Vegetarian diet best for combatting global warming?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.life.ca/nl/117/asknlfood.html

Ask Natural Life:
How Green Is My Diet?
by Wendy Priesnitz

Q: A friend recently told me that she has stopped eating meat because it contributes to global warming. That seems a bit far-fetched to me so I’m wondering if you can set the record straight by connecting the dots between environment and diet.

A: Surprisingly, what we choose to eat has one of the biggest impacts on the environment, including the climate, of any human activity.

A 2006 Italian study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition evaluated the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. Researchers examining the impact of a typical week’s eating showed that plant- based diets are better for the environment than those based on meat. An organic vegan diet had the smallest environmental impact and all non-vegetarian diets required significantly greater amounts of environmental resources, such as land and water. But the most damaging food was beef, with up to 100 calories of grain required to produce four calories of beef.

More recent Japanese research assessed the effects of beef production (including the effects of producing and transporting feed) on global warming, water acidification and eutrophication, and energy consumption – in other words, the total environmental load on a portion of beef. Published in Animal Science Journal in August, 2007, research by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science found that producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide – more than driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home. They also found that a kilo of beef releases the equivalent of 340 grams of sulphur dioxide and 59 grams of phosphate, and consumes 169 megajoules of energy.

The calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan, did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is even higher when they are factored in. Since global beef consumption is rising dramatically, meeting this demand will no doubt require that animals be reared more intensively and cheaply with factory farming, creating further pollution, water and land usage problems.

more...

[shance]

1. Great post. thanks!

n/t

[slowry]

2. K&R -- get your flamesuit on, though.

There's an angry contingent here in GD, which flips out when one even brings these facts up.

[Kali]

3. ...

:boring:


so try local grown, pasture raised beef, you will cut out almost all the negatives and gain delicious, healthy, protein grown from the sun and grass that you can't digest.

http://www.eatwild.com/

[cui bono]

9. I'm not sure that would solve everything. Raising cattle and using the grains to feed

them instead of ourselves wastes land. It is not environmentally sound with so many people on this earth. You can get much more food off that land if you grow grains and veggeis. Now on a local level I'm not certain how it adds up, but if the demand doesn't decrease then I imagine you wouldn't gain much from doing that other than getting "healthier" beef, and that term is relative since beef is not really that healthy in the first place. But it's clear that the responsible thing to do is at least cut way down on meat consumption if not cut it out entirely.

[OnionPatch]

20. Pastured beef is often raised on land unsuitable for crops.

There are a lot of places where some pastured beef could fit into the environment, but at our current consumption, I don't think we could raise enough that way. If people cut back on beef consumption and ate only local, grass-raised, it might work out ok.
Edited to add: grass fed beef doesn't eat grain. None.

[Kali]

27. pasture raised means NOT using grain

and in many cases it means using land that is NOT arable for other crops. Beef can be as healthy as anything else, plus it tastes good. Beef is actually lower on the food chain than many other meats, especially when it is raised on grass and not fed "by-products". Fish, poultry and pigs tend to be much more carnivorous or omnivorous than cattle when allowed to eat naturally.

[VLC]

38. You're a cattle rancher. Perhaps you are biased.

[Kali]

47. well duh, of course I am biased,

but I also know what I am talking about.

[VLC]

54. Then why did you not disclose that info as a qualification?

I'll get my info from people who don't profit from it.

[Kali]

55. I need to give my CV to post on the internets? I make no secret of my life-

I have stated that I am a rancher lots of times, posted pictures of horses, cows, grass and generally been pretty darn open about the whole deal - it's not like I have anything to hide or be ashamed of. What are YOUR qualifications? You never get information FROM THE SOURCE? Keep up the good work there.

[OnionPatch]

81. Well, I'm not a cattle rancher

but I've read plenty about pastured beef being a fairly green alternative to conventional, commercial beef if it's done right. It also helps brings income back to rural small farmers who usually practice more diversity than agribiz farms. IMO, they take much better care of the land. My family eats only pastured beef. Which brings me to ask...do you raise pastured beef and if so, can I buy some? :9

[alfredo]

4. I have heard that growing rice has a negative effect. You know any thing

about that?

I eat a lot of brown rice.

[Bjorn Against]

8. The problem with rice...

Is the farming methods that often take place. Rice takes a tremendous amount of water to grow, but of course there are some environments that are very wet and suitable for rice production. It is certainly possible to grow rice in a sustainable manner.

