Becoming vegetarian 'can harm the environment'

[Liberal_in_LA]

Becoming vegetarian 'can harm the environment'
Adopting a vegetarian diet based around meat substitutes such as tofu can cause more damage to the environment, according to a new study.

By Nick Collins
Published: 7:33AM GMT 12 Feb 2010

An increase in vegetarianism could result in the collapse of British farming Photo: PA
It has often been claimed that avoiding red meat is beneficial to the environment, because it lowers emissions and less land is used to produce alternatives.

But a study by Cranfield University, commissioned by WWF, the environmental group, found a substantial number of meat substitutes – such as soy, chickpeas and lentils – were more harmful to the environment because they were imported into Britain from overseas.

The results showed that the amount of foreign land required to produce the substitute products – and the potential destruction of forests to make way for farmland – outweighed the negatives of rearing beef and lamb in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7219223/Becoming-vegetarian-can-harm-the-environment.html

[pitohui]

1. i wish everyone who eats soy was forced to spend just 48 hrs in a soy field

there is no cover, no wildlife, it is true agricultural desert that is just depressing beyond belief

if it doesn't drive you to suicide in the given time period you'll prob. die of heat exhaustion anyway

i don't know how anyone can look at what soy does to the land and claim there's anything kind or good about it

[MadHound]

13. Actually soybeans are good for the soil

They fix nitrogen and help revitalize the soil. Granted, the herbicides and pesticides that get sprayed on soybean fields is rather destructive, but the soy plant itself is actually quite beneficial. Now corn, there's a plant that's hard on the soil.

[HopeHoops]

25. That's why you rotate soy and corn fields. They are a great combination.

[superduperfarleft]

16. I lived next to a soybean field for four years.

There was plenty of wildlife. They switched every year to corn, then back again to soybeans.

And it should be noted that these soybeans were grown to feed the cattle that you people eat, not the tofu that I eat.

[formercia]

44. It takes more than a few pounds of soybeans to make a pound of Beef.

and cattle generate a lot of Methane and polluting waste.in the process.

[Stuckinthebush]

24. I weeded one for a summer in my teens

Whew that was hard work! And yes, the field was depressing.

But I'd agree with Madhound. They are actually pretty good for the soil and environment.

I just don't want to have to weed one ever again!

[DearAbby]

51. Used to walk bean fields as a teen

great way to earn money, and lots of sunshine.

[Stuckinthebush]

55. For a teenage summer job it paid well

But that sunshine didn't do me as much good over the course of a summer in the hot, East Georgian sun. My fair skin was always a bright red!

[Goldstein1984]

47. Well, I'll pick a sunny day in a soy field over a sunny day...

in a cattle feedlot any day.

I have stood in a soy field, in Nebraska. As the other post says, soy is a legume, and they condition the soil by fixing nitrogen. Corn farmers often rotate fields with soy for just that reason.

[Warpy]

2. Whaaaa?

Importing soybeans and chickpeas instead of letting cattle destroy grassland, fart tons of methane, and eat corn that could be used for human consumption is harming the environment? On which planet is that?

Damn, there's no loony like a loony trying to justify his prejudices by twisting everything around and getting it completely wrong in the process.

Tofu and chickpeas aren't for everybody, but neither is beef. Beef is extremely expensive to produce and arguably grain feeding is the worst way to try to produce protein foodstuff. However, grass feeding and rotating range land would lessen the negative impact.

Unfortunately for this loon, that's not being done yet on a large scale, here or in Britain.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

32. Western range beef is arguably positive.

Range beef in the western US is arguably a net benefit to the environment, in addition to not competing for farmed grain.

Cattle are an important part of the western ecosystem. They fill the critical niche that bison used to fill and create habitat for many species. Since some methane-producing animal will be required to keep that ecology stable, something we presumably want to do, it doesn't really matter too much which critter it is.

[Warpy]

36. The operative word is "range."

As long as the beef is grass fed and not "finished" by giving them unnatural foodstuff in stinking "finishing pens," then they are a net gain. I agree with you there. However, factory farming beef is arguably one of the more destructive ways to create protein, both for environmental damage and for foodstuffs consumed which should be used elsewhere. The resulting fatty meat is killing us, too.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

39. The silly thing is that it would not require much sacrifice

A fairly significant percentage of US beef cattle are range-raised, and we export a moderate percentage of what we produce.

