The United Nations says we should try to eat less meat to help lessen global warming - and I agree. What do you think?
Environmental concern is the main reason I try to limit my meat consumption and now the United Nations has backed me up. Raising animals for meat is a wholly inefficient use of land and resources, especially given that most livestock are fed farmed grain rather than grazing naturally. Then there is the pesky issue of the methane emissions, particularly from cows. Global food production is a far more serious contributor to global CO2 emissions than flying - and I’m not just saying that because I’m a travel writer.
Of course, I understand that food is a necessity and travel is a luxury. Of course, we need to cut down on polluting forms of transport when we travel, and indeed when we are at home as well. (I also don’t have a car). However, I would argue that meat is just as much a luxury as air travel - we don’t need it to survive, especially in the nutritionally rich first world where we have all the food choices in the world. Animals in the developing world are less of a problem anyway, since they are far less likely to be eating grain and are likely to be slaughtered and eaten close to home.
I am not a vegetarian but I am a meat reducer - I treat meat as a luxury and try to only eat meat or fish once or twice a week.
There are many good reasons to consider vegetarianism. You might have a religious or moral objection to killing animals, or the way they are generally raised. You might be doing it for health reasons - some vegetarian diets can be healthier than meat-based diets. You might just like the taste of vegetarian food.
I am interested in vegetarian cooking because I want to reduce the amount of meat I eat, because people I love are vegetarian, and because some of the food is just really, really good. (Try this fantastic aubergine moussaka recipe and you’ll see what I mean).
I have a great deal of respect for people who devote themselves full time to vegetarianism but I don’t choose to join them. Firstly, I don’t fundamentally believe that killing animals for food is wrong - we are part of the eco-system and at a basic biological level all life feeds on other life to survive. Secondly, vegetarians have to be extremely careful to make sure that they are getting all the nutrients that they need and I don’t have the time and patience to watch my diet quite that closely and while I like beans and lentils, I abhor fake meats such as Quorn as unnatural, processed unfoods. Thirdly, as a food writer I don’t want to shut myself off to new flavours and a whole culinary realm. Finally, I want to spend my money to support organic farming and saving old breeds.
I try very hard to avoid factory farmed meat, though it’s not always easy to make an informed decision when I’m eating out. The great thing about not eating meat every day is that I’m not price sensitive and I can afford to buy the best quality meat with high welfare considerations. A whole organic chicken might cost £10 at the market or butcher rather than £1.99 in Tesco but I’ll only have it a couple of times a year.
Where I do draw the line is eating endangered animals - in Spitsbergen some of the restaurants offer polar bear, while whale features prominently on menus in Japan and Norway and bush meats in many parts of Africa. For the same reason, I try to avoid eating cod and tuna and only buy fish from sustainable sources. (I also don’t have a pet cat).
Two great books that might help change your thinking on these issues are Fast Food Nation by Eric Schloss, a few years old now but still relevant and certainly one of the most entertaining non-fiction books I’ve ever read, and the thoughtful Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver, about one family’s attempt to eat locally including raising some of their own food.
What do you think about the United Nations pronouncement? Agree or disagree? What’s your personal stance on eating meat?
September 7th, 2008 at 12.07pm
I think it is great and I agree! It also is much healthier for individuals and much cheaper which is important in this time of recession.
We are not full vegans either, but we eat mostly a very healthy vegan diet as we travel the world with minimal meat.
Good post!
September 7th, 2008 at 4.19pm
I think it’s an achievable goal. I like achievable goals. Let’s do it
Yay! It’s nice to have buddies to do this with. I think most people would find it quite difficult to give up meat entirely - both in terms of will power and health. But reducing it - and considering where it comes from - is something that anyone can do. - Caitlin.
September 13th, 2008 at 3.31pm
Ugh. This is such a non-issue. Let people eat what they want. You say raising animals for meat is an inefficient use of resources? Whose resources? Please answer this. And yet, grain feeding is used *because* it’s more efficient.
So anything that man doesn’t absolutely have to have, like air or certain vitamins and nutrients is a luxury? Are you kidding? You can only make these determinations for yourself. I don’t think it’s appropriate either to say that the “developing nations” can eat as much meat as they want, but we can’t or shouldn’t. Because of emissions? Unbelievable.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there’s something deeper here psychologically. If you can, let me know what you think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxTSNBls9g4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Olj8kuPCU
Also, regarding organic foods:
http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4019.mp3
Don’t take this personal, but I wonder what you think man’s role is (if there is one) on earth. Does humanity (here and now) come first?
