Food crisis solution: Go vegan
We grow enough food for everyone, but livestock are devouring our food supply. Commentator and bioethicist Peter Singer says unless we change, the dinner plate of the future will look far different.
Peter Singer (TimVickers/Wikimedia Commons)
More on Commentaries
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Kai Ryssdal: The floods that've hit the Midwest are sending already high corn prices to new records. That means meat's going to get more expensive too.
Texas, meanwhile, is dealing with brutal heat and drought. Agricultural officials there say the livestock industry stands to take an enormous hit.
So if meat and corn are off the table and other grains are prohibitively expensive, what are we supposed to eat?
Commentator and bioethicist Pete Singer says our diets are going to change whether we like it or not.
Peter Singer: Why are we in the midst of a food crisis when world production of food per person has actually grown steadily since the 1960s?
The answer is that we're not eating the food we grow, sometimes not eating them at all, sometimes wasting at least 80 percent of them.
100 million tons of corn is turned into biofuels that go into our gas tanks. That's a lot less corn for people to eat.
But most corn isn't eaten by humans; it's eaten by animals and that's the biggest part of the problem. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 756 million tons of grain plus most of the world's soybean crop are fed to animals and that amount has increased sharply in recent years as Asian nations have become more prosperous and their populations have started eating more meat.
When we use animals to convert grain and soy into food we can eat, they use most of the feed to keep warm and develop bones and other parts we can't eat. So we're wasting most of the food value of the crops we feed them. In the case of cattle, at least nine-tenths of the grain they eat is squandered.
Is there a simple way to solve the food crisis? Here's one suggestion: Eat less meat, dairy and eggs. In fact, that's what our diets will look like 50 years from now -- vegan or close to it -- unless, that is, someone works out how to grow environmentally friendly and commercially viable meat from cells in a lab. Last month, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, offered a million dollars for anyone who can produce commercially viable meat from a lab in five years. That time frame is too short, but if they were to extend the deadline to 50 years, I would expect someone to claim the reward.
And if PETA is no longer willing to pay up, the market surely will.
Ryssdal: Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. His most recent book is called "The Ethics of What We Eat."
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Dallas, TX, 03/18/2009
Thank you for raising awareness of this important issue. Modern factory farming is destructive to the environment, wasteful of resources, and unethical both for the suffering it causes to animals but also because of the resources diverted from production of food for human consumption
12/08/2008
If we stopped eating meat wouldnt that increase the the amount of consumption on grains etc rather than decrease it- I mean we still have to feed the animals whether we eat them or not dont we???
From billings, MT, 09/12/2008
I marvel at a species that is more concerned about the price of flesh, or corn, than about the suffering, terror, and loss of life linked with eating eggs, dairy products, and flesh. Are our pocketbooks more important than the lives of others? Are our tastebuds and habits to be put before the sufferings of others?
From Clark, MO, 07/02/2008
I would like to get that PETA reward. We have been raising beef, lamb and even pork from time to time with out GRAIN for 3 years. Yes, it can be done. We now have our second book out trying to changs how we here in USA raise meat.
Where we live the ground is not suited for grain crops....perfect for livestock. Withour style of raising livestock, we are improving the ground. Crop ground kills the soil with all the commerical fertilizers. We use the animals to bring the soil back to life.
We move the animals every 12 hours to a new pasture. WE grow stockpile grass for the winter feed. Yes we did feed hay for 9 days last year but in our area last year most feed hay from Aug-April due to the drought. We are doing a high stock density grazing style that was developed in South Africa.
We are having universities start looking at what is happening to the land. Grasses are coming back that we did not plant, more song birds, more dung beetles and earthworms are living on our farms.
Just more food for thought. Check us out at greenpasturesfarm.net.
From Greensborough, VT, 07/01/2008
Here's one additional environmental benefit of a vegan diet that never really receives a mention: When you eat no animal products and do your own gardening, you'll find it very easy to live-- gasp-- without a refrigerator! I've done it for years.
What a pernicious thing is the refrigerator.
The TV of the kitchen, I tell you.
Bored, passive,
You confront the oracle and stare. Awaiting the light.
From Irvine, CA, 07/01/2008
Looking at the other comments to this post, I am concerned at the misinformation from both sides of this debate.
The fact that people are starving in the world is not because people in the west consume too much, but because the food that we have in the world is poorly distributed, caused for the most part by government failures and severe military conflicts.
On the other side, the idea that "domestic meat animals are NOT fed on corn and soybeans, rather, they are grazed on marginal land that can not be used for any other form of agriculture" is complete nonsense. Animals in America do inhabit marginal lands, but that is not where they get their food. It comes from corn and soybeans. Also, the calculations of feed needs for animals is in fact 1 to 1. Its not that it takes 7 lbs of corn to make 1 lb of beef, but that it takes 7 time as much protein from plants such as soybeans to make the same amount from meat.
On the issue of the food crisis, my first thought seems to have been the first thought of Peter Singer, Peter Timmer of CGD and Thomas Friedman of NYT: the increase in meat consumption around the world. I am of course biased, I do a lot of work on the environmental impact of meat and a long time ago was trying to argue there's also an important economic impact.
