Diet and the Environment

I recently posted a piece on saving the whales after I learned of plans to dramatically increase whaling by Japan, Iceland, and Norway. I was particularly infuriated by Japan’s decision to start killing Humpback whales, which I spent some time admiring recently in Hawaii; they are highly sentient peaceful creatures whose songs are as complex as symphonies and pose no threats to humans. The fact that we still think it’s okay to slaughter them– regardless of whether it’s “sustainable”– to me is the height of human arrogance and immorality (ok, maybe not the height- what’s going on in Sudan is way worse, but still pretty bad, especially coming from advanced industrial nations).

In the comments there were a few exchanges in which someone assumed that I am a “silly” vegetarian (which I am, vegan in fact) and then went on to say what prompted this piece: that vegetarianism has nothing to do with the environment or economics.

I don’t want to get into a discussion (now) about the ethics of killing animals for food, but ONLY focus on the environment and economics piece. Diet is the single most influential aspect of human behavior with regards to environmental impacts. Please, no matter what your ethics consider the following:

1. Meat production is a highly inefficient system of producing food- growing plants to feed to animals to feed to humans wastes about 90% of the energy

2. The environmental impacts of animal agriculture are tremendous on every dimension- water use, sewage, energy, soil erosion, etc. In fact, here’s a link to a paper that estimates that if everyone turned to a plant-based diet we would cut CO2 emissions by 21% (remember, Kyoto is only 5% so that’s 4 times the magnitude).

3. Slaughterhouses have barely changed since Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Even if you don’t care about the treatment of animals, check out the human conditions in these places.

4. It’s all about economics since the grain that is fed to animals is highly subsidized and one of the reasons meat is so cheap is because the environmental externalities are not included in the price (and they are huge, including other subsidizes such as water subsidies).

I don’t want to be preachy or come off as morally superior or anything like that, but diet has such a huge impact on the environment that it should be one of the first things people explore when thinking about their personal choices. I think the moral dimensions in terms of the treatment of animals only adds further weight to the argument against consuming large quantities of meat, but you don’t need to share my morals to absorb the basic facts about the environmental impacts and the underlying economics.

Here are some other websites to check out:

http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html

http://www.radioproject.org/archive/2001/2701.html

J.S.

Comments

[Megan]

I simply can't fathom being a vegan - honey and yogurt are just too yummy. Plus most of the vegans I know are undernourished. However, if meat were sustainably (and naturally) produced, it would be more expensive and less consumed, which would help curb weight problems and be better for the environment. We need to eat more quinoa. I had it for dinner last night, and it's a super-tasty, super-healthy superfood!

[J.S.]

Remember Megan- coke and twizzlers is a vegan diet- vegan doesn't mean healthy- most vegans I know (including myself) who have taken the time to understand healthy nutrition are the most healthy people I know and there are huge health gains from a vegan diet. It is by far the best decision I have ever made and my appreication for food is at an all-time high. To be honest, I kind of feel sorry for people who need to eat animals to get what they consider good taste- there's a whole world they're missing. Anyway, that's not the real point, I am not advocating anything except for people to come to grips with the realities of animal agriculture for the environment- even if meat-eaters cut back on meat intake that would make a huge difference.

Thanks,
J.S.

[joshua corning]

I fail to see how this is in anyway not an ethical view...be it for stopping the suffering of animals or for stopping the suffering of the enviornment.

I can say I am for ending all ag subsidies though...at least we know those actually kill people. You know actual human beings...I have no problem with considering killing people to be unethical.

The rest are a property rights issue and should be dealt with on a personal level...put your ethics where your wallet is as it were.

[Robert Schwartz]

You can blather all you wish. I won't argue with you as you cannot be argued out of your religious beliefs. If you wish to be a Jain or a Buddhist, go ahead. But please recognize that yours is a religious choice, and has nothing to do with the environment or economics.

[Dano]

But please recognize that yours is a religious choice, and has nothing to do with the environment or economics.

Yeah, except the 1/2 of the post where he argued the economics of his point.

Best,

D

[back40]

The problem is a failure of scholarship, as usual.

Meat production is a highly inefficient system of producing food- growing plants to feed to animals to feed to humans wastes about 90% of the energy

Rubbish. People can't even digest most animal food. Animals can digest people food, but that's a silly way to feed animals, one that is only feasible when people food is produced in surplus, usually due to markets skewed by regulation of some sort, such as subsidies. You need to do some study.

