Meat the Truth

This is not another doom and gloom piece about how eating meat is destroying the planet, I promise.

But Ecorazzi senior editor Michael Parrish DuDell's recent blog about environmentalists partying with beef tartar got me thinking: If people know about the massive global damage caused by meat production, why is making a change so difficult? Is it because people don't care? Is it because it's too difficult to give up meat? I'd argue it's neither. It's simply because we all think: it's just me and my burger, what's the difference?

Well, instead of more stark statistics and guilt, I thought I'd try something different: inspirational facts on the difference you could be making. The source for the following list is Marianne Thieme's amazing documentary, Meat the Truth, a quirky, unauthorized sequel of sorts to the more famed An Inconvenient Truth. You can watch an abbreviated version of the film here.

Here's what Marianne's research team found it would mean if all Americans left meat off their plates for just one day. Or two. And so on. I suggest you print out this list and put in on your fridge door, you might just get inspired:

1. If all Americans did not eat meat for one day a week, they would save 99.6 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the equivalent of removing 46 million round trip flights between Los Angeles and New York, or taking 19.2 million cars off the road for a full year.
2. If everyone in the US did not eat meat for two days a week, they would save 199 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would have the same effect as replacing ALL household appliances in the US with energy efficient ones.
3. If all Americans did not eat meat for three days a week, they would save almost 300 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would have a greater impact on the climate than replacing all US cars with Toyota Priuses.
4. If everyone in the US did not eat meat for four days a week, they would save 398 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the carbon savings equivalent of cutting the use of all electricity, gas, oil, petroleum, and kerosene in the United States in half.
5. If all Americans abstained from eating meat for five days a week, they would save 498 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would result in the carbon savings equivalent of planting 13 billion trees and letting them grow for ten years.
6. If all Americans did not eat meat for six days a week, they would save nearly 600 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the equivalent of eliminating the total electricity use of all households in the United States.
7. And finally: If everyone in the United States ate a vegetarian diet for seven days, they would save around 700 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. That would be the same as removing all the cars off the roads in the US.

Need another reason? I thought not.

And if you're one of those people who still feels I'm just trying come between you and your burger, I say: not at all. Just eat a veggie burger. At least once a week.

Comments

[Roguer]

The truth is that humans are the problem not the livestock they raise. Humans that commute over an hour to work everyday from the over developed suburbs to jobs in the city. Humans that have paved over the very best land for producing foods. Humans that buy over packaged products and generate tons of trash and pollution. More fertilizer, from chemical to sewer sludge is poured on the lawns of America per acre than has ever or will ever be applied to my cattle farm.

Do articles like this make you all feel good about your selves-that there is an evil enemy out there and it could never be you that is destroying the world?

Ironic that there has been a reported sharp decline in green house gas emissions in the last year due to the economic recession. http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090921-recession-causes-steep-fall-co2-emissions.html.

This would mean that the problem is humans not the animals grown for consumption, because there has not been a significant decrease in meat production.

Oh and today there is more Arctic Ice than the 30 year average. Look up Amundsen who completed the NW passage in a sailing/steam ship in the 1850's. The Ice Cap melting is not a new thing. From 1817 to around 1860 the ice and glaciers melted enough to allow for exploration and mapping of the arctic region.

[Nguruwe]

Wow. Dude. We're not blaming animals for being grown for OUR consumption. No, you're completely missing the point. We're taking responsibility for OUR growing of animals for OUR consumption. Breeding animals and slaughtering them and keeping them in concentration farms is not ethical. It's a total disaster. In addition to being a disaster for animals, it also happens to be an environmental disaster. It's time to take responsibility and recognize that eating animals is OUR doing, not the animals'.

[rubyredhead]

mikko we need more of you!! this is an excellent blog post. keep them coming!

[rubyredhead]

I love your intro, promising not be a gloom and doom piece. Very important blog post, keep them coming!

