Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Web-exclusive comment

Care about the environment? Eat less meat

PETER FRICKER

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 1:36 AM EST 23/01/08

Cutting down or cutting out meat is a win-win-win policy. It's just too bad so many people are afraid to talk about it ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Daniel Grice from Vancouver, Canada writes: I agree with the article.

    We're don't have enough grazing land for 5 billion people to eat a steak a day and its not hard to moderate our diets to eat a few less meat dishes a week.

    Its healthier for you, and frankly, the less meat people eat, the better quality meat you will probably get. I've founds some great curry and tofu recipes, but I will still east a Turkey on Thanksgiving, or pizza once in awhile. No one is trying to moralize, but everything is better in moderation.

    Dan Grice,
    Vancouver Quadra Green Party Candidate.
  2. Billy Bob from Saskatchewan from Canada writes: After discussing this article with my wife we concluded that there would be even less green house gases if we just got rid of the people fueling the demand for the bovine industry. Perhaps a meteor or something is about due to cull the herd so to speak.
  3. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Not eating meat makes a lot of sense to me, but then I'm cursed with a logical mind. Most people get hysterical when they have to change their lifestyle one tiny bit and will endlessly defend their 'right' not to wear seat belts or helmets, their 'right' to eat McDonald's everyday without getting fat, their 'right' not to recycle, their 'right' to drive their cars everywhere, etc. There is so little sense of personal responsibility and community that I am doubtful that a critical mass will ever reduce their meat intake. I also don't know how change could ever be instituted to reduce individual meat intake since eating whatever one wants in whatever quantities one wants is something that the fattest couch potatoes will rise out of their lazy boys to fight for. Perhaps the cost of meat could reflect the 'actual' cost in terms of environmental degradation and higher medical bills?
  4. Caitlin Smith from Canada writes: The Agriculture Industry plays a major role in every country around the world. Here in Canada the Agriculture industry employs over 2 million people. Cutting back on eating meat is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. That will solve nothing. There are so many ways that the greenhouse effect can be reduced, and cutting back meat will not solve anything. The Agriculture Industry does so much for everyone, and farmers are trying everyday to discover new ways to improve their way of life and farming in order to become more desirable in the public's eyes. If we were to cut back on eating meat, we might as well cut back on the amount of corn being farmed, which today is being more and more used in the bio fuel industry, because then we wouldn't use as many tractors, which emit tons of emmisions. There are so many things that we can do to save the environment, and I am certainly all for that, cutting back on the amount of gas and travelling I do/use, and turning off/unplugging my appliances when not in use, but something such as cutting back on the meat I eat will certainly not be something I will commit to. Growing up on a farm has taught me so much, lessons of hardships and turmoil, lessons which I would have never been able to learn of I were to have grown up as a 'city kid.' People in the cities do not realize how important the agriculture industry is to them, and one day if the criticism of farmers is to continue, farmers may disappear entirely. What would happen then?
  5. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Daniel Grice: thank you - well-reasoned and nicely put.

    Billy Bob from Saskatchewan: People like you are the majority so you win. Eat as much meat as you want, drive your car everywhere and we will pay for all the roads to be widened until our cities are ugly, don't bother recycling, don't bother trying to make your home use less energy, don't take any environmental problems seriously... You aren't breaking any laws and I'm sure, by your logic, your lifestyle is not affecting anyone.
  6. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Caitlin Smith: Do you think that every tree in Canada should be logged in order to provide jobs for the maximum number of people involved in the forest industry? Your argument is poorly reasoned and simplistic. The agriculture industry is far more complicated than you make it out to be. When you say the 'Agriculture Industry does so much for everyone', do you mean that it has destroyed many small family farms? Do you mean that it engages in monocropping, a practice that destroys animal diversity, depletes the soil and increases dependency on pesticides? Do you mean that it allows fertilizer to contaminate groundwater, lakes and rivers?
    .
    While I believe that Big Agriculture and the cattle industry are only part of the problem, I think it needs to be acknowledged that there is room for improvement in how these industries are run.
  7. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: Meat is yummy. Cereals taste like wood. More religion....hiding in bad nutrition.
  8. Diane Mc from Canada writes: Vegan Outreach has recipes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_Outreach

    Also: http://www.vegcooking.com/

    Yes, it's me, as someone characterized me before, sitting on my futon eating celery sticks ;-)

    Actually I'm sitting in my home office after a day of many meetings and various work tasks, eating vegan apple crumble with soy milk.

    It would be fine with me if all feedlots and veal ops and pig farms and
    chicken raising operations disappeared. Less torture on the planet.

    Please consider making some changes, for the animals who live horrible lives as objects living under intolerable conditions on factory farms, for yourself and your own health, and for the planet.
  9. B Mac from Roachvale, Canada writes: I absolutely agree. Time we did away with the 'sacred cow ' of the meat business. Dairy too. We are porking ourselves to death.
  10. Mia Culpa from Togo writes:
    Kill two birds with one stone ---- eat more humans. Get your meat and help with population control. It's win - win, just do it.

    Solyent Green
     
  11. Gord Addison from Squamish, BC, Canada writes: Darn - and just 4 days ago the Globe and Mail was telling me to eat more protein so that I would not be so hungry.

    How protein fends off hunger:

    theglobeandmail.com

    What to eat? What to eat?

  12. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Dumbest article, yet.

    Absolutely nothing new as it was discussed thirty years ago by the like of Adele Davis, by the way what happened to her?

    Yes, yes, hormones, antibiotics, crowded conditions, meat bad.

