In my quest to green my life, I have been on a mission to eat more sustainably. I’ve tried to buy only locally grown and organic produce and have searched for grass-fed meats. Well, during my quest I have befriended Shannon Hayes, a sustainable farmer in Upstate New York. This journey to find better, healthier and more environmentally friendly meat can be read in one of my older post entitled “Grass-Fed Meat.”
Shannon has a wealth of information on today’s food issues and I thought Eco Chick readers might enjoy what she has to say about global warming, eating meat and the importance of the local farm movement. I hope you find it has informative and timely as I did.
Compare Apples to Apples When You’re Talking About Rib Eyes
By Shannon Hayes, farmer and host of grassfedcooking.com
After decades of hunching over in shame around environmentalist vegetarians, small grass-based meat farmers were finally given a chance hold our heads high by investigative journalists and nutritional advocates like Jo Robinson, Michael Pollan and Sally Fallon. In the last 10 years, Grass-fed meats have been lauded for their health benefits, their contributions to local economies and animal welfare, and most especially, for their environmental benefits.
…Until recently. A study released by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization started a buzz in November of 2006 suggesting that livestock production is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. According to a story in the New York Times, in 2007, PETA commissioned a Hummer and outfitted it with a driver wearing a chicken suit to travel around to environmental rallies, proclaiming meat as the number one cause of global warming. And this month, a story in Environmental Science and Technology reports on a new study which suggests that, rather than eating locally, we should just remove red meat and dairy from our diet once per week and replace it with chicken, fish or eggs, and have at least one day per week entirely meat-free. The result? Customers ordinarily seeking beef are suddenly asking for turkey burgers and chicken sausage; or they are dropping meat from their diets all together.
That’s pretty grim news for my family. Three generations of us garner a living from our small grass-based farm tucked up in the northern foothills of the Appalachian mountain chain. We’ve managed to build an exclusively local market for our products, making us an integral part of our rural economy. We’ve also managed to bring three additional farms back into viable agricultural production with the help of folks dedicated to buying locally.
…Which leads to the next piece of news being circulated: that these “small dietary shifts” of giving up meat can accomplish the same greenhouse gas reduction as eating locally. The subtext here seriously stings: “Forget about those looney meat farmers in the hills, don’t fret about canning local tomatoes, and return your faith to the conventional supermarket. Just buy less red meat and go vegetarian once per week..” As a grass-based meat farmer, I’ve got a beef with that — not to mention a serious steak in the matter (in this case, a rib eye, which I plan to lay across my grill later today).
Truth be told, these studies aren’t wrong. They aren’t exactly right, either, but I’ll get to that in a second.
When we are looking at the industrial model of factory farming, of pumping grains into animals, there are serious ecological reasons to forego the red meats. “The main issue,” explains animal scientist Dr. James Hayes “is the conversion factor. When you feed grain to fish, you have a conversion factor of about 1.25 to 1.” That means that for every 1 ¼ pounds of grain product you feed to a fish, you’ll have a pound of weight gain. “The conversion for chicken is 2 pounds of feed per pound of gain on the bird. Pork is 4 pounds per pound of gain. And when you get to the ruminants, it skyrockets. Lamb requires 8 pounds of feed for a pound of weight gain, and beef requires 9 pounds of feed per pound of gain.” Grain production is extremely taxing on the environment, particularly in light of the chemical fertilizers, the nitrous oxide emissions, and the fossil fuel-intensive farming practices.
But here’s where there are gaps in the analysis: Ruminants are not designed to eat grain. Beef and lamb from grassfed farms do not eat grain. Grassfed dairy products are not fed grain. Ruminants can live off what our fields naturally produce – they harvest perennial grasses which do not need to be seeded every year, and they return nutrients to the soil. In a pinch, they can also eat things like straw and corn stalks – which means they have the magical capacity to convert crop production waste into food. Conventional factory-farmed red meats are bad for the environment. Grass-fed red meats are not. Most grass farms use no chemical inputs; and since the animals harvest the feed themselves by grazing, very few fossil fuels are required to produce the meat. In fact, grass-fed meats play an integral role in our carbon solution.
In 2005, the USDA released a report showing that properly managed pastures store 2 to 3 times more carbon in their soils than fields that were left unmanaged, used for hay, or left un-harvested. Another study released by the University of Iowa in 2002 showed that grazed pastures were the ideal land use for storing carbon. This means that properly grazing animals helps to reverse the greenhouse effect. Allan Savory, founder of the Center for Holistic management, has done calculations suggesting that we could actually reverse global warming by grazing cattle and using them to build soil organic matter. His work emphasizes, however, that this is only done through good grazing practices. Poor grazing practices have long been the culprits of desertification and environmental degradation. There is a difference; and the only way to identify sound practices is know your local farmer.
But in the crunching of their carbon calculations, the anti-red-meat advocates overlook another huge element in the push to buy locally. Food security is a big one. As we hit peak oil, it will get harder and harder to transport those non-local food products to the folks that need them. Isn’t it wiser to have a secure local food system in place? And then, of course, there are the issues of viable local economies, made vibrant by independent businesses, beautified by open farmland, and hopeful by families whose children can find a livelihood near home, rather than far away. And then, finally, there are the simple principles of non-exploitation and social justice that are embodied by the local food movement. This means paying us farmers honest wages for our work, which in turn enables us to steward the land responsibly, and create great tasting food…especially that rib eye, which I’ll be grilling up for lunch.
About Shannon Hayes
Shannon is the host of grassfedcooking.com, and the author of The Farmer and the Grill and The Grassfed Gourmet. She holds a Ph.D. in sustainable agriculture and community development from Cornell University. Her family farm is Sap Bush Hollow, it is located in Upstate New York.
As a vegetarian for the last 15 years, I think we should eat local AND go veg. I just don’t think eating meat is necessary or sustainable for our population at the levels we now consume animal products. BUT I realize that this is just not an argument that many people will accept. Having read a lot about raising animals in the traditional way (and having visited several small family-farms in Vermont, where I spend as much time as I can), I see the benefits of these farms for both the local communities and the animals.
