XML Feeds
Being VEGETARIAN/VEGAN is BAD for the ENVIRONMENT
Yes you read the title right, being a vegetarian is bad for the environment. I've long stated this fact to any vegetarian and vegan continuing their doctrine that it's better for the environment. Well now I have scientific back-up in this department by way of a study commissioned by environmental group WWF; but more on that later.
The vegetarian/vegan argument goes something like this. 1 cow used to produce meat will produce [x] amount of methane and consume [y] amount of food and take up [z] amount of space. On contrast vegetarians argue that a wheat plant takes up [a] amount of space and doesn't produce methane and doesn't eat food.
This on the surface when said quickly and not thought about to much might sound like a reasonable statement. But just think about it for a moment, actually read over it again and think about it. It's actually a rather illogical statement, in that you're comparing a whole cow which will feed 20+ people to a single wheat plant which will feed, wait for it... NOT EVEN ONE (1) person. Add to that the pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals required to grow any large sized crop and it quickly becomes clear that, being a vegetarian is more harmful then good.
While you're at it take this on board as well, it takes 14.5 KILOGRAMS of broccoli to equal the same amount of iron content as 500g of steak. Not only is it near impossible to eat that amount, but can you consider the amount of land it requires to grow 14.5 KILOGRAMS of broccoli? Let alone enough for everyone in a country to eat that amount of broccoli every day! But there is more and this is where the study kicks in.
UK's Cranfield University was commissioned by the WWF to conduct an independent study on the effects of a vegetarian or vegan diet on the environment. The study found that meat substitutes such as soya, chickpeas and lentils where MORE harmful to the environment because they are imported into the UK from other countries. This is also true for countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand. The study found that the carbon footprint left by importing these products was far greater than the environmental harm caused by livestock.
The study, agreeing with my argument also concluding;
"A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."
and went on to say that meat substitutes are often highly processed foods, requiring vast amounts of energy to produce. Energy which runs on coal power. So here you have a raw product which was imported from overseas, was then processed using vast amounts of energy, and it's apparently meant to be more environmentally friendly then a cow in a field? A cow which I might remind you is an animal which is meant to exist. When you really think about it, it's laughable that anyone ever really thought being a vegetarian or vegan is better for the environment.
So now with the claim about the diet being beneficial to the environment gone, and piles of other evidence that the diet is also really bad for your body; one can only wonder why anyone is continuing this diet, let alone promoting it. I've included some interesting links at the bottom of this post which may help you to see clearly when next a vegetarian friend tries to guilt you into their way of life.
Links;
Telegraph Article on WWF study
The Independant Article on Vegetarianism making you ill
29 Common Reasons Why Your Vegetarian Diet Isn't Working
Beyond Veg
Pavlina: Why Vegetarians are unhealthy
Disadvantages of going Veg
10 comments
They further argue that plants cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime as compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz. Anything below and above this range cannot be heard by a human being. A dog can hear up to 40,000 Hertz. Thus there are silent dog whistles that have a frequency of more than 20,000 Hertz and less than 40,000 Hertz. These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the masters whistle and comes to the master. There was research done by a farmer in U.S.A. who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human beings. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water. Latest researches show that the plants can even feel happy and sad. It can also cry. therefore, god planned all this for us mankind to eat & live! it was for a reason!
also, of course there is the use of transportation from pulses etc from outside countries. that is because the meat industry has such a monopoly in developed countries that there would not be a profit to set up a large scale operation of soya/lentils. though if the meat industry was cut out it would obviously become plausible.
you dont have to justify eating meat to anyone, why do you feel the need to make a vegetarian feel they need to justify their decision.
In actual fact the study you are referring to has been debunked as uncredible by several scientific publications. The study you are referring to didn't take into account a number of factors as well as using bad numbers. The study I have blogged about however is still seen as credible information, as it presented an unbiased argument based on hard and solid facts.
Not all meat contains anti-biotics and steroids, and while I do understand there are organic vegetables which were grown without chemicals, meat doesn't actually have to be organic for it to not be filled with anti-biotics and steroids. I suppose though the big argument I was making was for a balanced diet, including meat. If we each balanced diets with plants and meat then we're able to have less of each then if we exclusively survived on just 1 or the other. In other words, by eating balanced diets we lessen the amount of overall space required. It's about trying to help the environment cope, not about trying to make anyone feel guilty about their food choices.
1 kilo of feathers is just as heavy as a kilo of bricks sure, but you wouldn't want to build a house out of feathers. In other words, just because something weighs the same doesn't make it the same. 1 kilo of vegetables doesn't equate nutritionally to 1 kilo of meat. You simply can't grow a comparable amount of say wheat for example in the space it takes to house a single cow.