    What about Argentina world famous for beef, mandated maximum cattle per acre, no chemicals, organic farming, huge honking meat grills for lunch ... fabulous. It can be done without leading a monastic life of flagellation.

    Can't wait to cook up some lamb shanks I bought at Granville Island, drove there in my car(I buy my gas in the USA) because the transit is so long my meat would have spoiled, lovely tomato sauce to simmer some beans and garbanzos while I watch my plasma TV.

    Enjoy the self-denial.

    Your not eating meat keeps the price low for me.

  13. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Well, if by eat less meat I stop eating fast food burgers, etc, already done. But I doubt I'll stop drinking milk, eating eggs, chicken breast etc...
  14. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Now it's Big Agriculture, yesterday it was BIG Oil, and tomorrow it will be.... BIG GREEN: Al Gore's group is spending $100 million for ONE ad campaign next month... but that I guess is Big OK... LOL
  15. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: I can see the animal treatment argument. I could even, if I stretch the logic a bit, see the healthier eating argument. The methane thing is simply ludicrous, even if there were a baseline of measurement to use the data would be wholly unreliable.

    I have yet to see a practical sized vehicle that is dramatically more fuel-efficient than the average sedan.

    I have yet to see a meaningful energy and water conservation strategy in this country.

    Perhaps most important to this article, I have yet to see a vegan who didn't use their own lifestyle choice as a weapon to be used against 'lesser' people.

    If true believers want to know why others aren't catching on.... trust me, it's because you act like jerks and nobody wants to listen to a self-righteous jerk. Oh... also... pretty much anything tofu has the texture (if, sadly, not the taste) of congealed bacon fat... and don't even get me started on soy 'milk'.
  16. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: Already the predictions are coming true. People tie themselves up in knots over this: all that is being suggested is that we cut back a bit for the planet and for ourselves. A varied diet with meat in its proper place, with other protein sources considered. So calm down. Some of these comments remind my of Lisa on the Simpsons: when she turned vegetarian, Homer's buddies at the barbecue yelled 'Go back to Russia!'. Some people sense insurrection at the very suggestion of a little less cow on our collective plates. Ridiculous over-reaction.

    Since someone asked, Adelle Davis died of bone cancer. If you think she was a vegetarian, you are mistaken: she was concerned that people received adequate protein and believed animals to be a good source. Quite irrelevant here.
  17. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada

    Hey, I happen to like soy milk better than cows milk, alone that is. I still prefer cows milk in my coffee. And regarding tofu, it really depends on how it's made. Tofu can be amazing, especially in Chinese cuisine.
  18. Billy Bob from Saskatchewan from Canada writes: Actually Beth we were serious :). By the way - your baseless assumptions of our lifestyle choices and the way you attribute characteristics regarding how we see our responsibilities for this planet and our place among those who share it with us only exposes your own high level of personal ignorance.

    I think Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes had it right on this one.
  19. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Adele Davis preached a varied protein diet and cited a reduced dependence on red meat for all the reasons cited in the article.

    I know, we raised my sons on her diet book. Various broths in the fridge to add to meals prepared from home grown veggies and selected meats (liver was one of her favourites). Grew up healthy, strong and serious carnivores.

    No more tofu for them.

    Quite relevant Alex, if you were getting sufficient fatty acids to aid cognitive ability.

    I use ground hemp and flax, and cod liver oil.... might help you to have a regular BM.
  20. Pat Gesner from Canada writes: So anyone who studies biology knows that. No great revelation. just like everyone can figure out not recycling produces a lot of litter. Just like anyone looking at what people should eat for opimal health knows that it means less meat and fat than the Canadian norm. So the solution is to figure out how to tissue culturing meat ? Haveing people limited to two children would work to to lessen human's degradation on the enviroment. No meat, no sex- lovely life for our great grandchildren.
  21. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Larry Robinson and Jean Malice: I'm sure that you will be able to enjoy your denial for the rest of your life. I'm not so sure your kids or grandkids will.
    .
    Obviously the way we do things and the way we eat is not sustainable. Either we volunteer to make some changes now, or we are forced to make them later.
  22. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Bess T --- Leave lala land, home of my sons, brothers and parents, and take a little drive through the North American Great Plains.

    Yes, agriculture is booming but the activity is for biofuel not cows, pigs and sheep. The huge growth of biofuel crops requires such a quantity of chemical inputs that Agrium, Mosaic and Sask Potash doubled to quintupled their share prices last year (present meltdown excepted), and the hydrocarbon burning equipment required to farm has driven John Deere shares up by triple.

    Then, of course, there is the inconvenient truth of the decimation of South American forest for biofuel crops.

    Yes, food cropping is a concern because the prices of food crops including livestock feed will go up dictated by the profit margin for biofuel (it's subsidized).

    Now the IPCC never does a carbon accounting of this whole process of farming, transportation, processing, and transportation again but let's worry about cows passing gas.