The problem is that many of the farming methods used today are not sustainable. I would suggest that if people can afford the extra cost that they look into buying rice that is grown in a sustainable manner. Your local co-op very likely provides rice that was grown using sustainable farming practices.

[alfredo]

13. I found this from the BBC. It's methane

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/science/nature/2203578.stm

Rice plants which produce higher yields make less of the potent greenhouse gas methane, researchers have discovered.

Plants which use the carbon they absorb from the atmosphere efficiently put less carbon into the soil, where it can be converted into methane.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas, responsible for about 20% of global warming.

The scientists say their findings could lead to new ways of growing rice which will curb global warming as well as producing higher yields.

[truedelphi]

52. I agree with "MN"'s comments

And I would like to add - it just depends where you are growing rice.

Rice requires that the land it grows on be kept very wet

If you buy rice that is raised in an area where that is already a natural habitat - fine and good.

But if you buy rice that is raised here in California - not so good. California doesn't have a water surplus, so it is best suited for crops needing less irrigation

[anniebelle]

5. I'm convinced.

It takes so much land and creates so much poop to raise animals for our over-consumption. I think what will finally do mankind in is over-consumption of EVERYTHING. If we continue to have a population growth that is sustainable, we must re-think our glutinous ways folks.

[Blue-Jay]

14. I agree. We don't really need adhesives.

[upi402]

6. I remember reading "Diet for a Small Planet" in the 70's

and figure the hippies were right. 30-40 years ahead, but right.

[Bjorn Against]

7. K&R

It is absolutely the case that meat consumption contributes to global warming, it is an undeniable fact. It takes way more energy to raise cattle because you have to feed them all of the crops you could be feeding to humans. And mass quantities of cow shit and methane gas are not exactly great for the environment either. If we want to be serious about combating global warming we need to have a discussion on these issues. It would be great if everyone went vegetarian, but if people would even cut meat from their diet just one day per week it would make a huge positive impact on the environment.

[Kali]

28. sigh

even with grain fed cattle it is NOT the same grain you could feed to people. However good quality beef can be raised fine with out grain. Cow shit is called fertilizer in organic agriculture (and most of the world).

[Bjorn Against]

32. Did it ever occur to you that the land that grain is grown on could be used for other purposes?

It doesn't matter that it is not the same grain humans eat, because the point is we are wasting a lot of farmland growing food for livestock that we could be using to farm other crops. And if you believe that all the cow shit that is produced gets used as fertilizer then you obviously haven't read up on this issue, because it does not all end up as fertilizer. Lets just say our rivers have not benefited greatly from all this shit.

Here is an article from Rolling Stone that deals with the shit produced by pig farms, read it and get back to me on your thoughts, I am sure you will find it eye opening to say the least. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters/1

[Kali]

50. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Maybe you need some more animal protein in your diet.

"even with grain fed cattle it is NOT the same grain you could feed to people. However good quality beef can be raised fine with out grain. Cow shit is called fertilizer in organic agriculture (and most of the world)."

Please note the "However good quality beef can be raised fine with out grain."

Most other crops can't be grown where most feed grain crops are grown - yes some grains for human consumption could be grown there - however we don't really have a shortage of grain on this planet - that is ONE reason we feed it to livestock. Human starvation is almost always a political issue not a supply issue.

I never said all cow shit ends up as fertilizer - I am advocating a sustainable way of doing this where it IS used as fertilizer. The fact that intensive feeding operations have to view shit as a waste PROBLEM is another clear indicator that it is not the way to do things. Nature cycles shit just fine. Feeding cows massive amounts of grain and storing large quantities of their pH-altered, medicated, insecticided waste as a problem to be "managed" is wrong on almost all fronts.

[Bjorn Against]

59. I can read just fine thank you, now stop with the personal attacks

The fact is we do NOT have to be growing all that grain, it takes a lot of water and a great deal of energy to transport it. Now you may be advocating new methods which are better than the current methods, but the fact is they still take a lot of land and there quite simply is NO sustainable way to feed every American massive quantities of meat on a daily basis (and the average American does get WAY more meat in their diet than what is healthy.)

[Kali]

77. that may have been snarky but it was hardly a personal attack

so, lets NOT grow all that grain - we can use the land for grazing (or houses, the current trend - and if you think cows are destructive to the environment, lets talk urban sprawl)

I agree there is probably too much meat in the typical American diet. However processed grains, sugar and other fats are a much worse problem.

[jgraz]

10. I wonder how much benefit there is with commercially grown, trucked-in veggies

As opposed to a grass-fed, locally-raised meat. The problem may be what we eat, but there's a much bigger issue with how all of our food is grown, raised and marketed.

