The New Republic

The notion, widely shared by agricultural and other business lobbies, that it's somehow wrong for anyone connected with government to offer thoughts BASED ON SOUND UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE that might conflict with their business interests is really quite amazing. Reisen is right, both on the environmental impacts of meat production and the fact that it's easy to become a vegetarian and do some good. The fact that people following this advice might mean we need to raise fewer cattle should have ranchers proposing equally sound reasons why we need meat in our diet, and how it can be both environmentally friendly and healthy. If they don't have those arguments, supressing thoughts you don't like, is still wrong. I might add, "raise a garden," but I'd probably be targeted by the vegetable industry.

- IowaBeauty

April 21, 2010 at 8:05pm

But then there is the complication that many people today are vegetarian/vegan out of a concern for animals, rather than the environment. However, as Michael Pollen humorously observed, a vegetarian/vegan diet actually results in significantly more animal deaths and suffering, at least for your smaller animals that inhabit the expanded crop fields a vegetarian diet requires. While their suffering clearly tugs at the heartstrings less than that of the conventional mega fauna for most people, this is a very inconsistent position to take. Pollen's conclusion as to the diet that minimises harm to animals the most (at least within the context of the US food system)? Grass fed beef for everyone! Albeit in smaller portions.

- Nari224

April 22, 2010 at 10:35am

"a vegetarian/vegan diet actually results in significantly more animal deaths and suffering, at least for your smaller animals that inhabit the expanded crop fields a vegetarian diet requires." I like Michael Pollan, but this (if he actually said it, which I wonder about) is complete nonsense. It takes a lot more crop land to product meat, the way we produce it in the US at least, than it does to produce vegetable matter for humans to eat. All those acres of corn and soybeans are hardly havens for small animal life.

- IowaBeauty

April 22, 2010 at 1:38pm

Iowa - while we might not like the thought of it, those acres of corn and soybeans and spinach etc. etc. actually ARE havens for small animal life. Ever looked out in your garden to see a rabbit or ground hog enjoying the fruits of your labor? They like the country side even better. On a more serious note, the most likely source of the salmonella outbreaks we occasionally suffer from is rodent poop in the fields. Additionally, land that is cultivated also destroys natural habitats, so the animals that would have lived there now cannot and so on. Ignoring that Americans over consume meat today, livestock is a more efficient source of protein and other nutrients, acre for acre, than veggies. Thus in a theoretical nutritionally balanced farm system (yeah I know, but anyway), a vegetarian diet needs more land. This reminds me of a bit of bad news I seem to bring to some vegetarians that I have known along the line, after they point to how people in India live quite fine on vegetarian diets. They are never too happy when I point out that rice and other grains in India are not cleaned nearly as thoroughly as ours is in the Western world, and hence vegetarians in the third world are getting a nice does of protein through ground up insects and other animals that their western counterparts are not.

- Nari224

April 22, 2010 at 5:45pm

Nari, I live in the countryside, in Iowa. It's a 3 minute walk from my house into the nearest mono-cultural corn field (or bean field, depending on the direction, and year). The population density of small animals (other than similarly mono-cultural insect population explosions) in a typical crop-field is squat compared to a meadow or pasture. The small mammals and birds you see there live not in the fields, but in the fence rows and bordering woodland, wetland, or meadows. If you doubt this, take a look at the game and bird census done by the Iowa DNR over the years. Populations of grouse, pheasant, jackrabbits (hare) and cottontails are orders of magnitude lower in the heart of Iowa farm country, where the fence rows and wetlands all disappeared 30 years ago, with the exception of areas where there is significant Conservation Reserve Program land. As for your protein argument: pulses supplemented with modest amounts of dairy (which can largely be raised on grassland) can provide all the protein we or our children need. Raising meat is a great use for land that should be pastured for conservation reasons, but the vast majority of meat we product is made from corn and soybeans, and were all to move to a meatless or very low meet consumption diet, I guarantee you, millions of acres of cropland in the Midwest would suddenly be available to be let wild, or used for export production or biofuels.

- IowaBeauty

April 23, 2010 at 12:06pm

Iowa - I think we pretty much agree on everything here, and I am likely making a poor proxy argument for Pollan. IIRC, his argument (and perhaps I concentrated on the wrong animals) was that per head of animals (from worms to rodents), crops kill more animals than than are slaughtered for meat production. As you point out monoculture crops, especially those that are heavily sprayed, reduce available habitat. I recall having a similar reaction to you when I read the paragraph, amusing a conclusion as it was, but satisfied myself that it was credible after looking into it. I'll confess to recalling that he was cherry picking to make his argument, and it was more "ideal world" than "real world". This discussion is prompting me to go look it all up again, at which point I may find my memory has done me a disservice! Googling it, the only reference I can find to it is on one of those annoying pay-per-essay sites (!) On the meat v veggies - I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't eat a great deal of meat for mostly the reasons you outline. However my understanding is that it can be difficult to get sufficient quantities of a range of essential amino acids on a meatless diet. Obviously effects different people in different ways, but like in everything else you want a bit of diversity - as Jared Diamond laboured to show us a whiles back, there were plenty of societies that developed quite well based on sufficiently nutritious vegetables. However those that had good veggies and good eating live stock (and obviously some other advantages) tended to do "better", depending on you point of view.

- Nari224

April 23, 2010 at 2:30pm

Sorry, that first sentence should have read more along the lines of "either agree or cannot disagree with what you are saying"

- Nari224

April 24, 2010 at 2:25pm