Thanks,
Harold
Thanks for your comment - it’s good to hear different points of view. I will attempt to answer some of your questions.
Firstly people CAN eat whatever they want. I don’t want to take anyone’s freedom away from them. However, I will exercise MY freedom to give my point of view. And I seriously don’t think this is a non-issue - nor does the UN or a lot of smart people.
Whose resources? The planet’s resources. We are facing a worldwide environmental crisis. If you don’t believe that, you are entitled to your opinion but the facts indicate otherwise.
Grain feeding might be economically more efficient than grass feeding (though it depends on the country and the climate and the cost of land). However, it’s not the most efficient use of land and the planet’s resources. That grain could feed many more people than the meat produced at the end of the process.
I didn’t say that the developing world can eat as much meat as it wants. If they copy our lifestyle, then the end result is just as bad. What I said is that the typical meat animal in the developing world uses fewer resources than the typical meat animal in the developed world, and also that in some parts of the world people have less choice about what to eat. Both things are true.
Yes, the definition of a ‘luxury’ is something that is not a ‘necessity’. I’m not saying that luxuries are bad - they can help make us happy. But an excess of luxury can have harmful effects.
There is a lot of evidence about organic farming and how it is good for the environment - for example, because it doesn’t use chemical pesticides that can harm the environment, and because it is a requirement (for certification) to improve the quality of the soil through natural fertilisers, which actually has the effect of sequestering carbon. However, I never claimed that it was the whole solution - clearly for example, if you live in the UK. it’s better to buy conventionally grown lamb from Wales than organic lamb from New Zealand. I don’t buy organic for everything but I do try to support it when I can; not just for environmental reasons, but also for health and taste reasons.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘what man’s role is on earth’. I don’t believe that humanity has a special purpose on earth ordained by God or a higher being. However, we certainly play a different functional role on the planet to most other species because of things such as our ability to alter the environments in which we live, use tools and grow food crops and domesticate other species. With that comes power and therefore responsibility.
As for whether humanity comes first? Yes and no. Of course, I am a human and I am loyal to my species. That’s the same as saying that my family comes before the rest of the country and my country comes before the rest of the world. However, I do believe that other species have just as much right to live on this planet as we do. Also, I believe it’s in humanity’s long-term interests to take care of the planet on which we all live.
Thanks for reading! - Caitlin.
September 13th, 2008 at 5.26pm
I appreciate your response.
This is exactly what I’m talking about and it’s a fundamental difference. Man, to some, does not have the right to live for his own sake. To put it simply, the planet is a rock with water, capable of sustaining life. But it can’t “own” anything. I don’t have a claim to someone else’s land or resources. You say the grain could feed more people if processed directly. Perhaps, but that’s not the point. The owner of the grain (or is that the planet’s too?) is not obligated to “feed the planet”. He should do what is in his self-interest which may be to sell it to the cattleman. No one is being injured in such an exchange. Other people do not have a claim on his life and/or property.
With power comes responsibility. Perhaps, but responsibility to whom?
Too much luxury? Again, how can one determine that for someone else?
The earth is a means to our ends and who’s going to stop us? I know people don’t like to hear things like that, but it’s true. We may talk about long term interests, but I think that life of those that exist now is more important than those who *might* exist a hundred years from now. Like you, I am not a traditional mystic, yet remember that altruism exist in many forms.
Sacrifice is not a virtue.
Please if you could, check out those videos and tell me what you think. I think that might help clarify my position.
I had a quick look at the videos but they are 35 minutes long so I can’t claimed to have watched them in full. I think for some people there might be a psychological basis to environmentalism - but I think there are plenty of rational people involved as well. I’m not so interested in the psychological or mystical side. On the other hand, there is clearly a psychological factor at work for people who believe that humanity’s dominance over the earth is God given and entitles them to do whatever they want. … Tell you what, I’ll make a deal with you - I’ll watch the videos if you read the books I mentioned!
I have listened to the Skeptoid audio on organic farming. He is quite right that organic farming is big business, particularly in the US. If someone wants organic food AND they are anti-corporate, I guess they would have to go to the farmer’s market or grown their own. Personally, I don’t have a problem with big business getting involved - I say, the more organic farming, the better.
