Commentary
Dave Steele: Meat just doesn't cut it in today's environment
By Dave Steele
There’s little doubt about it. Humans evolved as omnivores. The shapes of our teeth, the lengths of our intestines, and a wealth of fossil evidence (arrowheads, butchered animal bones, et cetera) all point to an omnivorous past.
Natural selection favoured meat eating because it allowed our ancestors to survive where edible plant supplies were in short supply. Our forebears could flourish on fruits and grains and berries when those were plentiful and switch to meat when edible plants were scarce. Had early humans not led omnivorous lives, they almost certainly would have died out.
But that was then. This is now.
In the past, humans were few and far between. The pressure we exerted on the world around us was slight. Today, with our population approaching seven billion, the pressures we exert are enormous. No longer a boon to humanity, our hunger for meat has become the single biggest contributor to planetary degradation. Be it global warming, fossil-fuel depletion, water depletion or desertification, meat consumption is a prime factor in the problem. And meat takes food out of the mouths of the hungry.
On today’s factory farms, it takes 2.4 pounds of dry corn, soy, and oats to produce a pound of chicken; eight to 10 pounds of similar feed is required for every pound of beef. According to Cornell University’s David Pimentel, nearly 800 million people could fill their stomachs for a year on the grain fed to U.S. animals alone. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
According to Pimentel’s careful reckoning, modern western diets could not exist at all were it not for the enormous amount of fossil fuels we pour into them. Just getting nitrogen into our fertilizers takes the equivalent of nearly one million barrels of oil each day. Add in the other components—the pesticides, the herbicides, the combines, the tractors, and all the rest—and the numbers become astronomical. As Pimentel shows, the way we raise meat, it takes some 28 calories of fossil fuel input to generate one calorie of food value. Even modern lacto-ovo vegetarian diets, he warns, can’t be maintained in our world without excessive amounts of oil and gas.
Meat production accelerates global warming, too. All those burned fossil fuels have to go somewhere. Worse, our cows and sheep and other ruminants emit methane as they digest their feed. Together, Canada’s 10 million cows release the methane equivalent of a half ton of CO2 for every man, woman, and child in the country. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, animal agriculture is responsible for a bigger share of global warming than all of the cars and trucks and ships and planes in the world combined!
And animal agriculture emits other pollutants, too. Nearly three-quarters of North American ammonia emissions are due directly or indirectly to animal farming. Manure contaminates our ground water. The Worldwatch Institute reports that farm animals in the United States generate 130 times more bodily waste than humans.
Animal agriculture destroys land and habitat, too. Raising livestock and the soybeans to feed them is easily the biggest contributor to rainforest destruction. More than two acres of tropical rainforest are cleared per second to graze or feed farm animals. Around the world, tens of billions of tons of topsoil are lost each year to cultivation of animal feed crops.
Fish are no solution either. We’ve mined the oceans so badly that almost all of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline. Hunting? Sorry. All of North America’s wildlife would be wiped out were we to satisfy our current hunger for meat that way.
In the past, the meat eating was a boon to us. But today, the opposite is true. Natural selection operates on the here and now. If we don’t curtail our consumption of meat and eggs and milk and cheese, natural selection will eventually work in the strongest way against our meat-eating habits.
But we’re lucky. We evolved as omnivores. We can choose what we eat. Plants or animals.
Choose plants. There’s an awful lot at stake.
Dave Steele is the vice president of Earthsave Canada.



E-mail
Print

Comments
Where you are going to get all the natural fertilizers you need for all these crops? Human feces?
The large scale plant farming necessary would also have serious ecological repercussions.
Your first question is a strawman argument. No large industrialized culture has ever attempted to go collectively vegetarian. So we have no successes or failures to measure against.
Your second question answers itself. The land used to feed animals can be used to feed people instead, with surplus food to spare.
Darwin was right..people who make stupid and willfully ignorant choices will eventually die off and their progeny will either smarten up or lead the kind of lives that Thomas Hobbes wrote about.
Small, organic farms that raise livestock and chickens humanely and cleanly could dramatically reduce the waste and pollution. This would naturally raise the cost of animal protein which would deter people from eating as much. Kind of like what happened when gas prices were so high.
Better nutritional education for the public would also help.
And once again I see the usual suspects here passing judgement on those who chose a different diet then their own. That kind of small-minded rhetoric isn't going to convince anyone to see your point of view. No one.
No large industrialized culture has done it because it's not viable.
The low grade feed that domestic animals eat is not a viable replacement. Have you ever considered how many pounds of corn or grain it would take to grow a pound of human?
