The politics of veganism on the Bush Telegraph
When Earth Hour was happening at the end of last month and millions of people turned their lights out for an hour on a Saturday night, I put out a media release suggesting that another easy personal action people could take which would have a much bigger impact was to cut back on eating meat and dairy products. It drew some predictable complaints from the livestock and farming lobby, as well as a ludicrous, but revealing, comment from Tony Burke, our Agriculture Minister, that “any push to reduce emissions needs to happen without reducing production.”
This sounds to me like another example of what Andrew Norton is rightly labelling the real greenhouse denialist problem – those who think we must substantially cut back our emissions, but aren’t so keen on making any significant changes to our lifestyle and consumption habits to achieve it. If we are going to be genuine about trying to meet the greenhouse emission reduction targets the Labor government has set, then sometime soon we will need to start accepting that reduced consumption – and thus production – of greenhouse intensive commodities will be essential.
Criticising coal mining is always going to be more politically palatable than highlighting greenhouse emissions from animal farming, but the public deserve to have the full picture. To their credit, last Friday Radio National’s Bush Telegraph program explored the topic, giving me an opportunity to answer some of the criticisms – and also enabling David Thomason from the livestock industry to put their case. You can listen to an MP3 of the podcast here. My segment is about 30 minutes in to the program, although there is also an interesting segment at the start about whether agriculture will be part of Australia’s looming emissions trading scheme.
UPDATED 22/4: Paul McCartney says much the same thing as I have.
33 Comments, Comment or Ping
philip travers
I have to comment Senator!?Even though it may appear,again,I will be opposing what you may have discussed.I am not MP3 ready,I cannot stand the ABC creating demands for updating technology or adding to the cost of being its consumer.Years ago, when cow dung seemed to have been an enormous problem because of flies etc.,it was my readings from Scientific American,and letters to a local newspaper got the partially the ball rolling on reducing the fly population by more specific dung beetles.I know I was instrumental in that,whilst the ABC mugged on for the sake of controversy,and only the Science Show would pusue in a non-mugging way.But seeing the ABC has the most up to date ways of being up itself,as then,my piece in the jigsaw of dung beetles solving a problem will never eventuate.I suggested something a C.S.I.R.O. scientist did do directly from again,a Scientific American that put together a way of reducing the fart reality.I think however,it is a boorish argument,that is unsustainable as solution to suggest that reducing consumption of meat and diary will reduce the Green house Gas emissions reality.Which I am becoming more doubtful of,the more evidence is presented that human and human production in all forms is about to destroy our own chances of surviving well as a species.Which isnt a motivation here,in suggesting what you are putting forward is boorish.Farm management and farm practices as far as animal production is concerned,in a scientific sense depend entirely on the quality and intentions of that research to practice enabling.Killing and milking beasts,will have before those events some relevant stocking rates,based on the quality of food energy resource.Water quality and shade for animals hasnt gone through complete investigation re methane expression.IF water quality makes more efficient emitters as in terms of established water quality matters and analysis of shading and methane emissions,as co developers of increase or decreases in methane production
Apr 20th, 2008
Damian
The poor fellow from MLA wasn’t very well prepared. I think your suggestion that the industry had an obvious interest in persuading people to continue eating meat and dairy was a better representation of MLA’s position than the argument he mustered.
You make a solid case for reducing dairy and meat consumption. I think, in light of current issues related to rising global food prices (a crisis caused in part by the meat-eating habits of the world’s middle class), that the argument in favour of vegetarian or vegan eating habits is strengthened by a discussion of the opportunity cost of producing meat. In the Australian context, the volume of water required to produce meat is also an issue.
This is the primary reason that I chose vegetarianism a decade or so ago – I reckon that the world can be better fed if the food we grow is made available to people rather than fed to livestock for consumption by the rich world. If protecting the environment is not quite enough to convince someone to eat less meat, then perhaps a few more food riots around the world will bring the unsustainable nature of the meat-eating lifestyle into sharper perspective.
