Food for Thought on Meat

Mr. Green is busy on his world-wide publicity tour for his new book. In the meantime, here's a Mr. Green classic column from January 2007.

Several readers have written asking why, although I recommend limiting meat consumption, I don't come out and demand total abstinence. Well, call me conservative (ooh, how that would hurt), but at this point, I am not convinced that completely eliminating meat and fish from our diets is best for the environment. I've heard the main arguments--(1) that it takes eight or more pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat, (2) that livestock raising pollutes air and water, and (3) that eating meat violates animal rights--and I'll try to address them one by one.

The grain-to-meat ratio is not as inefficient as it may first appear. The primary grain fed to cattle is corn, which has a relatively low protein content. A pound of beef contains three or four times as much protein as a pound of corn, and unlike corn, it's complete protein. In addition, meat contains vitamin B₁₂ and certain micronutrients not present in grains. It's the old apples and oranges problem--grains and meat are just not the same thing.

Also, not every pound of an animal is produced by feeding it grain. Cattle, for example, put on a good deal of their weight from hay and pasture. Besides, the overfeeding of grain is more a result of popular taste than agricultural necessity. Consumers have been taught to favor fatty "marble" in their meat, which is produced by grain feeding. Some environmentally friendly producers get tasty results by grazing their cattle and cutting way back on the grain.

The simple weight-to-weight comparison also fails to account for the role of livestock in a healthy agriculture. Animals produce manure, which is (and has been for millennia) a very important source of fertilizer. Without livestock, more chemical fertilizers would have to be used. Farm animals also convert nonedible grasses into edible food without the need to plow up land (a major cause of soil erosion). Cattle, in particular, provide another source of fertilizer, since the alfalfa they eat fixes nitrogen in the soil.

This argument also ignores the fact that from time immemorial, food has not been the only purpose of livestock. Any meaningful comparison has to take into account the byproducts of meat production, including leather (a $2 billion industry in the United States). As far as I know, no one has looked closely enough at the entire picture, holistically examining all environmental, agronomic, and economic aspects of livestock growing for different ecosystems. Until they do, and until I see compelling evidence for zero meat consumption, I'll stick with the less radical stance of limiting--not eliminating--meat eating.

The second major argument against meat is that raising livestock pollutes. Yes, indeed it does. Terribly. However, this does not have to be the case. There is nothing intrinsic to livestock production that necessitates the cramped feedlots, hog and chicken factories, and bad grazing practices so notorious for their environmental damage.

The main reason livestock is being raised in this filthy and brutal way is to meet the U.S. demand for a huge quantity of cheap meat. This is exactly why I recommend eating a lot less meat. By eating less but paying more per pound, we could then support farmers who raise meat in an environmentally beneficial way and treat their animals humanely.

People and animals are both victims of the country's long-standing "cheap food" policy that mostly benefits agribusiness. But that's a whole nother topic. (Additionally, we can't stop meat production just by fasting from meat. Whether we like it or not, the worldwide demand for meat is increasing, and you can be sure that many countries we export it to would not apply any pressure for environmentally sound production. Italy, for example, famed for its healthful diet, now consumes ten times as much meat as it did 50 years ago, and it's hard to see what would stop such a trend in industrializing countries like China.)

The third case made against meat, the animal-rights argument, is certainly valid when creatures are made to suffer unnecessarily, as in factory farms. This, however, is again a question of method. There is no reason livestock has to suffer so that McDonald's can sell more bacon burgers--no reason, that is, except to keep those burgers cheap. To stop this suffering, we have to demand a change in the method of production. This is happening, though much too slowly.

Of course, some animal-rights advocates would argue that we have no moral right to take the life of any creature to feed ourselves. I find it hard to accept this argument for two reasons: First, human beings have clearly evolved to consume meat and have probably done so for several million years. Biologically speaking, we are just another type of predator, taking prey just as a shark eats other fish or a cougar eats a deer. The animals we now slaughter for food would be quickly eaten by other predators if we turned them loose. What would we do then to protect their "rights," kill the predators? Philosophically, I find it rather anthropocentric for human beings to extend human laws against homicide to other species, when so many are in the evolutionary business of killing.