Moving to a sustainable grass range beef model would not be the end of the world for consumers. They would have to cut back or diversify their protein (say, sheep) but it is not like they would have to cut out beef altogether. From my perspective, this is a sensible middle ground.

[LeftyMom]

3. And those domestic farmed animals eat... imported plant matter.

You can't have a skillion people on an island with a marginal climate for farming without importing a fair share of your food. No matter what they eat.

[DCBob]

14. No they dont...

They eat grass, hay and grain that are grown locally. Not defending the article but just trying to keep facts straight.

[superduperfarleft]

17. And soybeans. Don't forget that they eat soybeans. n/t

[DCBob]

21. It depends on the feed... there are many types of protein supplements..

Soybean is just one type. I an sure British farmers use the least expensive option which would be a locally grown protein supplement.

[superduperfarleft]

22. That could be true, I wasn't thinking of the UK angle.

I have no idea what UK farmers feed their cattle, but then again, I can't imagine that all the soybeans in the UK have to be imported, especially the kind that are fed to cattle.

[DCBob]

23. I dont know either for sure just saying I am sure they use the cheapest alternative..

and that would be locally grown and locally available.

[LeftyMom]

29. Very few farmed animals subsist only on local plant matter.

Welcome to industrial agriculture.

[DCBob]

30. Animal feed is not imported, industrial or otherwise

welcome to reality.

[LeftyMom]

31. Not on any great scale in the US. But the article is about the UK,

and theirs certainly is.

[DCBob]

33. I find that hard to believe but seems you are right. I just did a quick Google search..

It certainly would not happen here in the US. Sorry for the confusion. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. About 25% of British animal feedstuff is imported

From a report on which I think the main one draws (the author is one of the team that produced the one quoted in the article):

Drawing on the data provided by Williams, Audsley and Sandars (2006), it is estimated that
livestock products consumed in the UK embody about 23 million tonnes of concentrate
feedstuffs. About 18 million tonnes of this supports UK livestock production, and 5 million
tonnes is embedded in imported livestock products. Imports of livestock products are dominated
by products from near neighbouring countries, with agricultural production systems similar to the
UK, so UK data on concentrate feed inputs can be applied. The UK imports about 5 million
tonnes of animal feedstuffs. This trade is dominated by net imports of about 1.6 million tonnes
of soy meal, 0.8 million tonnes of soybeans and 1.3 million tonnes of maize. The remaining
fraction is dominated by co-products, principally meal of rapeseed (ca 135,000 tonnes), meal of
other oilseeds (1.2 million tonnes), and citrus pulp (273,000 tonnes). Maize imports have a
slight downward trend, while soy imports have increased by nearly 50% since 1990.

http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/environmentalimpacts_ukfoodconsumption.pdf

[Cleita]

4. BS.

I was a vegetarian for twenty years and even now only eat animal products very little on doctor's orders. For one thing tofu isn't the only thing you eat. As a matter of fact even Asians eat it sparingly because of its richness. I mostly ate food that I liked that I grew up on, corn, potatoes, tomatoes and beans. Bread did become a very important part of my diet and wheat is a really big crop here in the USA even among non-vegetarians. Tofu is made from soybeans and soy is grown all over the world for a variety of uses not just tofu. I agree forests should not be destroyed to grow crops. I saw forests cleared in Idaho and Montana to grow hay to feed cattle so let's get some perspective here. Also, beans are beans. You don't have to eat lentils and chickpeas. Ordinary peas, red beans and white beans that we are used to eating do nicely.

[flvegan]

5. Interesting way to spin the "study"

And anything veg-related from a shitass group like the sealing/hunting/culling supporting "environmental" group like the WWF gets laughable attention from me.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Seems like a lot of factors

were not controlled.

So no forests are destroyed in the production of meet? Is this specific to just Britain? What if you don't eat soy?

I'm sure the vegetarian haters will be out in force.

[PDJane]

8. I don't hate vegetarians,

But I am going to point out that the major destructiveness of eating meat has to do with feedlots and factory farming.

