My beef with beef
I’d like to start this post with full disclosure. I still eat beef occasionally but I struggle with it and I am working towards a meatless diet. I have come to accept that consuming four legged animals is quite simply bad for our health and bad for our environment. In terms of environmental pollution, the meat industry is worse than cars, planes, and all other forms of transportation put together. A 2006 UN Report says that raising cattle for human consumption is the greatest threat to our climate, forests, and wildlife. I feel pretty ridiculous going through the motions of environmentalism (recycling my plastics and newspapers, changing my light bulbs, carrying around a cloth grocery bag, limiting how much I use my car, etc..), while still committing the greatest sin of them all…eating beef.
There was a time when I could have made the argument that it was unsafe to eat “factory farmed” beef, but fine to eat organic or “all natural” (whatever that means). I still believe that we are less likely to get food born illnesses from organic beef, but by eating any meat at all we are contributing to the destruction of our air, water, and soil. Not to mention that we are feeding countless tons of grain to cows and pigs while babies starve all over the world. In order to produce one pound of meat, farm animals are fed around sixteen pounds of grain. There is no doubt that one of the biggest causes of food shortage and starvation around the globe is the over-consumption of meat by first world nations, especially the United States. The amount of grain needed to produce one hamburger could feed 50 hungry people. Harvard Nutritionist Jean Mayer says that if we cut our beef consumption by 10 %, we could feed 60 million hungry people each year. Every burger I eat = less food for starving people. That’s tough to swallow.
There are some who make the argument that we humans NEED to eat meat. I just don’t believe that. Plenty of other foods have a comparable amount of protein (beans, cauliflower, asparagus, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, watercress, and yams, to name just a few). Eating meat is a leading contributor to almost all kinds of cancers and lots of other diseases including heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s, and high blood pressure. I think the risks far outweigh any benefits there may be.
Until I gather up the will power to forgo meat all together, I will try and stick with the most sustainable types- poultry and fish. In addition I have joined millions of other struggling meat-eaters who have pledged to give up meat at least once a week (meatless mondays). Won’t you join us?
Latest posts by Jessica Alfreds (Posts)
- No place for anger… - December 19, 2012
- Out of reach - December 5, 2012
- Topless pictures and the culture of shame - October 15, 2012
- Exhaling… - August 20, 2012
- Sweet corn’s last hoorah - September 6, 2011
Print This Post
Unfortunately I cannot link in this space. But there are several studies linking the eating of meat to the early development of our brain. So this couldn’t be written without eating meat. Additionally, I agree with Anthony Bourdain when he says that vegetarianism is a “first world luxury”. It’s almost offensive to the third world. And finally, in my opinion – which is likely flawed…as usual – the problem of people starving has almost nothing to do with food production and almost everything to do with food distribution…and George Bush.
Jeff, you can link by using html (if you know how to). One link allowed per comment or it gets held for moderation to cut down on spam (this could mean a several-hour delay in it appearing). If you don’t know the html, if you type in a full URL it usually becomes the link automatically when you submit the comment.
I have heard of the same studies about brain evolution, though I don’t know much about them.
I have no comment on the environmental impact that Jessica discusses. Other people can argue about global warming if they want to.
I also don’t think the problem is that we don’t have enough grain, that the U.S. using grain for cows is making it hard for starving people in other countries to get enough food. Maybe I’m wrong and it’s a factor. But we can point to farm subsidies, trade laws, corrupt local governments, wars, among other factors, that are more the cause of hunger and poverty than whether you eat a burger.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/06/10/subsidizing-hunger
Also, see this piece below, which directly addresses the issue of beef causing hunger. Though I don’t share the author’s view of wealth distribution (not that he goes into detail on that) as the solution, he does explain the meat-not-causing-hunger position concisely.
http://thethirdestate.net/2009/09/meat-does-not-cause-world-hunger/
I would argue that while eating meat is not causing world hunger, it is a factor. And if we redistributed the grain already being grown in this country for cattle, it COULD feed millions of hungry people.
I mean “redistribution,” which is the word he uses. It implies that wealth is a zero sum game, which is no more true than food being a zero sum game.