[cui bono]

12. That is part of it too. More so as we begin to face diminishing oil supplies.

NPR had a program on food that I heard part of, and it was quite interesting. Iirc, they said the average distance food travels is 1500 miles. That's a lot of distance! Just by buying locally from farmer's markets we can reduce oil consumption while getting healthier, usually organic, foods and putting more money into the farmer's pockets instead of the mega-supermarket ceos.

But still, land use is a huge issue. Raising livestock and feeding them the grains that could've been grown instead is a tremendous waste of land. It simply is not environmentally sound.

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/

[LeftyMom]

15. Most animals raised for food are eating distantly grown, trucked in feed.

And of course it takes many more corn or soy or whatever to feed a cow and then eat the cow than to feed a human being directly.

To say nothing of the amount of water wasted, which is absolutely staggering.

[jgraz]

16. Which is why I was careful to say locally & grass fed

[LeftyMom]

17. Which isn't doable

Either from a water standpoint or simply based on the availability of sufficient grazing land near population centers, to say nothing of the cost of land near those areas, or the opportunity cost compared to most other uses. There is a reason most wide-scale grazing occurs in the rural west, where there are few people and federally subsidized land is almost free to use.

Nor are many areas capable of providing year-round fodder without supplemental feeds at some point in the year, so the issue of trucking in food doesn't really go away. Also, decentralized rearing of cattle and other livestock would increase the length and inefficiency of transportation to slaughter, because nobody wants a slaughterhouse anywhere near where people live.

Grazing is also a big source of erosion issues and a significant motivator for the killing of native flora and fauna- hardly a good solution from an ecological standpoint.

[Kali]

31. you always lump small, local production with mass production

I know it helps lend support to your cause, but your statements above are way overgeneralized. I give you credit for jamming in all the talking points in a couple of short paragraphs, but as you well know, the world isn't so simple. There is plenty of grazing land around population centers, just not in population centers - that is only logical don't you think? I agree the expansion of the population centers (all the wannabe country bumpkins buying up small acreages for their ranchettes is driving land costs to the realm of insanity, but there are ways around that.

I'm not going to do the whole federal land "subsidy" thing again - search my previous posts for that. There are historical, ecological, geographical, political, and economic factors that go into that discussion.

Plenty of areas provide year round feed - give me a break. Part of the problem is many farmers and ranchers have been sold a bill of goods by the corp. manufactures of these supplemental feeds and products, and their puppets the traditional ag schools.

Grazing can enhance conditions as well as degrade - just like any tool or process. Good management, using natural functions can provide a healthy source of protein, functioning ecosystems, open space, and a chosen and honorable livelihood for families in rural areas.

[LeftyMom]

33. Sure, some plopulation centers have cheap land nearby, but most do not.

I'm thinking of California, and only the valley cities here have much land nearby, and even then not nearly enough. The east coast cities would mostly be similar.

[jgraz]

36. Marin Sun Farms is doing some wonderful work with their sustainably raise beef

Absolutism doesn't do anyone any good here. Think how much better off we'd be if we could convince meat eaters to simply lower their consumption and buy from better sources.

[LeftyMom]

62. But is there any way to raise anywhere near enough?

Even with lowered demand, trying to raise anywhere near enough locally would be impossible most areas, and the transpo issues would still be an issue because most areas do not have a slaughterhouse.

[jgraz]

69. Of course not

But it's a step in the right direction. Marin Sun's presence in the community (and in the butcher case) is raising awareness the way Petaluma's organic chicken farms did 10 years ago. These days, all stores in the area offer organic eggs and chicken, and some offer nothing else. Even my company cafeteria serves only organic eggs and chicken, in addition to all-organic veggies and humanely-raised meats.

This is a slow process, but I don't see another practical solution to reducing our consumption of meat. Most Americans really aren't into sacrifice, especially when it comes to their food. Showing people that there's a better way, in concert with demonstrating the evils of factory-farmed meat, may have a big impact on our eating habits and the welfare of the animals we raise for meat.

[Kali]

76. what a great oportunity for more local business

a small low volume slaughter house allows for better cleanliness, animal handling and customer assistance and less of the objections to large scale operations. I know of three small ones in the general area of Tucson, plus the U of A's facility. That is just in my area. I'm sure anywhere the trend to more local, sustainable production takes root, there is the likelihood of new businesses to handle that part of production.