Secondly, the brutal truth of agriculture is that you have to kill to be a vegetarian. I smash snails to keep them from eating my vegetables. I don't shoot squirrels, even though they steal my figs and guavas, but I'd be rather pleased if a predator carried a few of them away. Let's face it: Any farmland displaces myriad creatures or requires them to be chased away, fenced out, or killed, so even the strictest vegetarian or vegan has blood on his or her hands. Ecologically, I suppose the purest thing we could do would be to give up all forms of agriculture and revert to a hunting culture. But going full circle back to our predatory beginnings would leave little time for us to engage in these kinds of debates.

P.S. Most of this argument applies to fish as well, which I've covered in other columns.

Comments

[Jimmy Harris]

Mr. Green,
I appreciate your argument about meat eating. I get a little tired of hearing supposedly intelligent people acting as though humans and animals are the same thing. I am a little surprised though that you would be able to refer to either the animals or us "evolving" to being meat eaters. Certainly you can't mean evolving in the sense of Darwinistic evolutionary theory? It seems to me that theory is so full of holes that no thinking person could really subscribe to it. The biggest of all the many, many holes I see is the complete absence of a single "in between" creature alive today. From what I understand, the fossil record shows precious little, if any evidence of such creatures either. Why is it that we don't see millions of these creatures alive today and millions more fossils of similar creatures?

[sandy]

This is exactly why I did not renew my membership to the Sierra Club. In your defense of eating animals you make claims that are inaccurate that could easily have been researched had you wanted to actually know the facts.

First, many people, vegetarians or omnivores, are at risk of B12 deficiency without proper supplementation. B12 is found in bacteria on animal flesh.

Also, the "complete protein" claim popularized by France Moore Lappe has clearly been discredited by the American Dietetic Association, and others. As a Western society we do not lack in protein intake, we actually consume more than the most people in other countries.

Also, ethical vegans do not claim that animal rights means we should protect animals from predators in the wild or give animals a "right" like voting or driving -- that's just plain ridiculous! Animal rights means equal consideration: I wouldn't kill my dog to eat it's flesh, so I won't kill a pig/cow/fish or any other Western acceptable "food animal" to eat it's flesh. An animal has the right to not be used as a commodity, which includes consumption by humans. If an animal is killed in its natural environment by a predator, we have no control over that. Additionally, if we did not breed farmed animals they would cease to exist. Turkeys, cows and other "food" animals do not mate in the traditional sense. They've been genetically altered and breed through man-made processes.

Teeth? Oh, my gosh...I'm surprised you didn't write, "No-one can be a "pure" vegetarian" because animals are killed while harvesting vegetables." Oh, wait, Barbara Kingsolver wrote that, but you basically use the same excuse. How original.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you to go veg, but since you are in a position to speak to a large audience, then please, use a little bit of common sense and actually do some research before pawning this article off as factual.

[Will Fisher]

Mr. Green,

Please keep to arguing for the environment because you seem to know that much better. Never have I heard someone I thought was so intelligent come out with such stupid and naive arguments in the defense of eating animals (both your arguments are easily dispelled). I suspect you know this and are just unwilling to put yourself out there lest you distance some readers. Fine, but at least admit the truth.

Just to rebut your first argument on the question of why we need not stop: we humans have also evolved to use tools and what other great tools are there but... a Hummer. Why walk or bike when you can use a sophisticated tool like a gas-guzzling Hummer and save yourself the work! We've been driving cars for a hundred years so let's continue to do it! Obviously a stupid argument, tradition or what we're evolved to do don't answer the moral question.

[Lily]

You seem to be taking your ethical cues from the animal kingdom. Animals kill and each other in nature, so human beings must also be justified in doing so.

First, one of the differences between us and the animals is that we are capable of using reason and applying ethical principles to our conduct. Animals don't make and honor promises, respect rights to private property or have prohibitions on deceitful behavior. But we do.

Second, we may have evolved to eat meat, and perhaps this gave us evolutionary advantages. We have also evolved to engage in violent behaviors between warring groups, capture slaves and subject women and children to the authority of men. Claiming that something has an evolutionary justification is by no means a moral justification.