So here’s my compromise with all the carnivores of the world. Make meat a side dish instead of a main, or choose to eat it just a couple of times a week. Then you can afford to support small family farms, enjoy your meat (and really savor it, since it’s not an everyday food), the animals will be treated better, the meat will be healthier for you and the environment, and you can eat locally. If everyone in the united states went half-time vegetarian, and only ate good, local meats, that would be like if half the population went veggie! And local farmers would benefit since they wouldn’t have to compete with disgusting agribusinesses. I hate to say it, and it’s not the way I want to live, since I just can’t stomach eating an animal with a personality and a will to live, but in the interest of actually making positive change on the animal rights and human stubborness about meat-eating front, I say if you can’t be veggie, then be 1/2 time veg and eat good local meat.
05/30/08 » 8:37 am »
It’s nice to see Eco-Chick focusing on local farms instead of eco-boutiques and organic luxury clothes. I subscribe to Eco-Chick’s blog and have been pleased with that in the past, but I have to say that the emphasis on luxury items has been disappointing. I’d like to see more middle-to-lower-class options focused on–like local eating, farmers’ markets, ride-sharing, etc. The fashion aspect is fluff to me–I’ll never buy at an eco-boutique because I don’t buy at regular boutiques. I don’t have that kind of disposable income. Thank you for this blog!
05/30/08 » 5:32 pm »
I agree with Starre. I’m a longtime vegetarian and strongly believe we’d all be better off if everyone went vegetarian, but I acknowledge that that will never happen. However, buying grassfed meat from small farmers like Ms. Hayes instead of huge companies (where conditions are really bad, from cleanliness to the way animals are treated) and cutting back overall consumption would be a great compromise. This is what my husband does now – he used to be a big time meat eater and I only cook vegetarian meals, so when he wants meat, he either gets it at a restaurant (which is rarely) or buys local and cooks it at home. I think he’s sloooowly making the transition toward being a vegetarian (after nearly 8 years) but maybe he’ll always eat a little meat, and as long as it’s local grassfed meat, I guess I’m ok with it.
05/31/08 » 6:30 am »
Global Warming, eating meat and the importance of the Local Farm Movement (Google / Eco-Chick) « Desertification
[...] http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/3.....arm-move... [...]
06/02/08 » 6:02 am »
Quest to green my life? Melissa, while you’re probably a lovely caring person, your opening encapsulates all that is bogus about the current, corporate, Modonna-esque, have your cake and eat it, green movement. It’s self indulgent and self serving and devoid of any ethical or philosophical basis. How about a quest to lead an ethtical, compassionate and respectful life. Greenness flows directly from that. You can’t be compassionate and respectful and still trash the planet. But the opposite applies. Even hunters claim to be green. The fact is that they, and the livestock raisers, are not green – they are red. Blood red.
Whether the cow is eating grass or antibiotic laden GMO corn, it’s a slave, it gets slaughtered, chopped up, ground up, masticated and crapped out. As for dairy, no matter how much grass a cow eats, her calves are taken away and the females are forced into perpetual lactation and the males slaughtered or tortured for veal.
As for the claims that grass fed is better than corn fed, valuable land is still being wasted by inefficient farming, forests are still ruined to make pastures, run off from the cow shit still pollutes the water, methane (i.e. carbon) is still produced, cows are still hauled long distances and vegetable mass is still inefficiently converted into animal protein. One of the most significant sources of global warming and food shortages for the poor is the fact that India and China are adding animal protein to the national diet, requiring more cows, more pigs, more chickens, dogs, cats etc. to be “farmed.” The “grass fed” advocates are barely different from the “clean coal” people. Their claims are bogus and self serving. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fact that some cattle ranchers work on a small scale is barely relevant. They are still motivated by profit, they still trash the environment and they still subject their animals to degrading and cruel treatment. The fact that McDonalds is evil does not validate other forms of environmental and animal abuse.
06/02/08 » 6:11 am »
A wonderful, well-reasoned post. The high emotional level of some of the responses is understandable, but I hope they won’t distract from the evidence presented.
I also liked Starre’s point about compromise positions. Those who feel that eating beef is murder can’t compromise, of course, but those who understand health and ecology concerns about meat-eating and still enjoy eating meat may be inspired. I like the “meat as a condiment” point of view, myself.
06/02/08 » 11:24 am »
Evidence? What evidence? Shannon Hayes’s piece is about as self serving as can be. How can anyone take what she says seriously, when the whole purpose of the post was to advocate her lifestyle and livelihood? Her assertion that grass-fed is not bad for the environment is patently false. Is she suggesting that it’s better for the land to have cattle grazing on it than it is to dedicate it to nature and indigenous fauna and flora? Cows are entirely a figment of human interference in natural processes by selective breeding. They are not indigenous. So putting them on the land can never ever be better than not having them. Furthermore, in case you’re thinking that growing veggies is bad for the environment, consider how many people a small veggie patch can feed and how much land you need to sustain even one cow. Her position should be seen for what it is – the self serving greenwashing propaganda of someone advocating the consumption of animal protein to make a living for herself or those close to her. If it proves anything, it proves that little guys can be as guilty of greenwashing as big guys. I can’t resist saying – its a bunch of bullshit.
Oh and if we’re talking compromise, maybe bring the cows in and ask them how they like being side dishes rather than main courses.
06/02/08 » 2:09 pm »
So here’s my take. Most people eat some form of meat or another. If you are not a vegetarian or a vegan, then choosing to eat locally and organically is the right way to go.
This isn’t for everyone. But then, making economic and lifestyle decisions based on environmentally sound thinking isn’t for everyone either.
I don’t eat red meat, but I do eat poultry, fish and even pork. Any industrial meat farm, and or processing plant has a massive impact on the economy. I’m not giving up my ribs, I’m not giving up my Buffalo chicken wings, but I am going to buy from farms that pursue sustainable farming methods.
