I was shocked to come across this article written by the London Telegraph which argues that being a vegetarian does more harm to the environment than eating a diet with meat. The rationale is that many meat substitutes such as soy, chickpeas and lentils are imported which leads to more emissions produced as these goods must be shipped a further distance than meat. In addition, the writer quotes the WWF, “A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK.” Therefore, more farmland who have to be destroyed to produce these substitute products. Check out the full article here.
The United Nations has launched a campaign encouraging people to have a meat-free day once each week. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading authority on climate change, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems associate with meat. Specifically, Pachauri argues there is significant habitat destruction associated with rearing cattle and other animals.
Bottom line: The answer to this argument lies in the middle. If everyone in a country became a vegetarian it could lead to more environmental damage as certain countries would need to import more meat substitutes. However, the idea is to reduce meat consumption and achieve a better balance between eating meat, and eating meat substitutes.
By Trevor S.
The United Nations has launched a campaign encouraging people to have a meat-free day once each week. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading authority on climate change, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems associate with meat. Specifically, Pachauri argues there is significant habitat destruction associated with rearing cattle and other animals.
By Trevor S.
Be very skeptical of the conclusions reached by this article. It grossly, GROSSLY simplifies things.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the answer to these kinds of debates almost always lies "in the middle".
But food is a very unique debate, and the answer is not just "in the middle" because that only implies one spectrum, whereas with food there are a countless number of spectra. I actually took a Global Food Security course last year, and I learned that With food, it's environmental impact is not just based on the energy needed for its transportation, but also on 1) what food is produced, 2) how the food is produced (it's food-supply chain), and 3) where in the world the food is produced.
1) What food is grown: different crops require different levels of energy and material inputs for its optimal growth, that much we all know. But in terms of growing plants vs animals, that energy-investment difference becomes hugely apparent and shocking. How our global food production system works now is that most of our meat is raised in "factory farms", using grains (corn, soybeans, etc) as the feed. This translates into a HUGE waste of energy: 1 kg of beef, for instance, takes anywhere from 10-15kg of grains to produce (since that energy from the grains is not just stored as animal flesh, but is burnt/used by the animal's metabolism. I dunno about you, but in general, I would rather eat 1kg of soybeans that I know was transported to me from China, than 1kg of beef (which was likely aslo transported to me) that I know contains the energy-equivalent of 10-15kg of soybeans (which was probably still transported from China to whereever the beef was produced). This alone proves the energy-inefficiency of factory-farmed meat and the greater benefits that eating plants-only has for the environment.
2) How the food is produced: This article also simplifies things in that it only looks at 1 or 2 aspects of the food supply chain (transportation + processing) instead of looking at the entire chain - planting seeds, fertilizing, watering, maintaining (over 4+ months!!), harvesting, sorting, processing, transporting, storing, etc. Studies have shown that for some plants, the energy required for their growth actually accounts for over 80% of their total energy demand along their entire supply-chain, whereas transportation only accounts for around 10%. This makes sense in the context of Canada: growing "local" tomatoes in heated greenhouses in the wintertime will surely take more energy, overall, than transporting tomatoes grown naturally (without constant energy input over the 4+ months of growth) from China. By not factoring in the energy involved in the process of raising meat over time and comparing that with the energy needed to grow plants over time, the article (and study) is being very misleading.
(cont'd in 2nd post....)
(Cont'd from above...)
ReplyDelete3) Where in the world the food is produced: By this I don't just mean that diff environments are best suited for growth of different plants. Instead I mean the amount of arable vs pasture land in different nations around the world. Arable land = land used to grow crops/veggies. Pasture land = land not suitable for veggie growth but is suitable for livestock grazing. The preferences of nations to grow crops or to grow livestock will depend upon how much of each type of land they have.For instance, some nations with more pasture land will be more inclined to grow their own meat and reduce imports of meat (whether real meat or veggie-imitation-meat). This is the case in the UK (the country the Telegraph article reports on), which has MUCH more pasture land than arable land (http://www.organic-world.net/35.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=374&cHash=80108072fe), and so the UK would naturally be against importing more cereals and vegetables to replace the meat that it could raise at a cheaper price domestically.
The point is, it may be economically or environmentally/geographically more favorable for ONE country to claim a comparative advantage in raising meat domestically. But it doesn't mean that "meat consumption is better than vegetarianism" in ALL countries around the world at all times. This is another reason why the article was grossly misleading.
Along with environmental issues, this article doesn't even come close to explaining the social and health benefits of vegetarianism. Socially, eating 1kg of grain and not 1kg of beef could save about 9-14 more kg of grain to feed to the 1 billion starving people worldwide. And in terms of health, well, I won't re-iterate Canada's food guide, but did you know that cows in the USA consume more antibiotics in total than people do?
So, when in doubt, the rule of thumb is still to eat more vegetables and less meat.