ENSC 390* Winter 2004 Vegetarianism & Sustainability
!
Vegetarianism and Sustainability
Brenna Lattimore Coral Mason Julie Kee
1
An overview
!
!
!
!
There exist several degrees of vegetarianism— vegetarianism— from partial vegetarianism, (excludes just red meat) to ovo-lacto (can eat products from live ovoanimals) pesco (still eat fish and seafood) and vegan, which excludes all products from animals, alive or dead. We will argue that even becoming a partial vegetarian will make a significant contribution towards sustainability While there exist several arguments for vegetarianism, we will be arguing in favour of vegetarianism from a sustainability standpoint. This argument considers the social welfare, the economic benefits and the environmental impact of a vegetarian society compared to those of our current society When implemented correctly, a switch to a vegetarian society could have great benefits in all legs of the sustainability tripod. There exist several arguments against a switch to a vegetarian society—most can be society— refuted, however there are some legitimate reasons against the switch to a vegetarian diet for some societies.
2
A brief history of vegetarianism
! ! ! ! !
Environment
Livestock production leads to:
Greenhouse gas emissions Air pollution Impacts on Soil Water pollution Resource depletion
4
Historically, early ancestors were originally vegetarian—later included vegetarian— meat in diet Agricultural revolution—decreasing emphasis on meat consumption— revolution— consumption— prior to the industrial revolution, hardly any meat consumption Industrial Revolution—meat consumption begins to rise (transportation Revolution— and refrigeration become easier) 1971—vegetarian movement is launched by Frances Moore Lappe’s 1971— book, Diet for a Small Planet Post 1971—meat consumption continues to rise, and still does despite 1971— medical evidence that a vegetarian diet is healthier, and a recommendation that most of a person’s diet should consist of vegetables, legumes and grains.
3
Environment
!
Environment
!
Greenhouse Gas Emission
!
Air Pollution
!
Methane (CH4)
! ! ! !
Manure emits CH4 Livestock belch out CH4 Breeding livestock causes 115 million tons of CH4 /year 1 kg of CH4 is estimated to have the same warming potential as 21 kg of CO2 Manure, urine and production of feed emit N2O Globally, livestock related N2O emissions are estimated between 1 and 2 million t/year 1 kg of N2O has an equivalent impact to approx 310 kg of CO2
Ammonia released from manure and slurry is a major contributor to acid to rain
!
The amount of ammonia (NH3) emitted to the atmosphere on a global scale from animal husbandry is estimated at 22 million tons
!
!
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) (N
! !
The dust in animal housing originates from the feed, the bedding material and from the animals themselves.
!
!
!
! !
5
The microorganisms and endotoxins in the air of animal houses are emitted into the environment by way of the exhaust ventilation system The dust particles are carriers for gases, microorganisms, endotoxins and various other substances such as skin cells and manure particles Animal house dust consists up to 90 % of organic matter High dust concentrations can irritate the mucous membranes and overload the lung overload clearance mechanisms. Together with the dust particles microorganisms can be microorganisms transported into the respiratory system causing infections. Endotoxins can trigger allergic reactions in the airways of susceptible humans, even in low concentrations 6
1
ENSC 390* Winter 2004 Vegetarianism & Sustainability
Environment
!
Environment
!
Impacts on Soil
!
Water Pollution
!
1.4 billion t of solid manure is produced by US farm animals per year = 130 times the amount produced by the human population
!
Cattle sometime spread pathogenic organisms by picking them up from a point source from but urinating or defecating elsewhere
Manure and wastewater containing manure severely harm river and stream ecosystems
! !
!
Heavy livestock compact soil structure and destroy vegetation on parts of a field that they tread most often
!
restoration of vegetation does not always occur spontaneously once the grazing animal once is withdrawn
! !
!
!
Soil particles from these zones will be susceptible to erosion carrying particles, carrying organic matter and phosphorus to surface waters Urine delivered to soil by a grazing cow is approx. 2 l. on an area of about 0.4 area m2. This is an immediate application of 400-1200 kg/ha of N. 400!
!
One dairy cow excretes 138 kg of Nitrogen and 14kg of Phosphorus in a year High runoff is due to the compaction of the soil from cattle's hooves and hooves grazing practices. Manure contains ammonia which is highly toxic to fish at low levels levels Increased amounts of nutrients (Nitrogen, and phosphorus) cause algae blooms which block waterways which use up oxygen in the water According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, livestock waste has polluted more than 27,000 miles of rivers and contaminated groundwater in groundwater dozens of states Ie. Walkerton – well contaminated with E. Coli from nearby farmers field. Ie.
8
!
This burns vegetation and is often toxic to plant roots which cannot immediately cannot recover to take up the N. -1 annually without loss, pollution of 7 grass can take up perhaps 400 kg N ha groundwater or the atmosphere is almost inevitable whenever urine is applied to soil. urine
!
Pollutants leach into groundwater contaminating wells
!
Environment
!
Social & Economic Dying for a steak…
Resource Depletion
!
87% of fresh water consumed worldwide is used for agriculture
!
the UN predicts that 40 countries will face severe water shortages in the next shortages 20 years.