The environmental impacts of animal agriculture are tremendous on every dimension- water use, sewage, energy, soil erosion, etc. In fact, here’s a link to a paper that estimates that if everyone turned to a plant-based diet we would cut CO2 emissions by 21% (remember, Kyoto is only 5% so that’s 4 times the magnitude).

Nonsense. Plants use way, way, way more of all these things than animals and is tremendously more destructive of the environment. Tilling soil to plant crops is like skinning an animal or stripping the bark from a tree. The soil oozes it's life away, oozing moisture and emitting carbon in various forms by the gigaton. You need to do your homework.

Slaughterhouses have barely changed since Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Even if you don’t care about the treatment of animals, check out the human conditions in these places.

Nonsense, and rather stupid nonsense at that. You have no clue what you are talking about.

It’s all about economics since the grain that is fed to animals is highly subsidized and one of the reasons meat is so cheap is because the environmental externalities are not included in the price (and they are huge, including other subsidizes such as water subsidies).

This is back asswards. The grain is subsidized for the sake of grain farmers. Livestock operations deal with the world as it is. When grain is cheaper than grass it takes a ideologue of a special business plan to stick to grass.

I don’t want to be preachy or come off as morally superior or anything like that, but diet has such a huge impact on the environment that it should be one of the first things people explore when thinking about their personal choices.

If you walked the talk, and actually had explored the issue that would be different. You've failed to do even a minimal investigation and are making a fool of yourself. You come off as a mean-spirited fundamentalist who is immune to knowledge and uninterested in reasoning from evidence. Preaching is what such people always do but is stinks. This is a moral, ethical, intellectual and aesthetic failure.

I think the moral dimensions in terms of the treatment of animals only adds further weight to the argument against consuming large quantities of meat, but you don’t need to share my morals to absorb the basic facts about the environmental impacts and the underlying economics.

That's all you have. Your morals are based on supernatural beliefs of some sort, as are those of other fundamentalists, but have no basis in reality and are not reasoned from evidence. You have a right to your beliefs, and a right to live as you choose, but you should be honest and informed, and simply admit that you don't have reasoned arguments, just a sort of squick.

[joshua corning]

back40 has a point...a cow can make hay into human food.

[Dano]

b40:

(If I may, back40 doesn't let me post comments at his blog refuting his uninformed stances, so I have to point out his uninformed stance and misunderstandings here.)

Rubbish. People can't even digest most animal food. Animals can digest people food, but that's a silly way to feed animals (blather omitted)

Meat is highly inefficient to produce. A kg of meat requires 1000 kg of corn, and a kg of corn requires 1000 kg water. Therefore corn is more efficient to produce than meat.

This is basic stuff you learn in your first bio class in Uni. - let me know where you live and I can help you enroll.

Nonsense. Plants use way, way, way more of all these things than animals and is tremendously more destructive of the environment.

sigh...except when they are not.

Animals eat plants that need fert. Animals impact the land. Plants need fert.

Animals + fert = higher impact.

This is basic stuff you learn in your first bio class in Uni. - let me know where you live and I can help you enroll.

Nonsense, and rather stupid nonsense at that. You have no clue what you are talking about.

factless assertion aside, you are incorrect. The May Harpers explains this phenomenon in detail. You should buy it, read the article, and then correct your comment here.

This is back asswards. The grain is subsidized for the sake of grain farmers. Livestock operations deal with...

The point was externalities. You didn't address that.

You've failed to do even a minimal investigation and are making a fool of yourself.

As we can see, you are arguing from ignorance.

[allen claxton]

j.s.: Even if you don’t care about the treatment of animals, check out the human conditions in these places.

b40:Nonsense, and rather stupid nonsense at that. You have no clue what you are talking about.

I'd love to hear about 20th century advances in technology and workplace safety at slaughterhouses. Like J.S., I don't really think that they exist; perhaps there've been some, but not enough to make working in a slaughterhouse not one of the most dangerous jobs in America, and underpaid to boot.

I do agree that livestock like bison that are adapted to the native, non-ag plants in America ought to be seen as The Future Of Meat. That said, I agree anyone concerned with global warming ought to consider being a vegetarian a couple of days a week.