[cui bono]

11. Beef is a huge environmental disaster, and not a healthy food either.

What a waste of grain and land for a food that is a major cause of heart disease. Not to mention the conditions most cattle and other livestock face during their lives. Can you say torture?

Now I'm not completely vegetarian or vegan, but here is some interesting info from a vegan page.

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/

The earth has only a limited area of viable agricultural land, so how this land is used is central to our ability to feed the world. At the moment, the problem is not lack of food - it is widely agreed that enough food is produced worldwide to feed a global population of 8-10 billion people - but lack of availability. Poverty, powerlessness, war, corruption and greed all conspire to prevent equal access to food, and there are no simple solutions to the problem. However, Western lifestyles - and diet in particular - can play a large part in depriving the world's poor of much needed food.

THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION

World livestock production exceeds 21 billion animals each year. The earth's livestock population is more then three and a half times its human population. <4>

In all, the raising of livestock takes up more than two-thirds of agricultural land, and one third of the total land area. <5> This is apparently justifiable because by eating the foods that humans can't digest and by processing these into meat, milk and eggs, farmed animals provide us with an extra, much-needed food source. Or so the livestock industry would like you to believe. In fact, livestock are increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have been used to grow food rather than feed. The developing world's undernourished millions are now in direct competition with the developed world's livestock - and they are losing.

In 1900 just over 10% of the total grain grown worldwide was fed to animals; by 1950 this figure had risen to over 20%; by the late 1990s it stood at around 45%. Over 60% of US grain is fed to livestock. <6>

<snip>

Efficiency can also be measured in terms of the land required per calorie of food obtained. When Gerbens-Leenes et al. <8> examined land use for all food eaten in the Netherlands, they found that beef required the most land per kilogram and vegetables required the least. The figures they obtained can be easily converted to land required for one person's energy needs for a year by multiplying 3000 kcal (a day's energy) by 365 days to obtain annual calorie needs (1,095,000 kcal) and dividing this by the calories per kilogram. The figures obtained are summarised in table 1:


Food Land per kg (m2) Calories per kilogram Land per person per year (m2)
Beef 20.9 2800 8173
Pork 8.9 3760 2592
Eggs 3.5 1600 2395
Milk 1.2 640 2053
Fruit 0.5 400 1369
Vegetables 0.3 250 1314
Potatoes 0.2 800 274

On the basis of these figures, a vegan diet can meet calorie and protein needs from just 300 square metres using mainly potatoes. A more varied diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, grains and legumes would take about 700 square metres. Replacing a third of the calories in this diet with calories from milk and eggs would double the land requirements and a typical European omnivorous diet would require five times the amount of land required for a varied vegan diet.

[pnwmom]

22. The solution is hidden deep within your post.

"In fact, livestock are increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have been used to grow food rather than feed."

We don't need to eliminate meat from our diet. Instead, raise cattle and other ruminants on land that can't be used to grow grains and other vegetables -- there are huge areas of such land in the west and southwest. And don't send them to feedlots to be "fattened up" with grains.

[cui bono]

25. I don't think that is feasible at the current rate of consumption.

I still believe the only real solution is to cut back on consumption. It's politically and physically healthy. I don't understand why so many people are so averse to this solution.

Don't forget, a lot of rain forest has been devastated in order to clear land for raising cattle. That is horrendous.

DEFORESTATION IN BRAZIL: 60-70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon results from cattle ranches while the rest mostly results from small-scale subsistence agriculture. Despite the widespread press attention, large-scale farming (i.e. soybeans) currently contributes relatively little to total deforestation in the Amazon. Most soybean cultivation takes place outside the rainforest in the neighboring cerrado grassland ecosystem and in areas that have already been cleared. Logging results in forest degradation but rarely direct deforestation. However, studies have showed a close correlation between logging and future clearing for settlement and farming.
http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

-----

Rainforest Cattle Grazing

Cattle have been the main reason for the destruction of the rainforests in Central and South America. In Brazil, for example, ranchers have been encouraged by the government to take over large areas of forest. The most effective way of clearing the forest is to burn it, and this is what has happened to huge areas of the Amazonian rainforest.

Once the forest has been cleared, cattle pasture is created. Most of the beef raised on this pasture is destined for the fast-food market in North America and Europe. After only five or six years most of the ranches have to be abandoned, because the soil is no longer fertile. Even after just three or four years the thin topsoil, with no trees to protect it, may have been washed away by rain. Eventually, these huge cleared areas become a desert, with little hope of ever recovering.
http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/factsheets/env_facts/rainffcatt.html

[pnwmom]

29. The OP is about everyone becoming vegetarians --

not simply cutting back on consumption.