! ! ! !
two thirds of the world’s agricultural land is used for maintaining world’ livestock Since 1970 more than 20 million hectares of tropical forests have been have changed into pastures for cattles – Worldwatch Institute The land needed to produce 1 kg of beef could be used for 200 kg of tomatoes, 160 kg of potatoes in the same period of time Extension of the food chain
! !
! ! !
7-16kg of soya beans to produce 1 kg of meat – 90% of protein, 99% of carbohydrates, 100% of fibre is lost is lost Bioaccumulation –by feeding grains to livestock then eating livestock bring with it the pesticides, heavy metals and other poisons contained within to 9 human levels. Each trophic level has an increased concentration of those toxins
Thousands of people die of malnutrition each day. Many say meat eating aggravates this situation. Why? Francis Moore Lappe, author of the 1971 book Diet for a Lappe, Small Planet, first drew attention to the role heavy meat Planet, consumption plays in world hunger and the unequal distribution of protein resources around the world.
10
Protein factory in reverse
100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 % of useable plant protein converted to useable animal protein
Eating for 2 (or 3, or 4, or 5…)
!
! !
31
27
18
9
pork
!
6
beef
11
Milk
eggs
broiler hen
! !
1971: 18t protein became unavailable for human consumption, equivalent to 90% world’s protein deficit. Enough to provide 12g protein/day to everyone in the world! 1979: Estimated 51 million tons plant protein suitable for human consumption fed annually to livestock. 42% more protein would be available for world’s population if it fed people directly. Today: Situation is worse. Since 1971 – N. Americans are eating more meat. US beef exports are up 60-fold. Demand for meat in12 60LDCs has doubled.
2
ENSC 390* Winter 2004 Vegetarianism & Sustainability
The grain drain
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Making the most of limited resources…
Massive inequalities. Farmers grow what makes the most $$. Land needed to grow local subsistence foods increasingly used to grow animal feed. Fact: There is no shortage of grain in the world. Fact: 95% US produced oats and 80% US produced corn feeds livestock. Fact: 2/3 grain exported to LDCs goes to feed livestock, mostly on large farms. Fact: The poorest don’t have access to this meat. Just a 10% decrease in meat consumption in US would free up enough grains and legumes to save 1 billion 13 people from starvation (if distributed properly.)
Ensuring that everyone who can afford meat has all the meat they want also ensures that those in the lowest income brackets have a high chance of dying of starvation, especially as population grows and land becomes more scarce. ! A switch to a vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet for semimost North Americans, accompanied by positive political changes, would result in a much more equitable and sustainable distribution of food resources across the 14 world.
!
Holy cow, meat’s expensive!
Energy consumption
Feedlot Beef 78 36 35 22 13 10 3.5 2 0 20 40 60 80 100
16
! ! ! ! !
No matter how you slice it, meat costs more to produce than grains and legumes. Higher inputs. Water – 1kg grain needs 100L water, 1kg beef needs 2000-15 000L. 2000Legumes have a low need for fertilizer because they fix their own nitrogen. Big $$ saver. Energy, labour and land to grow feed needed on top of energy, labour, and land for animal husbandry. labour,
Milk Pork Broilers Eggs Range-fed beef Corn, wheat, beans Soybeans
Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein
15
These unsustainable practices are brought to you by your government…
How can we even afford to produce meat with all these expenses? ! Subsidies, my dear Watson! ! In Switzerland, 84% of agricultural subsidies are for meat production. Similar in NA. ! Government subsidizes meat three times over: 1) For production; 2) For environmental costs; 3) For health care costs.
!
17
Would you like some hypertension with that?
!
! !
!
!
!
Health costs associated with meat eating are becoming a big social and economic problem. In 1994, 50% Canadian population was obese. Vegetarians are 40% less likely to die of cancer, 30% less likely to die of heart disease (12 year long Oxford U. study). Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has calculated that if all Americans gave up animal products, there would be a health care savings of $68.2 billion. Health costs associated with animal diseases (mad cow, e.coli, salmonella, etc.). 18 Antibiotic resistance.
3
ENSC 390* Winter 2004 Vegetarianism & Sustainability
Respect, peace and love…
!
Criticisms
-Is a vegetarian diet sufficient?
-Yes…even the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association states that “properly planned vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate”
! !
!
Meatpacker welfare (vulnerable populations, unsafe conditions, low pay). Extreme animal cruelty. What does it say about our society if we tolerate these things? Extreme overcrowding.
-What about the environmental costs of shipping vegetables all over the globe?
- Presently there exist many environmental and social costs associated with large scale agriculture and the shipment of greens long distances…besides the actual emissions from trucks and planes used in shipment, these agricultural methods are pesticide and herbicide intensive, which harms the environment and the people actually working in the fields, which much of the time may be located in developing nations
The case of the Mexican Tomato
!
!