[J.S.]

Wow- I have never seen more aversion to facts and reality then in some of these comments- I don't even know what to say- my position has ZERO to do with religion and 100% to do with science- I abhor religion- if you refuse to acknowledge that 2+2=4 we really can't have an intelligent discussion. This is the first time I have seen such inane foolishness on this site and hope it's not a trend that continues. For all of those who know that what I am saying is true don't waste your time with these people who probably think the Earth is flat or humanity has been around for 6,000 years.

J.S.

[Wy]

Meat is highly inefficient to produce. A kg of meat requires 1000 kg of corn, and a kg of corn requires 1000 kg water. Therefore corn is more efficient to produce than meat.

This is basic stuff you learn in your first bio class in Uni. - let me know where you live and I can help you enroll.

True, meat is at a higher trophic level. HOWEVER, there's QUITE a bit of land out there that is unusabe by humans. When you can digess grasslands and scrub, let me know, we'll have a salad together.

Animals are a very useful means of converting undigestible vegetable matter into digestible protien.

"Basic Stuff", indeed.

Granted - Feedlots and corn fed beef (which isn't as digestible to cows as grass) are a waste. But to dismiss livestock as a useful.. no, beneficial means of food generation of otherwise inedible foods is pretty damned stupid, if you ask me.

[J.S.]

Wy- the overwhelming majority of animals are fed with corn and soy, not grass- plus, there is the refrigeration and transport and the methane released- yes, a completely rangeland-based agriculture would be more efficient than factory farms, but that's not what we have in the U.S. nor would it provide the quantities of meat that Americans consume.

J.S.

[Robert Schwartz]

It is not an economic point. We would save money if we lived as Buddhist monks. But most of us don't want to. Preferences are exogenous and cannot be criticized economically. J.S. whoever he, she or it may be has made the religious choice to be a vegan. Fine. Go ahead. But please recognize that it is basically an emotional choice, one which most people in most circumstances would call religious.

[JKH]

Two comments

1. As Robert and others have mentioned in somewhat different terms, minimizing the footprint of per capita dietary consumption (or of consumption more generally) or maximizing the number of people who can be fed from a unit of resources is not necessarily an economic optimization, as it doesn't account for preferences.

As still others have said, the key is for people to pay the price of their convictions. Suppose the externalities in grain production, non-point pollution, etc. were internalized, and the price of beef steaks rose to $X.XX per pound. If I pay that price, which now represents the opportunity costs of all resources used in the production of the steaks, might a person then fire up his/her grill without objection (I'll even chip in a little extra for charcoal-related air pollution)?

2. I hesitate to support one of back40's points, given his unnecessarily rude tone earlier, but I did a quick Google search on meatpacking injuries and came up with the following:

Katherine Taylor-Shirley reported in the January 1989 Monthly Labor Review that meatpacking injuries ran at a rate of 31.4 per 100 full-time equivalent workers between 1977-1981, and fell to 27.5 between 1982-1986. Current BLS numbers seem to be in the mid-teens, suggesting that safety has improved. One caveat to this, though, is that there is concern that a reduction in enforcement and changes in reporting methods (such as outsourcing cleaning contracts, and not reporting injuries to subcontracted employees) has led to underreporting of injuries (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2005/01
/stronger-inspection-and-monitoring-by.html)

Many other industries have shown marked improvements in safety, not, as Adam Smith might say, from the benevolence of the employers or stockholders, but from their own self-interest. The advent of worker's compensation has probably helped improve conditions as much, if not more, than OSHA has.

[joshua corning]

Rubbish. People can't even digest most animal food. Animals can digest people food, but that's a silly way to feed animals (blather omitted)

Meat is highly inefficient to produce. A kg of meat requires 1000 kg of corn, and a kg of corn requires 1000 kg water. Therefore corn is more efficient to produce than meat.

but you don't have to feed a cow corn...it can eat things that grow on unproductive scap land or crops that take less water (no irrigation water) or straw from the wheat or other grains...ie it does not eat the grainbut the waste stalk...

your problem with meat is not meat but corn subsidies...

[Dano]

True, meat is at a higher trophic level. HOWEVER, there's QUITE a bit of land out there that is unusabe by humans. When you can digess grasslands and scrub, let me know, we'll have a salad together.