Apr 20th, 2008
philip travers
as a functional reality in assessing the nature of stocking rates & food from both the stockrate assemblies & non stockrate as in farm food inputs off farm or off stocking rate areas of farm.By stockrate assemblies I am including fodder off trees as input,fodder grown with water that may have a artificial system growing lucerne from a related paddock waterbody eg.dam.It is quite possible,I reckon that both the cattle diary industries production,may not have any sizeable effect on the continuing increase in methane production and carbon dioxide emissions,if, the measuring of it, is process seeable,because as an example,beasts farting in dewpoint conditions in trees with overnight moisture heavily on leaves, the farts and connected carbon dioxide losses from plant matters have a temperature control over them until the heat of the day brings its set of conditions.There are sound reasons to cut back on meat and diary use as a human consumer..which has to meet the adequacies of the consumer.Its another matter entirely speculative,that, the whole animal production side is the major cause ,and this seems crazy as logic,of its own direct greenhouse emissions!? If alternative users for the production of animal and animal produced products met the requirements of other creatures in the environment as active members of animals converting biomass into the ecology as is and the human designed landscapes as is..then simply as a goal a desire or a design destiny this hasnt even reached a language form, that science can then explain in fundamental processing terms.I am saying essentially the product without containers,refrigeration and matters of transport as is,are not considered clearly as useful inputs other than the obvious food and fibre.Convert the diary production for either human use other than directly food or fibre,& the production figures dont look as hostile to the planet or humans. It is a long& deep story, marketing as wasteful practices & girth & emissions.Boorish!
Apr 20th, 2008
Jeffrey G
It’s a good thing you were able to get heard on this issue.
I was disappointed with your adversary. He implied that “some” (read: you) were only interested in singling out the meat industry and that going off meat would lead to more greenhouse emissions. Both were patently wrong.
I love meat, I love cheese and I love my chocolate milk but I am cutting down. Making small changes across one’s entire lifestyle will be less harmful to industry than wholesale upheaval of only one industry.
Apr 20th, 2008
Lorikeet
If we allow the global Greens to destroy our mining and livestock industries, we are sitting ducks for a takeover bid.
If you want to rule the world, first you break the country financially.
Meat and dairy products are nutrient rich, compared with a lot of non-animal foods.
For example, all a lettuce does is suck up more water than it delivers to a salad, and sometimes contains wriggling competitors.
Apr 21st, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Lorikeet, I challenge you to name a single animal that we use for food that does not have the same characteristics that you attribute to lettuce.
In fact, I’d say that ‘wriggling competitors’ are far more likely to be found in vertebrate food items.
Apr 21st, 2008
Lorikeet
Not these days, Feral.
The only places I’ve found “wriggling competitors” recently were in potatoes and lettuces. Sometimes you might get one in an apple or other fresh fruit.
Some people find green frogs among packaged lettuce leaves.
For 20 years, I’ve keep nuts, dried fruits and rolled oats in the fridge due to past very wriggly experiences. They also keep longer.
I can still remember my father eating a bowl of porridge containing a multitude of larvae. The kids wouldn’t touch it, but my father just said “Extra protein!” and ate it all up. The breakfast menu had to change for quite some time after such a turnoff.
A lettuce has no nutritional value at all, and has water wastage (both in the agricultural process and prior to eating) as a deficit.
Conversely, animal products are nutrient dense and are completely devoid of wrigglers due to modern pastoral and hygiene practices.
In 34 years of running my own home, I’ve never found a single wriggler in any kind of red meat, chicken, fish, eggs or dairy products.
Of the animal products, I only wash chicken and fish before eating – but all of the fruits and vegetables have to be washed to remove toxins, faeces, soils, waxes, and germs from human handling.
Dried fruits are best washed before eating to remove sulphites, especially if you are asthmatic.
I buy long life custard, because I don’t know how long they’ve left the fresh stuff sitting on the loading dock.
Apr 22nd, 2008
muzzmonster
I note you didn’t answer Feral’s challenge, Lorikeet. I suspect you can’t because the amount of water used to “grow” cows, sheep, pigs and chickens sucks up more nutrients than they deliver.
