START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
709,051 people care about Real Food

10 Reasons Why the Meat and Dairy Industry is Unsustainable

10 Reasons Why the Meat and Dairy Industry is Unsustainable

Like it or not, you can’t hide from the facts that eating animal products is becoming a massive problem for everyone on the planet.

Here are 10 reasons why the meat and dairy industry is unsustainable:

1. Deforestation – Farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce a given amount of food energy. In Central America alone, 40 percent of all rainforests have been cleared in the last 40 years for cattle pasture to feed the export market, often for U.S. beef burgers. The World Hunger Program calculated that recent world harvests, if distributed equitably and fed directly to humans as opposed to livestock, could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people.

2. Fresh Water – Without a doubt livestock has one of the largest water footprints on the planet. It may be hard to believe, but the standard American diet requires a whopping 4,200 gallons of water per day (including animals’ drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc.), whereas a vegan diet only requires 300. The easiest way to reduce demand for water is to eliminate the consumption of animal products.

3. Waste Disposal – Today’s factory farms house hundreds of thousands of cows, pigs and chickens and in turn produce astronomical amounts of waste. In the U.S. these giant livestock farms generate more than 130 times the amount of waste that humans do. This waste has polluted thousand of miles of rivers and contaminated groundwater, killing marine life and creating huge dead zones.

4. Energy Consumption – For that steak to end up on your plate it has to consume massive amounts of energy along the way. Growing the grain with a heavy use of agricultural chemicals to feed the cattle, transporting the cattle thousands of miles to slaughter and market, and then refrigerating and cooking the meat all amounts to an absurd use of resources. On average, it takes 28 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from meat, whereas it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain.

5. Food Productivity – The food productivity of farmland is quickly falling behind population growth, and the only option available to us short of stabilizing population is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing land to food crops. In the U.S. an estimated 56 million acres of land are producing hay for livestock, and only 4 million acres are used to grow vegetables for human consumption.

6. Global Warming – Global warming is driven by energy consumption, and as noted above livestock are energy guzzling, but that’s not all. Livestock also emit potent global warming gases into the environment. Cattle, in particular, produce a significant amount of methane. For example, a single dairy cow produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually.

7. Loss of Biodiversity – Poaching and the black-marketeering of bushmeat is becoming a growing problem as our planet becomes more and more overcrowded and poorer populations venture into wildlife reserves to kill everything from elephants and chimpanzees to bonobos and birds. Hunters are using logging roads, which facilitate a more rapid invasion, that have been opened up by big multinational companies to poach every animal in sight to sell to people in the cities.

8. Grassland Destruction – As the herds of domesticated animals expanded, the environments on which wild animals such as bison and antelope used to thrive were replaced by monoculture grasslands to cater for large scale cattle grazing. Grassland has suffered a massive loss of life. What was once a rich and diverse ecosystem is now is a single species monoculture.

9. Soil Erosion – With 60 percent of the United States’ pastureland being overgrazed, the acceleration of soil erosion and degradation of land is an increasing concern. It takes approximately 500 years to replace just one inch of precious topsoil. While fertilizers may be able to replace a small amount of nutrient loss, the large inputs of fossil energy to do so is completely unrealistic and unsustainable.

10. Lifestyle Disease – The excessive consumption of meat and dairy in developed countries combined with environmental pollution and lack of exercise is causing a wealth of preventable health problems such as heart disease. While western civilizations are dying from strokes, cancer, diabetes and heart attacks after gorging on meat, poor people in Third World countries are dying from disease brought on by being denied access to land to grow grain to feed their families.

When taking into consideration all of the points made above, it’s clear to see that a meat and dairy dependent diet is unsustainable in the long term. Couple that with the threat of rapid population growth — the current U.S. population is an estimated 285 million and is projected to double in the next 70 years — and even greater stress will be placed an our already limited resources, all of which will have to be divided among even larger numbers of people.

Regardless of the role of meat and dairy in nutrition or the ethics of animal rights, on the grounds of economic and ecological sustainability alone, the consumption of animal products is a looming problem for humankind.

If you want to live a low impact lifestyle and reduce your use of the world’s precious resources, then try opting for animal free food choices instead.