[Dmco]

Humanistic- I disagree with your assertion that the majority of people in America would not want to be at least partially vegetarian or that fish is really the only alternative to meat. There are a vast number of other options besides fish and meat, maybe you and other Americans are just suffering from a lack of creativity. If more people were aware of how our food is produced I believe that their would be a massive paradigm shift to eating locally and eating in a more sustainable way. This conversation needs to be expanded beyond meat. Reducing the amount of meat we consume is vital, but so are our food production and distribution methods. People need to stop eating foods that are produced thousands of miles away from them. The energy it takes to produce and transport those foods far out weighs the caloric and nutritional value that the consumer will receive. Eating locally is not only better for the environment, it also helps strengthen and sustain local economies and community ties.

[Humanistic]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think you are in touch with what "the masses" will tolerate in their diet, and you exaggerate the point about other protein options. Spend some time at any supermarket (and the fast food outlets) observing people's buying preferences, and you'll see they want quick, cheap, satisfying meals. Talk to the "average Jane/Joe" about how food is produced, and s/he'll say "I don't care, it doesn't matter to me!".

The same is true with car buying -- Americans like to drive big, powerful, protective tanks. We know both of these lifestyle choices have to be changed, but the only way that will happen is for the cost to skyrocket so people will consider alternatives. Unlike gasoline though, there's not much chance of meat prices going through the roof, even when energy prices go up. So, the question is how you get people to change their diets. Education is the key, but having taught high school classes myself, I can tell you that is a losing battle!

[Christy Morgan]

It's amazing to me how many misconceptions there are about the vegetarian/vegan diet, as displayed by many commentators on this post and many other related to diet and the environment. It's cheaper and easier to have a plant-based diet.

It's also amazing to me how selfish we are as human beings. Someone spoke of tastebuds, which change every 3 weeks. If you could give up your selfish desires for meat, after 3 weeks you might be able to actually taste real food. Meat and dairy pollute the tastebuds. I have been vegan for 7 years and I NEVER feel deprived.

The point that Mikko is trying to make is that everyone can eliminate at least 1 or 2 meat meals a week. That shouldn't be hard for anyone, in any part of the country, whatever your ethnicity, status, gender, religion. etc. There is no reason why you can't help the planet out, in return helping your heart and your waistline.

[Humanistic]

I love your spirit, but what misconceptions are you referring to? If a veggie burger is "real food" with superior flavor to an angus hamburger, I'd sure like to know what product you're getting. I know that's a silly comparison, and what you're referring to is fresh ingredients prepared in creative ways. I love to cook and I know how to prepare great meals. To maximize the value of my time spent, I tend to make large batches that I get tired of, after a few days of eating the same thing. But I've found it's hard to get adequate protein without meat and dairy products, and I enjoy a range of these in balance with whole grains, veggies, seed & nuts, etc.

Yes, I think most people will be able to give up some meat, but again I'm saying there have to be readily available (and quick) alternatives. What do you suggest? If you take away dairy, there isn't much. Tofu sandwich?...not likely. Nut/seed butters?...except for peanuts, they're very expensive and high in fat. Cornbread and beans/lent­ils?...wel­l, once in a while. For me, it always seems to come down to cost, effort and time. And flavor -- just try making a good sauce without dairy or meat products. It's not easy.

(cont.)

[cucumber]

I think you're not really clear on just how much protein humans actually need, and that plant matter has plenty of protein in it. Heck, even carrots have protein in them. It's really not hard to get protein from vegetation. Do some research! I've been a vegan for over a decade and I have no health issues.

[Humanistic]

(continued)

I know it's possible to save money by buying bulk ingredients and preparing foods, but most people are just not willing to do this. Most people who work regular or long hours, want to come home and fix dinner quickly. That's why frozen prepared foods are so popular. But there are very few that are truly healthy -- most contain meat, of course, but also refined grains and loads of salt and fat. The ones that are nutritious, cost a whole lot more and the portions are too small. The average person would have to spend too large a portion of their income this way.