Shannon, btw, its a very nice woman, and a very good writer.
06/03/08 » 7:53 pm »
Seriously? Please watch this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/263
06/04/08 » 1:19 am »
This is a very good and fair article. It is exactly the way this should be presented. Not activism, but factivism. (OK, I just made that up, but it sounds cool, or maybe stupid.)
There is absolutely no way I could go vegetarian. (Sorry Starre, and Mark Bittman at TED.) Merely surviving, even mere “health” isn’t my goal in life. I am very athletic and build lots of muscle with a high metabolism. It is simply impossible to get enough protein safely on a vegetarian (and definitely vegan) diet. We evolved as omnivores. Eating meat is natural and healthy and it will always be a main ingredient in my diet. That being said, I do want to do it sustainably. I do mostly eat fresh meat, vegetables, and fruit. Now I’ll try to make sure it is local.
06/04/08 » 5:27 am »
Just to correct my last post, Mark Bittman (at Peterp’s TEDTalks link, which I highly recommend, as well as all other TEDTalks) didn’t actually say to go vegetarian, but that we eat too much meat (and certainly junk food). I do agree with him, though he’s light on the actual science and statistical analysis. So in that sense I do exactly what he suggests. But maintaining high muscle and metabolism safely does require large amounts of animal protein. Admittedly, much of it comes from whey protein, so I’d bet I eat less actual meat (particularly red meat) than the average Joe FastFood. But that’s still dairy, from animals, who still need to graze.
Again, good job.
06/04/08 » 5:44 am »
Dear Michael;
Your comments were forwarded to me, with a request that I respond to them.
First, thank you for the time you have invested into considering these
issues; although it saddens me that my essay has inspired so much anger.
You are not wrong. Small farmers do stand to gain from folks who will
support us. In my particular case, three generations of my family can
continue to derive a modest but happy living that currently falls below
200% of the poverty level. We can continue to provide food for our local
community, and we can keep farms from being turned into suburban
developments and McMansions. The last 50+ years of industrializing
agriculture have had a horrendous ecological and social impact. Small
farms around the nation have been devastated. Small farmers have learned
that we need to speak up for ourselves. I take that job very seriously.
Your arguments are classic statements that have been around for about 30
years, and it is always helpful to readers to remember the old debates as
they consider new information. In all honesty, however, there is a lot of
material out there that would help to update your understanding of these
issues. I would start by reviewing the literature presented on
eatwild.com at this link: http://www.eatwild.com/environment.html. This
site was put together by Jo Robinson, a researcher (not a self-serving
farmer like myself) who began uncovering scientific literature about
grassfed meat production several years ago. Jo maintains this website as
a service to our nation’s food community. In all honesty, I think she may
operate it at a financial loss. In short, she does not gain financially
from this endeavor. Perhaps you can trust her more than you can trust me.
In response to your concerns about methane, there is a quick summary of
the issues and findings in this recent post to my website:
http://www.grassfedcooking.com.....ction.html. Perhaps
it will help to assuage some of your concerns. Another piece to check out
was written by Matthew Rales, An Inconvenient Cow: The Truth Behind the
U.N. Assault on Ruminant Livestock.” It appears in the Wise Traditions
journal, Vol. 9, no.1, Spring 2008. Also, as a vegetarian (I can only
assume you are), you might want to explore some of the information
surrounding the Soy Highway in Brazil. Note that soy is not fed to
ruminant animals that are reared on grass.
Regarding your concerns about food sustainability, I also think you would
deepen your understandings greatly by reviewing the following research
paper: Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource
requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The
New York State Example. The authors of the study are Christian J. Peters,
Jennifer L. Wilkins, and Gary W. Fick. It appears in Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems: 22(2): 145-153. One notable conclusion of
this research is that “the inclusion of beef and milk in the diet can
increase the number of people fed from the land base relative to a vegan
diet, up to the point that land limited to pasture and perennial forages
has been fully utilized.”
To shed light on this notion, it helps to understand a little bit about
farming. Basically, not all land is suited to vegetable production, as
you suggest. Our farm consists of rocky hillsides. We are frost free
only 1 month out of the year. Were we to engage in vegetable production
and cultivate our fields, not only would we be farming in peril, we would
also be sending our topsoil down into the streams. Many of the vegetarian
arguments fail to consider the differences in farmland; that not all
fields can produce vegetables without serious ecological impact. The
study by Peters, Wilkins and Fick actually takes this into consideration.
I think you’d really enjoy it.
You suggest in your comments that our livestock are slaves to us. I would
be willing to bet that many tired farmers would argue that the reverse
might be more accurate – farmers gather the chickens in before dark to
protect them from owls, spend small fortunes to keep guardian dogs to
protect the herds, carefully construct safe fences, and wake up all hours
of the night to ensure their animals’ safety. Contrary to the intimation
in your comments, we don’t farm because we like violence and death. We
farm because we revere life and we love animals. Processing day is always
a challenge. We don’t kill with cold hearts, and the financial rewards
would be far greater working for corporate America. It is sad to send an
animal for processing, because we honor the life of that animal. We also
honor the lives of the carrots and the salad greens. Thus, we try to eat
everything in a balanced way, relying on our biosphere and humane,
socially responsible production methods as our culinary guides.
Everything we eat, we eat with gratitude.
Further, if you are concerned about the “enslavement” of livestock, you
might want to explore the livestock nutrient cycle, and its relationship
to vegetable production. To be blunt, many organic/biodynamic/sustainable
vegetable producers rely on livestock manure to fertilize their fields.
Thus, if you are avoiding “enslavement,” it would be safe to stay away
from vegetables all together, or rely exclusively on those produced using
environmentally-damaging chemicals.
In short, Michael, I understand that unless you or someone you love is
manifesting a nutritional need or desire for meat, there is nothing I can
say that will persuade you to try a locally-raised grassfed burger. I
don’t ask that of you. I ask only that you find it in your heart to allow
that there are myriad ways through which we can save our planet, and small
livestock farmers can be part of the solution.