The more I look into this though, the more I am convinced that this is not the problem with the food crisis. I can in fact find no connection between beef consumption and cereals in any of the data available. This is mostly explained by the fact that production of meat has been growing relatively slowly, and so the market has been able to adjust with some foresight. Yes, it takes more to make meat, but producers have also been making more.
There has been some comment on decreasing world cereal stocks, but if you look at the trends, there's nothing to them that suggests producers haven't still been making optimal choices for production.
So I think the key to the problem is not increasing consumption, but unforeseen shocks. These shocks have been exacerbated by bad policies, and it is the bad policies have hurt the people, not higher consumption.
For example, droughts in Australia, which are the main culprit behind the crisis, were unforeseen, but could have been prepared for. Some solutions include keeping emergency food stocks higher, increasing local production capabilities and developing better market/insurance programs for producers.
I am a PhD student in Economics at the University of California, Irvine. I do work on the environmental impact of diet, specifically meat. I have forthcoming articles in the journal Ecological Economics and Scientific American.
From San Antonio, TX, 06/30/2008
I am enjoying this lively discussion. I'd like to respond to those posting about dairy in the context of sustainable and humane farming practices.
Is there someone who can explain how milk is being produced humanely? Unless milk can be created synthetically in a laboratory somehow, I don't see how it can be produced humanely from animals for human consumption. Here is what I know: The female dairy cow is separated from her newborn calf soon after birth so the milk can be used for humans. This is a very painful thing for any mammalian mother who instinctively intends to nurse and care for her young. Typically dairy cows are only allowed to go through about five or six cycles of giving birth and having their young taken away from them, before they are killed and turned into meat (often for fast-food hamburger chains). Dairy cows are not killed after a lifetime of service; they live only about 25% of their life expectancy, which is about 25 years. Not only are dairy cows deprived of the joy of raising their young, the cows today have been engineered to produce many times the amount of milk per day than had been possible previously in nature. As a result, the cows suffer from abnormally large and painful udders that are often diseased and infected. When I look at this process, I don't see how it can be considered humane.
I've heard people say maybe it isn't humane, but it's just what we have to do to get milk. People believe that, even after weaning, we need to drink breast milk as children and for our entire adult lives to be healthy. And no wonder ... we hear the "got milk" and "milk it does the body good" commercials all the time. But does that make any sense at all? Look around you ... where do you see animals in nature, drinking breast milk from other animals? Sure, adult mammals such as domestic cats will drink breast milk if you give it to them. From what you see in nature all over the world, are there any adult mammals who rely on breast milk to survive?
On top of the general affront against nature that dairy represents ... as other have noted, dairy consumption has been linked to many health problems. According to recent research, not only do we not need milk, but our drinking it is making a lot of us sick! If the aim of sustainable farming is to provide people with the most NEEDED nutrients while doing the least harm to the environment ... then where do "dairy farms" fit into the sustainable farming picture?
From San Francisco, CA, 06/30/2008
To Dennis Hancock: Kudos to you for working to create sustainable agriculture. We need more poeple like you who are committed to living sustainably and wisely using the earth's resources.
For everyone here: I think most people agree that factory farmed animals are treated inhumanely, and we are NOT proud of these industries. The vast majority of meat in the United States DOES come from these industries, though. If all meat were to come from animals grazing naturally, we (Americans) wouldn't be able to eat as much meat as we do today, or ... looking at it another way, we wouldn't be able to have as big of a population.
So if we want to go on living with the population numbers we have today (which really aren't that big, compared to other parts of the world), we have to either (a) accept that we're trashing the planet with factory farming and continue eating as much cheap meat in our country as we want, (b) switch to eating lab meat instead of factory farmed meat (when it becomes available), or (c) reduce our meat intake to the point that the average American is following a plant-based, mostly vegan diet.
I think part (c) is necessary for sustainable agriculture in the USA because the the amount of meat that can be produced by truly sustainable methods in our country would be a trickle (and would be more expensive) compared to the amount we are used to consuming.
The area of grasslands available for livestock is getting smaller every day as we destroy more and more grasslands to create sprawling office parks and suburban housing developments. Also, you have to keep in mind that animals living on grasslands require a lot of precious water to drink. Often people see grasslands and imagine that cattle could live there happily converting grass to protein for human beings, but they forget that NOWHERE is there any potable water for the cattle to drink. That means you'll have to dig ponds to catch rainwater and try to irrigate water in. The same is true for growing plant crops, they need water, too, but not nearly as much water as animals need.
My point here is two-fold (1) I applaud those how are doing their best to raise animals sustainably and trying to end factory farming, and (2) The idea/hope/dream of livestock grazing sustainably doesn't excuse us from cutting down on our meat consumption ... if everyone in America vowed to only eat sustainably grown meat from here on out, our meat consumption would decrease by .... how much? I don't know, but it would be A LOT. I'm sure there are some places in developing countries where the only meat consumed is what we'd call "sustainably grown." And guess what? Those places either have very low populations, or they don't eat much meat per capita.
