NY Times: Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

[Guest guest]

January 27, 2008

THE WORLD

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

By MARK BITTMAN

A SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take

for granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely

enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn't oil.

It's meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized

by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating

demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices

higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged

to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production

increases, and becomes increasingly visible.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by

growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge,

confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat

factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water

supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-

increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that

has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical

rain forests.

Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures

to halt the burning and cutting of the country's rain forests for

crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government

says, 1,250 square miles were lost.

The world's total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007,

it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has

more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it

rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat

consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert,

Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in

a " relentless growth in livestock production. "

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some

time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At

about 5 percent of the world's population, we " process " (that is,

grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15

percent of the world's total.

Growing meat (it's hard to use the word " raising " when applied to

animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it's a

challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30

percent of the earth's ice-free land is directly or indirectly

involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation's

Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that

livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world's

greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-

understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center,

and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the

University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce

meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all

switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-

efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National

Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that

2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of

carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles,

and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could

have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in

demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say

will contribute to higher prices.

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it

could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially

if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops.

The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains,

in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index

calculated by the United Nations' Food and Agricultural

Organization.

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger

or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world

feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent

inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to

produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through

direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate

professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10

times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is

profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now

serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of

all water-quality problems in the nation's rivers and streams,

according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain,

cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain

weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from

their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass

confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that

administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can

result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness

of medicines that treat people.

Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health

problems among the world's wealthier citizens — heart disease, some

types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful

protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the " you gotta

eat meat " claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of

meat we eat weren't harmful, it's way more than enough.

Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish

per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly

insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years

ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day,

about twice the federal government's recommended allowance; of that,

about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is

itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs

to be.) It's likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30

grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources .

What can be done? There's no simple answer. Better waste management,

for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations

estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income.

Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant,

director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit

International Food Policy Research Institute, says, " There should be

investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the

footprint needed to produce any given level of meat. "

Then there's technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries

experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some

of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with

some success, to turn manure into fuel.

Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility

of " meat without feet " — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal

cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further

manipulated into burgers and steaks.

Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real

alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and

politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That's because

grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still,

said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book " In Defense of

Food, " " In places where you can't grow grain, fattening cows on

grass is always going to make more sense. "

But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more

efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for

producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with

industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters

of the chicken.

Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers

remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and

allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog

production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are

hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their

manure " lagoons " pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone,

hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of

excrement annually.)

These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the

United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off,

the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as

fast as land-based methods, according to the United Nations.

Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers' becoming aware

of the true costs of industrial meat production. " When you look at

environmental problems in the U.S., " says Professor Eshel, " nearly

all of them have their source in food production and in particular

meat production. And factory farming is `optimal' only as long as

degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly —

even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire

structure of food production will change dramatically. "

Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of

raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may

start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some

of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow

human beings?

Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even

decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain

subsidies), though we're beginning to see them increase now. But

many experts, including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at

George Mason University, say they don't believe meat prices will

rise high enough to affect demand in the United States.

" I just don't think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat

consumption, " he said. " There may be a temporary spike in food

prices, but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But

if all the burden is put on eaters, that's not a tragic state of

affairs. "

If price spikes don't change eating habits, perhaps the combination

of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart

disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily

act of eating more plants and fewer animals.

Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he

foresees " a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of

meat consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing

personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor

and the planet. "

It wouldn't surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real

impact. " The good of people's bodies and the good of the planet are

more or less perfectly aligned, " he said.

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, in its

detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the

planet, " Livestock's Long Shadow, " made a similar point: " There are

reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal

products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands

are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent,

middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to

industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably

ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may

be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases. "

In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly

products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy.

The number of farmers' markets has more than doubled in the last 10

years or so, and it has escaped no one's notice that the organic

food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are

more expensive but of higher quality.

If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a

routine. It won't be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will

yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.

Maybe that's not such a big deal. " Who said people had to eat meat

three times a day? " asked Mr. Pollan.

Mark Bittman, who writes the Minimalist column in the Dining In and

Dining Out sections, is the author of " How to Cook Everything

Vegetarian, " which was published last year. He is not a vegetarian.

 

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company