Vegetarians are going to hate me for this :-)
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_246196.html
| June 10, 2008 |  |
| Vegetarianism not the answer to world hunger | |
| I REFER to Saturday's letters, 'Vegetarianism can help in food and climate crises' by Mr Sng See Ann and '70% of grain in US goes to meat industry' by Mr George Jacobs. Both Mr Sng and Mr Jacobs think vegetarianism can alleviate the world food crisis by diverting grain used to breed farm animals to human consumption. I disagree. According to a website by Oklahoma State University's Department of Animal Science, www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds, it is true it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than allow animals to convert them to human food. However, this inefficiency applies only to plant products humans can use. In reality, over two-thirds of the feed given to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuitable for human consumption. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals, in fact, improve the quality of human diets rather than compete with humans for food. Mr Sng also says vegetarianism could lessen environmental problems. This view is not well founded. Mr Ray Audette's book Neander-Thin, published in 2002, expresses the view that mono-culture agriculture not only depletes both soil and water sources, but also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. For instance, if people stopped breeding livestock for food, there would not be enough natural fertiliser to replenish soil for crops. We would then require the heavy use of artificial fertilisers, one tonne of which requires 10 tonnes of crude oil to produce. Economically speaking, if a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the global demand for grain would fall, resulting in a supply glut. The root cause of starvation in the world is poverty rather than lack of supply. Vegetarianism would not only be an ineffective solution to world hunger, but would also compound the problem, economically and environmentally. Ng E-Jay | |
1 comment:
Vegetarianism is the More Sustainable Diet
I refer to Tuesday's letter “Vegetarianism not the answer to world hunger”. It was stated that “over two-thirds of the feed for animals consists of substances that are undesirable or completely unsuitable for humans”. This precisely highlights the glaring imbalance of resources that meat produce demands, while the poor starve for more affordably priced crops that could be otherwise grown in abundance.
While monoculture agriculture “produces environmental problems by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems”, vegetarianism does not call for monoculture - as balanced vegetarian diets require various crops. Due to the meat trade, the above-mentioned “delicate balance” is already in danger - which is why FAO's 2006 “Livestock's Long Shadow” report stated that “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” As such, the livestock industry is already unsustainable.
The headline of Mr George Jacobs’ letter on Saturday (“70% of grain in US goes to meat industry” ) already stresses the great inefficient use of resources in animal-breeding as a means to create food. At the alarming rate which more of the richer nations are increasingly consuming meat, this inefficiency will only worsen if left unchecked. The current global greed for meat is unprecedented - it is nothing natural; a man-made disaster in the making. Realistically, any global decrease of meat demand is likely to be gradual - not leading to sudden changes in ecosystems (or economy) - especially when the world's diet goes even greener with advances in research.
In January, Mr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nation's Nobel Prize-winning panel on climate change, had already advised the world unequivocally - “Please eat less meat. This is something that the IPCC was afraid to say earlier, but now we have said it.” It is time to heed this urgent message - that increased vegetarianism is the more environmentally and thus economically sustainable diet in the long run. It was written in the Saturday letter that “the food and climate crises are closely interrelated and solvable, in part, by vegetarianism.” While vegetarianism might not be the complete solution for the food and climate crises, it is nevertheless important in improving both human and planetary well-being. - ASH
See another reply letter below -
Vegetarianism Can Reduce Starvation
I refer to Tuesday's letter - “Vegetarianism not the answer to world hunger”. It was said that “the root cause of starvation is poverty rather than lack of supply”. If so, why is the UN calling for increase in food production instead of job opportunities? There is indeed food shortage for the poor, though there is also food surplus - for the extravagant breeding of animals (for their meat), as consumed by the rich. Food for humans would increase if meat production is steadily reduced in good time, while we become increasingly vegetarian or vegan with the growth of more human-friendly crops.
The article “Food talks end squabbles, vow to boost output” in “The Straits Times” on 7 June 2008 reported that “Speculation and increased consumption of meat and dairy goods by growing populations in China, India and other booming developing nations are also considered factors in the global food price hikes.” So it seems, it is partly due to misdirected wealth which over-demands animal produce; not poverty per se, that furthers starvation. Poverty has always been a background reason for starvation, while the current price hikes merely highlight it.
FAO's ominously titled report “Livestock's Long Shadow” clearly revealed that the meat industry generates more pollution than solutions for the climate crisis, which is now worsened by the growing demand for meat. If animal waste can easily be reduced as harmless fertilisers, the environmental problems listed by FAO would not exist. Instead, it causes 18% of greenhouse gases, which are capable of disrupting harvest cycles, thus compounding the food and climate crisis. - CWY
See yet another reply letter below -
Vegetarianism is the Right Direction
I refer to Tuesday's letter titled “Vegetarianism not the answer to world hunger”. Though Mr Ng mentioned that “the root cause of starvation is poverty rather than lack of supply”, it is worth noting that during the recently concluded United Nations World Food Summit, UN Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-moon highlighted that food output would need to rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet demands. Indeed, high demands and bad harvests have already caused food prices to increase to heights unseen in recent history.
