Carnivore’s Dilemma. In Amarillo, Texas, a patty-forming machine at a Caviness Beef Packers plant (left) cranks out 24,000 half-pound hamburger patties an hour for the restaurant trade.
Individual Americans eat 40 percent less beef now than in the peak consumption year, 1976, but there are many more Americans. Today the United States remains the world’s largest consumer and producer of beef. If Isabella Bartol (far right) had her druthers, she’d eat a burger every day. Isabella, nine, prefers just ketchup on her cheeseburger; sister Betsy, four, puts everything on hers. At P. In Amarillo, Texas, a patty-forming machine at a Caviness Beef Packers plant (top) cranks out 24,000 half-pound hamburger patties an hour for the restaurant trade. By Robert Kunzig Photographs by Brian Finke Unhealthy. Should I Eat Meat - Feeding the Planet. Should I Eat Meat - Health Dilemma. The world pays too high a price for cheap meat. What’s your beef?
(Image: Mikael Andersson/Plainpicture) Health worries won’t curtail the growing global appetite for meat – perhaps environmental concerns will be more persuasive NOT long ago, a meal centred on meat was a rare treat. No longer. Most of us in the West now eat meat every day; many consume it at every meal. The problem, setting aside issues around the morality of eating animals, is that the planet cannot support this growing appetite. There is a strong case that meat is now too cheap, its price pushed down by ever more intensive farming practices. Is it possible to push the price back up? Persuasion may work better than coercion. Farmageddon - the true cost of cheap meat. ... a grounded, undiluted account of the machinations of the global food industry and its devastating affect on the lives of millions of sentient beings, including ourselves.
Whatever happened that led a great part of humankind to give the animal kingdom such a lowly status in the overall evolutionary pattern of life on Earth? How is it that we have subjected millions and millions of our animal cousins to concentration camp conditions so utterly abhorrent that to call their brief time on the planet 'living' would constitute a serious misnomer? Farmed fish could bring us cheaper food, but is it ethical? It is difficult to know which is moving faster: the debate around the ethics of farmed fish, or the growth in how much of it we are eating.
By 2030, aquaculture is predicted to account for 60% of fish destined for our plates and it’s already more than half. Its rapid growth has led some to predict its success in producing cheaper fish could rub off on the meat sector, giving us a more efficient, but not necessarily more ethical, form of protein. How much your meat addiction is hurting the planet. Less is more.
(Kiyoshi Ota/Bloomberg News) The environment doesn't appreciate our meat obsession. The average meat-eater in the U.S. is responsible for almost twice as much global warming as the average vegetarian, and close to three times that of the average vegan, according to a study (pdf) published this month in the journal Climatic Change. The study, which was carried out at Oxford University, surveyed the diets of some 60,000 individuals (more than 2,000 vegans, 15,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish-eaters, and nearly 30,000 meat-eaters). Heavy meat-eaters were defined as those who consume more than 3.5 ounces of meat per day—making the average American meat-eater (who consumes roughly four ounces per day) a heavy meat-eater.
The difference found in diet-driven carbon footprints was significant. The variations were so drastic that the study's authors suggested that countries should consider revising their definition of a sustainable diet. Roberto A. Meat Without Drugs. Denmark ethics council calls for tax on red meat to fight 'ethical problem' of climate change. Denmark is considering proposals to introduce a tax on red meat, after a government think tank came to the conclusion that “climate change is an ethical problem”.
The Danish Council of Ethics recommended an initial tax on beef, with a view to extending the regulation to all red meats in future. It said that in the long term, the tax should apply to all foods at varying levels depending on climate impact. The council voted in favour of the measures by an overwhelming majority, and the proposal will now be put forward for consideration by the government. In a press release, the ethics council said Denmark was under direct threat from climate change, and it was not enough to rely on the “ethical consumer” to ensure the country meets its UN commitments. “The Danish way of life is far from climate-sustainable, and if we are to live up to the Paris Agreement target of keeping the global temperature rise 'well' below 2°C, it is necessary both to act quickly and involve food,” the council said. Us versus them: Like India, meat divides people even in the US. Last week, Mumbai woke up to some startling news: the sale of meat would be banned for four days in the city out of respect for Paryushan Parva, a Jain festival marked by fasting and abstinence.
The announcement put Mumbai’s famously tortured relationship with animal protein squarely at the centre of public debate. Political activists reacted to the news by declaring that they would take a fattened goat to the chief minister’s house as a protest. A meat-free Turin? Is Italy’s first 'vegetarian city' a recipe for disaster? It’s midday, and the meat stalls in Turin’s open-air food market, Porta Palazzo, are crowded with customers browsing the beef, salami and prosciutto on offer.
Shopping for meat is an everyday ritual in the capital city of Piedmont, a region of Italy with a rich culinary history – but this could all be about to change. In the summer the new mayor Chiara Appendino – of the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) – announced plans to make Turin Italy’s first vegetarian city. The exact details of Appendino’s five-year plan have yet to be fleshed out, but the city is expected to set up educational projects in schools to teach students about animal welfare and nutrition. Veganism as a Minimum Standard of Decency. In discussions with non-vegans – particularly non-vegans on the Internet who are familiar with the assertions of both the vegan animal rights movement and the assertions of the countermovement – the issue of “drawing the line” is often raised as a sort of objection to veganism.
While it’s true that vegans avoid a lot of harm, so the argument goes, vegans also indirectly cause a lot of harm: animals are killed by crop harvesters and motor vehicles; natural and artificial pesticides are used in crop production; and often one cannot tell exactly what harm might have been done either to animals directly or to the environment in any given purchase, even at the local natural foods store or farmers’ market.
Since vegans haven’t achieved perfection of purity in the art of non-harming and non-violence, it is really only a matter of line-drawing, and until one achieves absolute perfection of purity, one has no business criticizing any other lines that might be drawn.