Con Position Paper

©1999 Blackwell Science, Inc.

VIEWPOINT

.

The Contribution of Vegetarianism to Ecosystem Health

Michael Allen Fox

Department of Philosophy, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Becoming a vegetarian has well-documented and well-publicized health advantages (Chen 1990; Barnard 1993; Melina

et al.

1994), and these per- sonal benefits incline many to choose a nonmeat diet. However, there are additional reasons for adopting a vegetarian diet that are ethical, envi- ronmental, sociopolitical, and spiritual in nature (Fox 1999). In the text that follows our attention will be directed toward some of the latter, with the object of showing how they relate to the theme of ecosystem health. For the purpose of this discussion the labels “meat economy” and “vegetarian economy” will be used to contrast two alternative ways of producing food. While it may be considered an exaggeration to refer to our present agricultural system as a meat economy, the vast resources that are committed to livestock and poultry production demonstrate that this is a meaningful characterization. As we shall see, tak- ing the perspective of environmental health leads to a fairly dramatic contrast between the negative ecological impact of the meat economy that pre- vails in North America and elsewhere and the rel- ative advantages in this regard of an alternative vegetarian economy.

THE MEAT ECONOMY

There are three principal ways in which meat pro- duction exacts a heavy toll on nature. We shall ex- amine these in turn.

RESOURCE AND ENERGY WASTE

In Canada, since the time of white settlement, ex- panding agriculture has been the major factor in an 85% reduction of wetlands (Government of Canada 1991). Agricultural acreage has increased four-fold since 1900, and the total area under irri- gation more than doubled between 1970 and 1988 (Government of Canada 1991). It must be inferred that the consumption of meat is a power- ful force here, given that in North America some 95% of oats and 80% of corn produced ends up as livestock feed (Animal Alliance of Canada n.d.). David Pimentel, a scientist who has been studying the environmental impact of modern American agricultural methods for over two de- cades, reports that 240 million tonnes (264.5 mil- lion tons) of grain are fed to livestock in the United States annually—enough to feed approxi- mately 800 million people a vegetarian diet (Pi- mentel 1997). Clearly the savings, in terms of both energy input and available calories for hu- man consumption, would be very great if we weaned ourselves

completely

away from depen- dence upon livestock. Finally, it is calculated that 100,000 liters (26,425 gallons) of water are required in the overall process by which one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef is produced (Pimentel 1997); a pound (0.45 kilogram) of wheat, by contrast, re- quires only 254 liters (60 gallons) (Fiddes 1991).

Obviously not all of the environmentally hos- tile effects of today’s unsound agricultural prac- tices can be attributed to the production of ani- mals for food. And it is clear that some of the abuses could be mitigated by, for example, a more dedicated approach to recycling animal ma- nure (and human waste) into crop fertilizer, greater reliance on natural means of pest control

Address correspondence to: Michael Allen Fox, Department of Philosophy, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Can- ada, K7L 3N6; E-mail [email protected].

71

Fox: Vegetarianism and Ecosystem Health

instead of harmful chemicals, and the like. So some maintain that the proper target of criticism is not meat production per se, but rather the in- tensive rearing methods used by contemporary agribusiness. There is a point to this rejoinder, and surely those who obtain their meat from their own or others’ free-range operations dedicated to organic methods of animal husbandry contribute less than do others to the environmental toll on the planet exacted by human life. But given the appalling rate at which smaller-scale family farm- ing businesses are being forced out of competi- tion (and out of existence), to be replaced by much larger operations (Strange 1988; Rifkin 1992; Noske 1997), the opportunities for obtain- ing “environmentally friendly” meat are extremely rare in practice. Only a tiny fraction of the popula- tion could exercise this option, taking current agri- cultural trends into account, and an even tinier group desires to do so in the first place.