Read more: , , , , ,

Photo Credit: tricky (rick harrison)

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

1055 comments

+ add your own
9:47PM PDT on Mar 8, 2015

the undoing of decades old propaganda; The Big Fat Surprise:

Healthy eating: The case for eating steak and cream | The Economist
www.economist.com/.../books.../21602984-why-everything-you-heard-about -fat-wrong-case-eating-steak-and-cream‎
31 May 2014 ... Shifting the argument The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. ... From the print edition: Books and arts ...

12:39PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

(wish this site had a edit feature- so I could go back and correct some typos and double posts)

Number 10 again is fallacy. Meat isn't the problem. Meat and animal fat consumption has been down in Europe and the US, yet heart disease, obesity, diabetes have been up in these society. Why? Because consumption of sugar, fat substitutes (eg margarine and vegetable oils) and grains have been way up especially in the US. There are also other concerns with GMO's. Feeding grains especially gmo grains to animals I concur though is not an efficient use of lands. Though any crop land is more susceptible to pest, nature disaster than livestock which is more resilient, so what this point proposes is either a recipe for famine, or a plug for biotechnology. To reiterate though livestock can be raised on land not suitable for crop production (see point 5) so eliminating livestock doesn't necessary free up more land for crops. Eliminating livestock only reduces the amount of food that is available to eat....especially nutrient dense food that is a source of nutrients like vitamin A, D, B12, DHA, taurine that aren't as easily obtained or bio-available from plant sources let alone grains.

12:37PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

Number 9, first read responses to number 3 and number 8. Sol can be rebuilt a lot faster with animal inputs. The 500 year number is a bit of mythology. Most of the erosion though is due to AGRICULTURE not livestock, though mismanaged livestock that isn't moved is also detrimental. Continuously using land to produce crops depletes land of nutrients. Tillage and leaving earth exposed allows for erosion especially on inclined areas of land. Synthetic inputs destroy the soil bypassing the normal biological exchanges between plants roots, fungi, and other soil microorganisms ultimately compacting soils and killing soils microbes. You have to constantly replenish soils with new nutrients and that's why having properly managed livestock on the land are absolutely essential for healthy ecosystems and their soils.

Number 8 again is fallacy. Meat isn't the problem. Meat and animal fat consumption has been down in Europe and the US, yet heart disease, obesity, diabetes have been up in these society. Why? Because consumption of sugar, fat substitutes (eg margarine and vegetable oils) and grains have been way up especially in the US. There are also other concerns with GMO's. Feeding grains especially gmo grains to animals I concur though is not an efficient use of lands. Though any crop land is more susceptible to pest, nature disaster than livestock which is more resilient, so what this point proposes is either a recipe for famine, or a plug for biotechnology. To reiterate though live

12:36PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

Number 8 is nonsense. grasslands aren't mono-cultures. Most aren't seeded. The larger problem is invasives. What are mono-cultures are the industrial croplands for human food and clothing consumption and feed. Development is also a human threat to grasslands as well as energy productions. If you want to preserve grasslands and grassland diversity, using livestock especially cattle and sheep to mimic the lost bison and other ruminants is the best thing to do as long as the livestock is moved in a manner where they aren't left too long on any portion of the land. ...that is where they mimic how wild herds moved due to predators.

12:34PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

Number 6 again comes to animal management, though in confined dairy operations biodigesters can actually capture the methane and use it as a much cleaner energy source than fossil fuels. So this is a bad example for this editorial to use because industry will quickly point this out. The methane from pig farming sewage tanks is a bigger issue... Again though this is mainly a factory farming issue, since pastured animals like pigs and chickens that eat food waste, keep that waste out of landfills where methane from rotting food waste is a large source of methane. Cattle on pasture also build healthy soils that sequester carbon and bank methane (via soil bacteria that oxidize it).

Number 7 as defined is more a problem of human population growth...though if you take away livestock even more wildlife will be poached. This is also grossly simplistic too since poaching of a lot of animals is done for a lot of reasons like ivory, other folk medicines, access to land for mineral/oil development, etc . If you want to preserve biodiversity you raise animals on pastures. Converting it o tilled agricultural is the most intensive and most destructive thing you can do. This also destroys the soils, so again non-tilled systems that preserve perennial grasses will preserve the most biodiversity.

