Comments on: Meat-Eating Environmentalist: A Contradiction in Terms?

By: Naturally Interesting

Naturally Interesting — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:17:38 +0000

I believe “grass fed” is a USDA regulated marketing claim (PDF here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5063842). The standard as I read it is 99% grass fed for the lifetime of the animal plus access to pasture. It is a voluntary standard so other producers may use the term grass fed, but not use the USDA badge.

By: paul

paul — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:29:51 +0000

too many “environmentalists” fail to talk about this. it’s taboo for the green movement i think, but it needs to be discussed. i couldn’t agree more, and it’s why i’ve been vegetarian for years.

By: Stephen Williamson

Stephen Williamson — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:23:46 +0000

The environmental impact of eating meat is a very good reason to limit or eliminate meat from one’s diet, but it isn’t true for everyone. For example, game meat has none of the environmental impacts you listed above, especially if it’s harvested locally. I live in a part of the world where it is very common to receive large amounts of moose or caribou meat from casual acquaintances during hunting season. Refrigeration and transportation are about the only parts of the deal that have any carbon impact at all, and it’s miniscule.

By: Antonio

Antonio — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:42:48 +0000

I really appreciate Earthfirst for bringing up this topic from time to time – in stark contrast with most green blogs who keep irresponsibly quiet about this. Of all the green things we can do, qutting animal produts is probably the easiest so I really don’t understand why environmentalists choose not to. Perhaps is the anthropocentric idea that animals are inferior and that mankind can do what it wants. But isn’t this very same idea the cause of the ecological catastrophe we are creating for ourselves? It’s time for a huge paradigm shift and animals have to be included in it too, otherwise we will fail.