Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger.

April 15, 2008

And if you care, eat less meat

A food recession is under way. Biofuels are a crime against humanity, but - take

it from a flesh eater - flesh eating is worse

By George Monbiot

15/04/08 " The Guardian " -- - Never mind the economic crisis. Focus for a moment

on a more urgent threat: the great food recession that is sweeping the world

faster than the credit crunch. You have probably seen the figures by now: the

price of rice has risen by three-quarters over the past year, that of wheat by

130%. There are food crises in 37 countries. One hundred million people,

according to the World Bank, could be pushed into deeper poverty by the high

prices.

But I bet that you have missed the most telling statistic. At 2,1-billion

tonnes, the global grain harvest broke all records last year -- it beat the

previous year's by almost 5%. The crisis, in other words, has begun before world

food supplies are hit by climate change. If hunger can strike now, what will

happen if harvests decline?

There is plenty of food. It is just not reaching human stomachs. Of the

2,13-billion tonnes likely to be consumed this year, only 1,01-billion,

according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation, will feed

people.

I am sorely tempted to write another column about biofuels. From this morning

all sellers of transport fuel in the United Kingdom will be obliged to mix it

with ethanol or biodiesel made from crops. The World Bank points out that " the

grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol ...

could feed one person for a year " .

This year global stockpiles of cereals will decline by about 53-million tonnes;

this gives you a rough idea of the size of the hunger gap. The production of

biofuels will consume almost 100-million tonnes, which suggests that they are

directly responsible for the current crisis.

On Monday Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Transport, promised that " if we

need to adjust policy in the light of new evidence, we will " . What new evidence

does she require? In the midst of a global humanitarian crisis, we have just

become legally obliged to use food as fuel. It is a crime against humanity, in

which every driver in this country has been forced to participate.

But I have been saying this for four years, and I am boring myself. Of course we

must demand that our governments scrap the rules that turn grain into the

fastest food of all. But there is a bigger reason for global hunger, which is

attracting less attention only because it has been there for longer.

While 100-million tonnes of food will be diverted this year to feed cars,

760-million tonnes will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals --

which could cover the global food deficit 14 times. If you care about hunger,

eat less meat.

While meat consumption is booming in Asia and Latin America, in the United

Kingdom it has scarcely changed since the government started gathering data in

1974. At just over 1kg per person per week, it's still about 40% above the

global average, though less than half the amount consumed in the United States.

We eat less beef and more chicken than we did 30 years ago, which means a

smaller total impact. Beef cattle eat about 8kg of grain or meal for every

kilogram of flesh they produce; a kilogram of chicken needs just 2kg of feed.

Even so, our consumption rate is plainly unsustainable.

In his magazine The Land, Simon Fairlie has updated the figures produced 30

years ago in Kenneth Mellanby's book Can Britain Feed Itself? Fairlie found that

a vegan diet produced by means of conventional agriculture would require only

three million hectares of arable land (about half Britain's current total). Even

if we reduced our consumption of meat by half, a mixed farming system would need

4,4-million hectares of arable fields and 6,4-million hectares of pasture. A

vegan Britain could make a massive contribution to global food stocks.

But I cannot advocate a diet that I am incapable of following. I tried it for

about 18 months, lost two stone, went as white as bone and felt that I was

losing my mind. I know a few healthy-looking vegans, and I admire them

immensely. But after almost every talk that I give, I am pestered by swarms of

vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in

most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.

What level of meat-eating would be sustainable? One approach is to work out how

great a cut would be needed to accommodate the growth in human numbers. The

United Nations expects the population to rise to nine billion by 2050. These

extra people will require another 325-million tonnes of grain.

Let us assume, perhaps generously, that politicians such as Ruth Kelly are able

to " adjust policy in the light of new evidence " and stop turning food into fuel.

Let us pretend that improvements in plant breeding can keep pace with the

deficits caused by climate change. We would need to find an extra 225-million

tonnes of grain. This leaves 531-million tonnes for livestock production, which

suggests a sustainable consumption level for meat and milk 30% below the current

world rate. This means 420g of meat per person per week, or about 40% of the

UK's average consumption.

This estimate is complicated by several factors. If we eat less meat we must eat

more plant protein, which means taking more land away from animals. On the other

hand, some livestock is raised on pasture, so it doesn't contribute to the grain

deficit.

Simon Fairlie estimates that if animals were kept only on land that is

unsuitable for arable farming, and given scraps and waste from food processing,

the world could produce between a third and two-thirds of its current milk and

meat supply.

But this system then runs into a different problem. The Food and Agriculture

Organisation calculates that animal keeping is responsible for 18% of greenhouse

gas emissions. The environmental impacts are especially grave in places where

livestock graze freely. The only reasonable answer to the question of how much

meat we should eat is as little as possible. Let's reserve it -- as most

societies have done until recently -- for special occasions.

For both environmental and humanitarian reasons, beef is out. Pigs and chickens

feed more efficiently, but unless they are free range you encounter another

ethical issue: the monstrous conditions in which they are kept.

I would like to encourage people to start eating tilapia instead of meat. This

is a freshwater fish that can be raised entirely on vegetable matter and has the

best conversion efficiency -- about 1,6kg of feed for 1kg of meat -- of any

farmed animal. Until meat can be grown in flasks, this is about as close as we

are likely to come to sustainable flesh-eating.

Re-reading this article, I see that there is something surreal about it. While

half the world wonders whether it will eat at all, I am pondering which of our

endless choices we should take. Here the price of food barely registers. Our

shops are better stocked than ever before. We perceive the global food crisis

dimly, if at all. It is hard to understand how two such different food economies

could occupy the same planet, until you realise that they feed off each other.

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure

that just ain't so.

- Mark Twain

April 16, 2008

Is it something in the air in those rainy isles? I've been to veg

conferences, and I've *never* seen anyone with remotely " pearl gray "

skin!

Or maybe it's Monbiot's eyes -- a vestigial nictitating membrane

beclouds his irises whenever a known vegan approaches.

At 2:53 PM -0800 4/15/08, fraggle wrote:

.....after almost every talk that I give, I am pestered by swarms of

vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing

that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.

>

April 16, 2008

maybe its all the fog over there....

yarrow Apr 15, 2008 10:25 PM Re: Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger.

Is it something in the air in those rainy isles? I've been to veg conferences, and I've *never* seen anyone with remotely "pearl gray" skin!Or maybe it's Monbiot's eyes -- a vestigial nictitating membrane beclouds his irises whenever a known vegan approaches.At 2:53 PM -0800 4/15/08, fraggle wrote:....after almost every talk that I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.>

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.

- Mark Twain