Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mimi Bekhechi

GET UPDATES FROM Mimi Bekhechi
 

The Imperative to Go Vegan as the Population Hits Seven Billion

Posted: 28/10/11 01:00 BST

The UN expects that the world population will reach seven billion on 31 October, and experts predict that there will be at least nine billion humans on the planet by 2050. Global meat consumption is projected to double by 2050, too - a frightening prospect, considering the factory-farming nightmare required to raise and slaughter more than 55 billion animals and meat production's impact on nearly all environmental problems from climate change to deforestation to pollution.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates that the global livestock population has already increased 60% since 1961, and while people grow fat on bangers and bacon butties, countries around the globe are bulldozing huge swaths of land in order to make room for more factory farms to house all the additional chickens, cows, and other animals as well as for the huge quantities of crops needed to feed them.

Many more people can be fed from a given area of land if the crops aren't first fed to animals in order to produce meat. Animals require large amounts of food and resources but produce very little food in return. It takes three and a quarter acres of land to produce food for a person who eats meat and dairy products, while food for a vegan - someone who doesn't eat any animal products - can be produced on just 1/6 acre of land.

Even beyond the basic inefficiency of funnelling crops through animals, more fossil-fuel energy is used in meat production to operate feed mills and factory farms; transport animals many miles to slaughter in petrol-guzzling, pollution-spewing lorries; operate abattoirs and then transport the meat to processing plants.

And then there's water. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that 200 scientists in 50 countries have identified water shortage as one of the two most worrying problems for the new millennium (the other was global warming). Between watering the crops grown to feed farmed animals, providing drinking water for the animals and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, trucks, and abattoirs, meat production places a serious strain on our water supply. It takes about 15,500 litres of water to produce 1 kilogram of beef, compared with just 1,000 litres to produce 1 kilogram of wheat.

And as if that weren't enough, climate change experts have produced overwhelming evidence that meat production causes climate change. Worldwatch Institute researchers estimate that raising animals for food causes 51% of global greenhouse-gas emissions each year. A 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, concluded that the livestock sector is a significant source of climate change and that the meat industry is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

We can't expect to have a liveable environment if we continue to squander the Earth's resources, pollute the environment, lay waste to arable land, and abuse animals to feed our unhealthy appetite for meat. I say "unhealthy" because diets rich in animal fats have been conclusively linked to higher rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancer. We'd do well to adopt vegan diets ourselves. Vegan foods provide all the nutrients that we need, minus the saturated fat, cholesterol and contaminants that are found in meat, eggs and dairy products.

Adopting a plant-based diet, in addition to safeguarding the increasingly populous planet and its inhabitants, would spare billions of animals the horrors of the meat, egg and dairy industries. In the UK, piglets have the tips of their teeth and their tails cut off without any pain relief. Chickens live in cramped cages or in filthy sheds, and animals have their throats cut at slaughter, often while still conscious. Animals are kept indoors, denied everything that is natural and important to them, and the first and only time most of them will breathe fresh air or feel the sun on their backs is when they're loaded onto lorries bound for slaughter. In other places around the world, the treatment of animals is even more horrifying.

If we are ever to create a cleaner - and kinder - world fit to support the many billions of us on this planet, we can't carry on the way we are going.

The logic against eating animals is irrefutable. In fact, the UN has made it clear that a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, poverty and the worst effects of climate change. A 2010 UN report titled Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Production and Consumption: Priority Products and Materials states, "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth" and "a substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products".

There have never been so many people on this planet, and now is the time to make the changes necessary to ensure a sustainable future for everyone.

 
The UN expects that the world population will reach seven billion on 31 October, and experts predict that there will be at least nine billion humans on the planet by 2050. Global meat consumption is p...
The UN expects that the world population will reach seven billion on 31 October, and experts predict that there will be at least nine billion humans on the planet by 2050. Global meat consumption is p...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 54
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
02:06 AM on 11/03/2011
What's needed to ensure food security in the coming decades without environmental degradation is NOT veganism but agro-ecology, aka sustainable agriculture, which necessarily integrates animal husbandry (including raising animals as sources of food) and crop cultivation. Agro-ecology is feasible and CAN "feed the world." See http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Sept10_Salatin.pdf and http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf

Veganism, in contrast, is a dead end, is actually highly dependent on exactly the kind of industrialized agriculture that causes environmental problems, and will never be adopted by more than a very tiny percentage of the population -- so why does this site constantly "push" it? It's not even environmentally feasible in parts of the world where arable land is in short supply -- which happens to be MOST of the planet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
04:20 PM on 11/03/2011
Absolutely agreed that we urgently need to look at sustainable agriculture, but the problem is that most people don't stop and think where their food is coming from.

