Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Vegetarian Is the New Prius

By Kathy Freston, Huffington Post. Posted February 7, 2007.


Livestock destroy the environment, so fill your bowl with veggies instead of veal.
02072007story
Advertisement

President Herbert Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." With warnings about global warming reaching feverish levels, many are having second thoughts about all those cars. It seems they should instead be worrying about the chickens.

Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

That's right, global warming. You've probably heard the story: Emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are changing our climate, and scientists warn of more extreme weather, coastal flooding, spreading disease, and mass extinctions. It seems that when you step outside and wonder what happened to winter, you might want to think about what you had for dinner last night. The U.N. report says almost a fifth of global warming emissions come from livestock (i.e., those chickens Hoover was talking about, plus pigs, cattle, and others) -- that's more emissions than from all of the world's transportation combined.

For a decade now, the image of Leonardo DiCaprio cruising in his hybrid Toyota Prius has defined the gold standard for environmentalism. These gas-sipping vehicles became a veritable symbol of the consumers' power to strike a blow against global warming. Just think: a car that could cut your vehicle emissions in half -- in a country responsible for 25% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. Federal fuel economy standards languished in Congress, and average vehicle mileage dropped to its lowest level in decades, but the Prius showed people that another way is possible. Toyota could not import the cars fast enough to meet demand.

Last year researchers at the University of Chicago took the Prius down a peg when they turned their attention to another gas guzzling consumer purchase. They noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels -- and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide -- as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

According to the UN report, it gets even worse when we include the vast quantities of land needed to give us our steak and pork chops. Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. As a result, farmed animals are probably the biggest cause of slashing and burning the world's forests. Today, 70% of former Amazon rainforest is used for pastureland, and feed crops cover much of the remainder. These forests serve as "sinks," absorbing carbon dioxide from the air, and burning these forests releases all the stored carbon dioxide, quantities that exceed by far the fossil fuel emission of animal agriculture.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the real kicker comes when looking at gases besides carbon dioxide -- gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, respectively. If carbon dioxide is responsible for about one-half of human-related greenhouse gas warming since the industrial revolution, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for another one-third. These super-strong gases come primarily from farmed animals' digestive processes, and from their manure. In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, vegetarianism, chickens, prius

Kathy Freston is a self-help author and personal growth and spirituality counselor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You have to remember that sourcing matters
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 7, 2007 1:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're flying in your vegetables from halfway around the world, then you might actually be doing more to raise greenhouse gas levels then if you buy eggs from a local organic farmer.

In addition, if you get your veggies from an industrial farm, it probably took more fossil fuel energy to grow those veggies then you will get by eating them - fertilizers, pesticides, tractor fuel, refrigeration and shipping all add up.

This doesn't mean an end to trade; I still go buy the fair trade coffee, but I turn down the Ecuadorian bananas, and I buy my food from local farmers instead of at the corporate supermarket (as much as possible). If they happen to raise chickens, that's fine with me.

On the other hand, factory farming of animals is a nightmare - polluting, inhumane, and unhealthy - but factory farming land for veggies is only marginally better (all the chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides tend to run right off into local waterways and groundwater, for example).

Sustainable agriculture was the only kind of agriculture prior to WWII - and 60 years of industrial agriculture is enough - we won't be able to survive much more of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» true! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Great article!
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Feb 7, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kathy,

I think you’ve made the argument just perfectly, and yet I know that many defensive progressive meat-eaters will come up with the same tired replies, almost as though they’ve ignored your entire article.

Clearly, for anyone who opposes cruelty to animals and opposes waste (funneling crops through animals), a vegetarian diet is the way to go.

At the very least, anyone who is going to continue to eat meat should watch the video link at www.Meat.org. If you don’t want to watch it, you shouldn’t pay people to do it.

Great post. And kudos to the Alternet for giving it top billing! THAT is SO GREAT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I respect your choice, but. . . . Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
Another great benefit
Posted by: mysticalrae on Feb 7, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for a meatless diet -- great health! People who eat no meat are more likely to have stronger bones, lower blood pressure, and are more resilient when it comes to attacks on the immune system. I am in my mid-fifties, and my doctor always comments on the fact that tests on my blood, etc., always come back in the same range as someone in their 20's. Great benefit!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More great benefits Posted by: dkm
» RE: More great benefits Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: More great benefits Posted by: sec55
» RE: More great benefits Posted by: Metesh-ah
» Another "yes, but" Posted by: Beck
» RE: Another "yes, but" Posted by: sunspot
Well Right- But Good Luck......
Posted by: bttl on Feb 7, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was totally right on- but good luck getting the meat eating public to change their ways. Add to that the howls from the beef lobby and the pork producers who will lament the attack on American farmers and on and on......

