Quite a lot, it would seem, although some believe that for the entire planet to turn vegetarian would mean the poorest wouldn't get an adequate diet.
Here are some quotes from articles. (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information, though much of it comes from reputable sources.)
This came out of a conversation a few weeks ago in another thread. I first linked to an article about how meat consumption is said to be causing food shortages for the majority of the population of Egypt:
“The Rich countries are responsible for the continuing poverty of the South”
There are certainly more poor people in the world than there are rich people. But to single out human numbers as the cause of poverty is to obscure the massive destitution caused by the consumerist lifestyles of the rich and the activities of global commerce. Take Egypt. Malnutrition is rife -- over 80 per cent of children under five-years-old are malnourished. The country has to import wheat for breadmaking. And the reason would seem obvious. Over 50 million people crammed into a narrow strip of land either side of the Nile. Demography and geography have run up against each other. Poverty is the result.
But what those statistics and that image does not tell you is that the Egyptians produce more than enough grain to feed themselves. Or that the bulk of that grain is used to feed cows to produce meat to satisfy the newly-acquired tastes of the affluent classes. In fact, Egypt feeds more of its grain to animals than it does to humans.
Nor does the image of a population that has run out of land tell us anything about the role of USAID in promoting livestock production. Nor about the US grain companies that have profited to the tune of millions of dollars now that Egypt is a market for subsidized US grain. Nor about the debt that Egypt has incurred as a result of having to import grain. Nor about the crop land that is now taken up with growing cut flowers to pay off that debt. Nor about the structural adjustment programmes that have been imposed to "bring the economy back into equilibrium". Nor about the poverty and misery that SAPs have caused.
Someone said famine was a "political construct" rather than a genuine measure of food shortage. I said:
Saying famine's all to do with a "Political construct" appears to be simplifying things.
Here's a report on food shortages:
The discussion above on prevalence and indicators of food shortage has illustrated that its causes are complex. Some hunger indicators, such as production shortfalls, highlight problems that may lead to food shortage. Others, such as DES, directly measure food availability within a country or region. These food-shortage indicators report outcomes of physical and biological factors, sociocultural influences, political-economic forces, and interactions among
these elements.
It goes on to elaborate on the meaning of that paragraph, that is, the several different factors that cause food shortages.
Earlier in the article, it says:
The numbers of people potentially supported by the global food supply depend heavily on the kind of diet people consume. The World Hunger Program calculates that global food supplies have been more than adequate, since the mid-1970s, to support the world's population on a vegetarian diet (table 3.1). But they would support only 74 per cent of the 1993 population on a diet where 15 per cent of calories come from animal foods (Uvin 1996). Only 56 per cent of the
1993 world population could have been provided with diets where 25 per cent of calories came from animal foods (Uvin 1996).
An article on the website of the United Nations Environment Program called
The era of scarcity is upon us says:
But, 'rising affluence', particularly in Asia, is putting even heavier pressure on grain supplies. As people become better off, they eat more meat, often fed on grain (it takes 7 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of beef, 4 for a kilogram of pork). Over a third of the world's annual harvest - some
640 million tonnes - already goes to fatten animals for the table, and this is rising rapidly. When Western Europe and North America achieved economic takeoff they had 278 million and 166 million inhabitants respectively. 'This pales compared with the 3.1 billion in Asia now setting off on a similar economic
journey - at a much faster pace.'
Inevitably, he says, prices will sharply increase, with devastating effects for the 1.2 billion poorest people who already spend 70 per cent of their incomes on food. 'No economic indicator,' he points out, 'is more politically sensitive than food prices': scarcity could lead to increased ethnic conflicts and social disintegration and give rise to unprecedented numbers of refugees.
From a Times article called
Food shortages: think big
The world price of staple foods has rocketed, almost doubling in the past 18 months. For consumers in the rich world this massive increase in the price of wheat or rice is an inconvenience; for consumers in the poorest countries it is a catastrophe. ...
Why have food prices rocketed? Paradoxically, this squeeze on the poorest has come about as a result of the success of globalisation in reducing world poverty. As China develops, helped by its massive exports to our markets, millions of Chinese households have started to eat better. Better means not just more food but more meat, the new luxury. But to produce 1kg of meat takes 6kg of grain. Livestock reared for meat to be consumed in Asia are now eating the
grain that would previously have been eaten by the African poor. So what is the remedy?
