Why We Need to Rethink Meat

"Are you eating meat yet?" my grandmother asks me each time I see her. "Not yet," this vegetarian replies. Why? I'm trying, like many others, to improve my health while rejecting the inhumane and dirty factory farming conditions that dominate our food system. But there are other compelling reasons: A new book by the Union for Concerned Scientists, The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, ranks meat as second only to cars in ecological cost. And, analysts at the Worldwatch Institute say that reducing meat production and consumption can help alter the balance in favor of the world's hungry.

First and foremost, for many vegetarians, is their personal health. Pauline DeCarmo, for one, stopped eating meat in 1990 in an attempt to eliminate her reliance on anti-seizure medication. In combination with quitting smoking and eating fresh, organic produce, her seizures abated and finally stopped after a year. She is now raising her four-year-old son without meat, eggs or milk. "When I had Dillon, I thought, if I feel so good being a vegetarian, why should I start giving him things I wouldn't eat myself?" she says. Other vegetarians are concerned about cholesterol, exposure to chemicals that accumulate in fat, antibiotic resistance and other food safety issues, as well as animal welfare concerns (see The Green Guide #51).

Reducing Risk of Disease

Americans' excessive consumption of fat-rich meat products has contributed to our dubious distinction of having the world's second highest incidence of obesity -- 55% of those over age 20. In contrast, "A largely plant-based diet is associated with the best health indices, and all the research continues to support that," says Marion Nestle, Ph.D., M.P.H., of New York University. Balanced vegetarian meals are typically lower in saturated fat and cholesterol; higher in complex carbohydrates (found only in plant foods); and higher in fiber, which protects against cancer, particularly that of the colon. And, because a high intake of animal protein encourages the loss of calcium from the bones, vegetarians may also be at lower risk for osteoporosis.

Furthermore, in its last Reassessment of Dioxin, in 1994, the EPA found that 95% of our exposure to dioxin, a known human carcinogen and hormone disruptor, comes through food -- mostly animal products, since dioxin accumulates in fat (see The Green Guide #23). Other industrial chemicals, such as PCBs and the organochlorine pesticide DDT, also rise in the food chain. And, some Americans are spurning meat as a precaution against an emergence of mad cow disease (BSE), and its human equivalent, nvCJD, on these shores (see "How Corporations Disinform Consumers" in The Green Guide #41).

Two million teens will become vegetarian this year, The Los Angeles Times reported in March. Noting a trend toward vegetarianism in the U.S., the American Council on Science and Health suggested in 1997 that vegetarianism may be a symptom of an eating disorder, particularly among teenagers and college-age women. The New York Times respectfully discussed this thesis, even though ACSH is essentially a PR organization that furthers the goals of its big business backers -- including meat processors -- through media disinformation. "Vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle choice," counters Lauri Chonko, a registered dietician at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). "Eating disorders involve food and calorie restrictions, obsessive exercising, and bingeing and purging. In a true vegetarian diet, you're allowing yourself an abundance of different foods."

The nonprofit PCRM is currently lobbying to change the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which don't distinguish between animal products and other sources of protein and calcium. "We see a conflict of interest here, as the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services are responsible for both regulating agriculture and guiding Americans' diets," says Chonko.

PCRM also charges that USDA's Guidelines have a racial bias because they recommend 2-3 daily servings of dairy products, failing to take into consideration that the majority of African, Asian, Mexican and Native Americans are lactose intolerant. The Guidelines also provide weak guidance when it comes to prevention of chronic diseases, such as diabetes, many of which take a disproportionate toll among minorities. PCRM developed "The New Four Food Groups" in 1991 as a vegetarian counterbalance to the USDA Food Pyramid.

Oldways Preservation & Exchange Trust also criticizes the federal recommendations. Oldways and the Harvard School of Public Health have developed several alternative pyramids -- Mediterranean, Latin American, Asian, and vegetarian -- based on healthful traditional diets, and are in the process of creating an African-American model. All recommend red meat only occasionally, if at all, and avoiding processed foods. The Green Guide's "8 Simple Steps to the New Green Diet" stresses the environmental as well as health benefits of eating whole foods and fewer animal products (See the eight steps in The Green Guide #77).