    Nice place, the Island, but as I tell my family ... you're in lala land.
  23. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Larry Robinson: I am from Victoria but I live in Southeast Asia and have for the last 6 years. I am opposed to biofuel based on the destruction (and potential destruction) I have seen of the region's jungle. Funny you think you are keepin' it real in Whiterock, Suburb by the Sea. I invite you to spend time in a squatter settlement in a Southeast Asian mega-city, to visit jungle destroyed by fires set by corporations who want to clear the land for palm plantations, to experience real pollution and real poverty....and also the many incredible language and cultures - very humbling and eye-opening. You might actually find you will learn more here than living in Whiterock!
    .
    Reducing our individual meat intake is one small thing we can do but obviously needs to be part of a complex, multi-tiered strategy from the individual level up to the national and international levels.
  24. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Larry Robinson: I am from Victoria but I live in Southeast Asia and have for the last 6 years. I am opposed to biofuel based on the destruction (and potential destruction) I have seen of the region's jungle. Funny you think you are keepin' it real in Whiterock, Suburb by the Sea. I invite you to spend time in a squatter settlement in a Southeast Asian mega-city, to visit jungle destroyed by fires set by corporations who want to clear the land for palm plantations, to experience real pollution and real poverty....and also the many incredible language and cultures - very humbling and eye-opening. You might actually find you will learn more here than living in Whiterock!
    .
    Reducing our individual meat intake is one small thing we can do but obviously needs to be part of a complex, multi-tiered strategy from the individual level up to the national and international levels.
  25. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: C K from VANCOUVER: What a horrible set of social interactions you have had! It sounds as if you are badly scarred.

    I'm not quite sure why you need to paint the world in black and white when most of us are varied shades of grey. Why generalize about all vegans or vegetarians or omnivores or carnivores? Who cares? I have friends from all of these groups and we all get along fine. Of course there are some pushy and obnoxious meat eaters as well as some pushy and obnoxious vegetarians.

    I don't mean to point out the obvious, but humans are all so different. Some dedicated meat eaters take public transit or bicycke, like yourself. Some vegans drive SUVs and leather jackets.

    I hope you meet some friends with different eating habits from your own so you can begin to build up a trust of people different from you, rather than presenting silly and offensive caricatures.
  26. Kevin Chew from Germany writes: Stop. Take a deep breath. Re-read the article.

    Does it say that everyone should cut their consumption of meat by 100%?

    Does it say? that everyone should become vegetarian/vegan?

    Furthermore, does it even make the claim anywhere in the article that it is the methane produced by the animals themselves that is the main problem? Although this article unfortunately does not explicitly state this, it is the carbon intensity of the production process as a whole that Pachauri criticizes:

    'Studies have shown that producing one kilo (2.2 pounds) of meat causes the emissions equivalent of 36.4 kilos of carbon dioxide.

    In addition, raising and transporting that slab of beef, lamb or pork requires the same amount of energy as lighting a 100-watt bulb for nearly three weeks.' (Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080115/scafp/climatewarmingipccpachauri080115200418)

    Would you be flying off the handle if you were being asked to switch off your lights more often, or to use energy-saving bulbs instead of incandescents?
  27. David C from Canada writes: They came first for the incandescent light bulbs, and I didn't speak up because the expensive flourscent ones were supposed to last 5 years (they dont)

    And then they came for my rock solid but inefficient 25 year old furnace, and I didn't speak up because they said I would make my money back in 10-15 years (they didn't tell me the new ones are built to last about 9 years)

    And then they came for the SUV's, and I didn't speak up because I drive a Jetta TDI (and run it on cooking oil to pacify the environmentalists)

    And then ... they came for my MEAT ... and I can't stop them because I'm sitting at home in the cold and dark, and I don't have any cooking oil to fry it up in anyway.
  28. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: As a philosophy prof used to admonish, C K from Vancouver, if you're looking for an absolute, join the Nazis.

    It's no shame being poor, just bloody inconvenient, but old, poor and sick must be quite a bummer.

    Meantime, enjoy yourself, its later than you think. Cheers
  29. Sandra Gordon from Sweden writes: I don't have much of a problem with decreasing my meat intake a bit.. but I have to wonder. That soya hot dog.. did someone burn down a bit of Brazilian rainforest to grow the beans.. and then they had to ship it somewhere up north (freight shipping being even more carbon producing than flying the same distance) where it was processed.. making more carbon emissions.. and then shipped to my store.

    While the health benifits are clear, for those of us in northern climates (where soya does not grow), is passing on the locally produced steak and picking a tofu something really decreasing our carbon footprint??

    That is the data I would like to see.. what is the carbon footprint of the fake meat alturnatives that many of us (and the v/v crowd) eat instead of that nice yummy juicy burger??
  30. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: Sandra Gordon from Sweden writes: ...While the health benifits are clear, for those of us in northern climates (where soya does not grow)...
    -------------------------------------------

    I see fields of soya when I drive around Ontario in the summertime. Sweden is barely north. The soil is key: loose clay is best.

    Check out: Ontario Soybean growers, established 1949, at www.soybean.on.ca.
  31. g chan from Canada writes: Watching people weighed under by jelly-like blubber grossed me out so I halved my meat intake even though I love meat and I felt I didn't need to diet. Lo and behold, lost 15 lbs ... from 185 to 170 and feeling 100% better and at 71 picked up new sport ... snowboarding! And hey!!! ...
    I'm going to use my meat carbon credit to travel ... I'm going to look great in a Speedo tanned in Dominican Replublic! Bye bye fat, hello sun!!!
    Fait Lux
  32. Art Koop from Calgary, Canada writes: My one concern about this article is that it focuses on what may be the less important aspect of producing meat - rather than on how much water and land it takes to produce protein from meat, rather than grain.

    North Americans use as much water for raising animals for meat as they do for any other purpose. And... we are running out of water. It amazes me that we have heard so much about reservoirs drying up in cities and towns across North America, and yet this issue seems to be lost on us. No water = no plants (if you want to talk about greenhouse gas emissions, consider what happens if there is no 'green' to soak up that CO2); and more immediately, no water = no people.

