOCAL, both meat and vegetables, and given that we do not have four stomachs, nor was our digestive tract designed to assimilate cellulose (as say a cow’s or an elephant’s is), we should stay the hell away from grains, corn, and probably rice as well. And let the poor cows and pigs and chickens go back to eating what they naturally desire: grass, plants, branches, bugs.
rebootd
Not eating meat is a choice, millions of Hindu’s and Buddists have done so for thousands of years for religious reasons, many living very healthy long lives. Yes they cherish milk and milk products but the stricter ones won’t touch eggs, meat or fish.
A piece of steak contains 13 amino acids, while mung (or moong) beans and basmati rice eaten together contain all 23 ammino acids humans need for a full protein.
Where is your evidence that we should “we should stay the hell away from grains, corn, and probably rice as well”?
Mexicans and Native American Indians have eaten corn successfully for generations and it is currently a staple food in parts of Africa, and rice is a staple across Asia, China, India and some of Africa. Grains integrated with pulses, fruit and vegertables, tubers and roots, herbs and spices are all good food, if the user knows what they are doing. Yes, many of these peoples eat a small amount of meat, but those who choose to avoid it are just as healthy.