From Birmingham, MI, 06/30/2008
Thanks to NPR for bringing this story into the spotlight. It is shocking how little attention the connection between animal agriculture, the environment, and food prices has been given. The horrible rate of energy conversion when plant foods are fed to animals instead of being eaten directly is evidence enough that we should be eating lower on the food chain. Pair this with the fact that animal agriculture is the single largest source of greenhouse gasses, and we all should be taking a closer look at what we choose to eat.
From richmond, VA, 06/28/2008
"By Margaret Childers From Coeur d'Alene, ID, 06/17/2008 I really can't believe humans will be eating meat created in petri dishes in 50 years, or that we must become vegans. I don't plan to do either. Why not let animals like cows, sheep, and chickens eat the food they were eating before we began feeding them grains? Cattle can forage on open range and grasslands, which would eliminate the need for environmentally unfriendly feedlots. It would make the cattle healthier, and the humans eating the cattle healthier as well." Because demand is too high, if you want to do that meat would become far less available and far more expensive. "By mary de la valette From Porter Cove, NB, Canada, 06/18/2008 ld be able to feed more people. MORE people means MORE pollution, MORE Greenhouse Gases, MORE resource wars, MORE environmental destruction, MORE vanishing habitats for biodiversity, MORE vanishing fish stocks, MORE forest destruction, MORE ocean pollution, etc etc. MORE food for MORE people would be catastrophic for Planet Earth. Malthus was right" Try replacing MORE with LESS. It would take LESS food to feed the people on earth. There would be a lot LESS land taken up by livestock which we could grow vegetation. Ok- meat IS more calorie dense and protein rich. Than eat less. Meat eaters are naturally only supposed to eat at most once a day, but instead eat at minimum 3 times a day. If you eat meat, dont eat more than you need.
06/27/2008
While it has its merrits to think about the relation between diet and global happenings, it is amusingly simpleminded to look at the global foodcrisis from our indutrialized soft and secure life circumstance. There is more than enough food on this planet with or without meat production, with or without bio fuel rpoduction, and even with our rising number of people on this planet. The real reason that people starve in certain countries is not the production of meat, but the reality of social unrest, political corruption and civil war in the respective countries. Anything that has a simple explanation and a simple solution for a predominant problem is at its best simplistic and at its worst propaganda.
From winter haven, FL, 06/26/2008
To Rhodora Collins: "Livestock, especially cattle (ruminant animals) are able to convert humanly indigestible plant material such as cellulose from grasses or grains into highly digestible protein and other nutrients." Which is causing deforestation and severe degradation of top soil - The US alone is lacking about a foot of top soil - "people in developing countries begin consuming more protein as soon as they can afford to."..... which also points to the dramatic increase of high chlorestoral, obesity and diabetes in these countries now consuming the SAD (standard american diet) - There are no "vitamins" in meat/animal products.... It is not sustainable - not healthy for the human body, for the planet and certainly awful for the animals. For health & heart - Go VEGAN
From AR, 06/25/2008
Thanks for this. Mr Singer and many others are absolutely correct. Sadly green groups do not mention the fact that meat consumption not only is the major cause of the world food crisis but of global warming. Here are some interesting research facts.
"Researchers at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan have carried out a life-cycle analysis of beef production which shows that 'a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent of 36.4 kilograms of CO2' (New Scientist, 21.7.07). To help you get your head around this, that's equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by the average car over a distance of 250 kilometres."
"Researchers at the University of Chicago have calculated the relative carbon intensity of a standard vegan diet in comparison to a US-style carnivorous diet, all the way through from production to processing to distribution to cooking and consumption. An average burger man (that is, not the outsize variety) emits the equivalent of 1.5 tonnes more CO2 every year than the standard vegan. By comparison, were you to trade in your conventional gas-guzzler for a state of the art Prius hybrid, your CO2 savings would amount to little more than one tonne per year."
Meat consumption is killing us in a multitude of ways. We need to all adopt a plant based diet to save the planet. Go vegan
06/25/2008
Thanks for this. Mr Singer and many others are absolutely correct. Sadly green groups do not mention the fact that meat consumption not only is the major cause of the world food crisis but of global warming. Here are some interesting research facts.
"Researchers at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan have carried out a life-cycle analysis of beef production which shows that 'a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent of 36.4 kilograms of CO2' (New Scientist, 21.7.07). To help you get your head around this, that's equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by the average car over a distance of 250 kilometres."
"Researchers at the University of Chicago have calculated the relative carbon intensity of a standard vegan diet in comparison to a US-style carnivorous diet, all the way through from production to processing to distribution to cooking and consumption. An average burger man (that is, not the outsize variety) emits the equivalent of 1.5 tonnes more CO2 every year than the standard vegan. By comparison, were you to trade in your conventional gas-guzzler for a state of the art Prius hybrid, your CO2 savings would amount to little more than one tonne per year."
Meat consumption is killing us in a multitude of ways. We need to all adopt a plant based diet to save the planet. Go vegan
From New York, NY, 06/25/2008
Thank you Marketplace for bringing us this story. I am continually shocked and saddened by the lack of public knowledge (as evidenced by the comments posted here)on the food crisis we are all heading towards and more specifically on the negative impact animal agriculture has on our human and environmental health. There is so much ignorance being expressed here that it is not even worth wasting the energy to take it all on. It seems that the majority want to continue living in denial as if all of this will just go away. It's not going away and we're all going to pay the price for ignoring the problem exists.