The bovine is the most amazingly benign animal on the planet, providing it's free-range, or fed on grass or hay. They turn roughage into protein, they give milk and cheese and cream...and their excrement can be used for fertilizer.

The problem with meat is the way we feed and confine and then need to give the animals various chemicals and antibiotics, not the animals themselves.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Don't over look resource usage

It takes a great deal more resources to create a pound of protein from cattle than it does legumes (or fish for that matter).

[PDJane]

26. It does, yes.

What I'm pointing out, however, is that cattle can eat almost anything that contains roughage and do well; they've been fed things like the leavings of cocoa processing, corn stalks, and paper products. Generally, the best thing to feed them is somehting green and organic without any kind of protein.....they don't need to eat grains. It makes them fat and it's unhealthy. They do not have the system for properly digesting protein, which is where a lot of the flatulence comes from, too.

The biggest resource they consume is water. Their waste can be used for various things. Bovines are a benign and useful beast. Ditto with chickens, and free range chickens are pretty benign too. The biggest problem with these things is the amount we consume and the things we do to them between birth and table.

[azul]

7. WWF, commissioned by Exxon? Implausible deniability?

"But a study by Cranfield University, commissioned by WWF"



But but but, driving cool cars and eating tasty meats are the signs and rewards of success, ...and the behaviors that cause extinctions of my friends in the animal and plant kingdoms? I'm so mixed-up when I can't explain it to myself! Now comes Miller time.

[KonaKane]

9. Phew. I can still be a carnivore, thanks the gods.

[uppityperson]

45. If you are a carnivore, do you really eat NO fruits or veggies?

omnivores do.

[KonaKane]

56. Sure I do. You're right, "omnivore" would have been a better choice.

thanks.

[ThomWV]

11. absurd

[MadHound]

12. Gee, being human has an impact on the environment, who'd uh thunk it?

The problem isn't who eats what, but just the sheer number of people that this planet is supporting. We need to drastically cut our population, but sadly that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[sendero]

15. More junk science...

... no doubt paid for by folks with an agenda.

[DCBob]

18. As if...

there were millions contemplating becoming vegetarian. Dumb.

[superduperfarleft]

19. Chickpeas and lentils are meat substitutes?

What a stupid article.

I guess this is the new anti-vegan meme that the fundie carnivores will harp on for a few weeks, like the soy gives you boobs crap a few years ago. I can't wait until this one blows over and they can go back to making unfunny and unoriginal People for the Eating of Tasty Animals comments.

[csziggy]

54. Yeah, I was wondering how they only mentioned processed vegetarian proteins in the article

And ignored the alternatives to highly processed meat substitutes. I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't believe this article or study are very solid in their reasoning.

[Tim01]

20. Become a hunter. nt

[mitchum]

27. This will be very entertaining

[heli]

28. Sounds like the other famous British claim about vaccines causing autism

[Blue-Jay]

34. I wish people would keep their noses out of what I choose to eat.

(no, I'm not a vegetarian)

[upi402]

35. Horseshit

and you can add some bullshit as well

[rucky]

38. That's bad for the environment, too.

I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

[Odin2005]

37. There are many areas on the high plains that are better for ranching than farming.

The drier a place is the more energy-intensive irrigation and environmentally-damaging practices is needed to farm profitably. On the other hand with ranching you just need the naturally-growing grass.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. a) in the UK; b) tofu etc. vs. meat, not 'vegetarian'; link here

http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_low_can_we_go.pdf

Things to note:

This is the Telegraph, a RW paper that frequently runs dodgy stories about global warming, re-wording a Times article (The Times is also RW, but more balanced on global warming). Here's the Times article - note they get the headline right, for instance:

Tofu can harm environment more than meat, finds WWF study

Becoming a vegetarian can do more harm to the environment than continuing to eat red meat, according to a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu.

The findings undermine claims by vegetarians that giving up meat automatically results in lower emissions and that less land is needed to produce food.

The study by Cranfield University, commissioned by the environmental group WWF, found that many meat substitutes were produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that were grown overseas and imported into Britain.