I'm not "adverse" to cutting back. Like many people, I cut back on red meat a long time ago. All I'm saying is that ruminants are a part of the natural ecosystem, and there is no overriding reason to eliminate them from the human diet -- though there are good arguments for not feeding ruminants grains, and for humans consuming more veggies and less animal proteins.

[cui bono]

49. Yes, but you were responding to me and I stated in my post I'm not a vegetarian

although I don't eat beef and eat very little of any other meat and use soy milk and rice milk rather than cow's milk.

I agree with the rest of what you say, IF people cut back enough to not have raising cattle be an environmental problem, which currently it is, and quite a big one.

One of the first threads I read in here having to do with this and PETA had people bragging about how they love to eat meat etc... I was taken aback by that being on this board since eating meat has enormous social and political consequences, and most animals raised on a mass scale, as most of them are, are mistreated to the point of cruelty and torture, and yet people were proud of contributing to that. It was rather disheartening. So that's why I feel that a lot people are averse to the idea, and to me that's the equivalent to driving a hummer or being proud to leave your lights on in every room 24/7.

[Raskolnik]

18. Three acres of grain tastes terrible with a baked potato.

[MadHound]

19. These studies are missing out on one important factor

That animal grazing is a vital component in any sort of organic crop rotation scheme. Farmers have known this for generations, following a typical crop rotation of one or two grain crops, followed by a legume, followed by grazing and lying fallow.

Animal manure is a key ingredient in this, since it is one of the best fertilizers going. If you don't have animal manure, your soil will lose vital minerals and nutrients needed to grow crops, and eventually your yields will drop to nothing and your soil will become virtually sterile, fit for growing nothing more than weeds.

Therefore, if you are looking to provide for a vegetarian diet, you've absolutely got to also raise livestock. And if you're raising livestock, then it only makes sense to get other benefits from them other than manure, such as dairy products, wool, or *gasp* meat.

Anything else is foolish.

[progressoid]

24. Sure but...

Very few farms still employ grazing techniques. Most livestock today are raised in confinement systems.

For that matter, even crop rotation is becoming less prevalent. Unfortunately, less variety and more homogeny is the standard today.

Profit margins drive most farm operations, not how sensible how sensible it should be.

[MadHound]

44. Well, those are indeed the problems

Factory farming is harmful in a number of way. That doesn't equate to raising livestock as harmful. What needs to be changed is a shift back towards an ecologically sound farming practice. The small farming practices of our grandparents were quite sound both financially and ecologically, it is time that we returned to them.

You would actually be suprised at the number of these farms that have continued, or gone back to the old ways of farming. I live in rural Mid Missouri, and the family small farm is making a comeback. I attended the National Small Farm Trade Show and Conference, and you can find small family farmers from all of the country and world, ranging from the Amish and Menomites to the back to the earth hippies to the old school family farmer who are all working to bring back sustainable, responsible and profitable farming back to our country.

[Kali]

34. yep

thankyou, and for those naysayers who think quitting meat altogether is a workable solution, I say encouraging the movement to return to small wholistic farming is a much better alternative for the environment, for our rural populations, and for our food.

[pnwmom]

21. No grain at all is required to produce beef.

Cattle and sheep thrive on grasses which are unfit for human consumption. (We lack the second stomach needed to process them.) And these grasses often grow in places where grains and vegetables wouldn't.

It is a choice -- not a necessity -- to send these animals to feedlots to be fed grains before slaughter.

[cui bono]

26. But that doesn't mean it isn't used.

Oil isn't required to have motor vehicles either and yet...

There is too much meat consumption in the world, especially beef. The best solution is to cut back on that. And then what is still in need of being raised, have it be grass fed.

[12string]

23. After reading every post in this discussion

I find that IMHO,the biggest part of the environmental
disaster caused by carnivores has been overlooked.Beef and
chicken farms are one of the largest contributors to
groundwater pollution on the planet.Potable water is becoming
a very real issue worldwide.Be kind to animals...stop eating
them.

[Coexist]

30. I don't know - Ted Nugent says tofu kills

"Tofu production kills more living things than any other activity on earth."

Whatever the fuck that means?!

[Bjorn Against]

35. Just when you think he couldn't get any dumber...

He continues to prove you wrong. And the Republicans think this guy should be governor of Michigan.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. This Silly Stuff Again?