Feeding Livestock Instead of People

Two hundred years ago, the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus forecasted that the world's multiplying human population would, at some point, overcome Earth's capacity to provide for it. The United Nations now projects that the Earth's population will go from almost 6 billion today to 8.9 billion by 2050. Unfortunately, since its historic per capita high in 1984, growth in the global grain harvest has declined 0.5% per year. And, since 1950, the world's production of meat has expanded almost twice as fast as its population. According to Beyond Malthus, a September 1998 Worldwatch Institute paper, we currently feed an estimated 37% of the world's grain harvest to livestock and poultry.

The people of developing countries spend more energy on producing grain than in any other economic activity, and nearly all of this must be consumed directly just to satisfy basic nutritional needs. In the U.S., however, substantial quantities of grain are converted into beef, pork and poultry. While an American eats an average of 260 pounds of meat a year, a Bangladeshi only consumes about 6.5 pounds.

Historically, many cultures ate vegetarian out of necessity. But, as people become more affluent, they begin to consume more meat. For instance, in the past 20 years or so, China has been able to boost its grain production by about 50%, control its population growth and raise its per capita income. Much more grain is now converted into pork, poultry and eggs.

"People like meat," says nutritionist Joan Gussow, Ed.D., and, because of its fat, meat is a calorie-dense food. "But as the poor world starts doing confinement feeding of animals, they are likely to grow some of the feed on croplands previously used to produce food for humans," she adds. As a result, they will either have to replace traditional food crops with imports, or start importing feedgrains.

How many people can the world feed? The answer, Worldwatch says, depends on consumption levels. If the world's grain harvest reached 2 billion tons in the years ahead (it's currently at 1.87 billion tons), the Earth could support either 2.5 billion Americans, or 10 billion Indians.

Environmental Impacts of Meat

Overgrazing has lowered the productivity of rangelands across the globe. Population growth has taxed both rangelands and fisheries to the limit. Meanwhile, animal feedgrains are generally monocropped (entire farms dedicated to a single crop) in systems that are pesticide-heavy, fuel-intensive, and detrimental to topsoil. According to Worldwatch, a pound of pork that would provide 1,000-2,000 calories takes about 14,000 calories and 430 gallons of water to produce in the United States. With this resource-depleting system, "We end up shrinking the plenty of the world into scarcity," says Frances Moore Lappé, who wrote Diet for a Small Planet in 1971, and who still shuns meat and poultry.

Industrial meat farming is anathema to the environment. Manure pollutes the air with ammonia gas and nitrogen, a greenhouse gas which also contaminates water and produces algae blooms that choke aquatic life. Grazing areas become degraded, and forests are clearcut to make way for pasture or feedlots, which displaces indigenous populations and undercuts biodiversity. A study published in the August 1998 issue of Bioscience found that in the U.S., grazing has contributed to the demise of 22% of the 1,880 endangered plant and animal species analyzed.

But according to Dr. Gussow, the elimination of animal agriculture altogether would not support more people. "Much essential food is produced in all parts of the world by ruminants [such as cattle, sheep and goats]." Rather, she says, a change in food production methods -- from destructive, wasteful and cruel, to integrated, diverse and humane -- would help turn the quality of the environment around.

The Lessons of Sustainable Agriculture

According to Fred Kirschenmann, Ph.D., an organic grain farmer in North Dakota, over a billion acres in the U.S. alone are unsuitable for crop production, and ruminants are the only creatures capable of converting these grasslands into food protein. On Kirschenmann's farm, cattle are relied upon to recycle crop residues, such as straw, which would otherwise be disposed of, and graze on grass and forage from the native prairie. He does not feed any grain to his livestock, who range freely, in contrast to the confinement model on factory farms.

"Most organic farms integrate animals fully into the farming system to help close nutrient cycles," says Kirschenmann. He depends upon the manure from his 100 cows and their calves, as well as the manure from a neighbor who sees it as waste, to fertilize his grain crops. "This integration of animals maintains the health of local ecosystems and therefore is the best chance of feeding the world long-term," he contends.

Solutions

Though better for our personal health, reducing our dependence on meat for food is only a partial solution. To feed nine billion, according to Lester R. Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, every national government needs a population policy "that takes into account the country's carrying capacity at whatever consumption level citizens decide on." A more sustainable food system in the U.S. would be one that reintegrated livestock back into agriculture, yet produced far fewer animals than the present one. "Animals are simply a part of every ecology," says Kirschenmann. "We must look at our local ecosystems to see what is appropriate and which animals will fit in." This is a goal that those who've rejected meat for health, ethical or religious reasons should support. Educating our children about the overall consequences of eating meat is a good place to start.