Sincerely,
Shannon
06/04/08 » 6:04 am »
I’m fairly sure I’ll never get a response here from Michael, but I do feel it necessary to point out his statement…
“Is she suggesting that it’s better for the land to have cattle grazing on it than it is to dedicate it to nature and indigenous fauna and flora? Cows are entirely a figment of human interference in natural processes by selective breeding. They are not indigenous.”
…applies to all of modern vegetable farming whether that is factory or organic. Or is Michael claiming he subsists on ONLY that vegetation which grows naturally in his yard/region? Farming vegetables is not dedicating land to nature and indigenous fauna and flora. Corn, tomatoes and the like are entirely a figment of human interference in natural processes by selective breeding to produce the healthiest crop and seed return.
So unless Michael is foraging for 100% of all his meals, he is as guilty of vegeganda as Shannon is of greenwashing.
Of course Michael will most likely ignore the point of this comment and re-focus on the amuont of food produced veggie vs. grass fed. I’ll concede you can produce more corn per acre through human interference in natural processes than you can beef through human interference in natural processes. That’s not what I’m calling vegeganda on. I’m calling it on Michael’s assertion than veggie farming is a natural indigenous process when clearly in 2008 it is not natural and definitely not indigenous unless of course you are a forager.
BTW – my beef IS vegan because it does forage indigenous flora for 100% of it’s diet.
06/04/08 » 7:24 am »
Wow! Vegan beef and new words (vegeganda and factivism!!)- this all makes this blogger very, very happy – it means people are THINKING! (although not necessarily agreeing, which is totally fine). Thanks so much for all the thoughtful comments.
Here’s where I step in with what I think is the basic problem with the whole system- TOO MANY PEOPLE. Humanity lived on Earth for thousands of thousands of years with minimal impact, eating meat (or choosing not to, as Einstein and Kellogg did). If there were fewer people none of this would be of big of an issue. I say if you want to keep popping babies out and living to 100 you either have to cut WAYYY down on the meat, until you’re basically vegetarian (to be sustainable for everyone, not just the people who are smart/can afford local, healthy meat- after all, if everyone were eating local meat, would that still be sustainable at the levels that meat is eaten now? I’ve not seen this question addressed). Or you can eat as much meat as you want, but there needs to be many fewer people and/or they can’t live as long.
The facts are that the Earth can sustain a lot more people who eat a veggie or almost veggie diet (look at China and India) or a lot fewer people who eat meat. But you can’t really have both. My choice would actually be to seriously reduce population so we can live sustainably, getting food from out local communities, and leaving more space for wilderness and wild animals, who bear the brunt of forests converted for soybeans OR cow munching.
06/04/08 » 8:38 am »
This article is absurd – the problem with cattle grazing is they *eat* the plant which produces oxygen *while* producing Co2. (and farting constantly.) Grass-fed cattle grazing isn’t good for the environment, it’s *slightly* less bad.
And who wrote this? An unbiased scientific source? No no, a self-serving cattle farmer.
06/04/08 » 11:41 am »
Most issues have already been addressed here so I’ll discuss the few from my world that have not been addressed.
Unless one is supplementing (which is unnatural) with vitamin B-12, it only comes from an animal source – the source does not have to be meat as it can be bird/fowl eggs or sheep/goat/cow’s milk. B-12 works synergistically with folic acid and thus without B-12, folic acid does not work too swell. If folic acid does not work, then we’re talking anemia, spina bifida, low birth weight, and a host of other unwanted detriments to our health. I’ll spare you all the biochemical breakdown of this process because the point is we need vitamin B-12 to be healthy human beings. Seeing as B-12 comes from an animal source naturally, this tells me that we have been created to consume animal products to maintain health. Consuming animal products can and should be done in a humane and sustainable manner – this is exactly what the Hayes family does. Bear the brunt of taking atrocious land unfit for other food production and producing REAL food for local people to nourish their bodies. To my knowledge, human beings cannot turn grass into required (B12) nourishment for our bodies to survive. Now if enslaving a chicken or a cow is more important than a child’s health, then delve into the world of veganism.
The second issue I’d like to bring to the table is the natural evolutionary food chain. We are omnivore’s – our teeth say so. Human beings became hunter-gatherers around 24 million years ago. I thoroughly appreciate the post about overpopulation because that is obviously the root of the problem if one wants to view it through the eyes of a true “classical” persona (as is so eloquently dissected by Robert Pirsig in ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenece’). Well, unless we lose about 4.5billion people then we have to have another way to get our nourishment. Enter farming. Yes, farming is unnatural in the truest sense of the word “natural” but here we are: civilized and blossoming, whether we dig it or not. Why did we end up farming chickens instead of them farming us? That’s an entirely different discussion so I’ll leave that be for the moment, dear friends. I would imagine that if a giraffe had an opposable thumb, were an omnivore, were hungry, and nourishment it needed was in us, then the giraffe would likely kill and eat us. Let’s say that we become scarce and giraffe’s population grow tremendously (for various reasons) rapidly…the giraffe might decide it needs to start farming human beings.
I don’t believe the giraffe would feel terribly guilty about all of this if it could enhance crappy land and nourish itself and its neighbors in the process.
Peace!
