How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

[McHrozni]

"They're going to starve anyway, so let 'em starve now."

Pardon me if I reject that view as disgusting.

I don't have a problem with that.

Incidentally, we didn't even touch the subject about non-grain fed cattle, the ones that graze plants useless for human consumption (grass), and as such do not compete for grain. These obviously do not contribute to the problem of grain versus meat/milk, and do add nutritional value.

I believe I did say you are free to disagree, though I don't see how you could do that rationally? Case in point, I would say.

McHrozni

 

[Aepervius]

That sounds like a fair point.



I hope people in the vicinity could take them home to eat and they weren't left somewhere to rot.

By the way that was a statistic I read in a recent article for watermelon biofuel (in the article they cited that 20% left on the fields and suggested to use it as biofuel instead) so take it with a grain of salt.

Knowing what happens from home (ok not the US, but I guess it would be the same) is that nobody take them, because unless the farmer explicitly say it is "free" to be taken (as it sometimes happen, saw it a few weeks ago for a corn field on my way home, and sometimes on potatoe field) there is no way to know whether you are stealing something which the farmer will later harvest (with possible legal repercussion), or if this is refuse you can get for free. As a result it mostly rot there.

 

[Aepervius]

It's the way it's produced that's at issue here, although it's not clear to me there's any way to continue to produce the amount we do now purely by (say) grazing on non-arable land.

This boils down to physics (like everything ): food is calories. When you feed it to animals, nearly all of it is "wasted" by their metabolism. So if you feed them food that humans can eat, or if you set aside arable land for them, that's very inefficient if your goal is to maximize the calories available to humans.

1) as said in the FAO article B.N. himself cited, 1 billion people rely on all sort of animal food as they are on area which do not support extensive crop growth, but support grazing easily

2) Yes that boil down to physic. But the things is, even in many first world country like France or even germany, there are fields which are left to be used to just grow grass and not even a cattle or a farmer use them. So what ? You want us to leave all that energy go get lost ? Heck, let us see the US, I betcha a lot of surface is unused.

Bottom line is that despite a lot of argument on both side, it isn't clear to me at all that vegetarianism would even HELP hunger in the world, if the food is not distributed properly. And this is already the case today. The environmental gain isn't that clear cut either. And again 1 billion people would be dependant on importing their food because they can't sustain an all vegetarian lifestyle.

 

[sol invictus]

If it's that disgusting you could always move to a famine stricken part of the world.

I'm not sure what to call that - it's too left-field to even constitute a strawman.

Incidentally, we didn't even touch the subject about non-grain fed cattle, the ones that graze plants useless for human consumption (grass), and as such do not compete for grain.

Umm, yes we did. I've mentioned that in every post, as have others.

I believe I did say you are free to disagree, though I don't see how you could do that rationally? Case in point, I would say.

Indeed, case in point.

1) as said in the FAO article B.N. himself cited, 1 billion people rely on all sort of animal food as they are on area which do not support extensive crop growth, but support grazing easily

And I'm not suggesting changing that.

2) Yes that boil down to physic. But the things is, even in many first world country like France or even germany, there are fields which are left to be used to just grow grass and not even a cattle or a farmer use them. So what ? You want us to leave all that energy go get lost ? Heck, let us see the US, I betcha a lot of surface is unused.

A world in which every scrap of land is used with maximum efficiency would not be a nice one. But don't you agree it makes sense to think about how to use the land we do use as efficiently as possible?

Bottom line is that despite a lot of argument on both side, it isn't clear to me at all that vegetarianism would even HELP hunger in the world, if the food is not distributed properly. And this is already the case today. The environmental gain isn't that clear cut either. And again 1 billion people would be dependant on importing their food because they can't sustain an all vegetarian lifestyle.

Who are you responding to? I'm not suggesting an all-vegetarian lifestyle.

 

[McHrozni]

Umm, yes we did. I've mentioned that in every post, as have others.

Sorry, I meant only during my little exchange

McHrozni

 

[SatanicSheep]

I'm not sure what to call that - it's too left-field to even constitute a strawman.

You'd probally have more fun labeling it a false dichotomy.

My point is that if you champion veganism (not simply practice but "encourage" and or browbeat others) without acknowledging the fact that first wolders use more resources and cause as much social/ecological/etc damage by practicing something like our idea of basic hygeine, then your credibility drops to Benny Hinn levels.

 

[sol invictus]

My point is that if you champion veganism (not simply practice but "encourage" and or browbeat others) without acknowledging the fact that first wolders use more resources and cause as much social/ecological/etc damage by practicing something like our idea of basic hygeine, then your credibility drops to Benny Hinn levels.