    The tone of the article seemed to bring us back to the old 'cow farts' suggestions of days gone by, when really this issue is far more complex and significant than the production of methane and being nice to moo-moos.
  33. Iron Will from Montreal, Canada writes: Last week, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nation's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, asked the world to 'please eat less meat.'
    ============================================

    Clearly Al Gore is not on board!
  34. Murray Braithwaite from Canada writes: So the vegetarian IPCC chairman and a director of the Vancouver Humane Society tell us to eat less meat--no hidden agenda here--it is plain for all to see.

    Most people eat meat because, for most people, the taste and texture are very satisfying to them. Chewing and savouring a well-aged cut of steak cooked au point, for example, releases a rush of primal satisfaction, as when scoring a goal in sports. The more politically astute environmentalists recognize anti-meat campaigns will undermine any political momentum concerning global warming.

    As for diet, nutritional science is so poor as yet that no reliable conclusions should be made. A study published two weeks ago (SUNY Medical), for example, compared people who on low carbohydrate (30% protein, 4% carbohydrates, 66% fat) and low fat diets, all of whom ate in a controlled setting. (The people ate meals prepared for the study at the lab; this was not one of those unreliable self-reporting studies.) Blood tests showed the bloodstream triglycerides and saturated fats significantly higher in the low fat group, due to carbohydrate lipogenesis.

    Concerns about raising animals for food and global warming would be more usefully directed toward engineering more environmentally beneficial methods. Often, this results in better meat and dairy products anyway. That would be win-win-win.
  35. the canadian friend from Romania writes: I love eating meat. I love a b-b-q steak, pork chops or an italian hoagie stuffed with genoa salami and prosciutto. At the same time, however, I realize that eating a lot of meat is bad for me and bad for the environment. So I applied common sense, I cut down on the amount of meat I ingest. No big deal, no big sacrifice, it's easy if you take it one step at a time. If you're used to having meat at every dinner, start by having one dinner a week with no meat. If your meat of choice is beef, substitute chicken or fish, or beans. Once you get started, it's pretty easy to continue gradually reducing the amount of meat you ingest. Now, I look forward to and enjoy the relatively rare occasions when I have beef for dinner, but I don't miss it on the nights I'm enjoying fish, or chicken, or an entirely meat-free meal. The results? A trimmer physique, better digestion, healthier cardio-vascular system, lower grocery bills and a feeling of self-satisfaction from knowing I'm trimmer, healthier and reducing the damage I cause to the environment.
  36. Al Suba from Trenton, Canada writes: All good stuff - if you believe 1) that CO2 has something to do with the climate, 2) that the IPCC is something more credible than a bunch of political activists, and 3) in the tooth fairy. What are you going to do when the earth starts to cool off, tell me to eat more baby beef liver?
  37. dean spence from bright old city, ontario, Canada writes: We're not afraid to talk about it, Peter, but most of us know it's silly.
  38. Richard Beck from Belgium writes: There are many ways to get people to eat less meat:

    - use carbon credits to force the full cost of farming onto the consumer. An increase in meat prices will mean a decrease in consumption.

    - educate the population on the bad health side-effects of meat (many still think it's necessary for a healthy diet)

    - show people how they can eat really well without meat - there are many many vegetarian and vegan dishes that just taste sooo good. Of course I'm not talking about soya based substitutes here which are horrible.

    If government were to take responsibility for these points (or at least the first) a lot of headway could be made.
  39. lynn H from Canada writes: So farmed meat is bad for the environment. The government should promote hunting. Promotes exercise, is a local, affordable ,chemical free meat and results in at least two less C02 producing animals (one less deer and one less cow ). I wonder if hunters can qualify for carbon offsets. Save the planet - eat venison :)
  40. Jim OKeefe from Toronto, Canada writes: Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Not eating meat makes a lot of sense to me, but then I'm cursed with a logical mind. - Not the descriptor I would use Bess. Our bodies, biologically speaking, are geared to a diet high in protein. Although the 20 essential amino acids can also be found in certain legumes, esp the man-made mush that is tofu (yes I've used, eaten and liked it), these self same ingredients are not native to our climate, meaning that they are shipped here, with all the cost and carbon footprint that that implies. All this is is the old farting cow story all over again. What about the hundreds of millions of Buffalo (bison) and Caribou that roamed over North America 200 years ago? The problem is the people. 5 billion people (the Catholic Church says mother Earth can support 80 bill), probably closer to 6 are taxing the ability of food production, esp. if/and/or/when we start 'growing' our own fuel.
  41. Jim OKeefe from Toronto, Canada writes: It's beginning to seem that to some people CO2, carbon dioxide, is and evil thing in its own right and we should do our best to eradicate it. There's a growing knee jerk thing to anything that produces it. Wipe it out and you know what you get? A dead planet. As for the livestock, a lot of what they produce is methane, esp cattle. A gradual shift to other livestock would help, but Bison & Caribou aren't domesticated, and don't grow anywhere near as fast as cattle.
  42. Bill H from London, Canada writes: Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Billy Bob from Saskatchewan: People like you are the majority so you win. Eat as much meat as you want, drive your car everywhere and we will pay for all the roads to be widened until our cities are ugly, don't bother recycling, don't bother trying to make your home use less energy, don't take any environmental problems seriously... You aren't breaking any laws and I'm sure, by your logic, your lifestyle is not affecting anyone.

    The irrational extrapolations of a typical fanatic. What in God's name does eating meat have to do with making your home more energy efficient, recycling, driving a fuel-eficient car etc. etc.?
  43. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: What idiocy.

