meat is murder

An essay below by a food and trade policy analyst explains how the EU / Developed World cows are subsidised and receive more money per head than the starving people of the world. Why the governments of the developed world insist on proping up a struggling costly industry is quite a mystery.

Life of Western Cow Compared with that of the Third World Farmer:
Inequalities Abound

DEVINDER SHARMA / The Ecologist 22mar02

It is a strange world. It is also an unequal world, and perhaps the most debasing and demeaning of all this world’s inequalities is the manner in which even the cattle of the rich nations are pampered to the cost of several hundred million farmers in developing countries.

It certainly is a great cultural shock for any visitor from the rich and industrialised countries to see stray cattle on Indian roads. Outside India’s metropolitan cities you will invariably see a hard-working farmer toiling in his crop field with a mud-plastered house in the background. In addition to the smiling farmer, you are likely to see his wife – clad in a ghagra-choli, cutting the grass and tending the cows.

This is the Third World farmer, who on average owns not more than two acres of land and still continues to feed himself and his family of five, year after year. He lives under a thatched or a tin roof, and has never had the luxury of central heating or air-conditioning. In fact, a majority of these small farmers do not even have electric fans, have little or no sanitation facilities and have never received any government support in the form of subsidies.

Now consider the western farm. Amid sprawling crop fields, whether in the US, the European Union or Australia, you are likely to see a cattle farm. The cattle are well-fed and huge, with big dangling udders. Take a peep inside the cattle sheds, and you will see a well-designed concrete structure fitted with tube lights, fans and showers. At most places, especially in the US and the European Union, these barns are centrally heated. Computer chips worn around the cows’ necks enable feeding machines to meet the exact nutritional requirement of each animal. And on average each cow gets about 25 acres of land for its feed and nutritional needs – enough to enable 10 farming families from the Third World to earn their livelihood.

The inequality between the man and the beast doesn’t end here. For the amount of subsidies a cow in the developed world receives is almost twice the annual income of an average Third World farmer.

In the European Union, for instance, the annual support for an estimated 300 million dairy cattle in the year 2000 was to the tune of 2,735 million euros for milk and milk products and another 4,465 million euros for beef and veal. Much of the support is in the form of direct payment to farmers and falls within the purview of the WTO’s ‘green box’ and ‘blue box’ stipulations. These are the subsidies that have got to be reduced under the phase-out of market distorting support mechanisms. In the Third World, however, the WTO deems that all subsidies provided to farmers – the indirect as well as the direct – are considered to be market-distorting and must, therefore, be removed or drastically pruned.

In the dairy sector, the aggregate of subsidies as a percentage of the value of the milk produced is measured in terms of a Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE). In 1997, the PSE index stood at 82 per cent in Japan, 59 per cent in Canada, 54 per cent in the European Union, 47 per cent in the US and 23 per cent in Australia. Such has been the high level of protection provided to milk producers by the developed countries that even with the stipulated reduction in subsidies, the EU and the US will continue to flood and dump its highly subsidised milk and milk powder on the Third World.

In the meantime, while dairy subsidies continue on the upswing, the PSE index indicates that farmers in India and in most developing countries were negatively taxed all these years. For India, which alone has a quarter of the world’s farming population, the PSE index stood at minus 2.33 per cent in 1997. And in Colombia the figure was minus 60 per cent.

Still more shocking and shameful is the fact that while the world makes no effort to feed the estimated 800 million people – living almost entirely in the Third World – who go to bed hungry every night, no effort is spared to feed the cattle in the rich western countries. The system introduced in 1992 of direct payments to farmers in the European Union has led to an increase in the consumption of cereals in Europe from 134.8 million tonnes in 1993 to 178.2 million tonnes in 2000. This growth has largely resulted from the increased use of EU-produced cereals for animal feed. Even though the feeding of cereals to animals and those animals’ subsequent slaughter for human consumption requires six times more grains than would be needed for the world’s average human dietary intake, there is no regret.

The number of cattle that are reared in such conditions in the rich and industrialised countries (including the OECD countries – the world’s richest trading block) does not exceed 1.5 billion. Coincidentally, the number of small farmers who live in penury and are faced with further marginalisation does not exceed 1.5 billion either. The clash of civilisation, therefore, is too apparent, too loud and clear. Under such circumstances, to be amused at the abundance of stray cattle on Indian roads is a folly. When the conflict for suvival between western farmers and their Third World counterparts reaches such extremes, the latter’s cattle pay a price. It should be no wonder, then, that it is not unusual to find in India stray cattle battling for life with over 20 tonnes of polythene in their stomachs.