In reality, it all depends. As was pointed out in an above comment, eating vegetarian can be very eco-friendly if products are grown locally and organically. If your idea of eating vegetarian consists of raspberries in February in Michigan or something, well that's not too enviro friendly in terms of the CO2 emissions caused by jetting your fruit to you. So, sourcing locally grown fruit, vegies and grains whenever possible, basically eating lower on the food chain is better in terms of numerous environmental factors. Years ago this was pointed out in "Diet for a Small Planet".

However, just as Americans have become addicted to car travel and plane trips, so they also have come to believe that meat, and lots of it, is a necessary component of their diet. Many would feel deprived if they had to do without meat. I would say that a good many people have no clue how to cook meals that don't involve meat. And they will all rally to the defense of their meat-eating with all manner of justification to continue their addiction as they do for their driving and AC use and everything else. Bottom line- nothing will change unless or until it gets so expensive that the masses can't afford it. How about a carbon tax on beef?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The world is going VEGETARIAN! Posted by: TwinsFanatic
A first-class article. I thoroughly recommend more vegetables to everyone.
Posted by: akai ringo on Feb 7, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A really well-written, informative and amusing article. But I was taken aback by the emphasis on America as a meat-eating culture. Do Americans really eat that much meat? I'm not totally vegetarian - today we had some chicken in our "nabe" (a kind of hotpot stew) that we had for dinner, along with tofu, carrots, long onions, harusame (a kind of Chinese noodle) and various other assorted leaves. Delicious! When I went out for my afternoon walk, I bought, from our local roadside stall, some broccoli, potatoes, spinach and chingensai (a Japanese vagetable). Vegetables probably make up about 70 percent of our diet, while the rest is a mixture of fish (raw and cooked) and sprinklings of chicken and bacon. We've gradually been drifting into this diet over the past few years, and whether there is a direct causal connectin of not, I don't know, but all the aches and pains I used to have just aren't there now, and I haven't felt better in years. I can thoroughly recommend giving up meat (or cutting down on it very consdierably) to everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

svsiemers
Posted by: svsiemers on Feb 7, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a bit of erroneous information here. The article ignores the fact that there are factory farms and there are small family farms that raise animals without cruelty. They are pasture raised, fed no antibiotics, no growth hormones no grain and are often pastured on marginal land that would not be good for food production.

All life is sacred, whether it is a carrot or a steer. The carrot gives its life for us without being able to procreate, as it is a biennial and cannot reproduce unless it is left to flower and go to seed in its second year - at which time it is inedible. We live by eating living things. Unless you are a fruitarian, then it is unreasonable to claim vegetarianism is more ethical. However, there are ethics in HOW the food, whether it be plant or animal, is raised, as was pointed out in an earlier post.

If you are lucky enough to be healthy on a vegetarian diet and want to eat that way, I say go for it. I was a vegetarian for 15 years. After living with increasing health problems, I started doing some research and found that Vegetarian Times was often not scientifically correct. After six years of eating meat again, I am healthy. However, it wasn't enough just to eat meat. I learned to eat unprocessed local food. Unprocessed means no factory farming, no packaged convenience food, no GMO foods. It means raw milk and eggs from pastured animals. Local means no fuel to bring me food from faraway places.

For a good link on some counter arguments that are supported by studies, please follow this link and read it carefully. You have every right to disagree with it, but perhaps you will learn something new.

http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html

Susan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: svsiemers Posted by: henderson
» RE: svsiemers Posted by: TwinsFanatic
» RE: svsiemers : Byrnes had AIDS Posted by: AsatruBrewer
» RE: svsiemers Posted by: drmflorida
» good points Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: svsiemers Posted by: Elise
» RE: svsiemers Posted by: sec55
» ah, but it does matter Posted by: AdamG
» Good Points Posted by: Jarmadi
Old News
Posted by: Nellymae on Feb 7, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a well-written article, but I'm surprised most people who have responded seem to think this is new information. In fact, most concerned people have known this for many years, and there are many knowledgeable books and articles on the topic going back to the 1970s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, the difference is... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Definitely Old News Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Foreign grown produce is loaded with toxic chemicals
Posted by: edsmith on Feb 7, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After DDT and other toxins were banned from use in the US corporations began producing produce outside of the US and use the same chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers, that are know to cause serious harm to humans. If you can afford to buy lcoally grown produce and meat products, or domestic organic (No WalMart does not sell clean and organic stuff) you will be doing yourslef a great favor and probably cutting your risk of developing cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Faulty Assumptions in Article
Posted by: AndyF on Feb 7, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's assume that what the author wants happens. People become vegetarians and land is taken out of agricultural use and returns to forest or grasslands. What happens next? Animals move to the land, lots of different animals which also poop and fart just like cattle sheep and goats, so net-net how much will methane emissions decline, probably not so much if at all.