    Take a look in the mirror. Close-set eyes. Incisors. Eat meat like nature intended you to.

    Less hot air from the UN would help.
  44. Jim Rock from Punky Doodle Corners, Canada writes: Actually we have cut back our consumption of commercial prison farm meat to a very low level. The answer is to turn to wild meat. In effect return to a hunter-gather style of living. Wild meat has not been shot full of growth hormones and antibiotics, been fed dead animal parts and the quality and taste are far superior. Compare a commercial turkey that has never seen the light of day with a wild turkey and you'd never buy another turkey raised in a turkey prison. And to top it off you're helping the farmers who are trying to grow our fuel but are over run with a plague of wild life devouring out ethanol. Yes it's a win-win-win situation.
  45. Sam Reda from Capital, Canada writes: Here is a prime example of North American over-indulgence. We are no doubt the primary meat consumers on earth (along with everything else). Not only would lower meat consumption be advantageous for the planet, it would also be beneficial to your health. It's no wonder over half our population is obese! I think every Canadian at one point or another should take a trip to a less fortunate country to truly appreciate the reality of life and realize how spoiled we are.
  46. T M Burke from Canada writes: Read 'Ominoves Dilemma' and educate yourselves about the state of the meat industry today. We are forcing ruminants to eat a grain based diet when they are engineered to eat grass. They have to be fed huge amounts of anitbiotics so their systems can cope in order to survive long enough to make it to slaughter. They live in crowded conditions, lying in their own feces, which by the way, happens to make it's way into our meat as well. We've taken the closed circuit farm where the cow ate the grass, fertilized the grass it ate and we ate the cow to be replaced by huge farms that grow only corn or soy with fertilizers and pesticides, and taken the animals off the farm and put them on huge feed lots to live a miserable life. There's no argument against eating meat some of the time, but treating animals the way we do today is ridiculous. Do you really want to eat this meat? Choose a local farmer who raises their animals in more humane conditions, who eats grass, and who is not injected with huge amounts of drugs. If the supply isn't there then request it. The article recommends less meat - it should also recommend better meat.
  47. M K from Canada writes: 'Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: What idiocy.

    Take a look in the mirror. Close-set eyes. Incisors. Eat meat like nature intended you to.

    Less hot air from the UN would help.'

    Humans are intended to be omnivores, not carnivores. We can subsist on a wide variety of foods.

    They're asking for a 10% reduction in meat consumption. 10%. Anyone who thinks a 10% reduction in meat consumption is unreasonable is unreasonable themselves. Better yet, how about a 20% reduction, and switch to organic meat? It's really not the end of the world.

    Your life is pretty sad if you think that switching light bulbs and eating slightly less meat is a big deal.
  48. David Kanaschwiiz from Switzerland writes: This is absolutely true - Beef and bottled water are the SUV and flights which informed people reduce/avoid.
    Some meats are worse than others (Ostrich and chicken better than beef, the worst). Basically the rumination problem is very problematic, nevermind the amount of water. (See NYT article of last week where estimations for the amount of water it takes to make ONE HAMBURGER range between 100 and 1300 GALLONS - and that's before cleaning).
    (The wild meat solution is a good idea in theory, but crunch the numbers and it is insufficient. We need fewer people eating fewer ruminants).
  49. michelle Nadon from toronto, Canada writes: The arguments for, and benefits of, not eating meat are very clear for both humans and the environment. The greater issue is collective denial. The conditions for these poor animals are kept in are sickening at worst, and reprehensible at best ... and so few reporters actually have the courage to report what hapens in factory farms: doomed to less than a life while they have one, penned, abused, physically ill, restricted, denied fresh air, adequate shelter, freedom, their offspring removed at birth for veal consumption, grieving, forgotten, kept pregnant their entire lives, and worse, their beautiful intelligence insulted. Don't think they don't know the difference - they do. Humans, please, please, find out where your meat comes from - if you have the courage, visit the farms and slaughterhouses that produce it - you'll be HAPPY TO TURN TO VEGETABLES AND LENTILS IN NO TIME. And tell 10, nay, 1,000 friends. Don't do it for the environment, don't do it to lose 10 lbs - do it because you're making an informed moral decision.
  50. L M from Regina, Canada writes: T M Burke from Canada writes: Read 'Ominoves Dilemma' and educate yourselves about the state of the meat industry today. We are forcing ruminants to eat a grain based diet when they are engineered to eat grass. Give TM Burke a prize!!! Seriously, we need to think logically. Granted, reduction in meat consumption would be beneficial, but going vegan is not the healthy choice it's made out to be. I've been vegan for a short while, lacto-ovo vegetarian for longer, and am now back to being an omnivore for good. I get sick less often, need fewer supplements and find I have better energy levels which make it easier to stay strong and fit. The secret is balance. Some 'vegan' food products are highly processed (high carbon footprint), and the jury's still out on stuff like soy milk -- it's made from a soy byproduct that was usually discarded in processing soybeans before some enterprising soul decided it was marketable. These are not more healthy than a free-range chicken leg in your lunch. There is a lot of land in the southern half of Saskatchewan that is not suitable for grain or vegetable farming, but is ideal for raising beef. In fact, most prairie land is more suitable for ranching than farming. That said, let's raise grass-fed, pastured beef instead of relying on feedlots. I buy meat direct from farmers that I have met and who practice more sustainable methods. I also make vegetarian meals 2 - 3 times a week.
  51. Andrew Malcolmson from Canada writes: Tofu (i.e. soy) is just one of many high protein, low fat, mineral-rich, cheap, and often locally grown meat-alternative foods. Meals of legumes and whole grains can be delicious if you know how to cook them, so there's no need to rely on store bought substitutes like totu dogs.