The UN report that Mr. Singer references here is very scientific and thoroughly researched paper (over 400 pages long)and is not just some biased pamphlet produced by a vegan minority group... it's from the United Nations for God's sake. Before trashing Mr. Singer and posting your "opinions" here i suggest you all do a little research and open your eyes. We are in the information age after all and the facts are not hard to find and readily available with a simple search on the internet. But i suspect that for most of the naysayers here they would rather firmly place their head in the sand (or elsewhere) rather than look for the truth.
From Oshkosh, WI, 06/24/2008
Given that you are about to slowly burn to death in a car crash from which there is no possible escape, do you want to be painlessly killed or left to slowly burn to death? If you choose the latter, you choose euthanasia.
From NJ, 06/24/2008
Peter Singer is a eugenics loving nutjob. A whole shaped from his beliefs would utterly tyrannical. All I can say is, don't injure your brain or he'll have you euthenized. He truly believes that "personhood" is purely a function of intellect. I'm not religeous, but I do believe strongly that Peter Singer's measuring stick for human dignity is insane.
06/24/2008
Now if we could only get people to stop consuming animal byproducts to such a degree (leather, suede etc.), we would really make some progress. One's insatiable desire for the lastest designer handbag is also fueling the meat industry.
From Austin, TX, 06/24/2008
Bravo for the excellent commentary by Peter Singer. I am pleased that these important issues are finally being brought to light.
From Oakland, CA, 06/19/2008
The food problems of today will not be solved by turning everyone into vegetarians.
They are rooted in treating food as a commodity instead of a basic human right. The waste and pollution of factory farming is based on blatant consumption rather than moderation. Even vegetable production is unsustainable in this model. “Organic” monocultures of soybeans and other vegetables are not the silver bullet to end global warming.
There is an inherent misunderstanding in how farm animals can be part of a balanced ecosystem where everything works in symbiosis. Instead we’ve created a culture of waste where anything that even remotely connects us to our animals is thrown away. We can preserve agricultural land and supply communities with good, clean, fair food on a local level. We need to start by educating people about respect for the land and the animals that feed us.
As for the places that serve homogenized food on a large scale, they may have no choice but to serve from the Petri dish. I can’t imagine it would taste any different.
Paul Ladeira
Chef/Grower/Forager
Earth to Mouth
From Longmont, CO, 06/19/2008
Thank you, Marketplace, for this insightful and timely story!
From Cape Town, 06/19/2008
It is so uplifting to hear a voice of reason online. I've been vegan for 18 months now and it is just such a relief to know that I personally am not contributing to the global warming and food shortages that results from intensive animal farming. Yes, the only "reason" people have for eating meat and dairy is that it tastes good. And people will ignore the truth in order to satisfy their addiction for animal products. Let's wake up. The planet is running out of time. We are in a crises and we have a small window of opportunity in which we can cool the planet and save it for our grandchildren.
From Arlington, VA, 06/19/2008
Last week I decided that once the fridge and freezer are empty - I will no longer eat meat. In reality, I probably will eat it again at some point in the future. But, your coverage with these type of stories remind my why I need to work towards the vegan diet. Please keep reminding us with the coverage on why this is important. If everyone reduces their meat intake, we will see a difference even if a few of us fall off the wagon from time to time.
Thank you,
06/19/2008
A plant-based diet will do more to alleviate environmental problems, hunger, health issues, and of course the horrific treatment of animals than anything else we can do. Choosing to become vegan is not hard to do. It just means choosing to care more about the rest of the world than about your own selfish acquired food addictions.
From Redford, MI, 06/19/2008
It's just dandy to say we should convert to a vegan/vegetarian/low meat diet to save ourselves and the ecosystem that supports us. As it is to say we've been fooled into believing meat is necessary for our diets. Except we weren't really tricked and we don't really care about saving ourselves or environment. The simple fact is most of us just enjoy eating meat. It's been that way a long time, long before we figured out how to maintain massive feed lots, and it's unlikely to change. If people enjoy something, they are going to do it, one way or another. The consequences will be rationalized away and/or just not cared about. But by all means, shout the warnings and maybe enough people will pay heed and give our future generations a better world.
From Huntingtown, MD, 06/19/2008
I have been a vegetarian almost all my life. I recently, about two years ago became a lacto-vegan. I can honestly say that I am not lacking in strength,vigor or health because I am not an animal consumer. It is possible to thrive as a non-meat eater. It takes some education in nutrition but it is so worth the time and trouble. I think that the problem today is excess, excess,excess!! What happened to 4 ounce servings of meat once or twice a week? It would help if all of us could learn to do things in moderation.
From Saugerties, NY, 06/19/2008
Thank you, Marketplace, for airing Peter Singer's timely commentary. As the founder of Catskill Animal Sanctuary,I'm fortunate to share every day with cows, sheep, pigs, chickens--12 species of animals considered by most humans as nothing other than "food." Oh, the lessons I've learned!!
