The Breathtaking Effects Of Cutting Back On Meat
I've written extensively on the consequences of eating meat - on our health, our sense of "right living", and on the environment. It is one of those daily practices that has such a broad and deep effect that I think it merits looking at over and over again, from all the different perspectives. Sometimes, solutions to the world's biggest problems are right in front of us. The following statistics are eye-opening, to say the least.
If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save:
● 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months;
● 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year;
● 70 million gallons of gas--enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare;
● 3 million acres of land, an area more than twice the size of Delaware;
● 33 tons of antibiotics.
If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would prevent:
● Greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.2 million tons of CO2, as much as produced by all of France;
● 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages;
● 4.5 million tons of animal excrement;
● Almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions, a major air pollutant.
My favorite statistic is this: According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads. See how easy it is to make an impact?
Other points:
Globally, we feed 756 million tons of grain to farmed animals. As Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer notes in his new book, if we fed that grain to the 1.4 billion people who are living in abject poverty, each of them would be provided more than half a ton of grain, or about 3 pounds of grain/day--that's twice the grain they would need to survive. And that doesn't even include the 225 million tons of soy that are produced every year, almost all of which is fed to farmed animals. He writes, "The world is not running out of food. The problem is that we--the relatively affluent--have found a way to consume four or five times as much food as would be possible, if we were to eat the crops we grow directly."
A recent United Nations report titled Livestock's Long Shadow concluded that the meat industry causes almost 40% more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's transportation systems--that's all the cars, trucks, SUVs, planes and ships in the world combined. The report also concluded that factory farming is one of the biggest contributors to the most serious environmental problems at every level--local and global.
Researchers at the University of Chicago concluded that switching from standard American diet to a vegan diet is more effective in the fight against global warming than switching from a standard American car to a hybrid.
In its report, the U.N. found that the meat industry causes local and global environmental problems even beyond global warming. It said that the meat industry should be a main focus in every discussion of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortages and pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Unattributed statistics were calculated from scientific reports by Noam Mohr, a physicist with the New York University Polytechnic Institute.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Note to many who write that we are not designed to eat meat: we are not designed period. We evolved into a omnivorous species: that is a species whose diet includes meat. By the way, stop by France at some point: virtually no vegetarians, lots of meat, lots of dairy, lots of alcohol, lots of tobacco...
65 million years of simply eating mostly plants made humans precisely suited. Reaching out and eating plants was easier than hitting an animal on the head. Turning the whole idea around, eat what is good for you. Meat peutrifies in the digestive system, has no fiber, is high in fat and animal protein unlike plants.
I wouldn't doubt it. Rodents will eat about anything. But, is it a significant part of their diet?
I've been vegetarian for 14 years and vegan for the last 6 months. My doctor always comments that if everyone had blood as healthy as me then he would have no patients. So, yes it is totally healthy to not have decomposing carcasses in your body.
And kudos to anyone who read this and got the point that by cutting back just a little bit we can make a world of change.
I really hate seeing much of the response to this coming back to the same old meat vs no meat diatribe by many of the commenters, although I am delighted to see so much interest.
For me the real point is that EVERYONE can do SOMETHING, and individual tiny steps can make huge differences.
The title of the article reads: The Breathtaking Effects of CUTTING BACK ... i assume those words aren't beyond the understanding of people reading/responding to this article, IRRESPECTIVE of diet.
I stand opposed to the general view that any *protein restricted* diet is healthy.
The healthy human body needs half its weight in grams of protein just to
support tissue turn-over and repair, not to mention healthy immune system
function and maintenance. Vegetarian / meat restricted diets are not healthy.
A healthy adult weighting 200 lbs., needs 100 grams of *complete proteins*
which is difficult if not impossible to obtain, even with effective food combining,
including beans and rice - tofu and god only knows what to get the prerequisite
21 key amino acids to make a complete protein. Not easy on a vegan diet,
no matter how strict, knowledgeable and applied the person is.
Vegetable proteins are *incomplete proteins* and their amino acid
profiles in NO WAY represent proteins in our bodies
No disputing the facts or this article, just not an option for me or most people.
I believe in this article, I simply struggle to think of ways to incorporate
the jest of this article effectively in my approach to life. I will try,
the numbers make sense, more than the approach.
The essence of the article is appealing to me.
How much protein in 1/2 cup almonds and two slices of whole wheat bread. It only give about 28 grams protein. I guess you could add a serving of spinich to make complete protein. So 100 grams a day shouldn't be excessive.
I have a simple plan: 45 meat-free days a year. Less than once a week.
It is personally unhealthy to not take a break from meat. One should look out for their own health.
Download and print a 45-day sheet at: http://www
Just write the days down and be organized about it. It will add up if we can commit.
Thank you.
Blah Blah Blah. What nonsense.
This article assumes that the only meat available is from factory farms and the like.
I buy meat from local farmers that is grassfed, does not require much if any industrial scale grain production, and uses no antibiotics.