    Here are examples: old-time stew recipies usually called beans (lima or navy), root veggies, and a modest amount of meat for flavor and richness. Breakfast usually included baked beans. Breads were whole grain and so higher in protein and minerals. Food like this sustained us when life was more physically demanding than it is now and no one worried about protein.
  52. Phil M from Toronto, Canada writes: What's really too bad isn't that no one wants to talk about it. It's that whoever talks about it usually segues into an animal rights spiel which, frankly, is not germane to the argument. Just like Mr. Fricker did in the final paragraphs of this column. The column started nicely too, just-the-facts, interesting, relevant. And then invariably the comments about 'inhumane conditions', and 'factory-farm suffering' and a sweeping condemnation of those who might resist reducing their meat consumption by 'shift(ing) their public relations and spin machines into high gear.'

    If Mr. Fricker is concerned about environmentalists fearing to take a stand on this one for fear of being linked to animal-rights, and all the derision that entails, perhaps he should stop linking the two.
  53. Liam Smith from Canada writes: Who wants to eat meat that's been in those conditions, Phil M? We have no idea where are food comes from. Most of us never even consider that the meat we eat is pumped full of hormones and antibiotics. Our apples are covered in wax. Our corn is fertilized with petroleum based fertilizers. Doesn't it weird you out just a little bit that the cow you enjoy as a burger or a steak spent the the better part of it's life standing in a pile of it's own feces? I love meat. I love food. I am a foodie but I try to have an awareness of where my food is coming from and how much of any particular item that I eat.
  54. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: Would that there were more existentialists striving for a zero carbon footprint to lead the masses to saftey.

    Does eating baby veal and lamb have a lower carbon footprint than beef and mutton?
  55. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: If you stop breathing it will reduce the overall global warming. So those that want to keep the carousel going should just give up breathing to help out.
  56. Luciano Nicassio from Toronto, Canada writes: It is a sad society in which we live when people are more concerned over the rights and well being of animals than they are about their fellow neighbor. By the way just to clarify, HUMANS have rights, not animals. And by the way, if any of you knew the destruction that soy bean farms cause to the forests of South America (that's right it isn't only cattle farmers) you would quickly change your tune. Although I don't agree with those people who drive huge SUV s, drink bottled water or in fact eat predominantly red meat, they have the right to do so and no government policy or environmentalist lobby groups should ever presume to enforce their wants on the rest of society. If you don't want to eat meat, fine do so, but don't ever presume to posses some sense of moral superiority.
  57. robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey it's all balance, too much meat is bad, too much booze is bad, etc., etc., rinse repeat.

    The meat industry would have you eat 17 servings of pork loin a day, the vegans would have us all with Iron Poor blood, so somewhere in the middle we find ourselves.

    Staying away from fast food, save for when trapped on the highway is a given. Meat is still a better choice then some grains, which cause your blood sugar to rise and fall like cotton candy, and you eat even more. So meat must be part of most peoples diet. Of course if you are opposed to eating it that's fine. But I have enough trouble with weight and a vast majority of food intake is carbs, no meat.

    Carbs DO MAKE YOU FAT.
  58. robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: Luciano, you are right, but sadly moral superiority is a North American staple. Nobody is content to live their life and have a good time, they have a good time by exerting will and changing others. This occurs on both liberal and conservative thinking.

    Control freaks!

    Remember, it's not enough that I succeed, others must fail. Humans are normally this evil. ;)
  59. Chris Edwards from Greater Sudbury, Canada writes: Top of the food chain - I like it here. Vegetarianism and its more radical offshoots are a conceit afforded the rich - ask poor people who subsist on a vegetarian diet if they'd like a steak. Bet they say yes. Live longer and healthier? I don't know about that. Cherry pick your facts and figures and you can make any argument. I've known my share of wan, pasty vegetarians too. I even know some fat ones. And lots of people who fried their pork chops in butter who lived happily to a ripe old age. Bess - come down off your high horse love. Don't assume all meat eaters are idiots who've given no thought to their choice, or are illogical. Some of the arguments put forth in this article are pretty tenuous, or at least arguable. The cruelty agenda? I think PETA knows a thing or two about cruelty. Animal rights activists don't always take the high road, or think about much besides 'poor' animals. In the next life, I may be a battery cage chicken. My life will be miserable, but short. In this life, I am quite happy and healthy hunting, buying, and eating meat. I don't go out of my way to be cruel, but tonight, just for you Bess, I think I'll order the veal chop topped with foie gras, and tell them to hold the veggies.
  60. R C from Toronto, Canada writes: This is the best article I've seen in the Globe in a long time. I've been telling people about this for years, and just as the author writes, nobody wants to listen. I worked at Greenpeace for a number of years, and the management people would not even talk about this issue, critical as it is. Either they thought there would be too much of a backlash from consumers or they loved meat too much themselves! But as the author writes, it's all about REDUCTION, NOT ELIMINATION. Great book to read on this is 'The Food Revolution' by John Robbins
  61. M Lafrance from Ottawa, Canada writes: One of the dumbest web-comments the G&M has ever posted.
  62. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: What idiocy.

    Take a look in the mirror. Close-set eyes. Incisors. Eat meat like nature intended you to.