If it were possible to create an enterprise specializing in environmentally responsible prepared food products that are affordable and taste good, I think this would have been done. I don't see any examples. The natural food stores are stocked with very expensive stuff (including much of the produce), and you can see that the shoppers are well-off. Most poorer neighborhoods (like where I'm living now) don't even have such markets, only big supermarkets that carry national brands (mostly junk). I challenge you to find a quality loaf of whole grain bread (free of chemicals) at any supermarket -- they simply don't carry it! OK, so buy a bread machine (I did, and it broke down after a year). It's very frustrating to me, and I think I'm pretty well educated. Think of how "average" people feel.

[LetsGoSteve]

Nothing would be green without CO2. Global warming hype is more about the transfer of wealth to other parts of the world then it is about saving the planet. For more information see www.M4GW.com

[wallyone]

Please take these figures with a grain of salt, as the emissions estimates are wildly exaggerated. The use of fossil fuels and water in animal agriculture are also way less than what has become conventional wisdom. The people who publicize these things all have an agenda.

No one seems to take into account the amount of greenhouse gasses that would be emitted from decaying vegetation if ruminant animals were not eating it. They convert inedible, indigestible cellulose into the most nutritionally valuable foods.

[enveg01]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe we wouldn't have to grow as much vegetation if we weren't consuming so many animal products? It takes 16 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef. Sounds pretty inefficient to me. 70% of the rain forest has been cut down to grow soy and grain for animals, not for us. You can make all the excuses in the world, but animal agriculture today is wasteful, destructive, and indefensible.

[Roguer]

Takes no grain to feed my cattle. None. Nada. Zip. Say is produced purely for human consumption. Cattle that are fed soy are fed the hulls that are a byproduct. Same with distillers grains or gluten, what's left from making ethanol to mix with your gasoline. Cotton seeds are also used, another byproduct.

Ruminants, cattle, goats, sheep, alpacas, etc. are very efficient at converting cellulose (something that human cannot digest efficiently) into something that we can digest, as an added bonus they return 80% of what they digest back to the soil.

How many products in your house are soy and grain based?... Margarine? Mayonnaise? Chocolate? Soy products are some the most heavily processed, sodium laden foods available. Soy also contains phytoestrogens, hormones very similar to what is injected into commercial beef. Moreover, many people are also allergic to soy, never heard of anyone allergic to beef.

I will defend my cattle and my joy of raising them on open pasture, hormone and antibiotic free. I will defend my right to eat them.

What is indefensible is misinformed judgments and opinions, such as the post I am replying to.

[greenwriter]

wallyone -- Is that what the UN and the University of Chicago-- who've done the most extensive studies on greenhouse gas emissions-- are known for: exaggerating data for an agenda? Denying global warming is like denying evolution, and your claims fool no one. I suspect the real agenda at work in your post is your personal laziness and apathy. Anything to justify doing nothing, huh?

[spikeykitten]

I am surprised that this

Soylent Green

contains no meat

[spikeykitten]

Animals are yummy.

fried, smoked, grilled, etc...

We could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by not eating beans and broccoli.

[Humanistic]

I think it is important to weigh what many people consider to be the only alternative to meat: which is fish. Fish farming practices are becoming increasingly energy intensive and pollutive, and high-yield over-fishing is deleterious to the sustainability of our ocean resources. Consumption of energy to can/freeze and transport fish products over long distances adds to the carbon footprint. While beef is undoubtedly the worst offender, I would like to see a fair comparison of fish and poultry products, taking these factors into account.

Let's get real! I would bet that 99.999% of Americans would scoff at the idea of eating vegetarian. I don't plan to become a vegan again any time soon -- I know from my previous experience (about 10 years) that this consumed too much of my time in food preparation, in order to get adequate nutrition esp. protein, and it severely limited my options for dining out or getting meals while on the road.