However, the Skeptoid presenter is ignoring a good deal of scientific evidence on the health and environmental benefits of organic food. It’s true what he says about the plant being genetically the same (assuming it’s the same species or breed to begin with). However, the nutrients in a plant come from the nutrients in the soil and that’s something that differs between organic and conventional farming. Secondly, there is plenty of evidence on the health effects of chemical pesticides. Modern pesticides are not quite as bad as the old ones such as DDT but they are still poisons and there have been numerous studies done showing the effects on both humans and the eco-system.
His claim that organic farming methods require you to use more of the natural pesticides because they are less effective is spurious - firstly, organic pest control is partly to do with planting (ie. avoiding monocultures that are prone to plague), and secondly organic pesticides are not systemic - ie. they are only on the surface of the plant and do not enter the internal system of the plant. Not all chemical pesticides are systemic either but a lot are. Finally, they are often made from simple things like garlic or other plants that humans are able to eat anyway.
I think at the heart of our difference is that it sounds as if we have some fairly fundamentally different personal values. I do value freedom and appreciate that everyone is going to make different choices about what is a luxury or whether you should always act in your own immediate self interest, no matter what. However, I do think we have a responsibility to each other, to future generations and to other species living on the planet. (I also think the environmental crisis we face is going to affect me in my lifetime, it’s not just about future generations). I really fundamentally disagree with the notion that “the earth is a means to an end”.
Having these sort of discussions is really important so that people can make informed choices, according to their own values. I also hope that society can develop some shared values so we’re not all constantly pulling in different directions. I think the individual is important but, sacrifice CAN be a virtue. Not sacrifice for its own sake, like sackcloth and ashes, but sacrifice for a common cause.
Thanks for your contribution and glad you appreciate my responses. I would like to invite more people to comment so we can hear a range of opinions so I would ask for a maximum of two comments per person per post, please.
- Caitlin.
September 13th, 2008 at 6.06pm
Shutting me out huh? jk
Ok, thanks for writing.
Thanks for stopping by. I think it’s a good debate to have but we’ve both probably said enough. You are certainly very welcome to comment on any other posts, either here on my travel blog at Roaming Tales. - Caitlin
September 13th, 2008 at 11.55pm
I find it amazing just how much greenhouse gas emissions the animals we use for food do create. I also find it astounding that the UN “urges people to eat less meat.” As if a significant number of people are actually going to change their diet because of the UN’s report. If they want to change peoples diet, it’s going to take more than a report and some urging on the internet.
That being said, we’ve recently come to the same conclusion that you have Caitlin. We have drastically reduced the meat in our diet and replaced a lot of the protein with legumes like lentils, garbanzo, and tofu. Not only is it wayyy healtheir, in Mexico veges are dirt cheap- so it’s much easier on the bank account.
I recently found a cool link on the Milpas in Mexico City. Basically small community gardens where they grow most of the vegetables that the neighborhood needs for the whole year.
http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2008/08/22/?source=weekly
That is such a good idea with the rising food costs. I also read an article in Time a few weeks ago that in the 40’s when they were urging Americans to grow “victory gardens” Americans purchased something like 80% less produce during those years because they grew their own.
Eating less meat may not only help the environment, it is cheaper, healthier, and in my opinion yummier.
September 24th, 2008 at 12.05pm
[...] * My friend Sue is writing about ethically reared meat on Noodle Bowl- a subject close to my heart. [...]
October 1st, 2008 at 1.59pm
Great post and some really interesting discussion in the comments.
I am vegetarian, and have been for nearly 20 years. When people ask me why I’m veggie (and many people do), I mostly answer that it just feels right for me. I’m not ethically opposed to killing animals for food per se, but I am pleased not to be part of that ‘industry’.
I agree that it would be healthier for individuals and for the planet for people to reduce their meat consumption. The financial trade-off also becomes an ethical one, so that, like you Caitlin, consumers can buy better-quality, well-reared meat on the fewer occasions that they do choose eat it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10.34am
[...] news report in The Guardian. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Time to treat meat as a luxury. I’m not saying don’t eat it, I’m saying I believe we should treat it with [...]
January 2nd, 2009 at 1.30am
[...] Treat meat as a luxury I have no desire to become fully vegetarian but I am trying to reduce my meat consumption for environmental reasons. And if I reduce the quantity, I can increase the quality and maintain my commitment to [...]