Food is a constant, or so we would like to think. Because we need to eat, and because agriculture has been a stable societal element since the Neolithic Age, it is easy to assume that the there is nothing more natural than depending on the purposeful culturing of other organisms, both plant and animal. In this train of thought, only the obviously-chemical Twinkies and Sliders become the ‘bad food,’ and we can gravitate to anything marketed as ‘green’ or ‘organic’ for clean-conscious dining. While in some ways this can be true, new findings are starting to show that a revision of how we think about food is a more pressing problem than we originally thought. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, much of this conversation is based around meat.
When one thinks of the consequences of a meat-based diet, animal cruelty and poor health are often the first topics that come to mind. Yet, while both of these points are important and worthy of much discussion, in the past five years a new concern has began to take precedence on the world stage. Through studies conducted by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), universities, and private environmental groups, meat-production has revealed itself to be a leading contributor to global warming, environmental degradation, and national carbon-footprints. This, as opposed to other anti-meat production arguments, is a problem that cannot be easily ignored. Feeling a responsibility to animals can be turned into a caricature of bleeding-heart naïve hippydome. Shouldering the responsibility of your health, both mental and physical, can be considered so personal, so ‘that’s not my problem,’ that it leaves the sphere of public discussion. But understanding that your Big Mac may be hastening our planet’s inability to support human life is harder to wave off. Whether we like it or not, eating is no longer private: our every decision reflects our responsibility to the world, and each other.
The grievances of meat-production can be largely classified into four areas:
- Greenhouse gas emissions. Our current form of meat-production emits high amounts of harmful gasses into the environment. Some of these come from expected sources, such as those released during the making and use of fertilizer. Others are not as obvious, such as the amount of methane released by highly concentrated cattle. Even the amount of C02 released by these purposefully-overpopulated animal populations has reached critical levels: for example, producing a half-pound of chicken for consumption is equal to driving a two-thousand pound car 0.75 miles; a half-pound of beef is equal to a staggering 9.81 miles.
- Land and water use. Raising livestock puts the earth under a double-strain, for not only does grazing require immense tracks of land, but an equally large amount of land is needed for growing crops to feed them. The problems this raises are broad, ranging from soil desiccation to the release of fertilizer into groundwater to the clearing of rainforests and other fragile habitats. And as freshwater becomes increasingly scare, the amount needed to sustain these animals is taking on a greater cost than its monetary figures reveal.
- Transportation of food. With the expansion of the global market, all food (vegetable produce included) is moving further than ever before. To make things worse, the use of fossil fuels and the release of harmful emissions endemic of transportation is exaggerated here by the need for these products to be cold, as well as the need for them to be shipped quickly.
- Waste and excess. Even though dieting and weight-management concerns have helped consumers say no to overeating, that does not mean that we aren’t over-demanding. The need for meat products drives the meat industry, regardless if we end up eating it or not. So leaving half your plate at a restaurant does not count as cutting back – only a change in what we expect in serving sizes will.
Of course, there are no clear answers in this meat muddle. Meat-production does have its benefits, such as job creation and the transformation of otherwise inedible plants (grasses) into a food source for humans. However, as with all things, the question comes down to cost – even in terms of the types of limits we put on meat-production. For example, if our concerns lie with land and water usage, then it makes the most sense to continue condensing the meat industry into factory farms, which use as little space and resources as possible. Is severely worsening the quality of stock animals’ lives worth lessening the environmental costs?
While I do not have the answer to this, my answer is no. Mitigating negative effects seems to more often pass the harm along rather than making it disappear, spreading it thin enough to avoid notice until it is often too late. For instance, reducing grazing-land for cattle means a heavier reliance upon corn-feed …which in turn leads to larger amount of methane produced by the livestock. Overcrowding with chickens leads to more injury and death, and thereby means that more chickens must be raised to keep ahead of the losses. It is a race without end.
So what emerges from this mess? The closer you are to the food you eat, the better. The less meat you consume, the less need there is for the undeniable harm caused by the meat-production industry. Vegan and vegetarianism, then, reveals itself to not only be a choice of taste and health, but of responsibility to the earth and its inhabitants. Of course, not every community has a farmer’s market, and not everyone will become a vegan or vegetarian. But the one thing that everyone can do is to cut back significantly. Instead of having three servings of meat a day (or more!), limit yourself to one. Incorporate meatless days into your schedule. Cut out meat where it is not needed. If you are to eat meat, try to offset your carbon footprint by walking or biking to the grocery or restaurant. But above all, be aware of what you eat. Eating is never neutral, and more than any other activity, connects us to each other and our planet. Beware of habitual meat consumption and reliance upon imported produce, for the consequences of convenience can be very large indeed.
Interested? Here are links to helpful articles for further reading:
Anex, Robert. “Understanding Your Carbon Footprint.” The University of Iowa. http://www.iowabeefcenter.org/content/Cattlemen’sConference/Anex_Cattle_Feeders_June2009.pdf
Carus, Felicity. “UN urges global move to a meat and dairy-free diet.” The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
Frey, Sibylle and John Barette. “The Footprint of Scotland’s Diet: The environmental burden of what we eat.” Stockholm Environment Institute. http://sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Future/scotland-diet.pdf
Goodland, Robert and Jeff Anhang. “Livestock and Climate Change.” World Watch. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
Levitt, Tom. “Have we got it right on meat and greenhouse gas emissions?” The Ecologist. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/458218/have_we_got_it_right_on_meat_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions.html
Wallace, Jacob. “Easy on the Oil: Policy options for a smaller waistline and a lighter footprint.” http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Wallace_A70.pdf