And the reason plants like soya and lentils are grown in other countries isn't because of the meat industry at all. In Australia where I live there are rather large farms, several 10s of thousands of acres in size dedicated to growing just plants. In actual fact it is climate that see's soya and lentils grown in specific locations around the world, meaning regardless of what the meat industry does, soya and lentils will continue to be required to be imported.
Another problem is the results of a 10 year study which was released just last week that showed a clear reaction in plants to CO2 levels. We now know as CO2 levels increase the nutritional value of plants decreases, while at the same time the toxicity levels increase. The study shows that with just 1.5 times current CO2 levels (1.5 times is predicted to occur inside the next decade) nutritional value of fruit and vegetables is halved, whilst cyanide levels of fruits like apples, apricots and peaches reaches levels which cause a perminant paralysis.
Seriously, do some proper research :D
There's a reason the United Nations has reached the same conclusion as vegans on which diet has the smallest ecological footprint ;-)
Do you realise how much WATER is used in the killing and making of that steak you talk about???
That is BAD for the environment!!
Research the topic properly...
Vegetarians live longer than meat eaters and suffer fewer health complaints (prostate cancer, heart disease, diabetes).
A vegetarian diet _is_ better for the environment, but some vegetarian diets are of course worse than others (just like some meat based diets are better for the environment than other meat based diets).
The _US GOVERNENT_, http://www.mypyramid.gov/tips_resources/vegetarian_diets.html , even say that 'Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients.'.
Since you seem to be a fan of studies, and it looks as if any study will do, here's some I just found now:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html -
'U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat'
'Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein'
'Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States'
'More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans'
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/8/1777.abstract -
'vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines improved glycemic and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These improvements were greater with a low-fat _vegan_ diet.'
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S -
'Vegetarians 34% less likely to get heart disease'
pr3vin: I'd love to just ignore your embarrassing 'plants can feel pain' argument, but letting it slide might result in further embarrassment by fellow intellectually stunted readers, and your 'therefore, god planned all this for us mankind to eat & live!' comment was the clincher. Here's a clue for you: not all organisms are equal. You know how humans are 'above' other animals? Well for similar reasons non human animals are also considered 'above' plants. Think of advanced nervous systems, tool use, social interaction, emotions etc.
So, here are you words again, for your contemplation. Don't take it personally (we're all young some point - you live and learn):
> So now with the claim about the diet being beneficial to the environment gone, and piles of other evidence that the diet is also really bad for your body; one can only wonder why anyone is continuing this diet, let alone promoting it. I've included some interesting links at the bottom of this post which may help you to see clearly when next a vegetarian friend tries to guilt you into their way of life.
Finally, as a side note, not all vegetarians care about health or the environment (see they're not so different after all!); some do it purely for ethical reasons surrounding animal rights, including human rights.
P.S. I'm surprised nobody came out with 'Hitler was a vegetarian ', it's usually a favourite amongst vegetarian haters who prefer to base their opinions on ignorance and myths instead of science.
Thanks for your comment, I always enjoy different opinions as through differences in opinion we can understand perspectives we never previous thought about, which can only add to self growth.
I'd like to point out a massive flaw in your plan to eat bread, pasta and potatoes in place of meat. None of these foods naturally contain iron, and to add iron to these foods effects the environment in a negative way. Feeding humanity ISN'T simply about placing enough of something edible in some ones mouth to make them feel relatively full. Like it or not, all living creatures require a complex balance of nutrients which makes your bread, pasta and potato idea bad for their health. The point of this post, and the main point the WWF study was focusing on, is that the substitutes used by vegetarians to replace the nutrients found in meat actually damage the environment more, by way of the large carbon footprint required to deliver these foods to people around the world.
To your absurd comment
"pr3vin: I'd love to just ignore your embarrassing 'plants can feel pain' argument, but letting it slide might result in further embarrassment by fellow intellectually stunted readers, and your 'therefore, god planned all this for us mankind to eat & live!' comment was the clincher. Here's a clue for you: not all organisms are equal. You know how humans are 'above' other animals? Well for similar reasons non human animals are also considered 'above' plants. Think of advanced nervous systems, tool use, social interaction, emotions etc."
I'd like to point out I never once mentioned anything about god. Thing about that is I don't believe in god, nor do I believe humanity is somehow special. Here is a clue for you, you can't sit there claiming to me that all organisms aren't equal then in the next breath start preaching about vegetarianism for ethetics. I'm sorry "wowbagger" but all creatures are equal in their right to live and exist. You can't decide that just because a living organism can't use tools as humanity defines them that it has less of a right to be alive, that is an ignorant and arrogant position to take.
The human body is designed in such a way as to require the eating of both plants AND other animals in order to complete the complex balance of nutrients required to keep you running in tip top shape. Ultimately even if you could magically make everyone live off of wheat and potatoes as you suggest, that still doesn't solve the hunger problem, as the population will continue to grow. Humanity isn't facing a problem with food production, humanity is facing an over-population problem...