06/06/08 » 2:58 pm »
I eat meat. Lot’s of it. My husband and I live on a farm in Canada. We are of Irish ancestry and eat a diet rich in sheep and lamb spiced up with varied root vegetables, and lots of oatmeals and we make our own beer. All of this eco-green fanaticism that has popped up in the last couple of years is ridiculous. While I sustain the belief that pollution has negative consequences, the measures that green-fanatics are trying to impose are insane. I do not understand vegetarianism for those of European descent. We are geneticly a people raised on meats – it was easily hunted in long, cold winters, where vegetables are not. Even where I live today reflects that. We live in central Ontario – that’s way, way, north of Toronto (not to mention, the best and most fertile soils in Canada for growing fruits and vegetables has a metropolis covering it – and they preach about enviromentalism – hypocrits). We endure a fierce winter and we eat potatoes and stored meat most of the winter. Everyone in my family has a healthy outlook on life. We need to eat meat. If more people ate their ethinic background we would have much easier lives. The problem with starvation in all these nations is overpopulation. Africa is just not capable of carrying the population it does – let alone what it would if the world continues to feed them – they just procreate and continue the problem – my Irish ancestors are with me on this – potatoe famine and all – mass starvation. We have been farming for over 10 000 years – the neolithic revolution- it is the backbone to civilization. If all we did was forage for greens all day -it’s what you would need to do if everyone just ate plant materials-your precious internet and cell phones would never have been invented, no plumbing, no hospitals, no sanitation – therefore we are back in the dark ages. Yoour ‘naturalist’ way of life, this is for the vegetarians and vegans, is not compatible with modern civilization. And, yes I am expected to be bombarded with angry and upset vegetarians who continue to insist that they are right – when there is no right or wrong on this matter. Europenas are meant to eat meat, that’s all I know, oh, and did you know that lactose tolerance is believed to be one of the latest evolutionary traits in human beings, most people of european, mongolian, and middle eastern descent have the gene, it is because of our farming. These people farmed grains, then cattle, and drank the milk and ate the meat – and thrived.
06/25/08 » 8:17 am »
I have been vegan for almost 9 months now and it has been great to me. My health improved and I even lost 20lbs. Becoming a vegan was great until until just recently. I have developed some bad stomach problems and I don’t think its good for my health. I use to make a bowel movement once a day and now as a vegan I am going 3-4 times a day. I don’t want to eat meat (Ethical Reasons) but I decided it is best for my health. So as of today I am only going to eat Free-Range Organic meats and Seafood. If you care about your health then you should avoid hormones and antibiotics in your food. I use to look down on people that eat meat because I thought it was not a necessity. I have recently come to the conclusion that for my health it is. So I don’t think someone should be looked down on for eating meat to sustain their health.
06/25/08 » 12:31 pm »
Mark- there is nothing wrong with having bowel movements many times a day! It is actually quite healthy and the human body is not really supposed to ‘hold’ onto waste but our crummy diets full of processed foods (and meat) move through our bodies much more slowly. There is also variability in digestive systems among people and it is not ‘right’ to go once or twice or however many times a day- it depends on your body.
Rebecca, your comments are interesting, but a bit racist, frankly. I have heard this “eat what your ancestors ate” but my background is spread over three continents and at least six countries (some of which have changed borders since). So what am I supposed to eat according to your logic? Also, human beings are very adaptable and can eat all kind of diets and be healthy- from the Masai eating blood and milk and meat to vegan and veggie diets, to all-dairy. The point is not how we can survive- but how can the earth WITH all the people that currently live on it? I agree we are overpopulated, but going by your solution, we should only have enough people on earth that can be sustained by their local areas. So what about the rest of the people? And who decides who lives and who starves? The truth is veggie/vegan diets can feed a lot more people. If we are uncomfortable limiting our populations- we are still debating about birth control for goodness sake!- then we have to change our impact on the earth or we WILL all perish.
06/25/08 » 1:17 pm »
Starre, I tried to word by comment fairly. I am white, and I am only commenting on what I know, my own genetics. I hardly think that it is racist to apply that to the logic. yes human beings are adaptable, and it is a wonderous work of evolution. All I am saying is that, a logical step in maintaing human health is too look to our ancestors. Vegetarians and vegans cite that humans are meant to eat plant material, I disagree on the whole. Yes, there are more than likely people in the world meant and able to consume such a diet. People from areas around the eqautor benefit from nearly year-round growing seasons. Now you say it is not what we eat, but how to survive with the current population of the world. No we can not decide who lives or dies, and I did not state that we should only be sustained by our local areas, previous commenters have, I think it is incorrect for indivduals to force people to eat plant material only in order to sustain populations. By the way, it is not your country of origin as much as ethnic background. I realize saying by relatives are from Ireland does not constitute an Irish race, it was just a marker for people to know where I am from. I live in Canada. Now, the idea to eat your ethnic background is not a radical one. But it would not be right to force it on anyone else to suppoably save the planet. All I wanted to do was implore that their are other lifestyles that are equally as ‘right’ other than vegetarianism. Now, you speak of the planet being in peril – I hear this alot – evidence would be nice, why is it in peril and how? If your resposnse is overpopulation, nature will let itself out. Think of Jackrabit populations, if their are bumper years for food – their population soars – and so do the animals that eat them – and they in turn increase in numbers. Then next year their are the an average amount of rabbits and an increased amount of predetors, so what happens in winter, some of the predetors die – survival of the fit – or in some cases the luckiest. And the next winter populations are evened out. The world is in constant flux. Have you seen Soylent Green? Not the most realistic approach to overpopulation – but a profetic one. Now if you believe in climate change or global warming – the jury is still out. I have not heard any solid facts about either occuring – and even if they are why isn’t climate change a natural process. Their have been many – The Ice Age – it was hardly caused by carbon-dioxide from my Pontiac Wave. People forget that human being are a part of the enviroment and whatever we do is natural, yes we build civilization, but do beavers not build damns turning free flowing streams into stagnent ponds for their own uses – cutting down trees in the process, do birds not build nests. People have more control over their actions but it hardly constitutes a mass ban on th consumption of meat – what would we do with all the domesticated species we have know – they would hardly survive in the wild. When it comes to species extinction, 1% of the total worlds species live today. Meaning, if their are 1 million species on the planet now – their were once 99 million others in existance at one time. The world changes. Anyway if you would like to look at this big picture – the planet earth is an isalnd in the vast ocean of the universe. If we do not leave this planet at some point in the next – i don’t know few million years (not sure of the exact numbers) the sun will go super nova and nothing will be living on the earth anyway. We will not all perish as you say if we do not change – maybe some will, maybe some won’t. Just to go over the ancestral diet idea, I do not have any scientic fact to back me up – I haven’t looked for any, nor do I think their has been much research. I was putting it out as an idea to see if it was viable. I do remember one thing. Their was an inuit community living far up north