Now that's a false dichotomy.

In fact it's the classic false dichotomy of this kind of debate: "there's no point in doing such and such to help with problem A, because problem B is much worse."

 

[calebprime]

...
It all depends on whether you like lamb/mutton, I suppose.

Mmmmm. lamb dupiaza!

mmm, lamb chops.

 

[SatanicSheep]

Except that it's not an issue of problem A veruses B.

It's an issue of you finding it easier to address symptom A over sypmtom B and trying to give value to your own moral high road.

You are essentially trying to argue for your brand of religion.

 

[sol invictus]

Except that it's not an issue of problem A veruses B.

It's an issue of you finding it easier to address symptom A over sypmtom B and trying to give value to your own moral high road.

You are essentially trying to argue for your brand of religion.

I said nothing of the sort, nothing close to that, nothing even in the same universe as that. Since it's impossible you could have honestly misunderstood me that badly, I can only conclude I've touched a guilty nerve and you're responding by trolling.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Health and safety issues

OK, now we've scared most of the anti-vegetarian-evangelists away, we can proceed with our sinister agenda.

Here's more information to salvage this thread. (Well, at least that's our dishonest excuse for putting it here - the cover for the real horrifying agenda of the promotion of vegetarian world domination.)

Actually, this stuff's quite unpleasant. Truly disgusting in fact. It's all about the health and safety risks of producing and eating meat. Perhaps everyone will still want to after being given this information, but who knows. *Speaks through megaphone:* The public must be informed that this post might not tell the whole story, and so if they have a valid counter-argument, they should make it, rather than just fuming in frustration that vegetarians are taking over the world.

Sorry to ruin your day everyone, but I'm about to quote some things about one reason meat can sometimes cause food poisoning. This stuff's quite lurid, so don't try to eat while reading it - especially if you're eating meat.

I don't pretend to understand much of this first article. If anyone can explain the more arcane-seeming bits in simpler terms, it would be appreciated.

From an article from the UK Food Standards Agency called Farm management practices to improve the visible and microbiological cleanliness of cattle hides at slaughter

Contamination of meat by faecal material or intestinal contents coming into contact with carcasses at the abattoir is an important risk factor contributing to the outbreak of foodborne illness. The management of cattle from farm to lairage may provide a means for ensuring that cleaner animals are presented for slaughter. The overall objective of this project was to investigate the interacting effects of dietary and transport factors, and of straw bedding, clipping and time in lairage on the visible and microbiological cleanliness of cattle found at the abattoir.

• Finishing ration was found to be the most significant factor affecting faecal shedding of potentially zoonotic bacteria. Feeding cattle on cereal-based rations for a two-month finishing period was associated with significantly higher levels of bacteria compared with cattle finished on a silage-based ration.
Increased levels of bacterial contamination were also found on the hides of animals fed cereal-based diets, particularly at the brisket site.
• The effect of restricted feed intake before slaughter was investigated, by switching cattle to straw-only diets for zero, one, two or three days. Significant reductions in Total Viable Counts (TVC), E. coli and total enterobacteria were found on the hides of animals with increasing time on straw-only feeding.
• The effect of journey time to the abattoir was also investigated in cattle used in the feeding experiments. Unexpectedly, no major differences in visible or microbiological hide cleanliness were found between journey times of two and a half and six hours. A well-designed and maintained lorry along with an
approved and experienced haulier may have masked some of the problems that could arise during cattle transportation.
• In another experiment, clipping and the provision of additional straw bedding was found to improve the visible cleanliness of cattle hides, although the effects on the microbiological cleanliness were again more variable and dependant upon the class of bacteria studied. Clipping was associated with a reduction in the TVC at the flank and shoulder sites, but not at the brisket site. This is thought to reflect the difficulty in clipping the brisket of live cattle.
Improvements in microbiological cleanliness at flank and shoulder sites were relatively short-lived, indicating that clipping would need to be carried out almost immediately before slaughter to have any significant beneficial effects on meat hygiene. Providing additional straw represents a much safer but costly approach to cleaning dirty cattle.
• Providing additional straw bedding in the abattoir during overnight lairage reduced TVCs at the brisket site, compared with counts from animals receiving normal bedding levels. However, effects at other sites and with other classes of bacteria were less perceptible.

I'm not sure of the reasons for all the findings, especially the first one about why cattle fed on grain would be infested with more bacteria than those fed on partly-fermented plants.

From an article called THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE GAMBLE: The Risk of Self-Policing; New Safety Rules Fail to Stop Tainted Meat:

... This year brought little improvement. Government inspectors found feces on 12 days in the first six months of 2003. But the documents show that the company's own employees discovered far more. In January and May, Shapiro employees found feces on meat about every other day.