Also not discussed is the fact that animal agriculture consumes atmospheric CO2 through growing feed which in turn is released by the animals - so it is a cycle. What's being consumed is being emitted. Contrast this to fossil fuel use - carbon which is locked up in the ground in oil, coal, natural gas or other extracted fuel is burned and emits CO2 into the atmosphere which results in a net increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's fine that the author is a vegetarian and wants to convert others to vegetarianism, but if she wants to make a scientific/engineering argument for doing this, at least from the global warming perspective, she needs to do a little research and number crunching.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Faulty Assumptions in Article Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Faulty Assumptions in Article Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Faulty Assumptions in Article Posted by: jtellerelsberg
Vegetarian Video: "Diet for a New America" Great for kids
Posted by: khalsa on Feb 7, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great Article. I just rewatched John (Baskin) Robbins 10 year old video Diet for a New America ( I think there was a book too) which covers all the points you brought up--with great visual support for the whole concept. MY 11 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS SPELLBOUND to get such succinct visual and verbal confirmation of what she has come to know, believe and love, although a younger child might be scared by some of the scenes of animal abuse. Thanks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a closed circut
Posted by: Abrilon on Feb 7, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not a closed circuit... first, animals make babies, second, people eat them taking them out of the circle. Third, we have to plant more seed, use more fertilizer, grow more crops, etc. In the natural world, yes, animals are in balance, but factory farming is not sustainable and thus not a closed carbon circuit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FakeLeftism-environmentalism is the New Leftism for PseudoLeft Trustifarians & Yuppies!!!!!!
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Feb 7, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rejoice, TrueLeft economic populism has been replaced by the fakeLeft environmentalism!

And the best part of it is that with the new FakeLeftism, the rich and the yuppies hardly have to pay taxes, AND they can keep their illegal aliens nannies and gardeners!

No wonder Alterent and the rest of the FakeLeft just LOVE THAT NEW-FANGLED FAKELEFTISM!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's a Distraction Posted by: rwa
» WHAT article? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» yes, thanks. my solutions were in my post Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
oagaus
Posted by: oagaus on Feb 7, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The possibilty of a world wide pandemic of the chicken flu
should it materialize will be an awful price to pay for mankinds chicken"culture" dependence for food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Puff Ho Puff Piece
Posted by: benter on Feb 7, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah yes, The Huffington Post - where Hollywood vapidity and toothless commentary intersect. The most revealing thing about the normally voluble "Huff" was her telling silence as Israel slaughtered Lebanese citizens and decimated the hospitals and infrastructure of Lebanon. The (non AIPAC-beholden) world cried condemnation and ceasefire. Huff? Not so much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The best defense is a good offense: Posted by: TwinsFanatic
Insipid Article!
Posted by: grumble-bum on Feb 7, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article threatens to make my head explode. It reads like something written by a 12 year old who just discovered that racism is, like, bad & stuff.

The author almost completely glosses over the complexities of the issues of consumption critical to any discussion of the topic. While briefly mentioning our disproportional resource use, the assumption seems to be that we can continue to live as we are accustomed to (sans icky meat, of course), & everything will be peachy. After all, Leo's got it under control! America's massive consumerism ruining the planet? Don't worry, we'll just buy our way out of this mess. What's next, Alternet, a bubbly article on how to pay off credit card debt by simply putting it on another credit card?

I'm thrilled that the Toyota Prius (tm) is well on the way to a single-handed solving of the fossil fuel pollution problem. It's totally awesome that the author (& her celebrity pals) can actually afford one. As for poorer people like me, I guess we'll just have to continue ruining the environment by walking everywhere, or using our unsexy bicycles.

Any discussion of using purchasing power to effect positive environmental change that doesn't even mention the detriments of mass agriculture or the burgeoning market for local, sustainable food (meat included) is worthless. It's like writing a critique of Wal*Mart, without mentioning "Mom & Pop" grocery stores as an alternative. Of course, the author probably thinks Wal*Mart is okay, now that they've been green-washed...