eatng an American diet rich in grains – they were grossly overweight and poor in health. They were told to switch to a high fat diet – their traditional diet. They lost weight, felt better, their diabetes became controllable and with those with the curable kind it went away. They are genetically dispossed to eating a high fat diet, something the North American food guide highly discourages for it’s ill effects. We are not all the same genetically. I do not see a health ramification to trying to seek out your most ancestral diet. What those who survived to bear you ate. PLease do post back, I would enjoy a civil debate on the topic. Oh, can you clarify how I was being racist, other than just citing that Europeans might have a different diet than say Asians, Africans, Native Americans e.t.c? That is not racist – racism is the act of singling out races and have a negative attidue towards them. I do not see the negativity, geneticly we are different in ways, that is science. It would be polically correct bull**** to say other wise. Oh, and those who have mixed ancestry, like yourself you may have genetic advantage, varied genes add adaptations to your DNA. Like crossbreeding strawberry plants to be both frost resistant and lush and sweet. At one point if the planet maintains the great movemnet of people is does now, we will most likely be mixed populations in the future. The scientif model for how humans came to have races is to do with genetic adaptions. We are believed to have all originated for Africa. Those that migrated to Europe, through genetic selection became light skinned and light eyed becasue of snow. Snow casues snow blindness in bright light, blue or light eyes are resistant to this – but some of us also sneeze everytime they go outside as a reflex from that same adaptations. Those that went to Asia, became fish and rice consumers and have a high metabolism for carbohydrates – one I sadly don’t share. Africans becmae darker to protect from the suns harsh rays – melenin in the skin and eyes, they don’t burn or get skin cancer – at least not to the raites lighter skinned people do. But Africans from certain areas were plauged with malarjia – the survivor have sickle cell disorder – malajia cannot aflict these indivduals – but the downside – less oxygen intake in the blood. Those are a few of the example of what genetics does. I feel that what I have said is not racist, just perefecly acceptable genetic informations. I never said that any people is superior to another. So please, why am I a racist? Thanks.
06/26/08 » 7:27 am »
Rebecca,
I think there’s merit in considering health issues as they relate to ancestry. We also must be mindful of the geography of food production. Just as your ancestors didn’t eat tofu or curry, Canada, the US, and indeed all of the Western hemisphere is not naturally home to cattle, sheep, goats, oats, honeybees, European earthworms, &c. People of antiquity developed dietary practices based substantially upon what was available to them in their local areas. Geography and ethnicity are constantly evolving, and the human population is increasing rapidly. I don’t think it’s especially fanatical to reconsider certain practices.
In light of your statement that diets should be based upon ethnicity, your assertion that vegetarianism and veganism is not compatible with civilization comes across as rather bigoted. Are you really claiming that vast numbers of people of South Asian and East Asian descent (and other cultures) are uncivilized by virtue of their parentage?
Mark,
The Smithsonian Institution offers a good resource on sustainable seafood at:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/seafood/
06/26/08 » 7:36 am »
I am not calling the people of South Asia or East Asia, uncivilized. I am saying that in order to eat an all vegetation diet, one would have to consume vast quantities of vegetation throughout the day in order to maintain the caloric rates the body needs. They have civilization. In fact the middle east is the birth place of civilization becasue of their fertile grounds. They settled down, and founded the neolithic revolution. During the dark ages in Europe, the middle east was in it’s golden age- they had basic plumbing and infastructure. Civilization – they ate meat as well. I am not saying that civilization is American cities and capitalism. By civilization I mean settlements that progress, to what we have today. Those proposing that we only eat and buy things made locally pushes us back into the fuedal age or even the dark age. I am not so against consumming local food, I cannot be, I live on a family farm. I do not advicate only consuming local products. I cannot by a television made in this town – no one makes them. I am saying that in Canada, where the best fruit growing soils and weather are in southern Ontario and British Columbia, both of which are covered by cities. Let’s put aside the ancestral eating topic for now. I cannot back up my eating habits with unrefutable justifications just as vegetariansism cannot.I am willing to retract the point in order to carry on the discussion. As for enviromentalism ;it is a religion. Religions convert others by making them feel inferror or incorrect. Enviromentalism pushes people to belief that they are so wrong in their ways that there only redemption is to go ‘Green’. Which in Canada has become a marketing campaign used by every company I can think off. They use our public school system to inforce it. Going ‘Green’ in Canada means using windpower and eating less meat. This supposably curbs climate change. But in Denmark where they have many wind turbinds they have seen changes in local weather. Wind is energy, it moves weather systems and pollen. If you harness the wind, you steal that energy and weather does not move and nor does the pollen. Crops were failing and eather was dry in areas where it was damp regularly. Nothing is ‘free’, yes it may cutdown on ‘carbon emmisions’ but it takes power mine the ore used to make the steel, power to make the machines, power to transport them, power to maintain them. All I am saying is that people are taken in by what they are told is ‘Green’. This not eating meat buissness to cut down on methane is just the same. If everyone was able to form independant thoughts, and critical thinking maybe we would be able to avoid the masses of sheep-like people jumping on the bandwagon without thinking about it. I appreciate that there are people responding to my comments. We are engaging in debate. Myabe we can reach some sort of consensus. I am not bigoted, I think that you are asuming positive and negative conotations to words, like civilization. Asia had a stable civilization for nearly 3 or 4 thousand years. They have been a civilization for along time. By civilization I do not mean ‘civilized’, that is a conetation of negativity and inferority. Not what I meant. By vegetariasm being incompataible with civilization I mean American and european civilization. I should have specified. I apologize. The cold weather and woodlands require a storage of meat and non-perisables to weather the winter. For your claim that Canada was not home to european species. Correct. But it still has bison species – a bovine species like cattle. And other similar species. It is well accepted as a scientific theory that the Aboriginal peoples here came from Mongolia about 10 000 years ago, by that logic are they a native species? They adapted, and historically eat alot of meat. People adapted to what was around them, meat. I live in Canada, now my ancestors came over during the Great Hunger in Ireland. They moved to eastern Canada. A very similarly climated area, About 50 years ago, my parents moved from Nova Scotia to ONtario for work, and we live in hte North, becasue we enjoy the climate. I do not lon the equator. It is far to hot for me, and tropical fruit is too sweet for me. Please feel free to comment back, if I missed a point of yours to comment on I apologize, oh, one more thing. Diabetes. Those who have had ancestors that began to ate refined sugar are supposably less likely to get it. When the europeans came over to North America they traded with the natives with sugar. Populations of Aborigial people have high levels of diabetes their bodies were given high levels of refinded sugar too quickly, I am sure there are foods that I would have similar reactions too, I have tried soy products, I do not like them, and my body doesn’t seem to benefit from their consumption either. People that have eaten soy all their lives and are predesposed to the consumption of it benefit from it. I should not be forced to eat soy becasue it is supposably better for me, when I honestly don’t think it is.
