In April, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on food policy called the diversion of crops to be turned into biofuels "a crime against humanity". Indeed, 100 million tons of corn and other crops that could feed people instead feed our cars.
What then to make of the fact that more than 750 million tons of corn and wheat are diverted from the mouths of the global poor (and away from biofuels) to feed chickens, pigs, and other farmed animals? And that doesn't even include the 80 percent of the global soy crop that is also fed to farmed animals.
Surely this is a crime against humanity of even greater impact: First, it's more than seven times as many crops that are diverted to feed farmed animals so that we can eat the animals; second, while diverting grains for biofuels does decrease global warming, the impact of eating meat is bad for our health and environment -- there is no upside.
I adopted a vegetarian diet more than 20 years ago, after I read Diet for a Small Planet, by Frances Moore Lappe. In the book, Lappe makes the argument that using land to grow crops for animals is inefficient, polluting, and that it steals food from the mouths of the global poor. The point is echoed by the respected environmental think tank, The WorldWatch Institute, which published a report a few years back that declares:
"[M]eat consumption is an inefficient use of grain--the grain is used more efficiently when consumed by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat-eaters and the world's poor."
More and more, that message is getting a hearing, so that a few weeks ago, the UN's climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Reuters news agency, "The best solution would be for us all to become vegetarians." Indeed.
De Boer was talking about both the global food crisis and global warming, because a U.N. report recently found that eating meat is the number one human cause of global warming, causing almost a fifth of the global greenhouse gas total -- and, of course, poor communities are the first to suffer the potentially grave consequences of climate change.
The chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, is himself a vegetarian and has been outspoken on the need for people who care about the climate to move in that direction. At a press conference just after winning the Peace Prize, the IPCC declared "Please eat less meat -- meat is a very carbon-intensive commodity".
Indeed it is, which is why the official handbook for the Live Earth concerts says that "refusing meat" is "the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint" (emphasis in original).
And the U.N. report also found that eating meat is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." Specifically, the 408-page report noted the meat industry's contribution to "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity".
Clearly problems of climate change and the global food crisis warrant global and political solutions, but one of those solutions will have to include a shift away from the massive handouts that governments give to their meat industries in the form of government-paid inspection programs (these industries should pay their own bills), subsidies for feed crops, teams of scientists helping to grow larger animals with fewer resources, and so on. And it should also include government programs to encourage a public shift away from the consumption of chickens, pigs, and other farmed animals.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated last month that "[h]unger is a moral challenge to each one of us as global citizens... [w]ith one child dying every five seconds from hunger-related causes, the time to act is now".
The current issue of the New Scientist, in discussing the food crisis and the vast additonal crops that are required to feed meat-eaters, as opposed to vegetarians, explains in discussing solutions, "We could try to reduce the demand by persuading people to return to a less meaty diet for example, but that is unlikely to work."
I think the New Scientist editors underestimate people. In Taiwan, they're taking the concept seriously; the Guardian reported on Wednesday that to address the global food crisis and global warming, "around a million people in Taiwan -- including the speaker of parliament, the environment minister, and the mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung -- vowed to never again touch flesh nor fish."
If we take global warming and global poverty seriously, isn't adopting a vegetarian diet the least that each of us can do?
For more on this topic, please visit www.GoVeg.com. Find recipes and more at www.VegCooking.com.
Follow Bruce Friedrich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brucegfriedrich
All the arguments are a waste of time when in the end you all accept the notion of “personal choice”.
It is not a “personal choice” when you are eating my friends and you are ruining my world. My tax money subsidizes your “personal choice.” When you made your “personal choice,” did you ask the animal if you could confine, torture, and murder him or her? When you made your “personal choice,” did you ask me if I mind all your pollution and devastation? Just because we personally make selfish choices does not make them “personal choices.”
Humane education reinforced with a vegan school lunch will end school shootings and create a generation that cares. When children see that adults care enough to change, they will care in turn. This is too serious of an issue to leave alone just because some wish to eat unimpeded.
We don’t need to have meetings, sign any petitions, or stand on any street corners with signs. No legislation. Wake up! The future is right here, right now, right in front of us. Children are the transmission of society. All we have to do is tell the children the truth. Afraid? Peer Pressure.
In closing, I’ll leave you with the great words of the beloved George Carlin, “Just because you got the monkey off your back, doesn’t mean the circus has left town”
This has to be told around !
The other day on France Culture, the most intellectual and free radio here, a guest started to explain that we wealthy humans should reduce our meat consumption.
He was cut short and censored right away.
There are too many lobbies and voters behind the meat production.
Which is a shame because becoming vegetarians would solve a lot of the problems.
However, expecting the world to become vegetarian is just not realistic. Humans are omnivors, and meat is deeply engrained in human culture. The vast majority of the world will never become vegetarian, nor should we press them to. If we weren't meant to eat meat, we wouldn't be able to digest it. The infusion of meat protein into our diets is what gave us these big ole brains and let us surpass our tree dwelling ancestors. I am able to overcome my natural desire for meat out of a sense of compassion for animals and the Earth, but just because I am able to do so doesn't mean the average person is.
If the UN starts pressuring people to become vegetarians, the backlash will be enormous, and many Americans are already wary of the UN and environmentalists as it is. The best route is for us to encourage people to cut down on their meat consumption, not eliminate meat completely.
Veg foods, including fabulous fake meats made from soy are delicious, nutritious, and earth-friendly. Switching to a vegetarian diet was, for this long-time meat eater, very easy. I've never felt better or been healthier.
http://www.newyorkhistoryreview.com/wheatless.html
As long as we're in the habit of declaring war on intangibles like terrorism, war which has no well-defined end, why not declare a similar war on consumption, and instead of sending in an army somewhere, we'd simply step up recycling, go meat-less, sugar-less, gas-less one or more days of the week if not full time, and replace out useless lawns with victory gardens.
I cut my gas usage because using gas costs time and money. Yes, it frees up that part of the supply for others, but I'm not doing it for them (but you're all welcome nonetheless). The same holds true for my being vegetarian. It's easier. It's healthier. Meat recalls don't affect me. Most of my food won't kill me if it's spoiled or uncooked. Yes, it also means I'm using fewer resources, but that's honestly not among my motivations, nor would I expect it to be among anyone else's.