12:33PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

Again, this is industrial factory systems, though these pertain to industrial agricultural as well plus to many organic producers...basically wherever food has to be transported (and for industrial Ag grown with synthetic fertilizers). Eating food out of season adds to the energy usage , so eating locally produced food in season is what's key as well as learning food preservation techniques (eg fermenting, pickling) to extend seasons. So again industrial ag isn't sustainable either.

Number 5 is way off since meat an be raised on land not suitable for crop production which is about 2/3 of the earth's land. Moreover, livestock can be rotated in integrated farming to eat cover crops and silage not suitable for human consumption, so there isn't ONLY one solution to this problem of the factory model that grows industrial crops for confined livestock. There are a number of solutions including eliminating the farce of ethanol. 40% of corn in the US goes to ethanol. 55% of the sugar cane in Brazil goes to ethanol. Sugar cane yields in Brazil are 10 times that of soy (which leads to much greater rain forest destruction) . Additionally livestock and farmed fish can eat farmed insects, which would further allow for better utilization of lands suitable for crop production for humans. Farmed insects don't require large areas plus can consume waste by-products

12:33PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

As for three, yep concentrated operations have concentrated waste that isn't well managed and becomes a hazard. In non-concentrated operations, especially integrated systems, manure is an asset, not "waste", since manure is fertilizer that rebuilds soils that have the greatest microbial activity. Without manure, you need inputs from other sources which in the case of industrial ag includes synthetic fertilizers that destroy soil life leading to compacted soils which in turn lead to run offs especially of excess nitrogen. Stock free systems have less microbial activity and require additional inputs for minerals. There are no true veganic systems. Worms are animals too, and healthy soils have tons of microbial life.

12:32PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

The problem with water foot print numbers is that they don't differentiate for "green water" between rainfall and irrigation. So number 2, in terms of environmental impact, is also a bit fictitious especially with California in the middle of a drought since most of the US's produce is grown in California, where pumped aquifers and diverted water are essential to irrigate crops. Nut trees, broccoli an many other crops are VERY water intensive. Whereas, for industrial factory farms, the main number for water use comes from feed crops so livestock raised on pastures where forage isn't irrigated has less of a"real" water need. A further note on pumped aquifers, the deeper the wells, the more minerals are pumped up which make the land too salt laden for crops other than almonds, plus contain toxins in the waste water that kill off birds.

12:31PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

INDUSTRIAL agriculture also isn't sustainable

Actually that article has a lot of false statements in it as well.

Starting with deforestation, very little of the beef consumed in the US comes from South or Central America. Most of what we eat here is produced in the US (about 85%), most of the remaining 15% is imported from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.. Very little of the meat consumed in the US comes from deforested land. Plus there are many reasons for deforestation including sugar cane crops, pineapple crops, bananas crops, wood...none of which are used for the animal feed used for INDUSTRIAL factory farms (primarily soy for pigs in China and the EU). Though I agree feeding animal soy (and fish meal) is stupid and not sustainable. The soy in Brazil is also mono-cropped and GMO so that's even worse. THough the cattle isn't added to the landscape until AFTER the soil can no longer support the agricultural crop use.

12:31PM PST on Mar 1, 2015

INDUSTRIAL agriculture also isn't sustainable

Actually that article has a lot of false statements in it as well.

Starting with deforestation, very little of the beef consumed in the US comes from South or Central America. Most of what we eat here is produced in the US (about 85%), most of the remaining 15% is imported from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.. Very little of the meat consumed in the US comes from deforested land. Plus there are many reasons for deforestation including sugar cane crops, pineapple crops, bananas crops, wood...none of which are used for the animal feed used for INDUSTRIAL factory farms (primarily soy for pigs in China and the EU). Though I agree feeding animal soy (and fish meal) is stupid and not sustainable. The soy in Brazil is also mono-cropped and GMO so that's even worse. THough the cattle isn't added to the landscape until AFTER the soil can no longer support the agricultural crop use.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

This is so so very sad :((

Signed and in the old days in Europe we knew what we were eating, because there were strict rules in…

ads keep care2 free

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.