06/27/08 » 9:10 am »
Rebecca,
I apologize if I’ve wrongly branded you.
The amount of vegetation consumed in a vegetarian diet is actually less than what is consumed in a diet that contains a great deal of meat. Animals convert plant material into meat, plus all of the parts of the animal people don’t eat, plus the energy they need to move, consume, and breed, plus their waste. When you eat meat, you’re essentially distilling a larger quantity of plant material into a smaller quantity of animal protein. There are some figures about that in the article we’re commenting upon, and they’re similar to numbers I’ve seen in many other sources.
As for environmentalism as a religion, I think this requires a very broad definition of religion, and lumps together a huge spectrum of environmental philosophies, motivations, and practices into an artificial, unwieldy unit. Is a financial planner foisting the religion of money on people by educating them about investing and saving? Is an engineer proselytizing the religion of physics by demonstrating that a faulty bridge is likely to collapse? No. Likewise, someone who raises concerns about our investments in the ecological, geological, and biochemical processes that are central to civilization is not pushing a religion. Nor are those who research and educate on the underlying sciences that drive these processes. Claiming these actions are a religion seems like bearing false witness against one’s neighbor to me.
You’ve also introduced some words in this discussion that are a little surprising:
-“Those proposing that we only eat and buy things made locally pushes us back into the fuedal age or even the dark age.” The word “only” seems out of place. There’s a difference between encouraging people to consume using a path of least resistance, and dictating that they can’t use other alternatives.
-“I should not be forced to eat soy becasue it is supposably better for me, when I honestly don’t think it is.” I’m not sure where the word “forced” comes from. Who is forcing you to eat soy? Or more generally, who is suggesting that people be forced to be vegetarians?
As for the point about agricultural diffusion, there’s a huge difference between natural herds of wild bison and high-density feedlots of exotic domesticated cattle. Aside from that, diets adapt. You’ve talked a little about the evolution of human culture, so you’re no doubt aware that maize was a staple throughout North America, despite the fact that it’s indigenous to Central America. And the Great Hunger happened in large part because of the failure of potato crops, an Irish staple brought from the Americas. Also, consider the introduction of the tomato to the Mediterranean diet, or coffee to, well, just about everywhere. Habits adapt quickly to many of these types of changes. Working to prevent environmental problems by being thoughtful about these kinds of changes seems like a good thing to me.
I happen to think it’s a great deal more important for people to consider the impacts of what they eat (and more generally, how they live) than to adopt a particular diet or lifestyle. The article we’re responding to makes a similar case, describing environmental benefits of eating grass-fed meat and dairy. I’m genuinely curious as to why this issue seems to anger or even frighten you. Can you elaborate?
06/27/08 » 11:27 am »
Thanks for the apology. I am not fearfull of grass-fed livestock. The article is an interesting one, that takes in account many subjects. What boiled my blood were a few comments, ones that included the idea of consuming LESS or NO meat, I was primarily responding to those ideas, this forum may not be the most ideal to discuss(meaning, the article is not primarily about my commentary, nor were some of the other comments, but I felt this was a more open-aired community that wouldn’t jump down my throat at the first mention of eating meat) Also, just for consistency, I am not the Rebecca that posted much earlier in the article. Anyway.The impacts of our eating. A complex question. Now, I cannot be sure what ramifications come from my consumption of anything. No one can. We live within the enviroment, so we can not make control it. Now, people try and seperate ramifications into ‘good and bad’ categories. When such matters are subjective. Yes, cattle give of methane from their digestion, this can not be qualified as ‘good’ or bad’. You mention preventing enviromental problems, the item to note hear is that to humans are a part of the enviroment. Define enviromental problems. What are they and what makes them anything but intrinsic to humanity for some reason. That is the only reason we care, the world is not stotic. It’s important that we don’t destroy our species, only for our only selfish wellbeing- and there is nothing wrong with that, every species in the world is trying to get ahead.
You mention the movement of crops, I am aware of their introductions and the ramifications. Enviroments changed and may have been unstable, but nature rights itself, something always evolves to fill the niche. Australian can toads being one of them, while it is not under control something in nature will fill the niche. Nature does not need us ’saving’ it, it has been around longer than us and will probably outlast regardless of what we do.
What I fear is the scare-mongering the media does in Ontario. The Green-peacers(a political party) use scare tactics. The equivelent to saying that the sun will not rise tomorrow unless we sacrifice a life. The sun will come up regardless. They want to put a carbon-tax on all things which is only a tax to fill their pockets – you would have to be a lunitic to belief a tax can change anything – what is sad is that they have a good deal of people convinced. As for the comment about being forced to eat soy, it is more anecdotle that fact. But it is a slippery slope. I live in a small place, the majority of school board representivities have decided to make the Monday school lunch a vegetarian day. No meat, glutten, peanuts and other things are to be served. They don’t even want parents to send their children with these products in bag lunches. This is insane and sadly, the PTA was voted down. This is against my freedom as a parent. This is where the force is. Unfortunatly, I belief it will only get worse if we don’t act now.