Cute. I'm not sure how this addresses my point, since you didn't explain how it does, but I'm sure you're satisfied with your answer.

Best,

D

[J.S.]

Here's a link to the facts on grass-fed beef.

J.S.

[J.S.]

http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm

[Aaron]

Why the fixation on veganism as a religion? People choose to avoid eating meat and animal products for any number of reasons. Some are ethical, some are health-based, and some are economic (you may like meat and eggs, but if the price is too high...). One other valid, economically rational, reason for substituting away from animal products is because of environmental concerns. I enjoy the taste of steak and eggs for breakfast, but consume fewer hunks of steak because I know that there are environmental costs from my steak not taken into account by the price. Many on this site seem willing to acknowledge that at the margin those concerned about the environment probably drive less than others, why doesn't the same hold true for meat and animal product consumption?

[J.S.]

thanks aaron for the common sense that seems to be largely absent sometimes- i will be expanding on this theme this weekend so check for it

j.s.

[justakim]

Do you understand the impact on standard of living the ability to afford and consume meat is? You're not just asking for people to eat different food. You're asking people to drop their standard of living to a diet that many consider inferior and far less satisfying. I think there's a lot of economics here, but you're being one-sided in your approach.

Also note that we find plenty of other uses for corn and there are attempts to use surplus soy for boidiesel.

I am all for improved efficiency and humane treatment, but you have to be very careful when suggesting people consume less meat because you have more than the 'environmental good' on your mind when you think it's a great idea to tell other people not to. And that pisses people off.

In addition, I find the bastardization of soy into meat-like products to be atrocious and culinarily disgusting. It makes soy look bad, when traditional uses were pretty tasty to begin with. (;

[justakim]

On further thought, I was thinking I should compare my words to the rhetoric in driving and oil consumption. Well, mass transit and cars use the same products while one is more efficient and generally less convenient than the other. The difference would be similar to range-fed beef to the usual. We're looking at doing the job in a more environmentally viable, socially responsible way.

And while using bikes is encouraged, that's not something most people are willing to do for various reasons. It might be better, but it's not an acceptable alternative to most. While some people will be guilted into trading in a car for a bike, there will be few willing converts and efficient and effective mass transit would be an easier sell.

Choose your battles. Do not estrange people who could otherwise be persuaded.

[Kevin]

The thing that really gets me about the arguments against J.S. is people equating religion with the ethics of not wanting to harm living, scientifically proven sentient beings.

I mean, as far as I can tell, religion, or faith, as we know it in our day and age, is basically believing in something despite the fact that there is no scientifically validate-able evidence for it - or in some cases, believing in something despite the overwhelming scientific evidence against it.

In this case, some commenters claim that the authors bias toward not causing pain to other living sentient creatures is a "religion". How? Where is the faith aspect? Are the commenters trying to say that believing that animals can feel pain is a "faith-based" belief? I'm sorry, but lets take a look inside one of these poor creatures and see all the nerves. Yes it is scientifically proven that animals feel pain. Is the commenter saying that animals don't have thoughts, and that believing they do is "religion"? Sorry again, animals have brains and many animals have IQs higher than that of infants. Although I don't condone it, anyone taking the stance that killing animals is OK because they are not as smart as humans would also have to condone abortion, and in fact, post-natal abortions (and cannibalism?) on the same grounds.

There is no "religion" involved in believing that animals can suffer, and not wanting to be the cause of that suffering. On the other hand, the belief that animals are somehow fundamentally different than humans because they "don't have souls" *is* a faith-based religious belief - were it not, one would think that there would be abundant empirical evidence that 1) humans have "souls", and 2) Animals do not. So isn't the argument *for* eating meat more of a religious argument?

I wonder if it is only with the advent of our modern religions that people have come to believe that disrespect for other living beings is the norm, and that having respect for other living beings constitutes "religion".

[Jan]

Ok, I didn't find this thread until after I posted the one (with no name-sorry newbie) on Normative vs. Positive economics of meat. I'm not going to repeat that here, but working backwards in the comments:
1. Animals do feel pain, but all are consumed by other animals in a much more hideous way than a caring life with a quick death by caring humans.

