It's not just Americans that ignore the very real ecological problems associated with animal agriculture. Other countries in the industrialised world are just as culpable. We have a big problem here in NZ with environmental degradation from cattle farming, which contributes to both air and water pollution.
Livestock farming is one of the major sources of pollution of our groundwater, lakes, and streams. And it is the biggest factor in lake pollution here. In fact, something like a third of our lakes are already heavily polluted as a result of nitrogen runoff from pastoral land.
The problem, of course, is that people are used to eating what they've always eaten, which for this British culture means lots of beef, and they would not like to be told that, for the sake of our environment, they are simply going to have to modify their diets in future.
And, I suspect, the same would be true of Americans and people in other nations where animals are raised in great numbers to give people the meat they demand.
Dot -Thank you for your supportive comments regarding the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, which are much appreciated.
Quite welcome, Solfeggio. I balance my diet with very little meat and fish protein and lots of fresh or frozen fruits and veggies, probably contributing to the fact that my doctor consistently tells me that I'm remarkably healthy for my age and the chronic medical problems I have. Have lost ten pounds effortlessly just lately by reducing my animal fat intake and stepping up my fruit and veggie (minus added sweeteners) intake substantially. It's actually fairly easy to do once a person becomes determined to eat a healthier diet. The catch is mustering the willpower and determination.
I'm appalled by what I see people bringing into the chemo room for snacks when I'm getting my infusions. One woman had Krispy Kreme doughnuts, snack chips and who knows what all else! I was afraid to look too closely. I should think that anyone who's undergoing treatment for cancer would be looking to improve their diet bigtime since that's a definite and easily done means of helping to prevent new cancers or recurrences.
I really do feel that huge commercial feedlots are terribly damaging to the environment, and I agree that even a few less steaks/hamburgers/roasts per week on the part of Americans would probably make a quite considerable impact on environmental sustainability.
I lived for over 15 years with roughly a dozen immense cattle feedlots within a 50-mile diameter circle surrounding my home. Having seen the enormous piles of excrement in those and smelled them from miles away, I can't be reassured that they aren't incredibly damaging ecologically as well as to the wellbeing of the animals trapped in those things until they're meaty enough to be slaughtered.
And then, as if all these weren't enough, I lived a little over 20 miles from one of the beef processing plants excoriated in Fast Food Nation because so many of its workers had died trying to work in monumentally unsafe conditions.
America needs to clean up its act bigtime where meat production is concerned. As Solfeggio and I've said, agreeing to eat one meatless meal daily would do much to reduce demand for meat. Even eating meatless meals a few times a week would be something.
But Americans largely prefer to remain oblivious to the unbelievable damage done by large meat producers whether feedlot owners or meat packing plants.
Industrialized agriculture as a whole isn't good, environmentally speaking. And, depending on the location, ag-industry for vegtables can be just as bad or worse than that done for livestock.
However, I would say the biggest threat to wildlife and the environment comes not from agriculture or ag-industry, but rather subdivisions and urban sprawl.
Thus, a well-meaning urbanite such as Natalie Portman can think she's doing good by being a vegan, but, if she goes and buys a vacation home on subdivided land in places like Montana and Wyoming -- as many stars have -- she's actually not only just undone all her good work, but more than replaced it with ill effects on wildlife and the land. Not to mention, the lifestyle and economic livelyhood of locals.
While commercial vegetable/fruit growing operations can indeed be ecologically unsound, you're still going to have to prove that these together present anywhere near the degree of ecological hazard that immense commercial feedlots do, mytmouse.
I simply don't believe without some evidence that the overall impact and magnitude of fruit and vegetable production is at all comparable to the damage done by enormous animal-raising operations.
I grant you that SOME fruit or vegetable operations in locations unable adequately to sustain what is being grown can be incredibly damaging, but we're talking overall magnitude here and not isolated instances.
Einstein felt that our reliance on meat may threaten our planet more than anything else we may be doing, although he may have said as such prior to the development of nuclear weapons. The negative effects relates much to the inefficiency, the loss of water that is especially enormous with cattle, and higher levels of pollution and CO2 production (cows fart but broccoli doesn't).
Industrialized agriculture as a whole isn't good, environmentally speaking. And, depending on the location, ag-industry for vegtables can be just as bad or worse than that done for livestock.