And not just water. Cows in feedlots eat 4 kg of grain for every 1 kg of meat they add to their bodies. It’s clear that it would be far more efficient to eat the grain ourselves.
Apr 22nd, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Lorikeet, thanks for your reply, but…
I guess that’s all fine and dandy as long as you are happy consuming cattle/sheep/pig drench metabolites, and whatever it is that is used to minimise parasite infestations in poultry. It’s a necessary evil – in general, the parasites that can be found in meat are much more likely to do serious harm to humans than the parasites that can infest vegetables.
But as Muzzmonster has so neatly observed, you have completely avoided addressing the fact that food production from terrestrial animals requires much more water than does food production from terrestrial plants.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Lorikeet
Sorry guys, I still can’t name a single food animal that has the same characteristics that I attributed to lettuce – no nutritional value and a complete wastage of water for ABSOLUTELY NO NUTRITIONAL GAIN.
I guess you guys have forgotten about the poisons and artificial fertilisers sprayed on fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains.
Any toxins end up in the livers, kidneys and fat of animals. The solutions are simple. Don’t eat the offal, and trim the fat.
You can peel your fruits and vegetables to remove harmful carcinogens etc, losing a lot of fibre and nutritional value in the process, but you can’t remove the systemic toxins from them.
You can pay large amounts of money for “organic” food, but who’s to say you’re getting what you pay for?
Most people cannot afford to shell out that kind of money.
Also, try to think about the number of times fruits and vegetables get washed and watered before we eat them – including intermittent spraying in the supermarkets to keep them fresh.
Apr 23rd, 2008
Jeffrey G
The radio show does not mention any proposed ban of the meat and dairy industry yet the comments made by some in this debate and elsewhere suggests this is what’s being proposed. The degree of overreaction in this debate – particularly on other blogs or comment pages is outstanding.
This is merely about informing people of the different ways they can reduce carbon emmissions. The environmental lobby limits their effectiveness by only telling people to take less showers, switch the lights off and walk to work. People should be better informed but ultimately it is their choice.
Apr 23rd, 2008
JULIEN
Please Lorikeeet do not be so ignorant, It takes 50,000-100,000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of beef , most veg proteins 1 kg = 3,000-5000 litres. You also say:
You can peel your fruits and vegetables to remove harmful carcinogens etc, losing a lot of fibre and nutritional value in the process, but you can’t remove the systemic toxins from them.
Most “food” animals are fed these “toxic” foods (grains) so you are geting a far greater concentration of these chemiclas via the meat. The fact that meat eaters are 50% more likely to die of cancer (compared to vegans) says it all really.
Great article Andrew, GO VEGAN best for human health, the animals and the environment.
Apr 23rd, 2008
JULIEN
Great point most of the worlds grains are fed to live stock and not people.
MLA rep = double speak , snake oil sales man.
Apr 23rd, 2008
apprentice
The nutritional value of lettuce varies with the variety. Lettuce in general provides small amounts of dietary fiber, some carbohydrates, a little protein and a trace of fat. Its most important nutrients are vitamin A and potassium. The vitamin A comes from beta carotene, whose yellow-orange is hidden by green chlorophyll pigments. Beta carotene, of course, is converted to vitamin A in the human body. The darker green, the more beta carotene.
According to the American Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, foods rich in vitamin A and C (antioxidants) offer protection against some forms of cancer. Along with other phytochemical, antioxidants reduce the risk of cancer of the respiratory system and intestinal tract.
Lettuce, except iceberg, is also a moderately good source of vitamin C, calcium, iron and copper. The spine and ribs provide dietary fiber, while vitamins and minerals are concentrated in the delicate leaf portion.
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/veggies/lettuce1.html
Apr 23rd, 2008
Lorikeet
Julien:
As I tried to explain before, most of the toxins ingested by animals are found in the liver, kidneys and fat, so your argument is flawed.
A lot of dire consequences are attributed to “meat eating”, but look a bit more closely and you’ll find that the “meat eaters” being described are usually primitive indigenous tribes who eat very few fruits, vegetables and grains.
You won’t generally succumb to any kind of cancer if you don’t have the relevant gene, unless you have been significantly irradiated or had a similar drastic experience. But I think it will eventually be found that some cancers are also contagious.