2. Huge slaughter houses do have some major problems in animal practices and human injuries/stress. Small family owned butchers do not. Both the animals and the people are well taken care of. (for comments on "but you're killing them" see 1. above)

3. Veganism or whatever you choose to eat is based on a choice you make based on what you choose to believe about life. I choose to believe in a food chain and eco-system and my choices reflect that. I eat nutrient-dense foods, grown organically, using permaculture and animals to provide a closed loop circle that uses no inputs and provides no waste or pollution. It reflects my beliefs about what is healthy for the environment.

4. Animals raised on 100% grass do not waste energy at all. They are much more efficient at converting the sun's energy into energy for other omnivores and carnivores. We are not able to do that because we do not have 4 stomachs like they do. We instead substitute large amounts of enviromentally-devistating grains for protein. This is very inefficient. The figures you are quoting are based on commercial grain-fed cattle. The only reason to eat that is to make the grain industry richer (along with their soy profits). All indigenous people around the world ate sustainable meat of some type (see the Weston A. Price Foundation web site), not grain-fed. Of course we won't eat rodents, bugs, worms, sea-slugs, etc. so we use non-cattle eating groups for 'examples' of vegetarian societies.

5. It Is about economic subsidies to the grain industry, but not to the grain farmers or ranchers. Their subsidies just give them enough to pay off last year’s government loan and get a new one for this year. The companies that profit are the grain industries that buy grain at lower than cost prices and then use nice fat mark-ups in their own prices. Ranchers do use grain because it is cheep, thanks to our tax dollars in the government subsidies. If the true cost of growing grain (dare we even get into the environmental costs that are totally ignored) were used, the price of meat would go up to reflect a true cost, even though the ranchers would switch to all grass(since it would be cheaper than non-subsidized grain). However, the cost of most of what we eat-processed grains, oils, and soy, would be so high once we use up our huge surpluses, that meat would look cheap in comparison.

6. The health effects alone (Omega-3s, CLAs, Beta-carotene, Vitamin A,D, & E, lower cholesterol, reduced risk of cancer, reduced risk of diabetes, reduction of obesity, and much more) of grass-fed meat would convince anyone to stay away from grains and eat more sustainable, grass-fed, organic, meat. (See Eatwild.com for the scientific research on this health claim).

[Eric H]

Not sure I have much to offer to this. Most of these points are opinions presented as facts. My own opinion is that a plant-based diet is a more efficient way of feeding the human population than a meat-based diet, as Jason argues in the original post.

I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan, and not for religious or quasi-religious reasons, but for reasons of health, efficiency, and because I'm cheap. We don't live on twigs and berries (or just grain as implied above), and in fact I have had vegetarian- and even vegan-friendly meals that were too rich to finish. Indian, Mediterranean, and other cuisines feature rich diets without the central slab of flesh.

I'm interested in how meat production impacts land and water use, especially when it becomes government policy (the purpose for which that ridiculous novel, The Jungle, managed to serve - see Kolko's _Triumph of Conservatism_). The Bureau of Livestock and Mining basically serves the interests of the meat industry, sometimes in opposition to responsible ranchers. The WSJ covered a fight several years ago between the Malpais Borderlands group and the BLM. Among other nature-friendly policies, the ranchers started a grass bank and decided to let wildfires burn on their private land, but the BLM claimed the right to fight those fires when they threatened public land. The public land was mostly used by the same ranchers for grazing (private ranchers frequently lease the land adjacent to their own), so the BLM policy made no sense unless you considered the political alignment of the BLM with *ranching interests* (an abstraction) rather than *ranchers* (people). Bill Clinton was the president at the time, so this is an issue of entrenched bureaucracy, not partisanship.

Slightly closer to home, I have been told by corn farmers that every bit of corn grown in my valley goes into meat production, though the nearest large-scale slaughterhouse is 200 miles away. The only way they can afford the water is through subsidization, of which the costs probably far outweigh the benefits. Further from home, Latin American governments have used export and road-building subsidization to the meat industry. The result has been corruption (recall Chico Mendes) and wasteful slash-and-burn land management practices.

I hate talking about this subject with meat-eaters because they assume I am claiming moral superiority and get defensive. I am not - eat what you want, I don't care. Humans are an omnivorous species, so the claim that one choice or the other is the moral choice seems silly. For me, it's a personal choice like choosing a car for its fuel efficiency: I do it because I think it's good for my wallet. If there are positive (but pecuniary) externalities to my decision, that's incidental to the decision.