Under federal regulations, the government has what it calls ''zero tolerance'' for feces and ingesta. Carcasses must be entirely free of these contaminants after the animal has been skinned and eviscerated.

Executives at meat companies say that it is not possible to keep every bit of manure off the meat and that not all manure harbors deadly bacteria. ''I don't know that we will get to the point where we don't have a spot of fecal material,'' said Mr. Bernard, the Keystone executive, adding that the company cuts off any contaminated parts. As for any feces remaining on the carcasses at the end of the process, he said, ''The material would have been pasteurized.''

Well, it seems things are still going wrong somewhere along the way.

From the PBS Frontline series: Inside the Slaughterhouse

... And from there he goes through a series of stations to clean him and to remove his hide. One of the real problems is that the animals have spent their [lives] lying in their manure, are smeared and caked with the stuff, and they're entering the food plant. And so many steps are taken to make sure that the manure
doesn't infect the meat, which can happen very easily.

And this is really just the source of food-safety problems in the industry, in the beef industry, is microbes in the manure getting into the meat. So how do you stop that? ...

... At a slaughterhouse, you have big animals entering at one end, and small cuts of meat leaving at the other end. In between are hundreds of workers, mainly using handheld knives, processing the meat. So during that whole production system, there are many opportunities for the meat to be contaminated. What we're really talking about is fecal contamination of the meat from the stomach contents or the hide of the animal. ...

... The slaughterhouses that the United States have are pretty unique in terms of the speed of production. We have slaughterhouses that will process 300, 400 cattle an hour, which is as much as twice as many as anywhere else in the world. And it's that speed of production that can lead to food-safety problems.
When workers are working very quickly, they may make mistakes. It's during the evisceration of the animal, or the removal of the hide, that manure can get on the meat. And when manure gets on some meat, and then that meat is ground up with lots of other meat, the whole lot of it can be contaminated. ...

According to an article called Worker health in intensive farms and slaughterhouses, they're very far from a safe environment for those who work there:

Research has shown that workers in industrial animal farms such as chicken and pig units are at risk of respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, coughs, asthma, and mucous membrane irritation. The poor air quality in animal sheds can cause allergic reactions and respiratory problems, as well as exposing workers to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Workers are exposed to high levels of ammonia, bacteria, viruses, moulds and dust. The dust contains particles of skin, feathers, litter, feed, faeces and feed additives as well as various antibiotics. It can also contain gases such as hydrogen sulphide from animal slurry stores. ...

Workers in a modern slaughterhouse in the US have an injury rate that is reportedly three times higher than in other US factories. Every year one in three meatpacking workers suffers a work-related injury that requires medical attention. In killing, disembowelling and cutting up the animals, large sharp knives are used, and it is not uncommon for workers to wound either themselves or their workmates accidentally. ...

According to the PBS thing, conditions are improving.

And here's something disgusting and horrible about the way animals can be injured before they're killed!

And then that meat goes on to potentially harm the people who eat it.

From an article called Colon Cancer Rise Linked to Beef, Pork (WebMD Health News)

... Singapore is one of Asia's most rapidly developing nations. And for many of the ethnic Chinese who make up 77% of the population, industrialization has brought both changes in diet and a more sedentary lifestyle. Colorectal cancer rates now approach those in developed countries and are among the highest in Asia. ...

Researchers concluded that diet and a family history of colorectal cancer were the primary risk factors for the disease in the Chinese population. After accounting for all other risk factors, a high intake of red meat -- including beef and pork -- doubled the risk of colorectal cancer. ...

The National Cancer Institute's Arthur Schatzkin, PhD, who is an expert on the role of foods in cancer, tells WebMD that the evidence linking red meat consumption to colorectal cancer is strong but not conclusive. The consumption of processed meats has also been linked to colorectal cancer. Schatzkin is chief of the Nutritional Epidemiology Branch of the NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. ...

 

[Ziggurat]

What are you talking about? Did you only read the first couple of lines of the first article I cited? It said nothing of the sort - it didn't say land was the problem, but that some people assume that the food problems are caused because Egypt doesn't have enough land for all its people, but that in reality the problems have to do first with demands for meat that conflict with the practicalities of growing enough grain for humans in the area because the livestock are eating it, and then with a whole string of measures taken to accommodate the demand for meat and grain that end up meaning even less grain is produced to feed the population and even less land is available to grow it, because cash crops are being grown on it to sell, to pay off the debt they incurred by having to import so much grain, that they wouldn't have needed to import if everyone was vegetarian and ate the grain instead of giving it to the livestock.