No, being a vegetarian isn't doing a damn thing to thwart global warming. It's a novel concept, but one in which there is no real bearing in reality.

If you want to eat meat feel free to do so and do so without guilt. Though the methane emissions are a problem there are many ways being worked on right now to minimize them through different cow feed etc. But vegetarianism is not one of the proposed ways to curb this.

The foolish thinking here is that by becoming a vegetarian there will be less cows somehow. There won't be. The cows will be bred same as they are now and will create methane same as they do now. I know some want to push the whole 'become a vegetarian and fight global warming!' issue in order to give themselves something to feel special about, but it really is just utter nonsense.

There's not a thing wrong with eating meat and if that's your choice by all means continue to do so. Take comfort in the fact that many are aware to the methane issue and are working quite hard and finding ways of minimizing its production.

So if someone is to become a vegetarian, which is their right and choice, it should just be because that's the appropriate lifestyle choice for themselves. But doing it for some reason of thinking it is reducing global warming somehow, is just complete silliness.

[VLC]

40. There wouldn't be fewer cows if more people quit eating them?

How do you figure that? Less demand = less production.

[WindRavenX]

42. Well, you're flat out wrong.

It's not just a matter of quitting meat--it's about acknowleding that a western diet which is heavily made up of red meat is extremely costly in terms of carbon dioxide; I posted an article from the Christian Science Monitor which has some numbers you might want to look at. Greenhouse gases from cows are a bigger source of greenhouse gases than even automobiles, and the numbers are availible in that link I have downthread.

You don't have to become a vegetarian or vegan or even stop eating meat--even replacing red meat with poulty or fish (which are less energeticaly "costly" to produce per # of meat) once or twice a week will have a significant impact on total carbon dioxide output.

This isn't silly stuff dude.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. No Thanks. I Think I Still Want My Steak.

Like I said, there are many people working on curbing the emissions with real solutions, that don't entail becoming a herbivore.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat (since we are, after all, omnivores) nor anything wrong with continuing to do so. There will always be some level of greenhouse gas emissions that are just a normal part of nature, such as cow shit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and reduce the emissions, however, which is exactly what many are trying to do by looking at the foods the cows are actually eating. There are solutions in the works for this and hopefully soon these emissions will be greatly reduced. That reduction is going to come a hundred times faster by way of their feeding habits then it would ever come from some silly campaign to not eat beef. That's just simple reality.

We are humans. Humans eat meat. Some choose not to, and that's their choice. But is is ridiculous to start guilt tripping people who choose to eat meat by claiming they're causing global warming.

The problem is being recognized and will hopefully soon enough be dealt with. In the meantime, enjoy your steak as I will.

[WindRavenX]

48. Right, but the problem is you're not thinking about this on a global level

The problem is that if every other Western and developing country begins to adapt *our* lifestyles and diet, the problem can no longer be dismissed as "we're human we eat meat". Look at what's happening in China, specifically. At this point, we can't just work on reducing emissions because we're cutting down entire rainforrests to support just our *own* beef consumption.

I'm not even going to go into the health ramifications of this. The entire problem with your attitude is that it's not taking into account what is required to even maintain, let alone EXPAND, the demand for beef. By cutting down forrests to make room (temporary room, at that) for beef, you're destroying the system to *absorb* the very same gases that are the output of this whole cycle.

We can't keep supplying the (growing) demand. It's not guilt tripping on people who eat meat--it's called facing reality. If you eat red meat more than 3 6 0z servings a week (which is no more than what most doctors would recommend for a heart healthy diet), your diet *is* a real, scientifically backed problem. And you can't keep hiding behind the "we eat meat"-- when billions of people on world want to consume as much as we do, we can't do it. It's not possible.

on edit:

I had hotdogs this weekend. I wonder what was in them...? :scared:

[girl gone mad]

43. Ummm...

What?????

[slowry]

45. HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR n/t

[midnight]

63. Sounds like a desperate heart surgeon looking for some work.

It is well known that red meat is bad, bad, bad for the heart...... Secondly doesn't supply and demand drive the production of everthing. That's what I've heard. As far as being more thoughtful towards the environment-Less is More.

[G_j]

39. of course it is

sort of a no-brainer IMO

[WindRavenX]

41. It's absolutely true. American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide...

...per person than vegetarians.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

I did quite a siginificant amount of research on this very issue, and some of the things that stuck out were:

1)You do not have to quit eating *all* red meat at all to have a huge impact--even replacing 1-3 meals a weak with fish, poultry, or soy will dramatically impact your carbon footprint.