But then, with apologies and due respect to George Orwell, all animals are equal but some are more equal than even humans.

As a break from the horrors of the meat industry and the brutal scenes it engenders here are some nicer vegetarian images for change.

From the depths of the WoosterCollective some vegetarian graff from Chile.
 

And from Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World here are some nice images of great looking vegan food.

Another day, another insider see’s the light and speaks out. Another day and another advocate for the health benefits of veganism. Another  day and another film due to be show the truth about animals.

Gathered during the picturesque autumn months at two small Eastern sanctuaries, the new footage emphasizes the individualilty of farmed animals, highlighting their familial bonds, friendships, humor and intelligence.

 

Cattle-farmer-turned-vegan Harold Brown gives a talk entitled “Animal Killer to Animal Advocate,” sponsored by the Dartmouth Animal Welfare Group.

Former beef cattle farmer and mechanic Harold Brown decided to become a vegetarian after learning the word from a bumper sticker on the back of a car that he repaired. The slogan read, “I don’t eat my friends,” and after asking the vehicle’s owner what the sticker meant, Brown further investigated and gained an appreciation for the concept of vegetarianism.

“I had gone four years to Michigan State University. I don’t think I was that stupid, but I had never heard that word. I hooked up with some people in Cleveland, found out what these funny v-words meant, and started making changes in my diet. My health improved,” Brown said.

Brown, who now works for Farm Sanctuary, a shelter for farm animals in upstate New York, spoke about his personal experience with animals and the benefits of vegetarianism to Dartmouth students on Monday evening in the Rockefeller Center. The lecture, titled “Animal Killer to Animal Advocate” was sponsored by the Dartmouth Animal Welfare Group and the Council on Student Organizations. The animal welfare club also invited a speaker from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to speak on vegeterianism earlier this term.

Brown first began making changes to his diet after learning that his blood pressure and family history dictated a need for an alteration in his lifestyle. Without a change in his diet, doctors predicted that he would need bypass surgery by the time he turned 35. Brown responded by giving up red meat, cutting back on dairy products and increasing his intake of lean, white meats.

Brown’s decision to stop eating beef while still working and eating on his grandfather’s cattle farm caused a tension between him and his family members. Life became so stressful that Brown and his wife moved to Cleveland, Ohio, where he saw the bumper sticker that drastically changed his habits. He became a vegetarian, and after one year, switched to a completely vegan diet. After a few years on this regime, Brown is virtually safe from heart attacks.

“I realized that if I wanted to do what is optimal for this organism that I live in, I needed to be vegan,” Brown explained.

During the question and answer session, Brown corrected students’ misconceptions about his vegan lifestyle, addressing the overly stressed importance of protein in America.

“In America, it comes down to an argument between the big three — beef, fish or chicken,” Brown stated. “We eat 5-10 times more protein in this country than we need to.”

He argued that while protein rebuilds tissue, carbohydrates, which are found in abundance in plant products, are what supply humans with energy.

He attributed the high rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancer in the United States to excessive consumption of pathogen- and hormone-filled meat.

“Of all the cancers, the ones that have grown the fastest in the last 30 years besides the ones from smoking are hormone cancers,” Brown said. “We’re eating stuff that has a lot of hormones in it already. They just don’t tell you.”

A vegan diet has proven to be both beneficial and cost-effective for Brown. His discovery of plant-based ethnic cuisine from countries such as Ethiopia and India and his exploration of different varieties of vegetables has expanded both his spice rack and palette.

Brown also discovered that money can be saved by buying fruits and vegetables instead of meat, reputing the myth that a vegan spends more money on food than a meat-eater.

“On average, steaks start at $2.99 per pound and up, whereas a five pound bag of apples will cost you about four bucks,” Brown explained.

Prior to his speech, Brown showed his audience an excerpt from the documentary Peaceable Kingdom, a film that chronicles the stories of farmers who left the agricultural industry to pursue the ethical treatment of animals. The film features numerous interviews with Brown, and the third edition is slated for release this summer.

A farmer neglects his animals (note the runing theme throughout this site) then trys to get them back arguing that they were illegally seized. Fortunately sense was seen and he has been denied the right to further neglect them.