Today I met a young man in his first year of studying Law (OP1). When I asked him what he thought of “man made” global warming, he said it was a crock.
He wonders why there is a large hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica (where there is no industrialisation), instead of a network of smaller holes over the industrialised hotspots of the world.
I don’t think most of the world’s grains are fed to animals. I also don’t think you can directly compare water consumption associated with animals to vegetable proteins, when the nutritional value is both inferior and restrictive.
In any case, I think it has been established that any surplus emissions and consumptions could be greatly diminished or eliminated by feeding livestock ordinary pasture or pelletised grass.
Jeffrey G:
Never mistake foresight for overreaction. Please try to look at what goes on in the world from a broader perspective.
Apr 23rd, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Post #15 is erroneous in almost every respect.
I choose not to debate with someone who prefers fantasy over fact.
Good evening.
Apr 23rd, 2008
Lorikeet
apprentice:
Imagine eating a whole serving of lettuce just to get 1 gram of protein, a slightly larger smidgeon of carbohydrate, a trace (almost non-existent) of fat, and a few minerals (which probably partly came from the water in which it was washed).
Your link doesn’t even tell us what measurements are being used for some of those vitamins and minerals (e.g. IU or mg). There’s nothing after the numbers – not your fault of course.
BTW I was talking about the common iceberg lettuce. Some of the other lettuces look nice and are a bit greener, but have a bitter flavour I don’t like.
I have taken an antioxidant tablet every day for at least 2 years, in addition to eating a wide variety of foods from EVERY group.
My aunt cured herself of a non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (leukaemia) using antioxidant tablets alone.
Apr 24th, 2008
muzzmonster
I know that you seem to know an awful lot of eminent and expert people, Lorikeet, which is excellent. But I can’t see any sense whatseoever in taking advice on global warming – which is unrelated to the ozone layer – from a first year law student.
I fail to see how this experience of his puts any weight at all to your argument. It’s like asking a child at kindergarten how your car works.
Apr 24th, 2008
apprentice
Also declining to discuss further.
Apr 24th, 2008
ken
You guys have to admire Lorikeet’s ability to grasp every angle of every argument and never concede and eventually grind you into submission, there is a place for such a skill I’ve not yet found it but its out there.
Apart from contagious cancer Lorikket thinks strategically, she also belives that the construction of a giant hoover at the South Pole and reversing its flow to blow the greenhouse gases away is a solution ot be pursued, bugger gravity.
Apr 28th, 2008
Lorikeet
That’s right, Ken.
How do you think I won an Open Writers’ Award? Definitely not by thinking narrowly.
My second son once said I could out-argue a barrister, so when the opportunity arose, I did. I beat him in the foyer before even going in.
If you have a better idea on those greenhouse gases, how about letting us in on it?
BTW I didn’t say we should hoover above the South Pole. Above the areas of maximum industrialisation would be better (small holes, thanks).
My son was right about the barrister, and he wanted the hoover used before I even suggested it to him.
They cleared the ABC studios of workers in Brisbane due to an unacceptable number of breast cancer cases. They went over the place with a fine tooth comb and found nothing.
Now they’ve moved onto too many firemen with brain tumours working in the same place.
Apr 28th, 2008
muzzmonster
Many suggestions have been made about greenhouse gases, not least is trying to not emit as many in the first place – which is what Andrew was trying to point out by adopting a vegan diet. (I agree with the science, but I’m not about to give up cheese and the very occasional steak. At least I eat them a lot less though.)
Apr 29th, 2008
Lorikeet
Think of it this way, Muzz.
What will you do when your choices are taken away?
I think there are quite a few altruistic people around, including you, who have swallowed a very large chunk of what will prove to be poisonous bait.
Apr 30th, 2008
muzzmonster
I don’t see the poison, Lorikeet. I see a healthier and less stressful life, monetary savings and the knowledge that I’m doing something good for the world.