Sorry, I have to make this short. The second part of the rebutte will hopefully be more informative and well-written then this one.
06/28/08 » 3:56 pm »
Rebecca,
We can and do see many of the impacts of our behaviors, whether that’s eating or transportation or building. It may be impossible to say with absolute certainty what all of the ramifications are, but we can’t simply ignore problems because of a small degree of uncertainty. That’s a bit like saying to one’s cardiologist, “I recognize that I have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and a weight problem, but I’m not going to do anything about my diet or activity-level, because you can’t be certain that I’ll have a heart attack or a stroke, and you can’t say when it’s going to happen.” The central difference is that when we do things that negatively impact the environment, we also negatively impact other people. When we do things to improve environmental quality, we share this benefit with others.
The point you raise that humans are part of the environment is fundamental to a great deal of environmental thinking and practice. For most, a central reason that we seek to minimize negative impacts on the environment is that we, our neighbors, and our children need natural systems to support our quality of life. You’re absolutely right that the abstract thing many call “nature” will keep on going, regardless of what people do. The problem is that when people consume resources and produce waste without regard to broader impacts, we change nature to the detriment of ourselves and others. I think this is the most misunderstood facet of environmentalism: Investing in and managing environmental quality produces tangible benefits for people.
Like many environmentalists, I disagree with fear-mongering. This doesn’t solve problems and it creates enmity. However, just because a problem appears to be serious doesn’t mean that it’s made-up. Were people wrong to be alarmed when they read that Panzers were rolling into France?
As for Greenpeace, this is merely one group, albeit a vocal, widespread one. (Also, Greenpeace is sometimes confused with the Green Party, though these are separate organizations and the former isn’t a political party.) Many environmentalists disagree with some of their methods and even some of their underlying policies. Others agree with them. But, Greenpeace is not a synonym for environmentalism, anymore than the Eastern Orthodox Church is a synonym for Christianity.
It’s important to keep in mind that unusual or shocking points of view get more media attention than moderate or rational ones do. This sells ad time. For instance, this spring, a small band of criminals destroyed some homes near Seattle in the name of the environment. This made national news. Also this spring, roughly 100,000 people, comprising neighborhood groups, churches, Scouts, schools, and local and regional conservation groups removed hundreds of tons of trash from rivers all over the US. The event went substantially unnoticed by news media.
The overwhelming majority of environmentalists fall into the latter category, people who offer their time, creativity, and money to better their communities and share their fascination with or enjoyment of the environment with others. Just because some people have extreme points of view or want to force their beliefs on others doesn’t mean that the majority feels that way, and it doesn’t invalidate the entire community and the good that they do.
06/30/08 » 9:46 am »
You make some great points. The problem is, the tiny minority or extreamists, this is true for everything, control the masses. The political ‘ideas’ being lobbied currently in Canada are just socialism under the disguise of green-living. You are right to say we cannot ignore a problem due to a degree of uncertainty, but we can not fall victim to policial talk that is about money and power. All things are really about power. The so called ‘Green-revolution’ that some Canadian parties push is about money, giving tax breaks to so called green organisations.Enviromentalism is about power too.Control over the enviroment and over the people. I have a hard time buying into a casue that has a goal to ‘control the weather’ so to speak. I would hardly put my vote of confidence behind anyone preaching this. We cannot control nature or the weather. These things change.
Now, I agree with you saying that most enviromentalists do not fear-monger, but they are at least in part listening to it. Like you said about the media only latching on to the big stories. The hype surrounding global warming is the same. No one is getting the whole story, only the information that will sell ad space and boost ratings. Maybe they want you to buy a ‘green’ washing machine or something, this ‘green’ wave of product advertising is about money not the enviroment.
I have had a hard time finding statistic evidence of Global Warming occuring, they even changed the name of it, it’s Climate Change now, becasue I suppose a few places got cooler. I have heard theories as to way it may be happening, including sun spots, solar flares, carbon-dioxide, volcanic action, and natural earth changes. Now, I still have no numbers to compare, no scientific research. Science does not understand everything, we do not know what is going on, it is hard to make changes.
My beef is not with moderate enviromentalists, I do not think pollution is healthy, or that we should cut down all the forests. I do not trust the words or actions of the political arms of these movements which are gaining control of governemtns and institutions with great increase. These inefficient and power hungry groups (like all political groups) appear to have no other agendas other than ’saving’ the enviroment. I hardly think a governemnt whose sole want is to save the enviroment is a strong choice. What is the point of a balenced eviroment if the country is in economic cirisis, or under attack
07/10/08 » 9:10 am »
Wow! There are some highly thought-provoking comments on here. Unfortunately, I am still not sure what the perfect diet for the health of people and for the Earth is. I am a little afraid of the commenters who claim all of our problems are because of over-population. All six billion or so inhabitants of this planet could live on a one-fourth acre plot each in Australia alone. The world is not over-populated, it is just poorly managed.
Please don’t give the Military-Industrial-Banking Elitist anymore fodder to start gasing and starving us to depopulate the world!
Also, I go back and forth all the time trying to decide if meat eating or vegetarianism is better. I currently eat about 2 meals a week that include locally raised organic meats. I often grapple with the compassion argument. The ironic thing I observe is that so many vegetarians (mostly vegans) throw out the argument that you can’t ever be compassionate if you are still eating animal products. I think Michael up there pointed that out. What is so interesting is most of these people whom point this out are like Michael, and sound like they are so angry they are one second away from pulling out a gun and shooting up a McDonald’s. Where as Shannon Hayes sounds like a highly intelligent well-balanced compassionate individual. Sometimes I wonder if that lack of B-12 does something to the brain.
I also think vegetarianism is more of a belief-system. Belief systems are things that the Ego gravitates towards. That is why people get so upset about it. The Ego will get real angry when it is defending it’s Belief System. I think if we really want to be compassionate beings we just need to practice tolerance and forgiveness of others and their Belief Systems!
10/23/08 » 5:17 pm »