2) No one wants to fess up that a Western diet is a huge contributing factor to global warming.

Eat less meat. It's better for the animals, your own health, your wallet, and ultimately for the planet.

[KurtNYC]

51. the majority of the amercian diet, calorie-wise, is saturated fat and

corn syrup (eg fructose/carbs). Protein makes up less than 10% of the average diet in the US.

Addressing climate change is going to take more than stopping some activities. It is going to need for us to start some new ones. The atmosphere of the earth is often depicted in weather news garphics as being very thick when in fact it is the same proportion as the skin on an onion.

If the problem is methane then that should be addressed directly and without having to convince the whole population to give up their clown food.

[WindRavenX]

53. Yea..this isn't about those late 80's changes in behavior things...

...like recycling, turning off lights.

Those are all fine, but the it doesn't address the fundamental need to change society as we know it.

Jared Diamond's "Collapse" is a fantastic book. We have plenty of time to address how we need to change our society.

[KurtNYC]

57. Also you could take the same facts and advocate a totally different action

Beef production is respnsible for too much CO2? So....hunt wild deer. Bingo no corn production, water waste, etc and one less methane farting creature.*

*I'm not advocating deer hunting just pointing out that the problem as described does not necessarily necessitate the vegan solution alone.

[WindRavenX]

58. lol

No I totally agree.

But the problem is that that's, again, a short term solution to a long term problem...

It's a terrible thing to think about. Even I get lazy about trying to change my lifestyle...and not everyone can afford to do so.

FWIW, some food for thought:

Some scientists hypothesize that the extreme methane output of the mega-herbivores may have contributed to the warm climate that categorized the time the dinosaurs lived. Hmm.

[2bfree]

56. Thanks for sharing.

I couldn't agree more. :)

[sendero]

60. Absolutely correct...

... and not really disputed by any real scientists.

[AllieB]

61. Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland pays for a lot of the anti-meat research

If you don't eat organic veggies, the amount of toxic pesticides and chemicals used to grow vegetables pollutes our water, land and causes illness.

If you eat soy, soybeans are one of the largest GMO crops in the US. Corn is another. Big soy-producing conglomerates like Con Agra and Archer Daniels Midland rape the land and put the small farmer out of business. And yes, I know that most GMO crops go to feeding livestock, which is why I don't (and can't) eat grain- and corn-fed beef.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGenetically...

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/ploy.html

I agree that yes, the large-scale production of meat negatively impacts the environment. I only eat local, pastured meat.

BTW I was a vegetarian for 10 years and it nearly ruined my health. If it works for you, more power to you. I wish I could be healthy on a vegetarian diet because I love animals. Given the choice of eating what I was allergic to (soy and grains) and, and buying free range, no hormone meat, dairy, and poultry from small local farms that I support, I'll take the latter.

[LeftyMom]

64. Oh sweet Jesus, not the Weston A. price quacks.

1. It is absolutely possible to be a vegetarian or vegan and never eat a speck of soy.

2. Soy is perfectly healthy for people who aren't allergic to it. Yes, much of it is GMO, but most of the stuff marketed to vegetarians and vegans is organic or conventional but non-gmo certified, because we're smart consumers and people want our business.

3. Consider your source here: the wap folks also believe that cholesterol is good for you and that root canals ruin human health.

[AllieB]

66. I agree that there is some questionable research on the Price website

but it is no more questionable than what's on PETA's website, or John McDougall's, or Dean Ornish's. There is no DEFINITIVE study that links cholesterol consumption with heart disease. Not one. In fact, the most famous, long-term study of heart disease (The Framingham study) could not find a link. I suggest that you read 'The Great Cholesterol Con' by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. It's all about Big Pharma and the profits that they gain from statins.

http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.index.htm

The lipid hypothesis has been debunked by many scientists. The French eat way more meat and animal products than Americans, but have the lowest rate of coronary heart disease in the Western world.

I have been FAR healthier eating meat and vegetables than eating vegetarian. Yes, I feel bad for the animals, which is why I was a vegetarian for 10 years. But my health suffered (Crohn's disease, Diabetes, fibromyalgia, shall I go on?). So, my decision was either I eat what is right for me, or I die trying to save the planet. Since eating a Paleo diet, I do not need insulin, my gut problems are gone, and I don't need a cane or a wheelchair. It must be nice to have no food allergies and to be able to sit in judgement over people who try to do what's right for them from a health perspective.

So, let's just agree to disagree. You're never going to convince me that I should have sacrificed my life and health for the planet, and I'm never going to convince you that people were meant to eat meat.