19
Left hand side: pictures drawn by 4 and 5 year old children in Mexico with relatively no exposure to pesticides from tomato farms Right hand side: pictures drawn by 4 and 5 year old children who live near agricultural areas and are heavily exposed to pesticides (and whose mothers may have worked in those tomato fields while pregnant and carrying them with them as infants) 20
Solutions
Organic Community Supported Agriculture
Eliminates issues dealing with large scale farming: pesticides, transportation costs, inequality, disconnection from the land, unequal distribution of resources, etc Has the potential to provide enough food to sustain a community for an entire year without relying on meats or large scale farming CSA “develops a regional food supply and strong local economy; maintains a sense of community; encourages land stewardship; and honours the knowledge and experience of growers and producers working with small to medium farms”
One final consideration: the Inuit and other traditional societies
Urban Gardens
Urban gardens are located in cities—not a solution as cities— far as production is concerned, but socially good— good— creates a sense of community and allows for a renewed sense of connection to the land
21
-Some societies live in places that it would be impossible or not optimal to grow their own greens, and at the same time too unsustainable to ship greens to them -There would exist great environmental, social and economic costs to ship tomatoes to Greenland! -These societies do not however rely on farmed meat—rely on meat— traditional foods in most cases, live off the land (which may be another issue entirely apart from vegetarianism) -Though this lifestyle may have other ecological implications, it may still be more sustainable than current agricultural practices—these societies practices— becoming vegetarian would have more impact than their current lifestyle 22
Conclusions
!
One person CAN make a difference! "
!
!
!
The majority of current agricultural practices are unsustainable, unsustainable, including vegetable and grain production—raising livestock and production— growing greens in the current system leads to environmental, social, and economic problems Raising and feeding livestock takes a great deal of energy that could be used towards supporting more people, such as those in developing nations Growing greens organically and locally would be a far more ideal solution—if the people consuming these locally grown solution— goods were to assist with their cultivation, would have added benefit of connection to the community and the land While veganism may be the ideal, simply cutting down on meat intake and buying more locally produced goods can make a difference!
23
Before
After
24
4
ENSC 390* Winter 2004 Vegetarianism & Sustainability
References
Cowen, C. 2000. History of Life. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science. pp. 355. Center for Disease Control. 2002. CDC. Update 2002: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and varian Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Spongiform CreutzfeldtWashington: CDC. Available online at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/cjd/bse_cjd.htm. Downloaded on 28 March 2004. www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/cjd/bse_cjd.htm. Factoryfarming.com. 2004. Labor. New York: Farm Sanctuary. Available at www.factoryfarming.com. Downloaded on 28 March Factoryfarming.com. www.factoryfarming.com. 2004. Forests.org. 2003. Available at: http://forests.org/recent/2003/brgrtra1.htm Downloaded March 28, 2004. Geobel, Allison. “Globalization and Food: Example of the Tomato Trail”. Lecture. Queen’s University. Chernoff Hall, Kingston. 25 Geobel, Trail”. November 2003. GHGonline. 2004. Available at: http://www.ghgonline.org/nitrouslivestock.htm Downloaded on March 28, 2004. GHGonline. http://www.ghgonline.org/nitrouslivestock.htm Government of Alberta. 2004. Available at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sag3349 Downloaded March 28, 2004. International Fertilizer Industry Association. 2002. Available at: http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/Form/pub_position_papers_6.asp at: Downloaded on March 28, 2004. International Vegetarian Union. 2003. Available at: www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david1.html Downloaded March 28, 2004. Lappe, F.M. 1971. Diet for a Small Planet. New York: Ballantine Books. Lappe, Lappe, F.M and A. Lappe. 2003. Hope’s Edge. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc. Lappe, Lappe. Hope’ Leckie, S. (ed). 1996. Vegetarian Handbook: 1996. Toronto: Toronto Vegetarian Association. Leckie, Motavalli, J. 2002. The Case Against Meat. In E! The Environmental Magazine vol XII (1) pp. 27-32. Ohio: E Magazine. 27Motavalli, Natural Resources Defense Council. 2001. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp Downloaded March 28, http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp 2004. Oxford Vegetarians. 2000. Available at: www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/animalfarmenv.html) Downloaded March 28, 2004. www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/animalfarmenv.html) Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, Energy and Society. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd. Sustainable Animal Production. 2004. Available at http://agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws4dust.htm Downloaded on March 29, 2004. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 2002. Available at: http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content.cfm?locationId=216&contentTypeId=2&contentId=371Downloaded on March 28, 2004. http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content.cfm?locationId=216&contentTypeId=2&contentId=371Downloaded University of Massachusetts. 2004. Available at: http://www.umass.edu/umext/csa/about.html Downloaded on March 26, 2004. Vegi-Office. 2004. The Ecological and Economical Consequences of a Meat-Oriented Diet. Switzerland: Vegi-Office. Available VegiMeatVegionline at: www.vegitarismus-ch/60se.pdf. Downloaded on 28 March 2004. www.vegitarismusVegan Outreach. 2004. Available at: http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/gaechter.html Downloaded March 28, 2004. http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/gaechter.html Vegan Outreach. 2004. Available at: www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html) Downloaded on March 28, 2004. www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html) 25 Vesanto, M. et al. 1994. Becoming Vegetarian. Toronto: Macmillan Canada.
5