VINITA — A Bluejacket rancher accused of allowing dozens of his sheep and cattle to starve to death was denied a request Wednesday to have the rest of his animals returned to his property.

A local veterinarian, meanwhile, testified about seeing the dead and dying animals “scattered” around one of Bradley Bell’s properties while a dog apparently ate some of the newborn lambs.

Bell, 46, had asked a Craig County judge to grant an injunction against the seizure of close to 1,200 sheep, 300 head of cattle and 12 horses that belonged to him. He contended that they were illegally seized last month.

Associate District Judge Gary Maxey, however, ruled against Bell but also delayed the state’s forfeiture move to take them away permanently. The judge wants to wait until Bell’s attorney appeals the first ruling.

Bell is charged with one felony count of animal cruelty. His wife, Tanya Bell, was charged with a misdemeanor count of failure to keep the animals in an enclosed place.

Authorities began investigating Bradley Bell’s properties after neighbors complained about his sheep roaming onto their land and eating their crops. From Jan. 11 on, sheriff’s investigators found dozens of dead or dying sheep on one property, including animals piled atop each other in a barn, according to reports.

Dr. Justin Roscoe, a Vinita veterinarian, testified about seeing a ewe too weak to rise as its lamb was being born. He also saw a dog eating some of the animals, he said.

“There were a large number of dead animals around the house, scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason,” he said.

Assistant District Attorney Jim Ely then asked Roscoe whether he actually saw the dog eating a lamb as it was coming out of the birth canal.

“It appeared to be,” the veterinarian replied.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Jot Hartley questioned Roscoe on whether he had taken the recent ice storms into account when considering the animals’ state of health. Hartley was also critical that Roscoe and others did not talk openly to Bell about taking better care of the animals before seizing them.

“You could have testified about the dead animals without hauling off the live ones?” Hartley asked.

“Yes, sir,” Roscoe answered.

The veterinarian said he believed the animals were doing significantly better since being taken to another property. Hartley countered by pointing out that more than 100 sheep had died since that move.

If convicted, Bradley Bell could face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Both he and his wife are free on bail.

Ely said the investigation against Bell’s handling of his animals was only beginning.

“There’s going to be more charges filed against him, but not right now,” the prosecutor said.

The surviving sheep and cows are being taken care of at a nearby ranch, authorities said. Several of the horses also were under veterinary care.

Slideshow: Watch a slideshow of photos taken at the property.
Editor’s note: The images are graphic. www.tulsaworld.com/deadsheep

Rod Walton 581-8457

Even the UK governments own website is now telling people that consuming meat and dairy is bad for the environment.
 

What foods you choose

Some foods have a bigger effect on climate change than others because of the way they are produced, packaged, transported or cooked.
For example:

* the production of meat and dairy products has a much bigger effect on climate change and other environmental impacts than that of most grains, pulses and outdoor fruit and vegetables

Meet Daisy the cow – global climate’s enemy number one.
An article from the Newsnight blog, ‘Ethical Man’ about a journalist trying to live as ethical a life as possible - actually broadcast as a much more substantial report on the Newsnight television programme on 2nd February (2007). The worrying conclusion to the report is that although the journalist is aware that being vegan will save the planet he is sure that not everyone will do it so why bother(?) and because reaserch wasn’t carried out well enough for helathy iron and b12 levels to be maintained he needed to eat meat to stay healthy - even though most markers of human health had dramatically improved whilst being vegan. This move to meat eating is said in muted tones in the text article, but on the tv relish was taken in eating heated decomposing body once again. It is also worth noting that despite the point of the enterprise being about living ethically, at no point were the ethics of animal slaughter discussed other than a light hearted aside about the journalist’s family eating a turkey the journalist had watched slaughtered - if you are going to eat meat at least watch it being killed *. Even laughing while slopping it into their baby’s mouth as liquified intelligent creature.

* The counter-arguments for this banal piece of thinking are so numerous as to not even be worth writing. What other areas of life could this be extended to? Lists on a postcard.

When I started to investigate the impact of food on the environment a month ago I thought I would find myself fretting over food miles. In fact transport is a tiny component of agriculture’s worldwide contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

No, the main culprit is out there in the fields, chewing her cud. It turns out that livestock – predominantly cattle – are responsible for an astonishing proportion of global warming gases - 18 per cent of the total, to be precise.

That’s right, almost a fifth of all emissions which is more greenhouse gas emissions than all the transport on earth – planes, trains, cars, skidoos the lot.