Perhaps it is our collective guilt about our participation in the torture of billions of animals (who experience pain and fear no differently than humans do) that makes the subject of meat consumption virtually taboo.
Thank you for coming at the topic from a different angle. Helping us understand that our diet is destroying our planet will encourage those of us who refuse to acknowledge the suffering of animals to consider a diet that's easier and kinder for the earth, for the animals, and for ourselves.
Bravo!!
Those who'd like to sign our Declaration of Compassion, modeled after the Declaration of Independence, and declare their independence from meat-based diets, may do so at http://www.thepetitionsite.org/1/DeclarationofCompassion.
From Akron, OH, 06/19/2008
In regards to Collin's comments about nutrients, I strongly disagree. You can obtain all nutrients you need without eating animals AND avoid the problems of diseases associated with the typical western diet. People in developing countries start to consume more meat because it has become a symbol of status and wealth. But it has been proved that those countries are now suffering from increased heart disease, diabetes, obesity, some forms of cancer and a variety of other problems plaguing our country.
From Brookings, OR, 06/18/2008
Thanks for presenting this most effective solution. Becoming vegan solves a myriad of ethical, environmental, and economic ills. This compelling message should be presented far more often.
From Weatherford, TX, 06/18/2008
For further information on how, for example, corn has become a mainstay of the American diet, readers might want to read Michael Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemman," in which he describes how a chicken or a cow eats corn, then we (or rather, you) eat the animal. He describes it in much greater complexity, as he does our entire food chain. The most moral person I know once told me that he became a vegetarian when he decided he would not eat anything he was not willing to kill with his own hands. I shoulda married him. For those who insist on a meat-centric diet, I would suggest visiting a slaughterhouse to see where your food comes from. If this story doesn't galvanize folks to change their diets, perhaps this will. Thanks, NPR for another viewpoint!!
From Manassas, VA, 06/18/2008
Thank you, Peter Singer and American Public Media for airing this important and timely segment. If you want to stop global warming, save wildlife and humans from extinction, GO VEGAN.
http://nothoney.wordpress.com
From Sherman Oaks, 06/18/2008
Every year, an estimated 41 million cows suffer and die in this country. Anyone that suggests we can sustain that many cows on public lands is not grasping the enormity of the problem. The meat industry are marketing geniuses. Through lobbying and incomprehensible pressure their reality becomes our reality. They go after anyone who's opinion offers a challenge. Remember Oprah in Texas? My husband and I went vegan several years ago and have never looked back. We refuse to allow "big business" to skew our reality.
From telluride, CO, 06/18/2008
Thank you for your interview with Mr. Singer. The food crisis is something that affects us and there is no better source of information on the subject than Mr. Singer.
From minneapolis, MN, 06/18/2008
Peter Singer is my hero. I hope that airing pieces like this will encourage more and more people to go vegan--for the environment, for your health, and for the animals. Thank you, American Public Media!
http://creaturetalk.wordpress.com
From Pacifica, CA, 06/18/2008
Ruminant animals (cows, sheep, etc.) create the same amount of CO2 whether they are kept in "environmentally unfriendly feedlots" or allowed to "forage on open range and grasslands." The choice to continue supporting the consumption of animal products is more harmful to our environment than other changes we can make. In addition, farming practices involve incredible cruelty, whether on factory farms or elsewhere. Reducing consumption of animal proteins is a win, win, win: Better for the planet, the animals, and our bodies.
From fairfax, CA, 06/18/2008
As a vegetarian for 22 years, I am glad that the subject of food for humans vs. food for cows is getting more air time. Our crowded planet can bette support vegetarians than omnivores, and Peter Singer was one of the first to say so.
From San Francisco, CA, 06/18/2008
Thank you for running the commentary from Peter Singer. The negative consequences of eating meat cannot be underestimated. Even if people can just cut back on how much they eat, the whole world will benefit.
Sincerely,
Linda Fleming
From Petaluma, CA, 06/18/2008
Thank you Peter Singer! for shedding more light on this important issue.
Most animals are kept on factory farms these days and are fed grains to fatten them up fast. It's all about fast production for money. True, there are some small farms where the animals are grass fed, but the end "product" (meat) is more expensive and most people cannot afford it, especially in this economy.
We have been brainwashed into thinking that meat and dairy is healthy, it is just the opposite. If people would only read up on it and really educate themselves, they would find that these industries spend trillions of dollars to advertise and brainwash us into thinking this is good for us, when in fact, it is just the opposite. Dairy for instance, many people are lactose intolerant. So what do they do? They take a pill so they can eat something that naturally makes them sick. That is telling us something!
It is becoming more proven that a plant based diet is much healthier for humans. The China Study (T. Colin Campbell, PhD) is an excellent book, it is the most comphrensive nutritional study ever done.
A plant based diet is much healthier, it is much better for the enviornment, and spares billions upon billions of animals horrific suffering. These animals are not raised on Ole McDonalds farm nowadays, they are raised mostly in factory farms where their treatment is that of a machine and then sent to slaughter where they endure horrible transport in all kinds of weather conditions without food or water, and deploreable treatment in the slaughterhouse.
So, it seems that a plant based diet is a win-win-win situation.