The reason people keep trying to sneak animal protein into cattle and chicken feed is because it is much a more efficient.
The planet cannot sustain 7 billion plant eating people either.
A mix of vegetable and animal food can be produced locally year round in the Canadian climate. A nutritious plant diet cannot.
As for disease from food the most recent is scare is from tainted peanuts and quite few people have have been poisoned by spinach and lettuce over the years too.
The answer is in population control, better distribution of wealth and food, more local food production and common sense.
It doesn't matter how valid either life choice is, wishing death to other people is probably the most despicable thing you can do. By speaking like an ignorant teenager, what you actually accomplished was making people believe that vegetarians care more about feeling superior to others than actually reducing their impact on the planet.
I can't think of something more pathetic than a vegetarian barbecue. Tasteless tofu dogs, bland veggie burgers, with a side of veggies and dip. Think of all the dishes that cheese makes possible, nachos, pizza, without it, italian food would become a thing of legend.
Dave Steele, Vice President of "Earthsave Canada", doesn't once mention the suffering animals endure for our survival and quality of life, isn't that the bottom line?
The pollution caused by the live stock industry is not a valid argument because you would then need to shut, down, everything. No cars, No planes, everything runs on fossil fuel at some capacity. That's not the industry's fault, that's our government for allowing patents to destroy the possibility of advancement in technology, which of course extends to the issue of global warming.
Blaming the meat industry for global warming is like blaming Penthouse for child molesters, or Led Zeppelin for a rise in opiate production, or Led Zeppelin for sending troops to Afghanistan to ensure a rise in opiate production.
You should blame yourself for actually believing you ever lived in a democracy.
Is the reason you date 20 somethings because you eat plants or because you are shallow and unable to relate to women close to your own age?
Contaminated meat is an increasingly effective way to thin out the population, and is caused by the deplorable conditions in which these animals are raised to serve humans as food. I choose plants, too.
I happen to think we (our culture)eat way too much meat and should treat domestic animals better BUT
Tell me did your cat choose plants too?
You guys are like religious fanatics. You don't let facts or logic get in the way of a good story. You try to convert everybody around you. And everybody that doesn't believe what you believe is going to hell.
Don't blame me (or my type) for all the misery in the world. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Given all the suffering and torture animals go through to provide meatheads with their daily fix of dead flesh
I'll lose zero sleep over my wishing a similar fate on all you mystery meat wiener eaters.
As for my choice in dating partners I've given equal time to ladies my own age who, no surprise, were easier to relate to
but were carrying baggage a whole 777 load of therapists couldn't begin to deal with. Why just in the last 12 months I had
one two month relationship with another Dragon a few months older than myself who I still think is one pretty fine fox but
she could not get past the fact I forgot her birthday while I was on the other side of the globe..my bad but wtf..get over it.
I just recently concluded a six week relationship with a psychologist a couple of years younger who was a few sandwiches
short of a picnic in the emotions section of her psyche and I'm pretty sure I escaped a fate worse than listeriosis laced with a
generous portion of mad cow by making a hasty escape. After dating three different shrinks over the years I should know better
by now.
That brings me back to the reason I date women half my age. It keeps me feeling and thinking young which in turn does wonders
for my overall health...unlike the fate that befalls meat eaters who invariably go through life with a foot in the proverbial charnal house.
No surprise there are meatheads posting nonsensical blather here...next to consumerism there isn't a more common and hard to kick
addiction out there than those addicted to all kinds of comfort food...especially the dead animal variety.
Anyone lucky enough to access three square meals a day has the power to make a tremendous impact on their ecological footprint by going veg. The collective significance of each individual choice cannot be overemphasized.
Another poster mentioned that Steele's article didn't focus on animal welfare...
EarthSave and countless other environmental/animal-friendly groups have been making the point for decades that our cultural addictions to animal products contribute to the most suffering and deprivation animals are subjected to on the planet. But the fact that literally billions of animals are commodified on a daily basis, butchered by people rarely met by the consumer, and devoured with little knowledge, if any, of how the animals were raised and transported doesn't seem to have been enough to wake up some people to the incredible impact the food on their plates really has on the well being of others.
The personal health benefits from consuming more vegetables and fruits and limiting or eliminating entirely products derived from animals seems to be the biggest reason people go vegetarian and vegan. But there have always been environmental reasons to feel good about that choice too. Global warming just happens to be one gigantic side effect that- unlike runoff from factory farms, or the unpleasant business of killing animals one becomes attached to on the small family farms people like to romanticize about a return to these days (as if the animals volunteer to surrender their lives with gratitude to their butchers) - makes it impossible to turn a blind eye to the perils of melting ice packs, and the catastrophes wrought by crazy weather.
