In a world that
is concerned about environmental matters, the most urgent one concerns what we
consume. Although there is controversy about the acreage of land required to
grow palm oil and soya bean crops, there is greater alarm about the impact that
the ever-growing numbers of livestock that is inhabiting the earth with more
acreage being dedicated to their grazing.
There should
certainly more consideration that should be given as to global consumption of
meat. It has been estimated that, by the year 2050, there will 2 billion more
people inhabiting this world that will need to be fed, which will equate to a
40 per cent increase in the requirement for meat as part of their diets. The
reality is that we are already living in a world where we are eating more than
the natural world can sustain, so we need to think about how we can eat smarter
in the descending availability of the resources that we have at hand.
I should hasten
to state at the start of this piece that I am not a vegan or a vegetarian but,
by looking at the evidence, I have chosen to restrict my diet to dairy products,
fish and sometimes chicken. I am not on a crusade to change the eating habits
as I want people to look at the evidence as to whether the environment can
continue to sustain their dietary preferences.
Throughout the
world, there are six billion animals consumed every year. In the last fifty
years, the numbers of pigs has doubled and the number of chickens has increased
five-fold. Indeed, there are 2,000 chickens killed every second to meet our culinary
requirements.
In the last fifty
years alone, there has been an increase of 400 million cattle. With cattle burping
methane gas (which is thirteen times more dangerous than carbon monoxide), so
this animal is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all the transport in
the world, being the same as 600 litres of petrol being released into the
atmosphere.
It is conceded
that manure is a good fertiliser with 3 million tons of the substance being
produced by all the animals in a single year. However, too much of it is toxic
and it can run off into the landscape. When the manure reaches the waterways
and goes downstream, the result is the increase bloom of algae, which in turn
kills off water creatures in particular and creates ‘dead zones’ where nothing
can grow. The life-giving streams can soon become open sewers that are teeming
with E Coli and other detrimental organisms, so polluting the environment that
we claim to enjoy.
Each of these
animals need somewhere to feed and so we have seen an increase in the
encroachment into forest zones. We depend on places like the Amazon, where the
trees store carbon and so keep the world cool and stabilises the climate
system. However, the Amazon now has the largest number of cattle in any one
area (200 million) which are sold worldwide. It has lost 20 per cent of its
total area to cattle ranching, which is the equivalent to three times the size
of the United Kingdom and, during the summer months when the encroachment is
most prevalent, the equivalent of five football (soccer) pitches where it had
been a pristine forest has been destroyed so that cattle can be raised.
The livestock
have to eat other things apart from grass, especially those 40 billion animals
whose entire existence is restricted to living in factory farms. It has been
estimated that 40 per cent of the global crop land is used for raising animal
feed. The continuous sowing of one type of crop in itself affects diversity as
it does not encourage those insects who would be pollinating and dispersing the
seeds. There has been the approximation that 30 per cent of the biodiversity on
this planet has been lost by the dedication of such huge amounts of crops to
feeding the animals. The outcome is that many species may become extinct before
they are discovered due to our insistence on growing the same harvest repetitively
so that our domesticated animals are fed. The irony can be seen in that that
same land would be more productive in producing crops for humans to eat
directly rather going on the circumferential route to being eaten by the animal
which will be eaten in its turn by humans.
It is not only
on dry land where the devastation is taking place. We are also devastating the
oceans in order to feed our livestock. The examples of marine life that is removed
for this purpose are sardines and anchovies which are then ground up in order
to be made palatable for the farmyard and battery animals, although other sea
life are also caught up in the nets and thrown back dead into the waters as they
are not required. It has been approximated that 4 million tons of fishmeal are
fed to livestock (which, in the United Kingdom, applies to pigs and chickens)
annually.
There are also
the transportation costs, both financially and ecologically, to be considered
as livestock are moved around, both alive and dead. The impact on our
environment can be seen through the fuel required for planes, boats or road
traffic as they bring the food to the consumer, often over large distances so
that our culinary desires can be satiated.
The most
sustainable action that we can do is to reduce our portions of beef, lamb or
pork to one or two portions a week. There are many households who are already eating
more fish and chicken rather than other livestock as a matter of preference,
and it could be that we see a continuation in this trend.
The Christian
viewpoint is that we are not to treat animals as a commodity, not viewing them
as products that are a result of industrial processes. We are called to be
called custodians of the creation that surrounds us (Genesis 1: 28) and not to
be exploiters so that our own self-gratification can be met. The instruction
from God was to rule over every living thing, not to treat them so that we can
exploit them. It could be that the reduction of meat consumption might lead to
better animal husbandry (as demonstration by organisations such as Compassion
in World Farming).
It is suggested
that Genesis 9:4 could mean, before the universal flood, that men and women had
vegetarian diets for God instructed Noah and his family as they left the ark
that they were not to eat meat with blood still in it. There are occasions in
the Bible where no eating meat made a person stand out in their service of God,
such as the testing of Daniel and his friends to demonstrate how God would
bless them before the Babylonians (Daniel 1: 12).
Later in
history, Paul makes it clear that it does not matter whether you eat meat or
not: ‘Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable
matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose
faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look
down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge
someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand,
for the Lord is able to make him stand.’ (Romans 14: 1 – 4)
Paul also gives
an overriding principle when he writes that ‘food does not bring us close to
God, we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.’ (1 Corinthians
8: 8) In the end, it is not what goes into our stomach that matters but what
comes out of our mouths, as Jesus told us (Matthew 15: 11). However, it is the
overeating of livestock products that does lead to the sin of gluttony, which
leads to the manifestation of overeating and obesity, with its attendant physical
effects (such as diabetes, hypertension and heart problems).
It is important
that we consider the environmental and ethical impact of what we eat, listening
to the scientific evidence, without being judgemental on those people who might
have different opinions to us.
The article
has been prompted by ‘Meat - a threat to our planet?’ presented by Liz Bonnin,
on BBC1 in the United Kingston, which was broadcasted on Monday 25 November
2019
Comments