“To be an environmentalist who happens to eat meat is like being a philanthropist who doesn’t happen to give to charity.” -Howard Lyman

The three most commonly cited reasons for being a vegetarian: for the animals, for personal health, and for the environment. Although the first two factors tend to be widely publicized, the latter component of this triad is often overlooked. Yet the negative impact ofthe consumption of animal products on our environment is a very real concern that cannot be ignored.

Meat production in the United States has become a large-scale operation that puts a tremendous toll on our energy resources. Not only must vast amounts of grain be grown to produce animal feed, but this food must be transported and fed to the animals, which are later transported to slaughterhouses, processing centers, and the final grocery store. It is estimated that one-third of all the fossil fuels produced in this country are utilized in the completion of this process.

By now, we are all aware of the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming. Predictions of a 3 to 11 degree increase in the Earth’s temperature during this century, coupled with the devastating effects such an increase would have, have led to numerous initiatives to reduce fossil fuel expenditure. Yet shifting towards a plant-based diet may be the easiest and most immediate way to cut back on fossil fuels. If you don’t believe it, consider the following statistics: to produce 1 calorie of protein from beef, 54 calories of fossil fuel must be expended, while only 2 calories of fossil fuel are necessary to produce an equal value of protein from soybeans.

Meat production is also highly water-intensive. Despite its relative abundance, only 0.001 % of our water supply is readily accessible as freshwater. Ofthis percentage, 70% is consumed for agricultural purposes, with the majority utilized to irrigate animal feed crops. Water is also utilized in less obvious ways, such as to keep the animals hydrated and to clean the farms and slaughterhouses. According to the University of California Agricultural Extension, 5,214 gallons of water are needed to produce one pound of beef. Compare this to the 23 gallons utilized to grow a pound of tomatoes and the 25 gallons needed to grow a pound of wheat, and the benefits of adopting a vegetarian diet become clearer.

This is especially true when we consider the negative consequences of meat consumption on the quality of our water. Factory farming has grossly disrupted the natural process of cycling manure back into the soil. Livestock in this country produce an overwhelming amount of excrement that is contaminated by fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics. This waste is not usually properly treated, and these same contaminants end up in our precious-and limited-water supply.

Meat production also impacts the quality of our farmland. Widespread cattle-grazing has a number of negative agricultural implications. One of the most prevalent is an increase in soil erosion, leading to the loss of vital minerals and nutrients and resulting in overall decreased soil health. Cattle-grazing also disrupts drainage, leads to flooding, and encourages run-off. It destroys the native vegetative balance, reduces the diversity of plant species, and eradicates wildlife habitats. Slowly, the constant trampling of these animals is leading to the transformation of previously lush, fertile landscapes into arid, barren desserts devoid of their agricultural value.

This loss of valuable land has extended beyond the boundaries of the United States, with the decimation of the rainforests becoming the most alarming new consequence of meat consumption. The importance ofthese forests has been greatly publicized due to their astounding diversity of species, their largely untapped medicinal potential, and their role in moderating the availability of oxygen as well as our atmospheric climate. Despite public acknowledgment of their intrinsic value, an area the size of a football field is destroyed every second.

Surprisingly, cattle-ranging is one ofthe main reasons behind this destruction. As the American meat market expands beyond our country’s geographic boundaries, rainforests have been targeted as abundant, available, and, perhaps most importantly, cheap. But this paltry economic gain comes at a severe environmental loss: For every fast¬food hamburger produced from rainforest beef, twenty to thirty plants, one hundred insects, and dozens of members of avian, mammalian, and reptilian species are destroyed, and one nickel is saved in the process.

We cannot address the environmental implications of our actions without mentioning their effect on the human population. It is estimated that 1.2 billion people worldwide are currently underfed and malnourished. How is this possible when we are currently cultivating enough grain to feed every one ofthem? The answer becomes clear when we consider that 40% ofthe world’s grain supply is funneled towards feeding livestock. This increases the production of meat while forcing many countries to import additional grain so that the people can be fed. This drives up prices so that only the wealthiest sector of the population can afford the available supply. John Robbins points out that in order to cultivate the amount of grain that would adequately feed the world population currently dying of hunger, the American population would have to reduce its beef consumption by a mere ten percent. Few would argue that this is an impossible goal.

It would be simplistic and naIve to imply that a shift to vegetarianism would rectify all of the environmental ills that currently plague us. Clearly, there are overwhelming societal, political, and economic obstacles that complicate the issues. Yet this doesn’t stop us from turning offthe light before we leave an unoccupied room, or taking shorter showers, or sorting our trash. Why should a small dietary alteration be any different? Bruce Friedrich of PET A presents the analogy that, environmentally speaking, meat consumption is equivalent to driving an SUV, vegetarianism to driving a mid-sized sedan, and veganism to riding a bicycle or walking. So next time you’re deciding what to have for dinner, think about the environmental consequences associated with your decision. You may find it inconvenient to walk everywhere, but you don’t always have to drive the SUV.

Sources
Erik Marcus’ Vegan: the New Ethics of Eating, John Robbins’ The Food Revolution, Joanne Stepaniak’s The Vegan Sourcebook

Silvina Pugliese ‘05 is a pre-med Psychology major. She has been a vegetarian for six years and a vegan for almost two years.