You’ll be wondering how I reach that staggering conclusion. Indeed, regular readers of this blog may be worried that my decision forgo flesh and become a vegan during January has fostered an irrational hatred of animals.

Not so. The research implicating Daisy and her bovine brothers and sisters in global warming is very well sourced. A good start is “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, a report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation.

So why is the meat we eat so polluting?

Well, first of all we need to get a sense of scale. Seventy per cent of all agricultural land is used to raise animals – that’s a third of the land surface of the entire planet. What’s more, over a third of all cereal production goes to feed those animals.

The UN report estimates that 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are associated with the fossil fuels emitted by this vast global industry – that’s roughly a third of the UK’s total CO2 emissions. The figure includes transporting meat and dairy products across the globe, as well as the carbon dioxide emitted on the farm, in processing and in manufacture of nitrogen fertiliser, which is used to raise crops for feed for animals.

Add in the carbon from deforestation and land degradation and the figure is far, far higher. Most deforested land is used for pasture and the UN reckons the carbon released in the process takes the carbon cost of livestock up to the equivalent of 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. That’s around seven per cent of all the greenhouse gases emitted by man.

That is a lot of global warming gas but still way short of that eighteen per cent figure. That’s because carbon dioxide isn’t the only global warming gas that animals are responsible for – which is where Daisy comes in.

Ruminant animals like cows and sheep produce a lot of methane as they digest their food. And methane is a powerful greenhouse gas – twenty three times as powerful as carbon dioxide, in fact.

There are reckoned to be around one and a half billion head of cattle on the planet and one point seven billion sheep. They, together with the more modest emissions of other farm animals, produce 37 per cent of global methane emissions which adds up to the equivalent of another 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

We’re still not at a fifth of global emissions though. To get there you have to factor in the effects of another global warming gas - nitrous oxide. It is way more potent than even methane with 296 times the global warming power of carbon dioxide. Sixty five per cent of human related emissions of nitrous oxide are from the nitrogen in animal manure. That accounts for the equivalent of another 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Add the effects of the three gases associated with farming animals and you get total emissions equivalent to 7.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. According to the UN report we humans are responsible for a total of the equivalent of 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. That’s where I got that incredible figure of 18 per cent of total emissions.

Which brings me back to my experiment in veganism. The reason I suppressed my carnal desires throughout January was to find out what difference cutting animal products from my diet would make to my so-called carbon footprint.

As usual, my carbon guru Professor Tim Jackson has been on the case. He calculates that eighteen per cent of the carbon emissions created by the average diet are from meat and a further ten per cent are from dairy products.

But, as should be apparent from this blog, only counting carbon dioxide would be a woeful underestimate. The problem is no-one has calculated the contribution methane and nitrous oxide emissions make to the climate cost of the food we eat. Professor Tim reckons it is safe to double the figure for carbon dioxide which means sixty per cent of the global warming potential of the average diet is from animal products.

Does that mean we should all be going vegan?

If animal products account almost two thirds of the greenhouse gasses associated with food are from animal husbandry that is surely a powerful argument for any aspiring ethical man or woman to go vegan. But does a vegan diet give you all the nutrients you need?

I felt great not eating meat and a Bupa health-check at the beginning and end of my experiment showed that I shed two kilos in thirty one days, cutting my body fat from 19 per cent of my weight to just 15 per cent.

I also saw my cholesterol level plummet from 5.6 mmol/L (rather high) to just 3.4 mmol/L (very low for a man of my age). The problem is that there are two types of cholesterol – a good one and a bad one – and in my case both fell. Not only that my haemoglobin levels fell to just above the acceptable level because, the doctor told me, I was almost certainly not getting enough vitamin B12 and iron. [Vegan Nutrition | B12]

Which is why, when I finally broke my vegan fast, I chose one of the finest steak restaurants in London and possibly the UK – Santa Maria de Buen Ayre in Hackney. I judged that only a very large slice of Daisy could make up for my missing nutrients.

One feast of flesh aside, I’ve resolved to eat less meat but the rest of the world isn’t going to. As incomes rise meat is one of the first things people buy. Meat consumption is to double by 2050.

So if, like me, you are going to continue to eat animals you might consider another way of reducing the environmental impact of your food – actually eat the stuff you buy. A quarter of all the food that is produced goes uneaten - most of it growing mould at the bottom of a fridge.