From Longview, WA, 06/18/2008
Thank you Peter Singer and Market Place for this informative commentary. Most people who eat a steak never think of how it gets to their plate! Nor of the consequences to the environment. I think we should share corn for biofuels but drastically reduce the amount fed to cattle. Cattle farmers will fight this idea as feed lots are their liveyhood. I believe a no meat diet is the way to go as it is truly the most healthy.
From NJ, 06/18/2008
I applaud Peter Singer, as always, for enlightening us with the truth. The consumption of animals wreaks havoc on the planet, other living things and our health. Another truth to recognize, however, is that humans do not suffer from a food shortage - if humans did not have enough food, the population would not continue to increase at the rate it does. It's a simple law of nature. What humans suffer from with food is the same thing they do in other areas - a lack of equitable distribution of resources. Thus some are grossly overfed and others are painfully underfed. We need not produce more food, but stabilize our food production and work towards more efficeint, effective and equitable distribution of nutrients. Controlling food production and distribution could also help us work on the other big threat - population. Humans must stabilize and eventually decrease their population on this planet, for the sake of our species and all the others.
06/18/2008
I live in Brazil and it is sad to see the destruction of the forests. In the state of Mato Grosso the Governor is also Brazil's soy King. So the forest in Mato Grosso state is being replaced by soy plantations then exported to feed livestock. After a few years this land becomes a desert. So,in fact mankind is cutting his own nose off to spite his face.
From Salem, CT, 06/18/2008
Thank you for raising this topic!
Eating a plant-based diet is a refreshingly simple solution for helping improve the food crisis and two other critical issues that we humans – Americans in particular – need to address pretty quickly: the environment and our health. I'll focus on the former for this post. According to the UN report that Ms. Kilborn mentioned in her post, livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land and 30% of the land surface of the plant. Also, livestock account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions – more than transportation. The UN report is called, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which you can download for free.
More information is available in Dr. Singer’s books as well as in the other literature Carolyn Kilborn mentioned in her post earlier today. In addition, compassionatecooks.com has a variety of informative podcasts about this topic.
For some people, it may be easier to make a shift by just choosing to eat plant-based meals more than they do today. (e.g., choose to eat plant-based meals 4 days a week, then increase when possible). Even this gradual change could help our global food supply and reduce our impact on the environment.
From boston, MA, 06/18/2008
Please, take a moment just to see the other side of your initial response... we've been sold a bill of goods. The massively subsidised meat industry is going to feel the hurt of rising energy prices, I just hope the subsidies don't grow along with the rise in oil prices.
Grasslands are for the beings who live in the grasslands, packing the grasslands with our oversized cattle strips the land leaving a swath of uninhabitable dust.. erosion and wind take the topsoil and it's desertification.
Americans eat too much of this stuff, it's clearly unsustainable.... and that fact is getting clearer every day.
john
http://www.YogaWithJohn.com
From Chicago, IL, 06/18/2008
Thank you for airing Peter Singer's commentary on the world wide food crisis. There will enevitably be a backlash toward NPR for airing his accurate acount of the wastefullness of meat production. I can only hope that it does not take 50 years for our nation's psychological dependence on meat to be overcome by reason.
From Waterville, NY, 06/18/2008
A few posts have extolled the virtues of using our vast grasslands for feeding cows and others. That leads to the wholesale killing of animals who depend on the grasslands like buffalo, black-footed ferrets, prairie dogs, wild horses, various bird species and the animals who prey on them like coyotes and wolves because they are competition or preditor. Our addiction to eating the bodies of others is not only bad for us spiritually and physically, it is bad for other animals and the environment.
From Houston, TX, 06/18/2008
Finally a news station bold enough to allow the truth - raising animals for food is the leading cause of not only food shortage but all our now common diseases today - heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. For the sake of our earth, our health and our animals the most obvious solution is to go to a one hundred per cent plant based diet. The public needs to know the truth as the industries spend millions to hide the truth from the unsuspecting public.
From Chicago, IL, 06/18/2008
Rhodora, it's time to do your homework. It is 2008 and we know that meat, eggs, and dairy products are NOT good for you. They are the leading contributors of most (if not all) of the killer diseases in the U.S (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune, etc). There are many resources for you to investigate this further, but I suggest you start with a book called The China Study, which can be found at http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213795668&sr=8-1.
From Washington, DC, 06/18/2008
Thanks to Peter Singer for his insightful commentary on how we can each help the planet and animals by choosing a plant-based diet. Free vegetarian recipes are available at:
http://www.humanesociety.org/recipes
From NY, 06/18/2008
The silver lining of the food "shortage" is that people will come to understand the global impact of the food choices they make on a daily basis. Agribusiness has convinced us that animal products are necessary for health. An educated public will come to know that animal products are not needed and that a non-animal based diet is healthier and better for the planet.