    >>>

    I see plenty of idiocy coming from you, Craig. Nature doesn't have intentions; thus humans are not 'intended' to do anything. We decide for ourselves - hopefully based on logic and reason, but often not.

    What a concept, eh?
  63. Joanne Husak from Windsor, Canada writes: T M Burke from Canada, Very good post!
  64. Bill Grimshaw from Ottawa, Canada writes: Beef production should be banned worldwide. Read Diet For A new America.
    An oldie but good. Also by John Robbins
  65. NORTH MAN from Canada writes: im not afraid to talk about it, i just think its stupid

    you want to cut the consumption of meat

    stop industrial farming, stop feeding animals food that is not fit for human consumption

    make meat cost what it should and market forces will stop people from eating 99cent hamburgers.

    i know its not the socialist way but i will keep eating free range and wild meat as i like. i eat almost zero store bought meat.
  66. David Jansen from Canada writes: Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Not eating meat makes a lot of sense to me, but then I'm cursed with a logical mind. Most people get hysterical when they have to change their lifestyle one tiny bit and will endlessly defend their 'right' not to wear seat belts or helmets, their 'right' to eat McDonald's everyday without getting fat, their 'right' not to recycle, their 'right' to drive their cars everywhere, etc. There is so little sense of personal responsibility and community that I am doubtful that a critical mass will ever reduce their meat intake. I also don't know how change could ever be instituted to reduce individual meat intake since eating whatever one wants in whatever quantities one wants is something that the fattest couch potatoes will rise out of their lazy boys to fight for. Perhaps the cost of meat could reflect the 'actual' cost in terms of environmental degradation and higher medical bills? -------------------------------- Excellent analysis Bess!! I've always been amazed at how pathetically petty and juvinile people get when they are offered rational explainations as to why certain aspects of their lifestyle are completely destructive and unsustainable to the environment and future generations. I also totally agree with actually including the 'real cost' of products. Take beer for instance, if you included the needless medical/legal costs associated with idiots getting drunk, getting into a fight, requiring stitches or their stomach pumped, and the legal costs of patrolling them, arresting them, the court costs - many people would simply not be able to afford to have 14 beers in one sitting... As well, would it really kill people to have one less steak a week? I've tended to find that most people who are against doing and positive life-style changes are usually uneducated, angry, society-hating, overweight people...
  67. john doe from veggieville, Canada writes: Here is a video from a web exhibition about climate change that examines the relationship between the meat industry and global warming.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HFDEdfuILk
  68. David Jansen from Canada writes: NORTH MAN from Canada writes: 'i know its not the socialist way but i will keep eating free range and wild meat as i like. i eat almost zero store bought meat.'

    What does that have to do with socialism?
  69. Joanne Husak from Windsor, Canada writes: Luciano Nicassio from Toronto, Who are you to say animals don't have rights? Damn right they do. I think it's your moral superiority that needs to be questioned here.
  70. David Jansen from Canada writes: Luciano Nicassio from Toronto, Canada writes: It is a sad society in which we live when people are more concerned over the rights and well being of animals than they are about their fellow neighbor. By the way just to clarify, HUMANS have rights, not animals. And by the way, if any of you knew the destruction that soy bean farms cause to the forests of South America (that's right it isn't only cattle farmers) you would quickly change your tune. Although I don't agree with those people who drive huge SUV s, drink bottled water or in fact eat predominantly red meat, they have the right to do so and no government policy or environmentalist lobby groups should ever presume to enforce their wants on the rest of society. If you don't want to eat meat, fine do so, but don't ever presume to posses some sense of moral superiority. ------------------------------- The only way I could agree with your comment is if it wasn't hypocritical. How can you be concerned about human rights and think that we have the right to completely destroy the environment (with said SUVs and Bottled Water) for future generations? You can't have it both ways. I also think the actual costs should be included in all of those products you mention. Unfortunately the only way to attribute a 'cost' to a clean environment is via our health care system. If we suddenly started making people pay for their wasteful ways, the bottle of water you so cherish would cost about 5$, the SUV would cost about $25,000 more. These aren't new costs, they are simply being subsidized via our health care system, environmental clean-up projects, lost productivity, etc.
  71. Sunil Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: I could also reduce my consumption drastically by jumping off a bridge. Where should we draw the line?
  72. David Jansen from Canada writes: Sunil Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: 'I could also reduce my consumption drastically by jumping off a bridge. Where should we draw the line?'

    Your life is pretty sad if you think that doing simple things like switching light bulbs and eating slightly less meat is a big deal.
  73. Wendy Pitcher from Alberta, Canada writes: Lynn H., I agree with your comments about hunting....the only protein on our table from game or fish that we shoot or catch ourselves...no driving (we hunt and fish practically outside our door). No growth hormones or
    antibiotics in our meat, and our fish comes from crystal northern lakes.
    Of course, this is not available to everyone on the planet....but this is meat we won't give up.
  74. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Sorry but I'm not cutting steak out of my diet for climate change. In fact I'm going to bbq a fat, juicy T-Bone tonight.
  75. jack Sprat from Canada writes: No one seems to be able to explain to me how before North America was populated by the whiteman, it had millions and millions of Buffalo grazing and drinking the natural resources and then farting it out . One could also add in the hundreds of thousands of caribou grazing herd in the North Canada plains and arctic, yet now that these are gone and replaced by a similar number of herd types like cows. This is now a problem ?
    If that were the case then the extermination of the buffalo herds in the 1800’s was actually a blessing.
    Now if we add in the numerous other natural animals that we have reduced due to human city growth , I suspect the difference of how many natural animals we would have had ,if mankind had not been around, versus how many 'herd for consumption animals' we have now farting out greenhouse gases &8230;&8230; it would be a wash. Methinks the environmentalist is only working with one side of the equation.
    I will continue to eat meat . thanks
  76. David Jansen from Canada writes: robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: 'The meat industry would have you eat 17 servings of pork loin a day, the vegans would have us all with Iron Poor blood, so somewhere in the middle we find ourselves.'

