As we have seen, the health implications of adopting a vegan lifestyle are far-reaching and salutary. However, the argument for health does not appeal to every consumer. For a segment of the population, an environmental argument proves more persuasive.
As we usher in a new era in global awareness, we take stock of our interrelationship with the Earth. We recognize that, while we are individuals, we are also one. We stand together on solid ground, each a living creature. And we depend upon our beautiful planet to sustain us. But sometimes, humanity attempts to side-step Nature, even to the point of controlling it. We fancy that we exist outside of the laws of the Unviverse, to which other animals are subject. We are confident in our powers of self-determination, and believe those powers are rightful and necessary if we are to hold our place at the top of the food chain. Our contrivances multiply, and with them, our impact on the planet. Little remains untouched by human civilization. So, it is easy to assume that whatever nature throws our way, we will find a means of negotiating it on our terms. Little wonder that we are always engaged in solving problems that we, ourselves, created.
One such problem is the way we eat. We are a species 6 billion strong, but with our numbers always increasing, we impose a heavier burden on our planet. How do we feed our population? How do we rid our societys of poverty? The answer may come as a surprise.
But before we go to that place, let’s consider the irony inherent in a list of environmental offenders that fails to include dietary lifestyle among its top five.
Again and again, we are admonished to drive fuel-efficient hybrid cars; to buy energy-efficient appliances; to recycle; to light our homes with compact fluorescent light bulbs; to look for products bearing the ”Energy Star”. All these things are well and good, but they add up to a modicum when compared with the change we might affect were we to change the way we eat.
When you think about it, are these lists truly intended to help the everyday consumer reduce his or her carbon footprint? Perhaps not. As time marches on, the green movement itself begins to share aspects with the corporate superpowers it so often demonizes. We pause to wonder if our eco-awareness is nothing more than an attempt on the part of big business to capitalize on the human desire to do the “right thing”. Morals are always good business. So, we see that green has gotten remarkably chic as of late. Eco-friendly is now eco-fabulous.
Whether a list or a full-out plan for ecological responsibility, any prescription thereto will be incomplete without mention of the way we, as a society, eat.
I ackowledge that food is an addiction, much more than what we fill up our tanks on, or how we dispose of empty bottles. We have a more intimate relationship with our food than with our cars, and so it stands to reason that changing the way we eat is, indeed, the final frontier, the unknown country. How much can we give up before we start to feel the pinch? That is the question.
Luckily, a few facts will help us to sort out this mess.
To begin, we question what it takes to raise an animal for slaughter.
An animal must be fed and watered. It must receive antibiotics when it is sick, and hormones when it is sickly. It must have land on which to graze, and that land must be irrigated with astoundingly high volumes of water. When it is ready to be “processed”, an animal must be transported sometimes long distances to slaughterhouses, running up fuel costs. The machines used to automate animal slaughter, are not merely costly, but dangerous. Worker-related accidents are frequently recorded in association with the incorrect operation of machinery. In a world of profit margins and bottom lines, let’s think about the fact that, pound for pound, we put more into livestock than we get out. Mountains of money are consumed in the maintainence of pastures. Millions upon millions of tax payer dollars sustain large factory farming operations. A single cow uses more water per year than does a shower left to run 24/7 for the same period of time . Good food–grains and corn–that could be feeding the hungry, instead feed cows, chickens, and pigs. We record a net loss when it comes to animal-produced food, and for what? Certainly not increased health. Certainly not in the name of good economics
But beyond the financial implications of factory farming, let us consider environmental impact. According to the Congressional Research Service:
“Animal agriculture is a $100 billion per year industry in the United States. Livestock and poultry are raised on an estimated 1.3 million farms throughout the nation. About 238,000 of these farms are considered animal feeding operations (AFO) — agriculture enterprises where animals are kept and raised in confinement. An estimated 95% of these are small businesses: most AFOs raise fewer than 300 animals. Very large AFOs, housing 300 or more animals such as cows (or equivalent numbers of other animal species), are defined as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. For more than two decades, organizational changes within the industry to enhance economic efficiency have resulted in larger confined production facilities that often are geographically concentrated. Increased facility size, greater numbers of animals being raised at large feedlots, and regional concentration of livestock and poultry operations have, in turn, given rise to concerns over the management of animal wastes from these facilities and potential impacts on environmental quality” (Copeland, 4).
Factory farming impacts our environment in two, significant ways. One the one hand, we have water, and on the other, we have air. Both are protected by Federal laws (the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act), however, according to the Congressional Research Service:
“Agricultural operations have been treated differently from other businesses under numerous federal and state laws. Some environmental laws specifically exempt agriculture from regulatory provisions, and some are designed so that farms escape most, if not all, of the regulatory impact” (Copeland, 2).
But what’s so wrong with factory farming that we should worry about its exemption under the law? In a word: waste. Large factory farming operations host hundreds if not thousands of animals on properties throughout the United States. Like all creatures, they eat and digest, and they eat and digest. Sooner or later, they produce excremet. AFOs have devised a number of methods by which to process animal waste, but none have been totally effective. And it is well-understood that “[A]nimal waste, if not properly managed, can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater” (Copeland, 2).
What do you do with a mountain of shit? In certain measures, manure is beneficial as a fertilizer for plant crops. But long after fields have been saturated with the stuff, factory farms continue to produce waste. At this point, AFOs work through a handful of methods to contain excess waste.