From Machipongo, VA, 06/18/2008
Thank you for this important commentary on the need to make our diet more intelligent and compassionate. Without a major shift in people's eating habits, factory farming of animals will continue to expand worldwide. If millions/billions of people keep purchasing animal products, mass production of animals, with all of its built-in problems - ethical and environmental - will continue. If animals were allowed to eat their natural foods and live less barren and restricted lives, very few people could afford to buy the resulting product, because raising animals that way is very expensive. I believe we can grow beyond our sad addiction to the dead bodies of animals, their eggs and nursing babies' milk, and discover the amazing array of vegan foods now available. Many people are making this discovery. We can use our purchasing power to speed technological conversion to wholesome and delicious vegan cuisine the same as we evolve in other areas of life. Vegan foods today go way beyond a diet of "tofu & sprouts." There is so much to choose from once we refocus our eyes and resources. Thank you.
Karen Davis, PhD, President
United Poultry Concerns
www.upc-online.org
Dedicated to the compassionate and respectful treatment of chickens and other domestic fowl.
From Annapolis, MD, 06/18/2008
Thank you Marketplace and Peter Singer for your informative piece on the necessity of moving to a vegan diet. There are so many myths about food and farming that we need more information of this type to help us sort it out. The first of those myths is that meat is necessary for human health and the second - just as powerfully wrong - is that a vegan diet is bland and tasteless. Mark Twain said it best, "The problem with the American people aint ignorance,it's just that they know too much that aint true." If you want to know the truth, start with the United Nations report on livestock, then read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell and Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman. Then buy a vegan cookbook and start cooking! You'll be glad you did. I am.
From Durango, CO, 06/18/2008
In the midst of ongoing discussion regarding biofuel demand on crop production, the immense demand on crops by confined animal feeding operations has struck me as the elephant in the room. Thank you for bringing this issue to light. Weighing biofuel R&D against massive meat production, I have found myself inclined toward bringing more vegetables and grains to my family's table.
(This post is a revision of a post I made yesterday - needed to correct a sentence structure error)
From Porter Cove, NB, Canada, 06/18/2008
ld be able to feed more people. MORE people means MORE pollution, MORE Greenhouse Gases, MORE resource wars, MORE environmental destruction, MORE vanishing habitats for biodiversity, MORE vanishing fish stocks, MORE forest destruction, MORE ocean pollution, etc etc. MORE food for MORE people would be catastrophic for Planet Earth. Malthus was right
From Paris - France, FL, 06/18/2008
so very true yet it has to be told again and again to finally be heard. It hurts to see so much water wasted (in mycountry) to grow industrially corn which will be fed to animals locked for a lifetime in dark sheds - to feed another type of animals whose exponential reproduction has already put at risk its own survival. Also read "l'humanité disparaitra - bon débarras".
From Santa Monica, CA, 06/18/2008
I am glad that people are considering this issue. It is no secret that the livestock industry uses more land and water on every continent than any industry. The main farm crops on every continent are fed to farmed animals, which takes up a tremendous amount of land, water, fuel, and other resources. It takes a whole lot of fossil fuels to grow the food for the world's more than 50 billion farmed animals - which largely subsist on farmed crops, and not on foraged foods or waste products. It takes more fossil fuels to transport the animals, slaughter them, and to process, transport, package, market, and cook the meat. The meat, eggs, and dairy products all have to be kept cold, which uses more energy at every step of the way to the consumer's table. The global use of ovens, stoves, and water heaters to process and clean up after all of those animal products spews more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all automobiles combined. Those who consume the most meat, dairy products, and eggs are the most likely to experience heart disease, strokes, arthritis, diabetes, colon cancer, obesity, and certain types of kidney disease. And it takes a whole lot of resources to provide those people with medical attention. On the other hand, vegans experience fewer degenerative diseases than do meat eathers, and vegans live longer. I agree with Mr. Singer's comments. If you want to improve the situation of Earth, help prevent air pollution, help protect and preserve land and water, and help to prevent the spread of world hunger, consider what is on your plate and all of the steps necessary to get it there. How we eat is the number way we interact with the planet. Right now we are eating Earth to death.
From Vancouver, BC, 06/18/2008
I am glad to hear someone finally talking about the real reasons for our food "shortage." In North America, over 70% of the grain we grow is fed to animals. The United Nations recently published a report that animal agriculture is one of the most serious threats to the environment.
Most cattle are not raised on grass, but are fed corn and soy on massive feedlots in the midwest. There are a handful of farmers raising grass-fed beef, but only a handful, and the number is shrinking. Chicken, pigs, and turkeys are almost never fed anything except corn, even when they are raised on small organic farms. Go to any feed store and see what the ingredients are in commercial animal feed. I commend Peter Singer for speaking about the ignored truth behind the food crisis.
From Durango, CO, 06/17/2008
In the midst of ongoing discussion regarding biofuel demand on crop production, the immense demand on crops by confined animal feeding operations has struck me as the elephant in the room. Thank you for bringing this issue to light. Weighing biofuel R&D against seeing more vegetables and grains and less meat on the table, I have found myself inclined toward the latter.
From Laguna Beach, CA, 06/17/2008
As to be expected, most of the comments have come from Ag-industry insiders. Don't take anyone's word for it, do the research. The UNO is a good start. Think oil is pricey; just wait til all available T-bones are 100% grassfed! I'll be standing by with tofu and broccoli recipes....