    Actually one of the best sources of iron out there are soybeans and spinach. If you want get technical about it, you would have to eat more than 1700 calories of sirloin steak to get the same amount of iron as found in 100 calories of spinach.

    If you want to dig even deeper, iron absorption is aided through vitamin C, which found in many fruits, (citrus fruits, kiwi) some vegetables (red peppers, potatoes) and beverages, aids in the absorption of iron... something not found in a hamburger or an additional serving of meat.

    Knowledge is power...
  77. C S from Alberta, Canada writes: The argument that soy production is a tremendous source of destruction and carbon emission is completely besides the point. Vegetarianism and soy do not necessarily relate.

    I am not vegetarian, but my boyfriend is, and as a result my consumption of meat has significantly decreased and I have learned to prepare and enjoy many meat-free meals. Here's the kicker: my boyfriend won't eat tofu, drink soy milk, or eat any of the soy-infused meat-substitutes because he simply doesn't like the taste or texture. Instead, we use beans, lentils, eggs and whey for protein.

    Strict vegetarianism doesn't sound like fun to me - but it's amazing how much more I appreciate holiday turkey or the occasional addition of real meat gravy to my soups and mashed potatoes now that I'm not eating meat every day.

    Good for my health, good for the earth, good for the animals...the only thing to be lost here is pride for anyone who has invested time going red in the face defending an irresponsible, unhealthy lifestyle.
  78. David Jansen from Canada writes: jack Sprat from Canada writes: 'No one seems to be able to explain to me how before North America was populated by the whiteman, it had millions and millions of Buffalo grazing and drinking the natural resources and then farting it out'
    .
    .

    That's because you never asked... but since you did, I'll provide you with an answer. It's a numbers game Jack. At most it is estimated that there were 60 million buffalo roaming around. As of 2001, it is estimated there are about 1.53 Billion cows. You do the math.
  79. Mr. Roadrocket from Ottawa, Canada writes: Luciano Nicassio from Toronto, Canada writes: It is a sad society in which we live when people are more concerned over the rights and well being of animals than they are about their fellow neighbor. By the way just to clarify, HUMANS have rights, not animals. This is a hollow argument. As the philosopher said: 'To fight injustice anywhere is to fight it everywhere.' I myself would not presume to suggest that the charity my neighbour supports is less worthy than the one I do. To be opposed to the inhumane treatment of animals--and we have to relate 'humane' with 'humanity'-- does not lessen one's concern about human rights. There is no moral scale that suggests that supporting your child's youth orchestra is offensive compared to giving donations to cancer treatment centers or starving Africans.
  80. lynn H from Canada writes: David Jansen from Canada writes:I've tended to find that most people who are against doing and positive life-style changes are usually uneducated, angry, society-hating, overweight people.......funny you should mention that. I have observed that most 'environmental' do-gooders are snobby, elitist, latte drinking, metrosexual, educated but unintelligent busy-bodies looking to impose their ideologies on everyone else.....wendy, we have a freezer full of moose and deer. They'll have to remove my red meat and rifle from my cold dead hands. :)
  81. jack Sprat from Canada writes: I suspect you are misrepresenting the numbers, I am talking North America, # of buffalo and you are talking the world of cows.

    But even if we use your numbers one should be required to reduce from the cow number , the number of animals that would of been around otherwise without man.

    because the greenhouse gas numbers are based on 'without man eating cows'
  82. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Bess T, done my time travelling world and experiencing other cultures.

    You forgot to mention that the razing of rainforest in Southeast Asia to plant palm is not for popcorn, it is for biofuel for European nations such as the Netherlands, thereby letting them claim carbon reductions, tsk-tsking at North America and destroying some of the Earth's most important habitat ... utter hypocrisy fueled by the IPCC and their phony environmental agenda.
  83. David Jansen from Canada writes: lynn H from Canada writes: 'David Jansen from Canada writes:I've tended to find that most people who are against doing and positive life-style changes are usually uneducated, angry, society-hating, overweight people.......funny you should mention that. I have observed that most 'environmental' do-gooders are snobby, elitist, latte drinking, metrosexual, educated but unintelligent busy-bodies looking to impose their ideologies on everyone else....'

    I take it you are overweight and simply angry about it. Try a few most veggies Lynn.
  84. Mr. Roadrocket from Ottawa, Canada writes: From a strictly environmental viewpoint, meat production and consumption is pretty unattractive. I have seen wildly varying figures about how much water is needed to produce a kilo of grain-fed beef, but even at the lowest end it is more than double what a kilo of soybeans requires. And by feeding the soybeans to cows, you actually reduce the amount of protein in the final product instead of just eating the beans. The other issue that nobody has mentioned is the waste produced by enormous meat-raising facilities. There is a Smithfield pork 'farm' in Wisconsin that produces waste equivalent to the human sewage produced in Manhattan every day. The difference, of course, is this manure, stuffed with antibiotics, festers in lagoons and overflows. The poorly-regulated farms in Virginia and the Carolinas has mean