While it might be true that world hunger could more likely be caused by poverty than lack of supply in the past, the increasingly affluent “Chindia” has the prospects of 2 billion people from China and India suddenly being able to afford to feed themselves ‘better’, thus changing the dynamics of food economics. This is compounded by the shift towards food-based biofuels, which is predicted to increase demand for food to unprecedented levels.
Even if it is true that over two-thirds of feed given to animals consists of substances that are not for human consumption, it does not negate the fact that 70% of grain in US goes to meat industry, as put forward by Mr George Jacobs in his letter on Saturday.
World hunger is a complex issue, and I believe vegetarianism alone is not going to solve the problem. However I believe it is a step in the right direction. While not a full-time vegetarian myself, I am seriously considering reduction of meat intake, which I hope Mr Ng would too. - TMH
See yet another new reply letter below -
Vegetarianism is Indeed Beneficial
I refer to the letter “Vegetarianism not the answer to world hunger” published 10 June 2008. I find Mr Ng's argument flawed in many accounts. First, Mr Ng claimed that the plant products feed to the animals are undesirable or unsuitable for human consumption. Mr Ng seemed to neglect that these plant products require resources to produce as well. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more than half of the world's grains are used to feed livestock. Even if these grains were of lower quality, the same resources could be have used to produce higher quality grains that could feed more people.
Second, Mr Ng claimed that animals improve the quality of human diets. The truth is rich nations consuming far more meat than developing nations see more lifestyle related diseases such as heart diseases, diabetes, cancers and obesity. In the book, The China Study, Dr Colin Campbell studied and documented how increase in meat consumption was closely related to increase in incidences of such diseases.
Third, Mr Ng claimed that mono-culture agriculture damage environment and hence vegetarianism does not lessen environmental problems. This is a flawed logic. Mono-culture is an agricultural method and it is not directly linked to vegetarianism. The fact is, vegetarians need a wide variety of plant food to main a healthy diet. Livestock-rearing is even a bigger culprit, as it courages large scale production of a few types of grains that are used as animal feed.
Fourth, Mr Ng mistakenly believe that all animal wastes are processed into natural fertiliser and without animal wastes we would require more artificial fertiliser. That fact is most wastes are not properly treated and are discharged into the waterways, resulting serious pollution problems. Processing animal wastes requires investment of resources and most farmers are not willing to pay for the additional costs. Pig farms and prawn farms are serious polluters of the waters in many parts of this region. In addition, without having to feed the animals, we would not need to produce as much grains and hence would not require as much fertilisers.
Finally, Mr Ng stated if large number of people switched to vegetarianism the global demand for grain would fall, resulting in a supply glut. Ironically, I think that's exactly what we need! As Mr Ng rightly pointed out poverty is a cause of starvation. But what is happening right now is that grain prices are sky-rocketing and the poor are going hungry. And one of the reason for that is the demand for grains as animal feed as a result of greater demand for meat due to increasing affluence. If vegetarianism would result in a supply glut and bring down the food prices for the poor, then it is a good thing!
The fact is, eating low in the food chain (i.e. eating more plant food), benefits the people in terms of health, the planet in terms of sustainability and the society in terms of food affordability. It is not a panacea but it's benefits are well documented in the scientific community. - NK
See yet another newer reply letter below -
Vegetarianism Answers World Hunger
In his letter to the Forum (“Vegetarianism Not The Answer To World Hunger”, ST June 10 2008 ) Ng E-Jay disagrees that vegetarianism can alleviate world hunger and the world food crisis by diverting grain used to breed farm animals, to human consumption. I am glad that at the outset, he accepts as true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than allow animals to convert them into human food.
In the real world driven by the desire to maximise profits, factory farms have long usurped the existence of free-range farms where animals grazed on natural terrain and resources. In factory farms, animals bred in crippling captivity have to be harvested in the shortest possible time to maximise profit yields. This can be achieved only by subjecting factory farmed animals to a force-fed cocktail diet of growth hormones, strong antibiotics which are usually rejected for human consumption as unsuitable or unsafe (perhaps Mr Ng might have been referring to this?) and grain grown for animal feed but rarely slop.