There is no perfect option -- even locally grown produce has an impact. The question is: what is the most practical for me (the individual), based on where I live (long distance from bodies of water, no arable land, desert climate), my tastes and lifestyle, and what is affordable and available where I live?

If Environmentalists want to implement change toward reduced greenhouse gas emissions, they need to deal with these practical issues in total, not just the narrow theoretical and statistical basis of food production.

[Humanistic]

Addendum: While we are talking externalities, let's factor in the legendary productivity of American workers, which I believe is due in part to their high-quality protein diet. How would that productivity be affected by switching to non-beef and vegan sources of protein? I would venture to say that it would be adversely impacted. I'm not saying that the average American's health is exemplary, by any means. But high-quality protein is essential for brain functioning and physical strength.

If we are to address the food problem from all sides, we need to offer alternatives that are affordable, readily available, and TASTE GOOD to most people's palettes. So, make us a cheap "veggie burger" that satisfies, and see if you can sell it. Good luck! Americans will continue to be the biggest consumers and wasters of resources, and that includes the Environmentalists, in spite of their best intentions (and pretensions).

[enveg01]

Productivity of American workers? Are you forgetting that everything we buy pretty much comes from China? Americans haven't "produced" for years -- maybe it's because we're too busy dealing with heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and cancer from all the meat we shove in our mouths.

[JScott]

They need to deal with the big elephant in the room-human population growth.

[Humanistic]

I think the point is that we in the western world have a much greater environmental impact per capita, because of our extremely excessive resource consumption and pollution, which is exemplified by meat production. Each American creates many times the damage that a person in the third world does.

There's no question that population growth is the biggest challenge to humanity, especially because of the inescapable suffering by the poorest people and the rising expectations of the developing world. There is not enough attention paid to this, but HOW to deal with it, is the question. China's one-child-­per-couple law worked quite well, but it required an oppressive state to implement. That will not be acceptable to most other cultures, and we have no right to impose our will on others. Access to birth control methods and education (especially to women) is the only other answer, but this has to be provided through governments that are often paternalistic, backward, and mired in religious traditions that are not helpful to women. And it takes time; meanwhile the situation gets worse.

(cont.)

[Humanistic]

(continued)

We need to focus mainly on what we can do to minimize our own impact. But we are stuck with a segment of the public that refuses to recognize the need for radical change. Our population, and that of other developed countries, is aging while population growth is diminishing. I for one, as an older person, have to struggle to accept changes to my own lifestyle that I recognize will be essential. But many other Americans appear to be far more recalcitrant than I am -- in fact they are living in denial.

Only strong leadership can effect change in the face of powerful entrenched special interests. The overarching policy that we must support is to account for ALL of the external costs of industry practices and technologies in the pricing and taxation of them, and to establish uniform international standards that will diminish the destruction of our planet. The U.S. should be leading the way, but for a decade we've been dragging our feet and making things worse.

[greenwriter]

Humanistic -- Far more Americans than that are already vegetarian or vegan or eat at least a partially vegetarian diet. And there's no excuse not to. Most Americans live in cities, where it's easier than ever. I find it very hard to believe you were vegan for 10 years. I suspect 10 minutes is more like it. Regurgitating outdated myths about protein and excessive time consumption in food preparation is just nonsense. If you look around America, don't you think it's time for a change of diet, for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is the cancer-obe­sity-heart disease-diabetes explosion?

[Humanistic]

I was indeed a vegan as a "kid" for nearly 10 years before going to college, and had the benefit of a dedicated mom who cooked, canned, and had a wide-ranging food repertoire; plus an uncle who had an organic garden and gave us fresh veggies regularly. After a year away at college, I had to give it up. First, it was taking way too much of my time to prepare meals and my roommates hated me; and second, I went on tour in Europe and found it impossible to get adequate nutrition at restaurants (especially in Germany, where meat and potatoes reign). I also went on a long bicycle tour, and again it I found it was practically impossible to avoid eating meat. Try it yourselves...you have to spend time scrounging around, work long hours preparing stuff, and pack far too much bulky food.