May 2nd, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
I read something in an article today about the horrific starvation being faced by many in the developing world. It takes 232 kilos of corn to make 50 litres of fuel(about my car I think)which would probably last a week or so if I was driving to work etc – this amount of corn would feed a child for 1 year! I can’t get that fact out of my head, particularly when I see those crying babies on TV.
Some time ago (2 yrs?)I read an article by Fidel Castro & Hugo Chavez (I think) who predicted the very problems of food shortages that are a reality now.Biofuels for wealthy nations at the expense of essential foods for others.There’s something quite immoral about that I feel.I also believe that growing corn,maize etc would use less water & other valuable resources than a rump steak or lamb chop!(I won’t even mention pork,as I hate the way they’re treated-it’s just ???)Less damage to the ground,soil etc.I wonder how much damage has been done over 200 years due to felling trees,forests,soil erosion,salt increases and land damage?
I choose not to eat red meat-have so for some years.In fact,I can’t go into a butcher shop that’s closed off-can’t stand the smell!I’m very interested in alternate methods of getting sufficient nourishment by other means, & I don’t buy the argument about jobs etc.Are workers really saying,that they’re not capable of learning new skills? Surely not! We’ve had to do it before – I was a telephonist years ago in a PMG manual telephone exchange??Look at the rag trade in Australia,not much left of it now?Shoe making apart from RM Williams?White goods,making telephones & more!
I don’t think the humble lettuce is devoid of goodies-vitamin E?Great food to make other dishes look & taste great-texture, & water content is great for our bodies!I love lentils & beans,they’re high in nutrients-good for digestion too.What would happen if cancers had a little ‘tag’ on them?Might change a lot of practices?Antibiotics in chickens??
May 4th, 2008
Lorikeet
Yes, I know that, Muzz.
In the news, I saw that grains were going up in price on the world market, with wheat having the greatest increase (puts me in mind of Lord Haskins again).
A lot of grain is going into biofuels – feeding cars instead of people. No doubt natural disasters have also reduced production (flood, drought, pestilence, war).
Added to that, we are being encouraged to eat more carbohydrates (most are grain foods, except for potatoes).
Dating back some years, women cooked potatoes for dinner nearly every night. But now I think most people eat more rice and pasta (grains).
On Brisbane Extra last week, a nutritionist was complaining that we eat too much bread (plenty of wheat consumption) along with surplus yeast (not good for your health).
These days, a load of bread is also made with larger, thicker, fewer slices.
I think she should see Peter Beattie about the promotion of a “peasant diet” which is overloaded with grain at the expense of protein and calcium-rich foods – instead of blaming the general population.
I’m sure if I ate the recommended amount of grain foods, I would grow from the approximate size of Kylie Minogue into that woman who resembles a Fat Pumpkin.
May 4th, 2008
Lorikeet
Naomi:
How do you propose to put a ‘tag’ on a cancer?
We kissed goodbye to a lot of secondary and tertiary industries (e.g. car manufacturing, clothing) decades ago.
What will we do to save our PRIMARY industries (e.g. meat and dairy industries, mining) from those who would accuse us of damaging the atmosphere?
May 5th, 2008
Lorikeet
What! Still no answers? Maybe someone else knows how to put a ‘tag’ on a cancer.
May 7th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
The ‘tag’ on cancers was just a thoughtful exercise.I suggest that there’d be lots of practices that would be outlawed if cancers did have ‘tags’ on them eg.plastics & toxic fumes from same,everywhere in the home,car etc.How many carcinogens are released in the manufacture of heaps of things we use,eat etc.Fertilizers?What does the collective use of antibiotics in cows,chickens etc have on our ability to fight diseases?What’s the background radiation since the making of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki?Why is the incidence of cancer so high? (1 in 2 males will be diagnosed & 1 in 3 females-I find that a national emergency,but nobody else seems to be concerned with it)I do wonder re the use of nuclear power,mining & treatment of uranium,high level wastes etc.Don’t you ever wonder about these things?We’re cutting down rainforests at an alarming rate,& this practice was the norm for ‘farming purposes’. A pretty inefficient & destructive way to get a lamb loin chop I’d suggest?Gas from cows is pretty high too?All these things are worthy of provocative thought?