Yeah, um... that still doesn't explain Egypt's poverty. The problem is not that Egypt must import food (so does Hong Kong), the problem is that Egypt is poor. And that poverty is not due to food problems.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Yeah, um... that still doesn't explain Egypt's poverty. The problem is not that Egypt must import food (so does Hong Kong), the problem is that Egypt is poor. And that poverty is not due to food problems.

Yes, perhaps it would have been relatively poor anyway. But the article's arguing that if it wasn't for the measures put in place to support meat consumption, everyone would at least have had enough to eat, because there would have been enough resources to go around without putting a birden on the economy.

 

[McHrozni]

Yes, perhaps it would have been relatively poor anyway. But the article's arguing that if it wasn't for the measures put in place to support meat consumption, everyone would at least have had enough to eat, because there would have been enough resources to go around without putting a birden on the economy.

But then again, don't the cattle ranchers make money by selling meat? Economic logic suggests that they're able to turn a profit in that way (thereby reducing poverty), and that they're able to offer better prices for grain than Egypts' poor - thereby again producing profit for the farmers that grow grain, and again, reducing poverty.

While it probably is true that Egypt would be able to feed itself in that way, it would do so at a cost of being reduced to a pastoral state even more it already is. It might be able to support it's current population with no one going hungry, but with little prospect for development.

Five years down the line or so, my earlier argument would kick in - population growth would outstrip available resources, and people would go hungry again - but this time with even fewer capital formations in the country that would allow investment and permit different and more sustainable solutions.
Grand job, really.

McHrozni

 

[Tapio]

You might have meant the way the meat is PRODUCED is not sustainable nor ecological, because the amount of meat has nothing to do with ecology and we certainly sustained that way of life for some time, and could sustain it for quite a longer time, at least in the industrialized nation.

Your right, that's what I meant. Good point, thanks for bringing it up.

I didn't feel it necessary to write 'produce', since the amount of production is somewhat straight related (?don't know the right English word?) with the amount of consumption. Of course, as anyone who's done some dumpster diving knows, a gigantic amount of edible meat is thrown away daily, so this has to be taken into account as well.

 

[McHrozni]

I didn't feel it necessary to write 'produce', since the amount of production is somewhat straight related (?don't know the right English word?) with the amount of consumption.

Perhaps "correlated"?

McHrozni

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, perhaps it would have been relatively poor anyway. But the article's arguing that if it wasn't for the measures put in place to support meat consumption, everyone would at least have had enough to eat, because there would have been enough resources to go around without putting a birden on the economy.

So you might instead have meat imports. Which would produce the same net effect. What would be the difference? Again, Egypt's problem isn't the allocation of grain to raise meat, it's poverty. And there's really no chance in hell that a reallocation of grain away from meat production is going to change that. Egypt would still be poor.

 

[Herzblut]

The amount of meat eaten by most industrialised nations is not in the least an ecological and sustainable way of life.

Well, nations don't eat anything, people do. And looking at people's life expectancy in developed nations, nutrition there must be pretty sustainable, no?

I was talking about simply a hypothetical possibility, a mind game, with no pressure to actually change anything.

Good, because I won't change anything based on anybody's attitude.

I'm happy to let others live as they wish, but when their lifestyle is starting to cause more 'harm' than 'neutral' or 'good', I'm inclined to question it's value (as I hope will be done for me regarding my lifestyle).

I don't get it. You let live others as they wish as long as their lifestyle is convenient for you?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

So you might instead have meat imports. Which would produce the same net effect. What would be the difference? Again, Egypt's problem isn't the allocation of grain to raise meat, it's poverty. And there's really no chance in hell that a reallocation of grain away from meat production is going to change that. Egypt would still be poor.

Well, you might be right. I don't know enough about the issues to know what would have happened given alternative circumstances.

The article about Egypt was just an introductory taster though. What was important about the OP was the other articles, particularly the United Nations report, which focused on the world situation rather than just on one country.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, nations don't eat anything, people do. And looking at people's life expectancy in developed nations, nutrition there must be pretty sustainable, no?

Problem is, it is often at the cost of the food supply of other nations. Land that once grew beans for the camposinos in Nicarauga was, in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, grabbed up by America corporations and native elites, with the cooperation of corrupt government officials, to grow bananas for export.

Great for major landlords and American fruit importers, but it sure sucked for the Nicaraguan campasinos.

I don't get it. You let live others as they wish as long as their lifestyle is convenient for you?

In that same vein, please ensure that the food you eat is not produced from cattle herds that are over-grazing dry grass lands, and that the rivers around the factory farm where your pork products were produced do not smell like pig's muck.