Kathy Freston, Alternet
April 2009
Cutting out red meat while still eating chicken doesn't address the fact that the industrial model for raising both is very bad for the environment.
Nicholas Kristof's column on Wednesday discusses the recent work by animal
activists on behalf of chickens and pigs, and the degree to which "animal
rights are now firmly on the mainstream ethical agenda" in the United
States, as they have been for some years in Europe. I am delighted to see
from Mr. Kristof yet another thoughtful essay about a moral issue that is,
until recently, not widely discussed, and even more pleased that in
discussing the cruelties of modern intensive farms, he is focusing on birds.
You see, people often tell me that they've given up eating red meat out of
concern for animals, the environment, or their health (or all three). Of
course all efforts to make the world a kinder and less polluted place should
be applauded. But here's the thing: cutting out red meat while still eating
chicken doesn't address the whole problem.
Here's why: Both choices -- beef and chicken -- badly damage the
environment, so choosing one or the other is sort of like the difference
between driving a huge SUV and a Hummer. That's also why I'm a little
baffled when some environmental organizations say that cutting out beef is
advisable, but eating other meats is "relatively" ok. It's really not.
On the issue of global warming, all animal agriculture is a nightmare,
relative to producing grains and beans. In a 400 page report from the United
Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow,
scientists conclude that the business of raising animals for food is
responsible for about 18 percent of all warming -- in fact meat causes about
40 percent more warming than all cars, trucks, and planes combined.
That is in part because turning animals into meat requires many stages of
(energy intensive and polluting) production (i.e., transporting feed,
animals, and meat; running feed mills, factory farms, and slaughterhouses;
refrigerating carcasses during transport and in grocery stores -- chickens
are at least as energy consumptive as cattle for all these stages), compared
to plant foods.
Environmental Defense calculated that if every American skipped one meal of
chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon
dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars
off of U.S. roads. Imagine if we dropped all meat from our diets altogether.
And it's not just global warming, of course: In a story about chicken waste
pollution, the New York Times reported in November that "[a]lthough the
dairy and hog industry in states near the bay produce more pounds of manure,
poultry waste has more than twice the concentration of pollutants per
pound." I assume that's in part because poultry are given a lot more drugs
than pigs and cattle -- because they're kept in even worse conditions and
thus require more drugs.
When you have the attorney general of a state like Oklahoma battling poultry
producers over the industry "wreak[ing] havoc in the 1-million-acre Illinois
River watershed, turning it into a murky, sludgy mess," it seems pretty
clear (to me) that environmentalists might want to think again about putting
that product into even a "relatively" favorable category.
So it makes more sense to cut down on meat altogether, in favor of a more
plant based diet, rather than trying to sort out which meats are relatively
better or worse. And we can do so in stages.
For example, after looking at the health and environmental problems
associated with chicken, beef, and pork, New York Times food writer Mark
Bittman (in his superb new book Food Matters) suggests eating exclusively
plant-based foods until 6 p.m., and then eating whatever you want for
dinner. I know people who have tried this sort of plan, and they find --
quickly -- that they're eating more and more vegetarian food, even during
the times when they eat whatever they want. Writes Bittman, "By reducing the
amount of meat we eat, we can grow and kill fewer animals. That means less
environmental damage, including climate change; fewer antibiotics in the
water and food supplies; fewer pesticides and herbicides; reduced cruelty;
and so on. It also means better health for you."
Similarly, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health leads the "Meatless
Mondays" campaign, which is supported by 28 other public health schools.
Their goal is to cut Americans' meat-consumption, in order to lessen our
risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and so on. And of course,
they rightly impugn all meat, not just "red" meat.
Although he vigorously advocates vegetarianism, the much adored Buddhist
monk and Zen master, Thich Nhat Hanh, writes in his latest book that "[i]f
you're not able to entirely stop eating meat, you can still decide to make
an effort to cut back. By cutting meat out of your diet ten or even five
days a month, you will already be performing a miracle -- a miracle that
will help solve the problem of hunger in the developing world and
dramatically reduce greenhouse gases."
These suggestions from Bittman, Johns Hopkins, and Thich Nhat Hanh strike me
as much better half-measure alternatives to picking between various meats.
For those who want to do well by the environment, have more robust health,
and consider the welfare of animals, the solution is not to just give up
eating red meat, but rather lean away from eating animal products - chicken
included - altogether.
A few things to remember:
For people who want help cutting back on meat or transitioning toward a vegetarian diet, please check out my previous post, "One Bite at a Time: A Beginners Guide to Conscious Eating."
Number of animals killed in the world by the fishing, meat, dairy and egg industries, since you opened this webpage.
0 marine animals
0 chickens
0 ducks
0 pigs
0 rabbits
0 turkeys
0 geese
0 sheep
0 goats
0 cows / calves
0 rodents
0 pigeons/other birds
0 buffaloes
0 dogs
0 cats
0 horses
0 donkeys and mules
0 camels / camelids