Years ago,it was very rare to even know someone with cancer;now the incidence is extremely high,even taking into account population growth.Why is this? Our practices have been convenience & profits driven,with those who raised concerns being treated as radical greenies or ‘tree huggers’ or? I think of cutting down jarrah forests that did cause destructive salt levels in WA & other states;forests in Tasmania,now the pulp mill-we don’t learn-damage to the Barrier Reef from fertilizers leeching into rivers etc & global warming!We fill the environment with filth & then who’ll we blame when the damage is irreparable?Choke on our own greed and wants.We could probably have done it differently,but not enough profits!The same applies to water and energy needs.Motivation is wealth!Someone once said,’if I give food to the hungry,I’m hailed a hero,if I ask why they’re hungry,I’m labelled a ‘communist’!How true!
May 8th, 2008
Lorikeet
Naomi:
“Why is the incidence of cancer so high?”
I think it is because the use of modern medicine to cure all ills has gone against “the survival of the fittest” which has made us weaker people.
People also have more stressful lives, aren’t community minded, eat too much of everything and don’t get enough exercise.
Yes, we’re choking on our own greed and wants – instead of thinking of others.
My father spent 3 years with the peacekeeping forces in Japan after World War II, where he was probably exposed to radiation. He never had a cancer in the whole of his life.
Now we are onto our THIRD cancer cluster. First it was women with breast cancer at the ABC studios. More recently, we had firemen with brain tumours. Now we have a cluster of office workers suffering from various types of cancer.
I think some cancers may be contagious, but I know some will scoff at the idea (again). I think we should all take an antioxidant tablet each day, in addition to eating wholesome foods from EVERY food group.
This week I saw the dentist and a medical specialist. A couple of teeth the dentist was keeping a watch on now have a clean bill of health (self-fixed!). I had the blood pressure reading of a 25 year old, and as for menopause: “What’s that?”
You still haven’t told us how you think we can save our primary industries.
May 9th, 2008
Jovial Monk
for gosh sake, the methane from farting cows comes from renewables, grass, which will use the carbon in the methane to make more. . .grass! Only a problem if we grow the cow & sheep etc herds very quickly.
Feedlots are the devil, so by meat from a proper butcher, farmers market etc. Very easy to get organic meat.
somethings may have to change, dairy farms in semi arid country drawing heaps of water out the Murray-Darling.
May 27th, 2008
GZG
Naomi Cartledge #29: Only just read your post from a few weeks ago, and now realise why you are chronically anxious and upset …… you have an awful lot to worry about (seemed like you mentioned around 20 distinct issues to have nightmares about).
Try not to see too many cancer demons though; as one gets older, you are more likely to get cancer (eg. 65% of prostate cancer is in over 65’s). So as Australians lifespan has extended, so has the chance of cancer increased. Plus we all know more older people personally as we age.
I’ll keep on celebrating life and let you do the hard, nail biting yakka Naomi.
Jovial Monk: I think the feedlots still have the cows on an extended last supper vegetarian diet so it’s not all bad news.
May 27th, 2008
Lorikeet
I saw a program only a week or so ago, dealing with feedlots. The man said he could provide 50 billion meals from one “grass day”.
The term “grass day”, however, is a bit of a misnomer. The foods given to the animals were bales of hay and some kind of grain (type not mentioned).
Jovial Monk:
I buy most of my meat from the Supa IGA. Not only do they have incredible specials, but a lot of the meat appears lean enough to be grass fed on ordinary pasture.
For those who don’t eat meat, there are also incredible specials on fruit and vegetables.
Besides the catalogue put in the mailbox, there is very often another “instore” catalogue with even better bargains. And no, I’m not collecting a commission.
If you buy mostly fresh foods and cook them yourself, you will save money, be healthier and not pay any GST.
The biggest danger we face is from the global Greens who want to wipe out our mining and livestock industries.
The government should really push solar powered cars if it wants to clean the place up a bit, instead of feeding them grain (biofuels).
Yesterday a bus driver told me that every week in Brisbane, there are 1800 more cars on the road.
May 27th, 2008