My experience of having to change back to meat eating was 30 years ago, so I admit a lot has improved in terms of the availability of a variety of non-meat products. But when I look at the prices at the natural foods stores, I think "OMG, who can afford this?" and "Somebody must be making a killing." Here in Arizona, many of the locally grown foods come from hydroponic farms, so the energy use is far greater than for ordinary crops. Just about everything else is trucked in.

(cont.)

[Humanistic]

(continued)

The time factor is very significant -- just add up the time you have to spend going to different stores, planning for seasonal produce, selecting & bagging & purchasing, storing and keeping close track of spoilage, preparing "ready to eat" foods, studying nutrition and compiling recipes, acquiring expensive kitchen equipment (like a juicer, containers, a good wok & pots & pans, etc.), meal preparation and don't forget cleaning up. It's a tall order, and it's not very practical for a single person.

I still enjoy some of this, but due to the recession and a long spell of unemployment, I've had to curtail these "upscale" lifestyle choices. I can just imagine how the vast majority of poor and lower middle class families would view the alternatives to meat eating -- prohibitively expensive and time-consuming for everyday. It would be great to get people to change, but we have to offer them practical, affordable alternatives.

[RyanMoore]

Good stuff!

[Andrew Stepanian]

Amazing article Mikko!

Thank you for posting.

[RMankovitz]

Personally, I eat a diet designed by nature and tested on 100,000 generations of our ancestors, because I believe it is the most ethical, sustainable, and healthiest diet on the planet.

The beauty of this diet, as opposed to vegan, vegetarian, or grain-fed meat diets, is that it does not require the use of any artificial fertilizers or pesticides (both derived from fossil fuel); or diesel fuel to run agricultural machinery to plow, cultivate and harvest; or artificial irrigation (fossil fuel powered pumps); or GM seeds.

It is completely independent of farms and all of the agricultural machinery that destroys topsoil and kills millions of ground-living animals. It eliminates the need for any of the products produced by the pesticide, fertilizer, and GM AgriGiants, or the need for feed-lots, egg-breeders, or dairy farms.

It does not use anything made by Deere, Caterpillar, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, Dean Foods, Heinz, Nestle, Kraft, General Mills, Betty Crocker, Kellogg, Nabisco, Stonyfield, Yoplait, ConAgra, Cargill, etc.

The ecological footprint of this diet is estimated to be much smaller than either a vegan, vegetarian, or Standard American Diet. It arguably has the lowest profile of natural toxins, and respects the ethical treatment of both animals and plants - something unavailable in any other diet.

A description of this diet (an experiment based on nature), along with supporting references, can be found in "The Wellness Project", or "The Original Diet - The Omnivore's Solution".

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com

[greenwriter]

Personally, I become skeptical when people like Roy make huge boasts and then direct you to their website, which is devoid of any actual details about their self-proclaimed "most ethical, sustainable, and healthiest diet," instead offering only more boasts and links to order the author's own books. Hmmm. Call me cynical, but people who really care about ethics, sustainability, and health usually don't hide their data...

[RMankovitz]

Thank you for your interest in my research.

As you can see from the home page of my website, I donate my books to public and university libraries that request a copy. If your local library does not have a copy, have them contact me and I will send them one.

[cucumber]

he kinda writes the same thing on most articles. I call it s pam.

[enveg01]

If only the leaders of the green movement would say this loud, clear and unequivocally. Thank you for this brilliant and thoughtful piece. I've seen Meat The Truth -- it should be required viewing for anyone who cares about the future of our planet.

[kafe]

Very important to watch! Hopefully, people will start to catch on. All of these people jumping on the greenhouse band wagon and not knowing that 18% of the problem is their own diet
Thank you Huffington Post for bring this to your viewers!!