The cultivation of such animal feed requires precious limited resources of our planet. So much land, space, water, human resources, manufacturing industries even ships and ports and commercial space which are utilised for the production, transportation, treatment, harvest and marketing of meat could be freed up and used directly for the betterment of man. Indeed Mr Ng seems to acknowledge this by admitting that increased demand for grain props world prices and avoids a supply glut. Unfortunately meat production does not merely increase demand, but distorts the supply and demand chain, not unlike pyramid selling does.
Contrary to Mr Ng's statement, meat does not improve the quality of human diet. The negative effects of red meat are all too widely publicised and hardly need repeating. Fish and seafood contain high levels of contaminants such as dioxins and heavy metals known to be harmful not just to those who consume them but also to their offsprings for generations to come. Obesity and congestive heart diseases are just some of the examples of what meat-rich diets can lead to. It is a known fact – vegetarians do live longer than meat eaters, putting to rest any notions that meat improves the human diet.
Mr Ng also argues that as monoculture agriculture not only depletes both soil and water sources but also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. This translates to a conclusion that vegetarianism cannot lessen environmental problems. While monoculture is undeniably bad for the ecosystem and leads to environmental problems, it is not fair to equate monoculture with human food crop production. The human vegetarian diet is capable of infinite varieties and permutations of grain, fruit and vegetable especially and particularly when compared to livestock feed.
Monoculture is but an example of a bad farming practice which was rarely an issue in the era of food crop production. It became increasingly and commonly associated with cash crop production including animal feed farms, and will become increasingly associated with fuel crop production. It almost never lends itself to seasonal produce. It would be fairer of Mr Ng to acknowledge greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide which are the waste by-products of the meat industry. These emissions cause more severe harm and irreparable damage to the earth than any monoculture attributable to human food production.
Mr Ng thinks that “if people stopped breeding livestock for food, there would not be enough natural fertilisers to replenish soil for crops” which in turn would increase demand for artificial fertilisers. Firstly, he confuses animal waste with natural fertilisers. Animal waste does restore to nature by way of nutrients some of what the animal takes from it. This is part of the earth's natural eco-cycle. If fewer animals are reared, less is taken out and hence less replenishing is required. Animal waste, especially in excess, is harmful to the eco-system. It is toxic to other life forms, including humans, especially if it enters the water supply chain as often happens. Indeed billions of dollars are spent each year around the world to de-toxify and treat animal waste which results from rearing of animals and to prevent such from contaminating human spaces.
Mr Ng concludes that the root cause of starvation is poverty rather than the lack of supply. The inefficient and unequal distribution of resources is but one factor. This leads to both poverty as well as starvation. However when farmers exercise their right of choice by giving in to a preference for growing animal feed and rearing animals with expectations of higher state subsidies, tax rebates and higher returns as compared to growing food crop, this skewers the natural demand and supply factors, which exacerbates the problems associated with and arising from the allocation and distribution of food resources. Beef subsidies in the USA are just one of the many examples. Vegetarianism is the best solution to the food price crises in the world. - VKR (slightly summarised)
See yet another even newer reply letter below -
Vegetarianism is Truly Important
I refer to the letter “Vegetarianism not the answer to world hunger”, June 10, by Ng E-Jay. I thank Mr Ng for continuing the dialogue on this crucial issue, and I agree that vegetarianism and meat reduction by themselves will not solve the huge problem of world hunger. Indeed, few problems have only one cause and only one solution. The main cause of world hunger is unequal distribution of resources, but meat production is clearly related.
Meat is a cause of world hunger because resources - land, fertilizer, water, energy and other agricultural inputs - are used to grow, harvest and transport food for animals, instead of food for people. This is a point missed by the authors of the Oklahoma State University website that Mr Ng cites. People in poor countries produce plant foods that are sold for animal feed. The animals are in turn eaten by wealthier people in these people's own country or in other countries. Thus, land that could grow food for malnourished people is devoted to meat production.
An example of how meat production wastes resources can be found in an article on the BBC website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm - which states that a kilo of lamb from a sheep fed on grass needs 10 cubic metres of land, whereas a kilo of cereals can be grown on only 0.4 to 3 cubic metres of land.
What is saddening about the webpage that Mr Ng cites is that the authors seem to treat plants and animals as equivalent food sources. Have they ever spent any time with cows, chickens, or the other fellow animals whom (please note that I use “whom”, not “which” intentionally) we eat? Can't they see any differences between these thinking, feeling beings and plants?
Finally, I respectfully suggest that Mr Ng may be contradicting himself when he states, “[I]f a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the global demand for grain would fall, resulting in a supply glut.” Isn't a supply glut of grain exactly what we are hoping for? If we did have such a glut, perhaps it would be easier to give – or sell at a reduced price - some of this excess grain to the hundreds of millions without enough to eat. - GJ
Post a Comment