But Jessica, people aren’t going to grow that grain for free. They produce it to sell to cattle farmers. If not for the cattle farmers buying the grain, it wouldn’t be grown/harvested at all, so there would none to redistribute to hungry people in the first place (leaving aside the issue of farm subsidies and the cases of money paid by the government to farmers to do nothing, or in some cases to keep their products off the market, if I understand these things).
If we gave the third world the tractors, seed, and chemicals required to grow their own crops, they wouldn’t be dependent upon how the US chooses to allocate it’s own growing space.
It’s the fact that the third world still practices Stone Aged slash-and-burn agriculture that is directly related to their starving populations. Not my meatloaf.
I guess it could be argued that if there were lower demand for grain from cattle farmers, prices would fall, so that could be how you might argue that people eating less beef would make it easier for poor people to afford grain, since prices would be lower.
But people aren’t going to stop eating beef any time soon in the numbers it would take to lower grain prices, so as a practical strategy for helping the hungry, your individual decision to stop eating meet helps no one, but might make you feel better.
And even with lower prices, prices aren’t going to be zero. If people are too poor to pay for grain, farmers aren’t going to produce it. They will switch to something else that can make them more money. Which doesn’t help the hungry people. Aside from the causes I mentioned above in an earlier comment, the real problem is poverty, which is caused in part by the causes mentioned above.
Meat, not meet. My spelling has been terrible lately.
Your research is impressive Scott. And the fact that George Bush as a cause of world hunger has not been disputed I can only interpret as confirmation of its truth. Oh and Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time.
It sounds like there’s room for debate on the direct correlation between meat consumption in wealthy nations and hunger in the “third world” (an outdated term), if only because there are too many variables involved. What is much more clear is that the huge amount of meat that we consume, and the factory farming system that supports it, causes massive harm to the environment.
As Jessica points out, factory farmed meat contributes more to climate change than all transportation combined, the effects of which will (and currently do, in fact) hit people in the developing world hardest. Millions in South and Southeast Asia will be displaced by rising sea levels, farmers in Africa will fall victim to desertification, and new conflicts will be ignited over resources as fundamental as water. Each of these factors will contribute to hunger on a scale that doesn’t exist in the world today, and every burger gets us a tiny bit closer to global tragedy.
Jeffrey, your idea that the world’s poorest people are “almost offended” by the idea of vegetarianism is truly ridiculous. Many of them are vegetarians themselves, sometimes for reasons of accessibility, but also commonly for ethical or religious reasons. The huge consumption of meat in the US today is unprecedented in history and is only possible because of our relatively extravagant wealth, and thus is the true first world luxury.
My rididculous idea centers around a basic concept Peter. The concept is this: In the western world we get about half of our calories (it varies from country to country) from animal products. The third world is lucky if it gets 20%. Darfur averages out at about 7.5% of their calories from animal products. So the obvious question of all these people, is it for “ethical or religious ” reasons that they eat so little? Is it because they WANT to? They are malnourished and hungry because of their religion? If you gave them a goat to slaughter (and there are a significant number of herdsmen in Africa), do you think they would refuse it because it’s unethical or against their religion?
I submit that the answer is no. And that the refusal of meat must be an arrogant luxury that flies in the face of their starvation. I try to put myself in their shoes. I see what my family is eating and I see what an American family is eating. I want what that American (or any western country) family is having. But then someone comes along and says they don’t eat meat because it’s wrong. Wrong? To whom?
I’ve seen starving Muslim soldiers gladly eat MREs that had pork in them…but I digress.
I agree that eating meat is a first world luxury. That was my point. And to eschew the eating of meat would be seen negatively from the perspective of the third world. They eat less meat because they can’t get it. They would if they could. I’ve seen it in every thrid world country I’ve been in. Very few people don’t eat any meat as a result of religion. None that I had heard of but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are referencing someone that you know of. Only the luxurious westerners don’t eat it because of ethical reasons. I think they find that offensive. Have your travels shown you something different?