So what difference does it make, as one commentor has posted here, whether or not there have been any cultures before now that have managed to survive without supplementing their diets with animals products, if the opportunity to do so today is available for those of us who recognize the value of adopting such a lifestyle?
Today the whole world is watching the west... growing affluence in China and India means many there are busy emulating our supposed 'good life', including our utterly unsustainable, animal product-centred diets. It's up to all of us to start modeling a very different 'good life' as our warming planet moves ever closer to the global village.
Stock-free farming is gaining interest in North America, and already has a certification progam in the UK. Veganism today, is much farther ahead than where vegetarianism was in the 70's (thanks to the world wide web it is a truly global lifestyle movement). There has never been a more crucial time to look seriously at the points Steele touches upon in his excellent article.
People walk around obese while others starve. We "grow" animals to simply satisfy our tastebuds and those involved (meat eaters and producers) con themselves and others into thinking that plant based foods can not provide the essential nutrients to maintain health. Our society is so sad in that we refuse to adapt even when the evidence is all around us that the planet can no longer support the greed and gluttony.
Casman55 mentioned contamination in peanuts, lettuce and spinach... I would like to remind you that salmonella and ecoli are not naturally found in plant based foods but are a direct result of human/animal waste.
Mark Jaworski Vancouver BC
Just a couple quick responses to other posts...
To dogmann... overpopulation wouldn't be a problem (there wouldn't BE 'over' population) if many of developed society's people didn't eat meat and other animal products. This animal-based consumption is what strains and degrades all of our resources, which is only exacerbated by not just more and more people eating that way, but by the people already on the planet increasing their consumption. Factory farming and all the atrocities that go along with it, for the animals and the environment, are the only way to produce enough animal-based products to meet the demand, which in the end is killing us all.
To Latarnik, you seem to like to throw out generalizations without being aware of actual facts. But ultimately, what does it matter if there has or hasn't been a vegan gold medalist or Nobel Prize Winner. That proves absolutely nothing, and certainly doesn't state whether being a vegan had or doesn't have anything to do with that. However, you seem to not know even about famous sprinter, Carl Lewis, who was a gold medalist AND a vegan; he ran his fastest times as a vegan, too. And while you like to boast about your physique, I doubt you have anything to compare to vegan athlete and multi-time winner of the Ironman triathlon, Dave Scott, or a bevy of many other runners, weight lifters, and cyclists who are all highly competitive, decorated, and vegan.
As for Nobel Prize winners, ...Isaac Bashevis Singer, George Bernard Shaw, and Albert Einstein were vegetarian and strongly felt that this was a higher and better state for themselves and society, and the future of both.
I haven't forgotten the cheap and desperate shot taken by whiteyy whose defensive sounding post resorted to making an implication that since I had time to make multiple comments here I must not be doing anything productive with my time as if farmers were the only people capable of multitasking. Yeah...farmers can sure multitask what with all whining they do while they're filling the spreader with chemicals or injecting their livestock with hormones and excessive antibiotics so they can fatten their wallets at the expense of the health of those ignorant enough to eat their dangerous products.
You might want to speak to Brendan Brazier, author of "The Thrive Diet" and vegan ironman triathlete!
Thank you to the Georgia Straight and David Steele for this excellent article.
this debate has two sides
a meatless diet is more ethical and healthier than a diet that includes significant amounts of meat.
vs
meat is tasty and i will try to refute any argument that suggests i shouldn't eat it.
True there are plenty of valid arguments against vegetarianism but really only one motive to fight for the meat based diet: Old Habits Die Hard
He lost his research grant and I felt sorry for him.
There is a distinct possibility that Jews and Muslim do not eat pork because of envy. They knew that it takes 10 times as much feed to obtain one kilo of edible pork , compared to kilo of lamb or goat. They went to their priests and demanded a law forbidding rich people to eat pork or they will not put anything on a collection plate or sacrificial altar. I believe that sacrificial lambs barbecued on the altar were eaten by the priests (after the service) not by Gods. Threatened with mutiny they declared pork to be non kosher. There is no better explanation of aversion to pork. With more than half of the human race starving, one third would not eat pork for religious reason, one third would not eat beef (Hindus) for religious reason and some Africans would not eat eggs, because they believe that they come out from unclean place (!)
I feel sorry for all those religious fanatics and smokers who complain about a lack of clean air.
I eat whatever makes me feel good and keeps healthy. At the age of 70 I do not need doctors or Viagra! Porridge, fruits, roasted pork and red wine keep me happy.
Mark Jaworski, Vancouver BC
thanks
Post a comment