Even intelligent people in this country don't realise that GM soya's main use in the UK is as feed for livestock. Much of the soya and maize that is grown on former rainforest and grassland is eaten by meat eaters in the UK.

That's right. We're one of the largest importers of soya in the world and it's used as animal feed.

So even people who think that they are being green by buying local beef could be consuming 16 pounds of GM soya for every pound of meat they eat. And feeding it to their kids.

Meat is not labelled with where the feed has come from and that's why there is such a big demand for GM crops even though very few people would knowingly choose to eat them.

Soya crops and maize use in animal feed also account for the highest percentage of worldwide pesticide sales.

Whether or not you want to eat meat is your personal choice but don't fool yourself it's healthy or green. And certainly don't fool yourself that the sort of meat that is being sold in most shops today is 'natural.'
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
05:28 PM on 11/05/2011
Eating meat most certainly CAN be healthy and green, and I know exactly where the meat I eat comes from and how it's raised - even if most people buying meat in most shops don't. I am in the U.S. and have no trouble finding sources of beef that's not from animals raised on grains, and sources of other meat (e.g., chicken and pork) from animals that were raised using grains, but whose feed was organic and non-GMO. I will repeat what I said before: the solution to the problem of world food security is NOT veganism, but agro-ecology.

By the way, the grain to meat conversion ratio of 16:1 is over-inflated, particularly re: beef, even though cattle are relatively "inefficient" converters (averaging a 7:1 ratio), since even cattle brought to market weight in feedlots for the last months of their lives spend most of their lives and put on most of their weight grazing on forage crops that are inedible by humans, not eating maize or soya (or, more precisely, the BY-PRODUCTS of processing maize and soya for other uses, often human consumption, like distiller's grains and soybean oil). Even for animals raised largely on grains and other feed crops (e.g., commercially produced chickens and hogs), the conversion ratio is about 2:1 for chickens and about 3.5:1 for hogs. Exaggeration is never persuasive, except when addressing the ill-informed -- which I find many vegans are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
12:24 PM on 11/02/2011
The solution is simple really, when the meat runs out, I plan on eating other people. Eventually, we'll get back to a level where we can eat the cows instead.
12:23 PM on 10/31/2011
How about the forests you will have to chop down to grow your vegetables ? Won't their loss change the climate, get a few more thousand species of animals and plants extinct and... don't you end up with a planet inhabited just by humans and their crops ?
Why should we alter our normal diet to try to cope with the irrational birthrate powered by religions and some governments ? In my opinion, you should try to rethink you strategy and combat the CAUSES of this situation, not try to turn us all into herbivores. We are not physically equipped to be herbivores.
If you choose to abuse your own body, you have a right to do so, but don't try to force your unnatural modifications on all of us. I didn't tell you it's imperative for you to get a tattoo or piercings, or cut off your arm to better stand out in the ever-growing population, now did I ?
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
03:57 PM on 11/01/2011
Deforestation is largely due to grazing livestock, conversion to agricultural land for crops that support livestock, wood extraction for fuel, and infrastructure expansion.

"We are not physically equipped to be herbivores." Humans are well equipped to eat fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, beans, etc.

"don't try to force your unnatural modifications on all of us."--This sentiment in a nation that eagerly awaits and celebrates the return of the McRib or dines on Gummi Bears and chicken nuggets is phenomenal. Talk about "unnatural modifications" in the diet.
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
05:26 PM on 11/01/2011
Please excuse my American-centric food references (e.g., the McRib) as I suddenly found myself in the UK edition.
08:28 AM on 11/02/2011
I repeat : we are not physically equipped to be herbivores. Carnivores also eat the half-digested food inside the guts of herbivores they kill. Does that make them good candidates for veganism ? I don't think so. And still, they CAN EAT vegetables.
Humans are omnivores, not herbivores. We are equipped TO EAT vegetables, agreed, but can't live and stay healthy ON JUST vegetables. The physiology of the human body isn't adapted to it.