Ecologically produced grassfarmed meat doesnt have any of these problems.
I wish it was, as you say, nonsense. But obviously your idyllic situation is relatively inconsequential statistically as compared to how most meat is obtained by most meat-eaters.
Well then instead of just saying we should "eat less meat", why not help to educate others on the vast differences (for our health and for the environment) between conventional meat and grass fed meat raised humanely, and encouraging people to find local sources?
You people are so full of how right and good you are, you have all the answers and everyone should listen to you. But oh if they disagree they are selfish, amoral and clearly retarded, not just owners of an opinion or a different set of tastebuds. I'm tired of vegetarians/vegans.
Okay I'll amend that, I am not tired of all vegetable eaters, I'm tired of people in general trying to get up in everyone's faces for doing something they deem as wrong, in any situation. Bah.
Why so defensive? This is simply an article talking about the factual consequences of one aspect of our extravagant lifestyle. The only one attacking anyone is you.
No one is attacking anyone - well, perhaps you are - it is the actions of our species as a whole that are being discussed; and the consequences to ourselves, our environment, and other sentient living beings caused by our actions. It's not all about you.
Those who defend the eating of meat on purely scientific grounds are missing the point - it is the gross immorality of confining and abusing billions of sentient beings for the mere indulgence of our tastebuds that is at issue.
It is stupid, selfish, and insane to willingly destroy the air, water, and climate of our planet, our only home, by the current practices of mass confinement and factory farming of billions of suffering, feeling individual animal beings for nothing more ultimately than our gastronomic titillation.
Meanwhile, most of the fruits and vegetables we consume in the USA is grown in the arid state of California so we can eat salads whenever we want regardless of where we live. I think that is stupid, selfish and insane. Oh, and by the way, we have now have rice paddies in California too. Talk about insanity.
Ever since reading Jeremy Rifkin's 1993 blockbuster BEYOND BEEF I've found great power in the argument against farming and consuming cattle. In the last week a new study has come out that meat eating demonstrably shortens life and leads to chronic diseases. Even without that, however, no thinking person can justify it given the state of the environment, not to mention the moral issues of how we keep cattle and how we kill them. In truth I enjoy a great steak or hamburger as much as anyone, but meat is simply a luxury our species and our planet can no longer afford. Thank you very much for posting this piece.
There are also studies that suggest vegetarians have worse general health than those who include some meat in their diets. Of course, when the mainstream media reports on these studies, the findings are often referred to as "paradoxes".
Also, when properly done, livestock farming is kinder to the environment than growing grains or vegetables. That said, I do think factory farming (monoculture) should be banned, regardless of whether the food comes from animals or plants.
Most of this is debunked when you grow your own and grass feed. I raise chickens on little to no feed, hunt and fish. I can get all the meat I want and none of it fits within this argument. Problem here is you all buy meat that is shipped 1500 miles instead of local grown.
Fruits, vegetables etc are good for you. Animal flesh has urinelike water, fat and protein and no fiber as good food has. Animal flesh peutrifies within the digestive system.
100,000,000,000 gallons save per day is 36,500,000,000,000 gallons saved per year. This is 3.65 x 10e13 gallons. 0.133680 ft³ per gallon x this equals 4.87932e12 cubic feet. The cube root of this is 4.9 x 10e4 feet. So thinking of the water saved in a year as a cubic volume. The length of a side would be 49,000 feet or 9.2 miles.
Animal flesh doesn't putrefy in the digestive tract, although some vegetables do. That's why we have bean farts, cabbage farts, but no meat farts.
Intestinal gas is not the result of putrification.
If humans were physiologically designed to kill and consume dead animals the way carnivorous creatures are, there could be no justifiable argument to oppose meat eating, but we are not anatomically equipped to handle the digestion of animals.
The Comparative Anatomy of Eating
by Milton R. Mills, M.D.
http://www
And most herbivorous animals eat grass and leaves. This is a bogus argument.
Here in farm country, where I live, animal excrement and ammonia go by another name. It's called FERTILIZER. Whether crops are grown for animal or human consumption they still require fertilizer. And there will still be soil erosion whether or not those crops are for humans or animals. To avoid soil erosion you can always use herbicide instead.
I'll take pastured meat and dairy. It's self fertilizing, doesn't require herbicide, and doesn't contribute to soil erosion.
It's time to take the emotion and sensationalism out of food production. Convoluted and misleading "facts" have replaced common sense.
Correction: Soil erosion is offset by cow poop, but it's still not sustainable. I.e., the poop is not equal to or greater than the amount of soil used. There is a net loss of soil.
And while I imagine you taking handfuls of fresh dung and dropping it in a flower pot to grow tomatoes, and then wiping your hands on a yellow dough cake before putting it in the oven... the rest of us have to process wet dung to get clean, white plastic pillows of usable fertilizer. That takes a tremendous industrial effort with plenty of pollution.
Food production is extremely wasteful, cowboy.
Huh??
Famous Vegans:
http://en.
My favorite:
http://www
Yum.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