However, I would say the biggest threat to wildlife and the environment comes not from agriculture or ag-industry, but rather subdivisions and urban sprawl.
Thus, a well-meaning urbanite such as Natalie Portman can think she's doing good by being a vegan, but, if she goes and buys a vacation home on subdivided land in places like Montana and Wyoming -- as many stars have -- she's actually not only just undone all her good work, but more than replaced it with ill effects on wildlife and the land. Not to mention, the lifestyle and economic livelyhood of locals.
Thank you for your supportive comments regarding the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, which are much appreciated.
I really do feel that huge commercial feedlots are terribly damaging to the environment, and I agree that even a few less steaks/hamburgers/roasts per week on the part of Americans would probably make a quite considerable impact on environmental sustainability.
Ranchers don't get off scot-free, however, mytmouse, because it was the ranchers that started it all back when they were 'settling' the 'wild' west and chasing off the Native Americans, who weren't harming the landscape the way the farmers and the cattlemen did.
Those enormous cattle drives didn't just come about by accident, after all.
One does not have to be vegan to support forms of ranching that aren't bad for the environment.
Plus, I've personally known ranchers who did a lot to protect the environment.
Ranchers are an entirely different deal than these enormous commercial cattle feeding operations. Those were what I was referring to, as I thought was clear from what I said. When a child, I had relatives who were cattle ranchers, so I certainly agree that family-owned operations can raise beef cattle much more ecologically and humanely.
Raising crops that vegans eat can also be bad for the environment. I've seen plenty of that. It's not what is done. It's how it is done.
I agree. However, I don't think I'd be mistaken to say that the vast majority of the meat eaten in the U.S. comes from these immense commercial operations. Thus, I stand on my statement that if omnivores ate even a few more meatless meals weekly, there would be less damage to the environment due to less demand for beef in particular.
I agree further that raising crops can be environmentally unsound if done with loads of chemicals and leaching diminishing groundwater supplies to irrigate so that crops that otherwise wouldn't thrive can be grown in places where they ought not be planted to start with because they require extraordinary measures.
However, you're going to have to prove to me that runoff and air pollution from huge commercial feedlots isn't far more hazardous than badly done crop management. Simply by their larger scale and abundance, I'd bet the feedlots top most other ecologically unsound agricultural practices.
Being vegan and an animal rights activist -- while potentially admirable personal moral choices -- do virtually nothing to help or protect the environment.
You must not live anywhere near the immense cattle feedlots where I used to live in Kansas, then. Those things are incredibly damaging to the environment and seriously threaten groundwater from the massive amounts of runoff having so many cattle packed into pens produces.
Merely feeding cattle to meaty maturity requires vast amounts of grain and water which could be more justly distributed if so many people weren't beeflovers.
While being vegan and supporting animal rights may not seem like much "greenness" to you, it is far more than I myself do, I shamefacedly admit.
If more omnivores ate organic meatless meals even a few times a week, that would be a notable step toward saving our environment.
Been around cattle and ranching my entire life.
One does not have to be vegan to support forms of ranching that aren't bad for the environment.
Plus, I've personally known ranchers who did a lot to protect the environment.
Raising crops that vegans eat can also be bad for the environment. I've seen plenty of that. It's not what is done. It's how it is done.
Being vegan and an animal rights activist -- while potentially admirable personal moral choices -- do virtually nothing to help or protect the environment.
You must not live anywhere near the immense cattle feedlots where I used to live in Kansas, then. Those things are incredibly damaging to the environment and seriously threaten groundwater from the massive amounts of runoff having so many cattle packed into pens produces.
Merely feeding cattle to meaty maturity requires vast amounts of grain and water which could be more justly distributed if so many people weren't beeflovers.
While being vegan and supporting animal rights may not seem like much "greenness" to you, it is far more than I myself do, I shamefacedly admit.
If more omnivores ate organic meatless meals even a few times a week, that would be a notable step toward saving our environment.
Being vegan and an animal rights activist -- while potentially admirable personal moral choices -- do virtually nothing to help or protect the environment.
Supporting such things as keeping tight regulations on potentialy pollutive industry, promoting recycling and working to protect habitat have real "green" results. And many people of all different philosophies do those things.