It found that switching from beef and lamb reared in Britain to meat substitutes would result in more foreign land being cultivated and raise the risk of forests being destroyed to create farmland. Meat substitutes also tended to be highly processed and involved energy-intensive production methods.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7023809.ece

Now, here's the bit of the report (it's big; if you have an old, low memory computer like mine, you may find it going slow) that is being quoted:

A vegetarian diet (with dairy and eggs), a 66% reduction in livestock product consumption, and
the adoption of technology to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soils and methane from
ruminants are measures that each haves the potential to reduce direct supply chain emissions
by 15 - 20%. Modifying consumption has a particularly important role to play and consumption
measures offer opportunities for reductions that could be implemented in the near future. In
addition, consumption measures align with other public policies, particularly health. A switch
from red to white meat will reduce supply chain emissions by 9% but this would increase our
reliance on imported soy meal substantially. Our analysis indicates that the effect of a reduction
in livestock product consumption on arable land use (which is a critical component of the link
with deforestation) will depend on how consumers compensate for lower intakes of meat, eggs
and dairy products. A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues
such as tofu and Quorn could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the
UK. In contrast, a broad-based switch to plant based products through simply increasing the
intake of cereals and vegetables is more sustainable. We estimate that a 50% reduction in
livestock production consumption would release about 1.6 Mha of arable land (based on the
yield of crops supplying the UK) used for livestock feed production. This would be off-set by an
increase of about 1.0 M ha in arable land needed for direct crop consumption (based on UK
yields). In addition to the release of arable land, between 5 and 10 Mha of permanent grassland
would be available for extensification, other uses, or re-wilding. Such changes would open up
‘game-changing’ opportunities but there needs to be careful assessment made in the
development policy if unintended consequences are to be avoided. A contraction in the
livestock sector that might follow a significant change in consumption could trigger a collapse of
livestock production in the UK. The consequences for the emissions from the UK food chain
would then depend on developments elsewhere. Completely unregulated, such a collapse could
reinforce expansion in low cost exporting countries, even adding to forces driving land use
change.

So notice that this is specifically about tofu, Quorn and other products; and that it explicitly says a more general switch to a vegetarian diet is a good thing (there's a lot more, but it's slowing my computer so much I can't copy more at the moment). And notice it's all about what changes in the UK (it's not just diet; farming methods, retailing and a lot more is looked at) can be useful; so things like the amount of imported food and the cost of importing it are part of the equation.

[Liberal_in_LA]

43. Thanks for the additional info

[Blue_Tires]

57. thanks....i knew that headline was a LONG stretch

[Codeine]

41. The Torygraph.

:rofl: Come on now!

[pipi_k]

42. Imaginary food...good for you...good for the environment too....

and it's FREE!


:7

[JoeyT]

46. Of course the least environmentally destructive mass source of protien

is probably going to be something along the lines of worms or insects.

[flvegan]

52. I'd guess it was probably hemp.

[JoeyT]

59. Good point.

Though I'm not sure how usable the protein in hemp is or how much there is.

[NNN0LHI]

48. I just can't see how giving animals medical treatment could hurt the environment

Something is fishy here.

Don

[diane in sf]

53. look up the use of antibiotics on livestock and the corresponding rise of antibiotic resistant germs

[blueworld]

49. So basically the problem is that the UK doesn't have enough land to produce food

I'm sooooo tired of these ridiculous, conflicting studies. People are here on the planet. People have the annoying addiction of needing food & water several times per day. Not many countries on earth have the resources to independently support the populations that live within although the large populations are usually related to taxes paid.

God forbid we actually trade for food items with countries that DO have the real estate. That makes us "dependent" and therefore we should declare war & steal the resources we need. What is the matter with these idiots & why do they keep getting funding that could pay for freakin' food????

[Warren DeMontague]

58. No one should eat anything, ever. No one should watch super bowl commercials. No one should fuck.

No one should reproduce.

In fact, the only two environmentally sound activities a human can engage in are death and lecturing other people on what they shouldn't do, but not necessarily in that order.

[upi402]

60. Dumbasses! They would NOT have to import veggies if they stopped cattle ranching

Geez. What kind of rope smokers did this study at Cranfield University? Does WWF want it's money back? Couple this bullshit with the phony corporate studies, paid for by big agra, and Obama's anti-organic team will warm this lone planet with life up quite nicely!

[Tailormyst]

61. This is as stupid and offensive as posts claiming the meat eaters are to blame.