From Athens, GA, 06/17/2008
Certainly, worldwide agricultural production is in a period of tremendous change. We, in agriculture, are challenged to meet the increasing need for food, fiber, and fuel. But, I was incredibly disappointed in Professor Singer’s failure to recognize the potential of utilizing our vast grasslands to produce meat and milk.
Grasslands remain the world’s most abundant renewable natural resource. The vast majority of meat and milk producers in my state are utilizing this natural resource in a sustainable way. In fact, a significant number of these farmers produce meat and milk with little or no supplementation with corn or other grain crops. If Professor Singer and PETA want to see meat and milk produced in an ethical, environmentally-friendly, and commercially-viable way, tell them to come see me! I’ll introduce them to producers who are committed to doing just this. They’re part of the real “green industry.” It’s not just common sense… its good business sense!
Dennis Hancock, PhD.
Asst. Professor and Forage Crop Specialist
University of Georgia
From Staten Island, NY, 06/17/2008
Kudos to Peter Singer for discussing the inconvenient truth of the tremendous wastefulness of animal-based diets. It is scandalous that at a time when an estimated 20 million people die annually worldwide of hunger and its effects, 70% of the grain produced in the US and over 40% of the grain produced worldwide is fed to animals destined for slaughter. Animal-based diets threaten to make global hunger worse in the future by contributing significantly to water shortages, global warming and soil erosion. It takes up to 14 times as much water for an animal-based diet than for a plant-based diet. According to a 2006 UN FAO report, animal-based agriculture emits more greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) than all of the cars and other means of transportation worldwide combined (18% vs. 13.5%). Making matters worse, that same UN report projected a doubling of meat consumption in 50 years, worsening global warming and many other environmental problems. A major shift to plant-based diets is essential to move our imperiled planet to a sustainable path.
From Madison, WI, 06/17/2008
Producing meat and dairy products is not all about taking food away from people: cattle produce much milk and meat using feeds that people can't. Like grass, and leftovers from making plant-derived food, clothing, and fuel (think citrus pulp from orange juice, cottonseed from making cotton cloth, and distillers grains from ethanol (whiskey or fuel) -- most plant-based products we use have such leftovers). Cattle actually do society a service by recycling millions of tons of these leftovers that would otherwise be waste, and giving us food and other products in return.
Also, to grow meat in tissue culture, you’d need to use the same high quality protein and energy that people could use directly. That would not seem to make this approach noncompetitive with human food needs. (Red herring vs. possible fillet?)
From Coeur d'Alene, ID, 06/17/2008
I really can't believe humans will be eating meat created in petri dishes in 50 years, or that we must become vegans. I don't plan to do either. Why not let animals like cows, sheep, and chickens eat the food they were eating before we began feeding them grains? Cattle can forage on open range and grasslands, which would eliminate the need for environmentally unfriendly feedlots. It would make the cattle healthier, and the humans eating the cattle healthier as well.
From Hannibal, NY, 06/17/2008
I disagree with your premise that eating meat is the cause of grain shortages -- far from it. The vast majority of domestic meat animals are NOT fed on corn and soybeans, rather, they are grazed on marginal land that can not be used for any other form of agriculture.
Even here in upstate New York, there are livestock (beef, sheep, goats and poultry) raised on good plain grass and forage, on land not suitable for gardening or farming. These animals can convert forage -- which is undigestible to us humans --into nutritious, tasty meat, milk or eggs.
If you have some spiritual or religious reason for not wanting to eat meat, say so. Don't spread these tidbits of misinformation throughout the media, and don't keep repeating these myths as if they were facts!
Please do not confuse the smaller market of cornfed, lot-raised meat with the greater reality of forage and grass-raised meat prevalent throughout the world.
The changes in animal husbandry that take place when you try to mass produce meat or dairy products in central locations do not reflect the ways in which smaller farmers, local producers or the vast majority of the population on this planet raise their food.
If you care about the ethics of your food, buy local, from smaller local farms.
Sincerely,
Chris Squires
Little Biddy Farm
Hannibal, NY
From Sycamore, IL, 06/17/2008
I was surprised and saddened to hear bioethicist Peter Singer's commentary on food production. His arguments against using grain for biofuels and for eating less meat left out several critical points. In regards to biofuels, he does not mention the fact that, in the case of corn, in the past several years as more U.S. corn is used for ethanol, corn yields have continued to increase, keeping pace with the diversion of corn for fuel and thus not significantly decreasing our food supply. Also, at least 1/3 of the corn used for ethanol goes right back into the food supply as high-quality feed (dried distillers grains) for livestock, especially cattle. In regards to "wasting" grain on livestock, he's evidently assuming that 1 lb. of grain has the same human nutritional quality as 1 lb. of meat, dairy products, or eggs. It does not!! Livestock, especially cattle (ruminant animals) are able to convert humanly indigestible plant material such as cellulose from grasses or grains into highly digestible protein and other nutrients. Eating a portion of grain will not afford a person the same nutrient package as eating an equivalent portion of meat, eggs, or dairy products. That is one reason why people in developing countries begin consuming more protein as soon as they can afford to. I listen to NPR because I appreciate the attempt to keep stories balanced. The airing of Singer’s commentary unfortunately makes me suspicious of the veracity of other commentary on topics I know less about.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.