Meat-Eating Environmentalist: A Contradiction in Terms?

So, you’re an ardent environmentalist. You wear organic clothing, live in a small energy-efficient home, ride your bike to work and always remember your reusable bags when shopping. But for all of your efforts, your carbon footprint is still huge – thanks to your diet, which is full of hamburgers, steaks and ham sandwiches.

Nobody’s perfect – we’ve all got our little slip-ups and areas in our lives where we know we could improve. For some people it’s taking long hot showers in winter, or using paper towels. But, meat eating is a biggie. It has a much greater impact on the environment than using a little more energy than you should every now and then or occasionally wasting paper. Then there are the impacts on human health and animal welfare.

Consider these facts:

• The livestock sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally.  Cows emit vast amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere – and the impact of these emissions is greater than that of CO2 from cars.
• Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce 130 times more excrement than the human population.
• Each and every year, factory farms dump 220 billion gallons of hormone-, antibiotic- and bacteria-laden animal waste onto farmland and into waterways.
• Pfiesteria, a microscopic organism that feeds off the phosphorus and nitrogen found in manure, is a lethal toxin harmful to both humans and fish. In 1991 alone, 1,000,000,000,000 (one billion) fish were killed by pfiesteria in the Neuse River in North Carolina.
• Since 1995, an additional one billion fish have been killed from manure runoff in estuaries and coastal areas in North Carolina, and the Maryland and Virginia tributaries leading into the Chesapeake Bay.
• Overuse of antibiotics in animals is causing more strains of drug-resistant bacteria, which is affecting the treatment of various life-threatening diseases in humans.
• Raising animals for food consumes more than half of all the water used in the U.S. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat, but only 25 gallons for a pound of wheat.
• Raising animals for food is the number one cause of deforestation around the world, thanks to the huge amounts of land needed for grazing and growing animal feed.
• Animal feed is grown by intensive farming operations that use massive quantities of pesticides while producing problems such as pesticide resistance in insects and weeds, and pollution of nearby water supplies with toxic chemicals. Those pesticide residues also accumulate in animals’ fatty tissue.
• 20 times more land is required to feed a meat-eater than to feed a vegetarian.
• Overgrazing has turned a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.

All of this leads to a simple question: can you be an environmentalist and still eat meat?

In response to facts about the meat industry’s impact on the earth, meat-eating greenies have responses that range from “it’s too tasty to give up” to the evasive “it’s my choice”. You’ve got to admit, these excuses sound an awful lot like the ones given by so many Americans to explain away their all of their environmentally harmful choices. You might scoff at a Hummer owner saying “it’s too fun and cool to give up” and “it’s my choice and I’m entitled to it”, but aren’t you effectively doing the same thing?

Eating meat isn’t inherently un-green or unnatural. Yes, humans have been eating meat for centuries, yadda yadda yadda. But it’s been a long time since we raised and slaughtered our own food animals on our own land, which had a far smaller carbon footprint. People in industrialized countries (especially the U.S.) eat way more meat than they used to, as well. Demand is growing, so the number of factory farms is growing, too. Does mean that free-range, grass-fed, organic meat is necessarily the answer to all of these pressing problems? Not exactly.

If you do raise and kill your food animals yourself, congratulations. That’s just about the greenest way you could possibly remain a meat eater. Purchasing meat from a nearby small farm that offers grass-fed meat that travels a mere handful of miles to your door is a close second. But that ‘free-range’ meat from the grocery store isn’t necessarily the same thing.

Part of the problem with ‘free-range’ meat is that these animals require even more land than conventionally raised livestock. As Friends of Animals explains, space for animal agribusiness doesn’t need to be expanded. It needs to be phased out. Deforestation and desertification is a major problem, as is taking up so much land that could be used to grow more efficient, calorie-dense food for more people. If demand for free-range meat increased, these problems would get even worse.

From Friends of Animals:

Already, most of the landmass of the contiguous United States is taken up by agriculture — primarily for resource-guzzling animal processing. Worldwide, the demand of six billion humans for physical space is vastly expanded as animals are bred into existence to be food commodities. These domestic animals now outnumber us by an estimated factor of three to one. There is nothing sustainable, let alone kind, about animal agribusiness.

Plus, never underestimate the greed of corporations eager to cash in on your concern.  The USDA doesn’t regulate “free-range” or “free-roaming” beef products (nor do they effectively regulate the quality of meat in general).  While you might want to believe that the expensive free-range steaks you’re buying from Whole Foods came from happy cows that spent their lives outdoors enjoying sunshine and fresh air, that’s not necessarily the case. The USDA does require “free-range” animals to have access to outdoor areas, but doesn’t specify how long they spend out there or how much room they get.

True grass-fed beef may be healthier, but the term ‘grass-fed’ isn’t regulated by the USDA, either. That means companies can claim that their animals are grass-fed even if grains still make up the majority of their diets.

Don’t confuse “free-range” and “organic” on meat labels. Certified organic meat must be free of antibiotics and growth hormones. And, if you’re concerned about the treatment of animals, be aware that animals raised organically aren’t necessarily treated any better than those raised at big conventional factory farms.

That leads us to the unpleasant reality of livestock mistreatment. Even if you’re not a bleeding heart, animal-rights kind of person, you can’t deny that locking animals into tiny crates to wallow in their own excrement, mutilating them and then slaughtering them in inhumane ways is shockingly cruel. PETA is oft maligned, and they certainly have their faults, but their videos don’t lie. Just because you choose to be ignorant of these things doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.

I can hear you already: “I’m not going to stop eating meat, no matter what you say.” When it comes down to it, whether or not you eat meat is still a personal choice. But, if you’re at all concerned about the environment, at least cut back on the amount of meat you eat – and buy it from a local source if you can (if that’s not possible, check out meat CSAs and delivery services). Seek out truly grass-fed, free-range and hormone-free meat and eat it only a few times a week, and you’ll at least be taking an important step forward.

Grass-Fed Beef Resources:

West Coast sources
East Coast sources
Midwest sources

Vegetarianism Resources:

Protein in the Vegan Diet
Go Veg: Vegetarian and Vegan Information
VegWeb.com: Vegan Recipes and Cooking Tips

Factory Farming Facts and Information:

OrganicConsumers.org Disturbing Facts on Factory Farming and Food Safety
Vegan Outreach: Animal Mistreatment at Factory Farms

Photo credit: Flickr user dogfrog + Cornucopia.org

Related Posts:

Hamburgers are the Hummers of Food
Enjoy Pothole Possum Stew at the RoadKill Cook-Off
Lab Grown Meat: PETA’s Contest is Lame, Pointless
10 Tips for a Green Thanksgiving
Eating Pigeons as Part of a Local Food Diet