It argues that more efficient and technologically advanced agricultural systems would help matters, and that they're being held back by political attitudes of people with a sentimental attitude to the promotion of small-scale farming where farmers won't actually have the resources to invest in the best technology.
The BBC tries to provide a balanced view, in an opinion piece that contradicts that of the economist who wrote the Times article in one or two respects. It argues that it is indeed probable that most rich people in the West should cut down on meat consumption, but for poor families, eating meat could be essential for good health:
Balancing the global need for meat
According to a recent report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock production, dominated in the West by large-scale factory farming, is responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions; a bigger share than all of the world's transport.
Livestock producers in rich countries practice factory farming, which can treat animals inhumanely and depends on vast amounts of resources But as the world moves to address climate change and reduce emissions, we must make sure that the push to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production in rich countries does not hurt the availability of milk, meat, eggs, and other products in developing countries.
While people in rich nations are harming their health by eating too much fatty red meat and cheese, many people in the cities and rural areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, particularly children and women in their child-bearing years, are malnourished because they are not consuming enough eggs, meat, and milk.
Eating meat's fair enough when you need it to improve your health. But as the article suggested, eating too much can damage health. Here's another article that suggests people in the West should cut down on eating meat for the good of their health and for other reasons:
Obama Urged to Revive National Meatless Program
Presidents Wilson, Truman and Roosevelt all instituted national meatless days in order to divert food to troops overseas and alleviate worldwide food shortages.
Today, a growing body of experts say that moderate reductions in meat consumption will mitigate climate change, lessen fossil fuel dependence, conserve fresh water and help reduce the chronic preventable conditions that today kill 70 percent of all Americans —cancer, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ...
Eating less meat also makes economic sense.* More and more people are finding that forgoing meat for just a few meals each week can yield significant savings.
The article ends with some quick statistics on the drawbacks of eating meat vs the benefits of vegetarianism:
• The meat industry generates nearly 1/5 of the man-made greenhouse gases that are accelerating climate change worldwide, far more than transportation.1
• About 40 calories of fossil fuel energy go into every calorie of feed lot beef in the U.S.2 Compare this to the 2.2 calories of fossil fuel energy needed to produce one calorie of plant-based protein.3
• The estimated 634 gallons of fresh water required to produce one 5.2 ounce hamburger would be enough for a four-hour shower.4 Compare this to the 143 gallons of water required to produce the same quantity of tofu. 5
• 2/3 of Americans are overweight or suffer from obesity. 6 Studies show that individuals on vegetarian or low-meat diets have significantly lower body weights and body mass indices.7
• Chronic preventable conditions like heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer kill 1.7 million Americans each year, 70% of all deaths in the U.S.8 Diets abundant in red and processed meats have been linked to increased cancer risk, especially of the digestive tract;9 while diets high in fruits, vegetables and whole grains may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.10
Another article, produced by the United Nations, that balances the environmental impact of livestock production with health needs in developing countries, says:
A new report from FAO says livestock production is one of the major causes of the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock
are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. However, the report says, the livestock sector's potential contribution to solving environmental problems is equally large, and major improvements could be achieved at reasonable cost. ...
Deforestation, greenhouse gases. The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. Grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth's terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land. Expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation,
especially in Latin America: some 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the remainder. About 70 percent of all grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction and erosion attributable to livestock activity. ...
Livestock production also impacts heavily the world's water supply, accounting for more than 8 percent of global human water use, mainly for the irrigation of feed crops. Evidence suggests it is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants, principally animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops, and sediments from eroded pastures. ...
A news article on the report says:
Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.
Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert. Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.
Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health. ...
The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.
Regarding food shortages, the first article I linked to takes a moderate view of how meat production will contribute to them in the future:
Vegetarian diets are typical in a wide range of developing countries, but worldwide the demand for meat is growing. Diets in industrialized countries differ widely with respect to their composition: those living in the United Kingdom eat less meat per capita than residents of the United States; meat consumption in Sweden is only 60 per cent of the US average (Bender 1994). Beef production continues to increase and poultry production is increasing faster than population growth rates. ... Food shortage of the future, calculated on the basis of total future demand for grain consumed directly or in the form of animal foods, will be conditioned by whether peoples adopting richer diets follow the European or US pathway.