“There are four general types of manure storage: deep pits, outdoor slurry storage, anaerobic lagoons, and solid stacks” (Copeland, 9). The details of these methods are unpleasant to say the least. Either you liquid-inject it into a pit in the ground (resulting in runoff into streams and groundwater), or you store it in above-ground containers (resulting in the production of air pollutants).
For the sake of example, let’s consider the lifecycle of manure on a factory farm.
An animal excretes its waste. Either it is spread across fields and tilled into the soil, liquid-injected into the subsurface of the soil, or if excess exists, it is placed in storage, and treated in a variety of ways.
In all of these scenarios, the nitrogen naturally present in manure eventually breaks down into ammonia, which binds with various airborne particles, resulting in several compounds that fall back to the Earth in the form of acid rain.
Acidification of streams and lakes by these means, brings about oxygen depletion and thus excess growth of algae, both of which spell disaster for aquatic life. There are also implications for human health:
“Health effects at low concentrations [of ammonia] include eye, nose and throat irritation; exposure at very high short-term concentrations can be lethal” (Copeland, 6).
Let’s look at Methane and Nitrous Oxide. Both are greenhouse gases; both are contributing to our current climate crisis; both are present in large quantities in livestock excrement.
“An estimated one-half of global methane comes from manmade sources, of which agriculture is the largest source, with livestock production being a major component within the sector. EPA estimates that 25% of the nation’s methane emissions come from livestock” (Copeland, 7).
25% is a considerable piece of the Global Warming pie. With such a large stake in our climate change woes, why are factory farms so frequently omitted from lists of environmental offenders? This much is clear: change your diet to include fewer meat and dairy products, and you’ll already have helped the environment more than if you were to drive a hybrid vehicle or change out all the light bulbs in your home.
Let’s talk water.
The majority of the Earth’s water is unsuitable for drinking. Fresh water accounts for only 2.5%, most of it present in glaciers (which are receding every year, thanks to global warming; hello, Methane!) and groundwater (which is polluted by manure)! What little we do have, we use to irrigate feed crops for livestock. Nearly 70% of that tiny 2.5% that is drinkable water, is used for agriculture. A severely limited resource used to grow perfectly edible food for consumption by another animal? There’s your backward thinking for you. Instead of feeding ourselves, we serve our crops up to livestock on a silver platter, and ignore the fact that we end up worse off than we started (“Water”, 1).
The intelligent mind prays such a process would provide more than it consumes, but this is not the case. “Beef still requires 36 times as much water…as wheat”. Perhaps the nutritional benefits of meat are such that they offset our generous outpouring of resources? Nope. “When the same calculations are done for digestible protein, wheat comes out as 18 times more water efficient than beef” (“Water”, 1).
When you roll it all into one, you have a dietary lifestyle that contributes to poor economics, poverty, human health deficiency, global warming, and water contamination. We can’t afford to continue eating the way we have eaten in the past. If, when we claim environmental awareness, we mean business, then we will stop ignoring the impact our diets have on the environment. Even reducing meat and dairy intake by a little would mean an improvement.
And eating differently is no longer the story of self-denial. Many, delicious alternatives exist to meat and dairy products. You should try some the next time you go to your favorite restaurant. Order a veggie burger instead of a hamburger. Request a tofu scramble instead of an egg scramble. Many restarauants (The Cheescake Factory, P.F. Changs) will gladly substitute tofu for chicken or beef in any of their dishes.You’ll marvel at the variety of flavors of soy milk available, just as creamy as anything you tasted from a cow. Are you worried about missing ice cream? Try the Purely Decadent brand by Turtle Mountain (especially try the line made from Coconut Milk; it’s divine!)
Indeed, you may search, but you will be hard-pressed to find a flavor that is unrepresented in the vegetable kingdom. After all, nearly every spice in creation is naturally vegan, so flavor away.
If, like so many, you could give up meat, and even milk, but cannot picture yourself without cheese, consider an oft-forgot alternative: nut cheese. That’s right. Nuts can be reduced to milk by a few pulses of your food processor; this milk can then be fermented, just like cow’s milk, and before you know it, you have a gourmet cheese with subtle hints of almond, or walnut, or cashew. A connosieur’s dream-come-true. Worried about variety? For every nut you see in the produce aisle of your grocery, that’s another variety of nut cheese available to you. I once dined at a vegan restaurant in New York City, and was delighted to enjoy a cheese plate, consisting of almond, cashew, and walnut cheeses. Paired with crackers of all kinds and a glass of wine, this dish proved to be a taste sensation!
So far, I’ve presented two arguments for veganism: one for health, and one for the environment. Many reasons come to bear in the overall argument for responsible eating. In my next entry, I will make a more personal appeal, including the moral aspects of the way we consume. Please do send me your comments and let me know if you take issue with any of what I’ve published. I’m eager to hear your thoughts and to try and change your mind (I’m not shy of admitting my agenda).
Hopefully, some of these facts provide you with food for thought.
Bibliography
Copeland, Claudia. “Air Quality Issues and Animal Agriculture: A Primer”. CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL32948. Available: http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Feb/RL32948.pdf, (Accessed: 2008, March 1-March 4). 2008.
“Water” (2008), (The Vegan Society), Available: http://www.vegansociety.com/environment/water/ (Accessed: 2008, March 1-March 4)
