The Worldwatch Institute position paper opposing meat consumption

WASHINGTON, June 30 — In back yards across the
United States, the 4th of July is one of the
biggest meat-eating days of the year. More than
200 million Americans — three-quarters of the
population — will attend or host a barbecue over
the long weekend. And while some might be
grilling vegetables or fish, most will chow down
mass amounts of burgers, dogs, wings and ribs.
And few have any awareness of the ethical and
environmental consequences of being a
dedicated carnivore.

AND THIS INDULGENCE is not limited to
Independence Day. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Americans lead the way in a global trend. They
are eating more meat than ever before: the average
American consumes nearly twice his or her weight in meat
each year.
The growing consumption of meat worldwide means
that more people will die from heart attacks, strokes and
cancers. It also means new pressures on land and water
resources; more threats to the world’s forests; more water
pollution; and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Rising affluence has allowed people throughout the
world to alter their diets to include more meat. Over the last
decade, per capita consumption of beef, pork and chicken
has doubled in the world’s poorer nations — though it is still
just one-third the level in industrial nations.

Nonetheless, global meat consumption remains highly
concentrated. The United States and China, which contain
25 percent of the world’s population, combine to consume
35 percent of the world’s beef, over half of the world’s
poultry, and 65 percent of the world’s pork. If Brazil and
the European Union are included, this group — roughly 33
percent of the world’s population consumes more than 60
percent of the world’s beef, more than 70 percent of the
world’s poultry, and more than 80 percent of the world’s
pork.
Today, our planet is home to nearly 1 billion pigs, 1.3
billion cows, 1.8 billion sheep and goats, and 13.5 billion
chickens — more than two chickens for each man, woman
and child on the planet. We have altered vast ecosystems
and devoted massive resources to support the world’s
burgeoning livestock herds. These animals need to be fed.
They need water to survive. If they are ranged, they need
land. And these animals produce enormous quantities of
waste.
The ecological footprint of meat production is deep and
wide, and ranges from forest destruction in Central and
South America for ranching to suppression of native
predators and competitors in the United States.
Nearly one-quarter of the world’s meat, primarily beef
and mutton, depends on a natural ecosystem — rangelands.
Yet, as overgrazing becomes the norm in much of the
world, rangelands are being pushed beyond their limits. The
meat that does not come from rangelands depends on grain.
In a world where the anti-hunger group Bread for the
World estimates that one in every six people goes hungry
each day, the politics of meat consumption are increasingly
heated, since meat production is an inefficient use of grain
— the grain is used much more efficiently when consumed
directly by humans. Meat production depends on feeding
nearly 40 percent of the world’s grain to animals, creating
competition for grain between affluent meat eaters and the
world’s poor.

One 50,000-acre hog farm under construction in Utah will produce more waste than the city of Los Angeles.

Seven kilograms of grain are required to produce 1
kilogram of beef; the conversion is 4-to-1 for pork and
2-to-1 for poultry. Each kilogram of meat represents
several kilograms of grain that could be consumed directly
by humans, not to mention the water and farmland required
to grow the grain. To put this in concrete terms, the beef in
a Big Mac represents enough wheat to produce five loaves
of bread.
Huge amounts of food — not to mention the water and
farmland required to grow the food — can be freed up by
modest reduction in meat production. For example, if the
670 million tons of the world’s grain that is fed to livestock
were reduced by 10 percent, the resulting grain could feed
225 million people or to keep up with growth in the human
population over the next three years.
If each American reduced his or her meat consumption
by just 5 percent, roughly equivalent to eating one less dish
of meat each week, enough grain would be saved to feed
25 million people — the number estimated to go hungry in
the United States each day.
The massive waste produced by livestock threaten
waterways worldwide. In the United States, where 130
times more animal manure is produced than human waste
— 5 tons for every U.S. citizen — animal waste is the
principal source of water pollution. And livestock farms are
getting larger throughout the world. Iowa Sen. Tom
Harkin’s recent bill to reform livestock waste management
estimates that one 50,000-acre hog farm under construction
in Utah will produce more waste than the city of Los
Angeles. The challenge of containing and processing this
waste makes large-scale, industrial livestock operations
agricultural Chernobyls, poised for meltdown.

If each American reduced his or her meat consumption by just 5 percent, roughly equivalent to eating one less dish of meat each week, enough grain would be saved to feed 25 million people.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
world’s livestock herds are the largest source of
human-induced emissions of methane — a potent
greenhouse gas contributing to climate change.
For those concerned about our environment, reducing
meat consumption is as fundamental as reducing car use or
being a conscientious recycler.
For those concerned about their health, reducing meat
consumption is as essential as quitting smoking or regular
exercise.
People who eat high on the food chain, consuming
large amounts of meat, dairy products and eggs, are
plagued by chronic lifestyle diseases, ranging from
cardiovascular deterioration to many types of cancer. A rich
body of medical literature links the high quantities of
cholesterol, saturated fat and protein found in meat-rich
diets to the incidence of these diseases throughout the
world.
The healthiest individuals are those who consume a
diverse, plant-centered diet, rich in whole grains, fruits and
vegetables. For example, in the traditional Mediterranean
diet or traditional Asian diet, meat is eaten sparingly,
typically as a garnish, and reserved for times of celebration.
It is estimated that excessive meat consumption is
responsible for between $60 and $120 billion in health care
costs each year in the United States alone. Since domestic
cash receipts for the meat industry totaled roughly $100
billion in 1997, it is possible that this industry is a net drain
on the American economy.
Reducing global meat consumption even slightly offers
win-win solutions to some of humanity’s most pressing
problems. Massive reductions in consumption in industrial
nations will ease the health care burden while at the same
time improving public health. Reducing livestock herds will
take pressure off of rangelands and grainlands, allowing the
agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations
grow, lowering meat consumption will allow more efficient
use of declining per capita land and water resources, while
at the same time making grain more affordable to the
world’s chronically hungry.


Brian Halweil is an earth systems specialist and
research fellow at the Worldwatch Institute in
Washington, D.C.

Webmaster: steve@greenpeople.org