[rajib]

Grain for meat and now Food for fuel. What I beleive is that we human can judge and this is not the matter of saying yes or no and right and wrong. It is very simple when we have more we use grain for fuel or meat. When not sufficient grain we can't continue converting them to meat(factory farming way) or fuel. The only care we take is- no cruelty to animal and human.
Hungry people are always present on this earth. Taking care to minimise to small number is everyone's concern and thats why we are human being.

[Bryan]

I thought it was a good article, but then again, I do eat. Commence the flogging....

[Paul Hester]

Mr. Green,

I also fing your argument for "eating less meat" rather "uninspiring". It seems to project a rather simplistic view of all the evidence available, and seems pro hunting and pro meat-eating in spite of the evidence. I had hoped for a stronger argument from you, and I am surprised that you are traveling the world with your thoughts and your "book" to promote. Your "corn" argument is simply missing some key facts. First, cattle don't just eat corn to get their protein. The vast majority of protein for cattle comes from soybeans. Which is hard on their digestive system, just like corn and other grains. Alfalfa, grass and hay are, as you say are best for the cattle's digestive system. To say 1 pound of flesh has three times more protein than 1 pound of corn, may be true, but in your comparison, you suggest that the cattle is just eating corn and "magically" converts it to protein. Which is leaving out a few of the above facts, and mis-leading sir. You also admit that there is much waste from livestock. Yet the quality of "factory farm waste" can actually harm the soil, with all the antibiotics and illness that occurs on a vast scale in these places. In fact the waste is sent to holding "lakes" ( I call them). Even more is sent into the Mississppi River, where it travels down the the Gulf of Mexico and true it does contain high hitrogen levels but is still not considered a "good" fertilizer. It creates a huge seasonal "dead zone" in the north western part of the Gulf. Also you say there is suffering at the "factory farms", and you mention this must change, but offer no plan, as long as you contribute to the "factory farm's" existence, there will be little change. Have you ever tried to get into a slaughterhouse in the US, you need a Congressional exemption and that still may not get you in. The suffering and torture that goes on as we speak there is "unimaginable" and for the "taste buds" of humans is an atrocity beyond any on Earth in scale and it's legal too! Your argument that animals will die as a result of humans eating plant based foods seems rather weak, when you compare that to what is happening now with billions of animals suffering horrendous deaths each year in the US alone for their flesh!

Please, see if what I say makes sense to you at all.

In full disclosure I am a vegan and use soybean directly, instead of feeding it to an animal and the eating the animal. Also, if I may add I am a retired Naval Officer and DAV. So I might not be the "average" vegan in my opinions, but then again I might be depending on the person. That being said for me, it is safer to eat, than any form of meat, and it is what is part of my protein intake as well as lentils, rice and other plant foods. I am a lousy cook and find there are many non-animal meals ready to go at the grocery store. The price at these meals at the moment, are indeed high and it is very understandable why it is out of reach for many Americans. It is too much for me to buy routinely as well.

Consider this, that the vast majority of soybean product go to feeding animals, which in turn most people eat. A small percentage of soybean is used for human consumption. If that were to slowly change and more and more competition for plant based foods that "to me" at least, are quickly becoming every bit as tasty as real "meat" would result in many more choices and much lower cost. Most people still like a "good" tasting steak, and I am not one to argue that point "steak" is very tasty indeed, as I remember it from 7 years ago.
Thinking ahead however, I believe 100% that in the next few years "taste" will no longer be an issue or "texture" of plant based meals. Scientists have already created a soy based food that as we speak has the "consistency" and "texture" of real chicken. The biggest issue, and I know there is much debate about it, is the meat industry trying to stifle this research and and I do see why they do, because they are defending their product, and as we have seen in many recent examples "big corporations are not necessarily looking out for "our" best interests but rather their own. I don't agree with that thought process, but I certainly understand it and where it is coming from. I truly would like all peoples of the world to be fed and to be happy with their food choices, while at the same time making food that feeds many more people, is much safer (in terms of antibiotics and issues like "mad cow" disease). However, until there are much stricter rules concerning cleanliness and safety for any food the problem of "e-coli" will show up in plant based foods and animal meat and by-products a like.

Bottom line is little, if any, animals going to slaughter, (which by anyones measure must surely be horrifying and extremely painful death for the animals). So my goal, is people eating foods they "enjoy", that are safer, potential less cost involved and respects the animals, by ending the slaughterhouses once and for all.