Idiotic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» jeesh. Posted by: TwinsFanatic
» RE: jeesh. Posted by: sec55
» RE: jeesh yerself Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: Insipid Article! Posted by: drmflorida
» Not off the hook Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» About Scaling Down Posted by: grumble-bum
» I'll eat Rover, you eat Fluffy. Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Faulty Assumptions? Carrot cruelty?
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Feb 7, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Small farms still mutilate animals without pain relief, ship them through weather extremes, etc. They may be better, but they are still wasteful, polluting, and engage in practices that, if done to a dog or cat, would warrant felony cruelty charges. Check out:
http://goveg.com/organic.asp

you say that a carrot’s life is as valuable as a steer’s life. The logical extension of this is that killing a dog or cat is no different from pulling a carrot from the ground. This is simply not logical or true—the carrot can’t feel pain and doesn’t have a brain. And as pointed out above, it takes exponentially more plant life, funneled through an animal, to get meat—so if you’re concerned about cruelty to plants, it’s still best to eat them directly, rather than to funnel them through animals.

Re: the Weston A. Price link: These people are total cultists. Every medical authority, from the American Dietetic Association to the AMA agrees that vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters. The WAP folks have no reputable science to back their bizarre claims. The author of the link from them, Stephen Byrnes, suffered a fatal stroke in June 2004. He wasn’t even 40 years old!

Finally, in the U.S. we raise more than 10 billion animals for food every year. As discussed above, that requires massive amounts of CO2 and produces massive amounts of methane. The scientists have spoken on this topic; we ignore them at our peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MMMMMM...
Posted by: Scientz on Feb 7, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hamburger dripping with melted cheese and baaaaacon...

But in all seriousness folks, I eat protein shakes and raisin bran all week (with Campbell's Soup for lunch in the winter) and enjoy a regular Western meat diet on the weekends.

I am a progressive.

Vegetarians are free to whatever they want, but don't offend your natural political allies because they happen to eat meat. It's embarassing, and its why the Republicans still exist. In so many average, middle-class Americans weren't driven from progressive politics because of its umbrella-treatment of hot button issues like this one, then the Republicans would have been out of business long ago. Instead, the religious right run this country, because the left has no sense of unification.

So yeah, I love beef and pork. Can you still stand with me against Bush & Co.?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MMMMMM... Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: MMMMMM... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: MMMMMM... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Take your own advice, ass. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Take your own advice, ass. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Take your own advice, ass. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Take your own advice, ass. Posted by: SisterMoon
» RE: SisterMoon Posted by: Scientz
» Oh, sweet jesus.... nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: MMMMMM... Posted by: babs
» RE: MMMMMM... Posted by: Scientz
Too many people is the problem.
Posted by: colinmeister on Feb 7, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world is over crowded. People are the problem. If the population went down to, say, half of what it is now, then everybody could eat meat and drive a sensible car without destroying the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too many people is the problem. Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» It has to be voluntary Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: It has to be voluntary Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Meat is bad for the environment, our health, and the animals we eat
Posted by: A.T. on Feb 7, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great column. Thank you, Kathy Freston and Alternet, for pointing out what the mainstream media is too spineless to print. Americans need to get over their meat addiction just as much as they need to get over their oil addiction, the two are interconnected.

Besides, one look at the videos on www.GoVeg.com that show how animals are slaughtered by the billions in our country every year will make any person with a backbone swear off meat.