There is a big difference between "can eat" and "can survive healthy by only eating". Try to find out what the difference is, pls.
10:59 AM on 10/31/2011
I've been a Veggie for 30 years, though not a Vegan, though I do see some of the argument in the article, and so does everyone else, but it won't change anyone's mind as it's too big a problem for most people to see as something they can make a difference to.

Secondly, if we follow your argument, what happens when the population reaches 40 billion? What do we do then? No, the problem needs to be solved now via education. Is it reasonable to ask people in the Uk to stop doing X, Y or Z because of what people are doing in India, Malaysia, China? If you were talking about treating an addict, your proposition would be considered 'enabling' to the addict, allowing them to carry on behaving destructively.

The best argument against eating meat is that most people are simply buying a piece of red stuff wrapped in cellophane in the supermarket and pretending they don't know how it got there. Most people, if asked whether they would be prepared to actually go to a farm, catch and cut the throat of a pig or cow, chop it up and cook it, would say 'yuk, no'. So, not thinking about it and letting someone else do it is an act of Very Bad Faith, very hypocritical, and it's something I personally reject. It's about the only thing I have ever found that resonates with practically everyone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
12:21 PM on 11/02/2011
Would a similar person be willing to travel to the hills of Columbia, risk being shot by narco-traffikers, endure sweltering heat and humidity, snakes, spiders, mosquitos and viral infections so that he or she could climb a tree to get coffee beans for their daily brew?

I think the answer is no.

That doesn't make a person a hypocrite.
01:24 PM on 11/02/2011
You can skew the argument by making it location- and terrorism-specific if you like, but if you compare apples and apples, then the question you're actually asking is: would I pick, clean prepare coffee to drink? Answer: yes. So I drink coffee.

The point I am making is if killing and preparing an animal not something you can imagine doing yourself, then I think you're in dodgy territory if you ask someone else to do it for you.

Do I care about the exploitation of Columbian coffee plantation workers, and their circumstances? Yes, and we can do something about it by drinking equitable coffee and saying no to coke.
09:30 AM on 10/31/2011
It's human nature to resist changing behaviour we find rewarding or pleasurable, even if the rational arguments are very strong. Unfortunately, it's also human nature to mask this self-interest from ourselves by generating rationalisations and even attacking those who tell us what we don't want to hear. And it's certainly human nature for these sychological tendencies to be exaggerated in the online realm.

It would be unwise for anyone to change their behaviour on the basis of a single article which cites facts and figures the reader hasn't verified. But to ignore the very striking claims in this piece would be to rationalise and let a very narrow and superficial form of selfishness ("I like eating animal products") determine your behaviour. Yes, I am a vegan and, like Mimi Bekhechi, I'm biased. But if you eat meat and dairy products, you're biased too. Wouldn't the smart and responsible thing be to recognise that, and also recognise that your bias is potentially causing a lot of harm in the world? And look into it?
02:37 PM on 10/30/2011
I did essay on this only a couple of months ago! Pretty much the same! How everyone should go Vegan if not just for the sake of animals but for the environment too! Although I can't say those who read it were that pleased.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
02:23 AM on 11/03/2011
Perhaps rather than not being "pleased," they weren't convinced, particularly since there's no real evidence that "going vegan" would actually confer the claimed environmental benefits -- not to mention the fact that the probability that the world actually would or even could "go vegan" is zero. Scenarios that have zero feasibility are not very useful.
02:01 PM on 10/30/2011
Advantages of humanity eating less meat : lower obesity and heart disease, longer lifespans, world hunger erased, environment saved.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
02:17 AM on 11/03/2011
Eating meat doesn't cause obesity or heart disease, nor will not eating meat ensure the end of world hunger or salvation of the environment.

Large meta-study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health shows there are no links between eating unprocessed meat, even red meat, and heart disease or obesity diabetes:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.full.pdf+html?sid=f2a23c9e-aae8-4bdf-9226-1104cafb008b

Agro-ecology, which employs both animal husbandry and crop cultivation, can "feed the world":
http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Sept10_Salatin.pdf
http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf

Well-managed rotational grazing confers environmental benefits:
http://vimeo.com/8239427.
01:20 PM on 10/30/2011
Plant-based diets are healthier. Also, I have a feeling that we are definitely going to have to return to the days of (plenty of people already do so) growing everything at home on our own land. I personally would like vegetables grown in soil that I know for a fact do not contain pesticides or carcinogens. On the rare occasion that I DO consume any meat, it will probably be organic free-range chicken or turkey. I am desperately trying to find farm-raised fish that is not imported directly from China. No offense, China.
12:57 PM on 10/30/2011
It is inredible how resistant our 'reptilian brain' is to the idea of not eating/killing animals despite of so many good arguments in favor of it. I guess anouther mental 'developmental leap' is requied for this notion to become accepted more widely.
12:02 PM on 10/30/2011
While there are environmental (and ethical) around eating meat it also appears that people enjoy meat-eating diets more than vegan diets - however, I think the real solution is to more accurately price meat with proper externality charges on water use and carbon emissions and with greater regulation of conditions - this would mean people would naturally shift to more vegetarian diets.
02:44 PM on 10/30/2011
I have to say this is a great idea! I love your thinking!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
11:33 PM on 10/30/2011
You think so? Rice fields aren't exactly environmentally friendly.
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
03:59 PM on 11/01/2011
Sure, why start with the number one cause of methane production, when you can go after the number seven cause instead? /sarc
06:39 PM on 11/01/2011
maybe not and under a proper system of externality pricing the price of rice would reflect this fact.
11:49 AM on 10/30/2011
Carnivores or herbivores are irrelevant. You, along with most other smarty-pants bore us with your numbers instead of showing real courage by calling out the problem instead of dancing around it: we have a population problem. It is time to reduce the numbers, not to continue babbling on about how we're going to feed future new comers. We need a serious plan(50-100yr plan!!) for reduction.
03:34 AM on 10/30/2011
those stubbornly opposing the reality of this situation.. u get just the same immature sarcastic comments as usual.. its so exhausting and frustrating.. so far removed from all the actual facts of the situation with juvenile exaggerated presumptions like 'we have to take care of all the funny little creatures' .. do you have the remotest understanding of ecosystems.. it will ultimately effect you as well whether you like it or not.. its like anyone threatened by their own insulated fat soaked comfort being disrupted cant face the reality they may have to change some things for the good of all
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
11:35 PM on 10/30/2011
There is a huge difference between throwing insults and actually facing reality. Lecturing about ecosystems while obviously having a fairy tale concept of them and garnishing that with insults isn't going to make you look particularly mature. Claiming it's good for ecosystems to terrace mountains and soak them in water is about as ignorant a claim as one can make.
12:29 AM on 10/31/2011
in what remote way is that concept a fairytale.. and you are right, i am reacting to those that deny the situation in that very way.. terrace mountains and soak them in water? i dont understand your reference. at least some of us are trying to face the world and its current state of exploitation and abuse of its animals with some decency, and to not partake in it. it may be a fairytale for now but it shouldnt be. humanity's general concept of itself is in some kind of superior state, that all things are expendable towards our own interests. this is extremely ignorant and disappointing and i hope for all our sakes it doesnt continue to have precedence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thrugreeneyez
10:42 PM on 10/29/2011
Excellent article! This is the truth and I only hope the human race can smarten up and face this reality!
11:08 AM on 10/31/2011
The reality is that the human race needs to stop having so many babies.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ringo3khan
04:57 PM on 10/31/2011
If this depends on the human race getting smarter; your doomed! Only the heavy hand of totalitarian authority could turn this around.
04:34 PM on 10/29/2011
The author's claims and conclusions are highly suspect. Since she is an animal rights activist, she obviously favors one side over the other. She has made many claims, offered many statitics yet provided NO proof as to their accuracy. In addition, offering only one solution to a global problem will almost certainly fail. You're not going to change the eating habits of 7 billion people over night, not even in fifty years. It would be a much better idea to offer many different solutions. One might be population control. China's one child per couple has kept their population about 300,000,000 less than it might have been today.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thrugreeneyez
10:44 PM on 10/29/2011
Who said we expect it to happen over night? Gradually decreasing demand for animal products and moving in this direction is indeed needed, not over night, but the sooner the better!
11:21 PM on 10/28/2011
Consumers have the right to know where their food comes from and how animals are treated before they reach their plates. Consumers can reject animal abuse by adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet. This is a good, short video to watch about this topic: MeatVideo.com. Or visit ChooseVeg.com for information on how to lead a more compassionate life.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
12:59 PM on 10/30/2011
or reject animal abuse by eating the meat of free range sustainably grown animals. i was a vegetarian/vegan for 30 years but since moving to ireland i realised that that is not the way to go for most regions of this planet.