I hope you supplement B-12 because you're not going to get it from plants.

[midnight]

65. AllieB you bring up a good point about chemicals and farming.

When ever their are big chemical company's involved in farming you can count on the land and the product being devalued. Organic farming is a more trused and value added way to farm, and more healthy way to obtain nutrition.

[AllieB]

68. Also Agribusiness was instrumental in changing the Food Pyramid

6-7 servings of grains a day is why we have had an increase in obesity since the change in the Pyramid, and an increase in Diabetes. Many other diseases are probably linked to contaminated food sources and pesticides.

[KurtNYC]

71. There has been no change in the USDA food pyramid

-10 servings a day of vegetables, especially dark green vegetables and orange vegetables.
2-4 servings of fruit a day are required, especially fresh and frozen fruits.
2-3 servings of meat, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, or nuts a day, especially dry bean and peas, eggs, and nut and seeds.
2-3 servings of milk, cheese, yogurt or milk substitutes a day.
Occasional use of fats, oils, and sweets, especially oils.
6-11 servings of grains a day, especially whole grains.

it replaced the bogus "4 Food Groups" and it has not changed since its introduction in 1992.

But it differs greatly from Harvard's pyramid (which I think you may like):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_eating_pyramid

The rise in Sydrome X/Diabetes and obesity correlate with a rise in caloric intake.

[flvegan]

67. This is my favorite "yabbut" topic on DU.

"Plant based diets are better for the environment"
Yabbut the veggie folks have their food trucked in which is bad, mmkay.

"The Amazon rain forest is being wiped out to grow soy to feed to cattle, which is fed to people"
Yabbut soy gives men boobs.

"Eating meat is bad for you"
Yabbut if the entire world ate locally raised, hormone free, grass fed beef we'd all live to be a brazillion

"What we choose to eat has one of the biggest impacts on the environment"
Yabbut if everyone went vegetarian, what would we do with the cows now? Might as well eat 'em. If gawd didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them so tasty. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Aren't I clever?

[Colorado Progressive]

70. its amazing that anyone fails to get the supply and demand concept

like ranchers would still be breeding cows if there was no market for them.

"But gee what will we do with all these poor cows???? However will they survive if we arent eating them?????"

[flvegan]

73. And yet, if you scroll up a bit you'll see such "silliness"

It's shocking, I know.

[Lorien]

83. Yep. Heads buried neck deep in sand, many people would rather

die and take their kids with them than give up their beloved burgers.


Hey, I love mint chocolate chip ice cream. But I'm borderline diabetic, so I don't eat it more than once or twice a year at most. Now, if mint chocolate chip ice cream were not only bad for my health but was also destroying the planet I would NEVER touch the stuff. There would be absolutely no logic in consuming it, ever. But I know so many people who are grossly overweight and have beef and pork based diets. My father is one of them. He eats either beef or pork at nearly every meal. He has a pacemaker, high blood pressure, diabetes, and is horribly overweight. When I tell greasy meat fans that his diet is killing him, they ask "well, what about sweets and bread"? He eats about a cup of brown rice daily, plus two slices of whole grain bread. No sweets except on special occasions. "Well, there you go! It's the bread". say the self satisfied greasy meat fans. Let's see; 400 calories a day worth of bread, but about 3,000 calories of meat per day, most of it either bacon or beef. Must be the bread alright! :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. not breeding is also very good for the environment, yet we hardly hear about that.

stop over populating the earth.

[flvegan]

74. Hillary eats babies.

Maybe she's really our pro-environment candidate. She's eating less methane producing cow meat AND diminishing the population numbers.

I read the "Hillary eats babies" meme here a few days ago. I can't confirm that it's true.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. we should all do our part. over population is a huge problem.

[Lilith Velkor]

78. Good thing we killed all those buffalo herds, wannit?

:eyes:

[Beaverhausen]

79. K&R

[endarkenment]

80. Diet for a Small Planet.

Note: you do not have to be a vegetarian, you just have to eat a lot less meat.


Further Note: boy have we ever not made one inch of progress in raising our awareness over the last 35 years.

[Lorien]

82. This is one of the reasons I cut beef out of my diet 11 years ago

Climate change and the Oprah show on mad cow. I also stopped eating pork and cut back considerably on all other meats. I don't miss it. And if a person really does miss chicken and beef, there's a great product out there called "Quorn" that is made from a mushroom-like plant that's pretty close to the real thing-without the dangers to your health or the planet.