Meat is not only unnecessary, it gives us colon cancer, heart disease, and is linked to many other lethal diseases in our country. A good resource to read about the health problems linked to meat is www.PCRM.org--the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Meat is bad for ?? Posted by: carcinoid112
what is embarassing is
Posted by: A.T. on Feb 7, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when "progressives" gloat about how they eat meat--like they are pounding their chests in some lame territorial display. They sound just like the people driving SUVs saying "you can drive whatever you want but don't talk to me about global warming". Give me a break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just asking... Posted by: mjabele
» I'll admit... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Anarchist? Posted by: AdamG
» RE: Anarchist? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
veg is great but not the only option
Posted by: mnlefty on Feb 7, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a vegetarian back in high school and did a lot of research reports on this subject - the ecological devastation caused by factory farming as well as the negative health aspects of eating meat. However, my vegetarian diet was unhealthy. I don't tolerate soy very well, cutting my options considerably! I still won't eat veal, and I really don't eat a ton of meat. I won't eat fast food. I think really even if you are getting a veggie burger at BK or McDonald's, you are still supporting the corporate culture that is destroying our environment by patronizing those stores. Now I buy a 1/8 cow from a local, organic farmer. It lasts for months. And I feel a lot more connected to my food that way. It travels about 25 miles, it was butchered individually, not in a traumatic lineup, and while it lived, it roamed and ate grass. I am still responsible for ending that life, but with all the other options, I am okay with that. Additionally, when animals are raised in controlled populations, they are beneficial. Chickens run around eating bugs that would otherwise infest plants, and cows can graze hilly areas that are unfarmable. Their manure can be used for compost. There are many studies that show that with organic farming methods, grazing cattle actually improves soil and controls erosion. Of course, I eat meat so you could say I am biased. But I really think the problem is the corporate methods we use to produce ALL food, not just animals. If people were more conscious of where their food came from and demanded organically grown, humane products, meat-eating would not need to be so ecologically devastating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you are missing the point Posted by: mnlefty
» RE: i totally agree with you, bttl Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» thanks for clarifying Posted by: Phenix
» RE: That is an absurd comparison! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: That is an absurd comparison! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: That is an absurd comparison! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: That is an absurd comparison! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
This Ol Omniivore Is Rethinking His Meat Craving....
Posted by: Nez46 on Feb 7, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wowsa - it is gonna be darned hard to refuse a fine filet mignon or a big juicy hunk of prime rib; heck, even a good bacon cheeseburger - but my eyes have once again been pried open by something in Alternet. While I see the connection and the benefits of vegetarian chow, I do believe the opposition from the meat and poultry industry is going to be damned tough to overcome. Like so many other issues in our country, it is going to take a generation or two of pounding this information through thick skulls, beating back the onslaught of those who earn their living through "meats" and incorporating the vegetarian lifestyle into mainstream culture. One need only listen to Ron White's gig about his vegetarian friend whose body "rejected" beef broth to understand the kind of scorn and derision vegetarians will receive from the cholesterol-ladened, beer bellied bozos that a goodly portion of our country.....
Thanks for an eye-opening article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Important
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 7, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The current Food/Energy Ratio in the US is 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food, not including harvesting, processing, transport and packaging. That is simply unsustainable and has implications for the vegans and vegetarians as well.

After a lifetime of enjoying my carnivorous lifestyle, I am seriously considering adopting a vegetarian diet. I do this not because I think eating meat is wrong or bad, but for other reasons. I no longer have any confidence in the safety, regulation or inspection of the meat production system in the US and have increasing doubts about animal food safety.

Our government has decided to allow meat from cloned animals be marketed to you with no special markings, warnings or other labels. This is not designed for your protection- only for the protection of the agri-business and food retailing lobby members. If your USDA & FDA will roll over this easily on cloned meat after the firestorm of opposition to cloned veggies, what else will they turn their head at for profit and political payoff?

The lifestyle of most Americans has us backed into a corner. When the seas are overfished almost to the extinction of whole geographic areas of the ocean and freshwater fish are unsafe to eat due to mercury contamination, fish/seafood is not a viable option. Commercial meatpacking and industrial poultry now threaten us with resistant viral and bacterial strains that could launch human pandemics and pollute our water to the detriment of whole communities. Presented with these facts, the table becomes much more sparse and localized. Factor in the oil usage of transporting tropical nuts & fruits to the northern climates and your menu gets even more scarce.

If I owned land in the northeast or midwest US, I would be planting fruit orchards with disease resistant hybrid varieties, as they will be in great demand by the time the trees are mature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More magical thinking Posted by: dkm
» RE: More magical thinking Posted by: farmerbob2007
Does this woman know what she is talking about?
Posted by: dkm on Feb 7, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I read a screed like this, I often am unable to judge the arguments because I don't happen to have access to the data cited or know how reliable it is. So when the author makes a glaring boo-boo, it suggests to me that they are unreliable. Such boo-boos were made on at least two points in this article. One is the statement that meat consumption has risen 5 times in the last 50 years. This is truthiness that George Bush would be proud of. She "forgets" to mention that in the same 50 years, world population has risen from under 2 billion to over 6 billion now.

Furthermore she makes the statement that animals are responsible for producing acid rain by ammonia production. Excuse me! Ammonia is a base, not an acid, and the substance mainly responsible for acid rain is the SO4 that is produced by burning fossil fuels. The acid rain is found where the smoke from electrical generating plants is found, not where factory farms are found.

It has been pointed out that shipping in fruits and veggies from Chile and Mexico is not exactly environmentally friendly. It hasn't yet been pointed out that raising crops is responsible for more desertification than animals ever thought of being. Remember the Dust Bowl. That was from plowing up the prairie, not grazing cattle. The creeping desertification of the Sahara is because people are trying to grow millet in areas that were formerly grazing and when the rains fail, as they usually do, the ground blows away. The migratory pastoralists have been working in harmony with natural cycles for millenia. Now with the agriculturalists moving in, the land won't tolerate plowing.

While the argument can be made that eating at the bottom of the pyramid is more efficient, that only works when you eat grains a