Just a reminder that this post was about not eating BEEF (poultry can be raised relatively sustainably) and there are billions of people in developing countries who don’t eat beef because of religious or ethical reasons (for example most of India, one of the most populated counteries in the world).
Just a reminder that this post was about not eating BEEF (poultry can be raised relatively sustainably) and there are billions of people in developing countries who don’t eat beef because of religious or ethical reasons (for example most of India, one of the most populated countries in the world).
The article mentions all four-legged animals and how cows and pigs are being fed while babies starve. Additionally, the article ends with the abstention of all meat (or attempted abstention) and the clarion call for us all to do so. I understand that the focus is on beef because of the 16 pound of grain thing. But I did find this. The source is from cow companies, so it is questionable at best but it references another study (yes possibly commissioned by them) and it identifies the logical flaw in how the 16 pounds to 1 pound ratio was determined (I still don’t know how to use HTML so here is the URL http://www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org/mythmeatproductioniswasteful.aspx#Sixteen pounds of grain):
Myth: Sixteen pounds of grain and soybeans are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.
This estimate is based on the false assumption that beef cattle are fed grain diets from birth to market weight. According to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply Report, an average of 2.6 pounds of grain is used to produce a pound of beef in developed countries and 0.3 lb. in developing countries. Animals don’t steal grains destined for the world’s hungry; instead they consume large amounts of feedstuffs not suitable for human consumption. This includes forage from marginal land that can’t be cultivated for human foods and food processors’ byproducts such as citrus pulp brewers’ grains, almond hulls and tomato pomace. The soybean product fed to cattle is a meal made of the bean flakes, which remain after the soy oil is extracted for human consumption. In addition, corn fed to cattle is feed corn grown specifically for use as livestock feed and of lower quality than corn grown for human consumption.
Sticking with India as my example, most Indiand do not consume pork either. They do (in general) eat lamb, but in much much smaller quantities than we do… The portion sizes do not even compare.
Even developing countries that do eat meat don’t eat it in the excessive quantities that we do…
I’m not arguing that we eat the right amount or should eat more. I agree that we should eat less…of everything. America is over 30% obese…last I heard. We need a lot less of everything. But sticking with India as your example, they still eat meat. In fact, I know of no religion that forbids all meat. As for developing countries, they would all likely increase their meat intake if they could. I would not advocate that they increase it to anywhere near our levels…unless you want to make the causal argument that your countries level of awesomeness is directly correlated to how much meat you eat. In that case, I would advocate trying to catch us…but then it’s on and we will step up.
I thought the problem was too much carbs. That’s what Atkins told everyone. He’s probably why people are eating so much meat.
I should’ve specified beef and pork in particular rather than calling them literal vegetarians. I was thinking of India as Jessica mentioned, and also Pakistan and Indonesia – three of the most populous countries on earth, packed with Hindus and Muslims who tend to abstain from these most destructive varieties of meat. These countries would not increase their meat intake if they could – which they could.
And yes, I have spent some time in the southern parts of India. Beef and pork are effectively absent entirely (I tried tracking it down actually as I still ate it at the time) and chicken and lamb are present, but not common among locals. So no, they wouldn’t have a negative impression of vegetarian westerners – quite the contrary.
Of course this is just one part of the world (I couldn’t tell you how strict African Muslims are regarding meat, for example), but it’s quite a significant chunk of it. Jeffrey, so far you’ve referred to both eating meat and not eating meat as first world luxuries. I guess it’s nice that we get to choose.
One unfortunate part of the cultural divide on this topic is that people tend to choose one extreme or the other, either avoiding meat entirely or eating it multiple times a day. If more Americans acknowledged the harm that the scale of our meat industry is causing while still conceding that they like to eat it we could moderate our consumption and scale back to more environmentally-friendly modes of production. But it takes guts to admit one’s personal limitations. Instead many meat eaters have such a strong aversion to the idea, I suppose generated by the threat of losing personal liberties, that they rebel and greet it with hostility as if they are doing no harm at all. We need to grow up and begin to think of heavy meat consumption as a vice comparable to driving a gas guzzling SUV when we could walk. Both are irresponsible in excess, and both can be reduced without the whole country becoming bike riding vegans.