DEGRADATION OF THE BIOSPHERE

The eco-destructive side of the meat industry’s operations has been summarized concisely, with ample documentation from both government and nongovernment sources, by many authors (Rob- bins 1987; Fiddes 1991; Lappé 1992; Hill 1996; Fox 1999). These effects include toxic chemical residues in the food chain, pharmaceutical addi- tives in animal feeds, polluting chemicals and ani- mal wastes from feedlot runoff in waterways and underground aquifers, topsoil loss caused by pat- terns of relentless grazing, domestic and foreign deforestation and desertification that results from the clearing of land for grazing and for cultivat- ing feed, threatened habitats of wild species of plants and animals, intensive exploitation of wa- ter and energy supplies, and ozone depletion ow- ing to the extensive use of fossil fuels and to the significant production of methane gas by cattle. Sharon Bloyd-Peshkin sums up this sorry state of affairs in these simple terms: “Meat production is a major source of environmental damage” (Bloyd- Peshkin 1991, p. 67).

In Canada alone, farm animals produce 322 million liters (85 million gallons) of manure

daily

, an overwhelming proportion of which comes from cattle. Each marketed kilogram (2.2 pounds) of edible beef generates at least 40 kilograms (88 pounds) of manure, and each of pork 15 kilograms (33 pounds). These wastes, the runoff of water used to clean farm buildings and equipment, and pesticide residues and other agricultural chemi-

cals, are often poorly handled and cause the con- tamination of waterways and soil, as well as air pol- lution (Government of Canada 1991).

This is a scenario for which there is little to be said that is positive; while the meat economy keeps some people employed and others fed, it operates with total disregard for the ecological consequences of the productive process.

REDUCTION OF SPECIES DIVERSITY

The foregoing issues are discussed in the media and scholarly literature with relative frequency. What has not been subjected to as much scrutiny are the effects of the meat economy on planetary biodiversity. There are, of course, many causes of species extinction, both natural and human. And with respect to human factors, no single activity accounts totally for the sort of ecocide that under- mines species viability. We should not expect therefore that the process whereby the flesh of animals appears on our tables by itself explains why certain ecosystems and the life-forms they support are either under threat or compromised beyond recovery.

Evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson ob- serves that “Biodiversity is our most valuable but least appreciated resource” (Wilson 1993, p. 281). And there is no doubt where most of this diversity resides: 40–50% of the world’s plant and animal species dwell in the rain forests (McKisson & Mac- Rae-Campbell 1990). According to Wilson, who has conducted one of the most detailed studies of the problem, a “maximally optimistic” estimate of the present rate of global species extinction is 27,000 per year (74 per day, 3 per hour) (Wilson 1993; p. 280). This horrendous pace of destruction stems from several major sources, including the clearing of foreign and domestic forests for agricultural purposes and development, drainage and filling in of wetlands, damming of rivers, use and abuse of coral reefs, and relentless high-tech ocean fishing. Among these, deforestation and overfishing are the most evident areas in which a relationship be- tween human diet and species extinction are to be found. We shall concentrate here on rain forest clear-cutting as an example of the former trend.

Rain forests are cleared by humans seeking firewood, settlement space, farm plots, monocul- ture plantation space, expanded land holdings, oil, minerals, and pastureland for cattle. Hydro- electric projects, roads, and other development schemes also take their toll. Wilson maintains that species extinctions for which humans are respon-

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 2 June 1999

72

sible within the earth’s rain forest regions occur at between 1000 and 10,000 times the rate at which they would occur naturally (Wilson 1993). Given that there are numerous causes of rain for- est decimation, it is difficult to establish a precise correlation between animal agriculture and such devastation. However, we can obtain a reasonable approximation by considering the conversion of tropical forest to pastureland for cattle, which has proceeded at a remarkable pace in Central Amer- ica since mid-century. Norman Myers contends that not only in Central America, but from Mex- ico to Brazil “The number one factor in elimina- tion of Latin America’s tropical forests is cat- tlegrazing” (Myers 1984, p. 127). Most of the beef produced in this region is exported to the Ameri- can market, though an increasing portion goes to Western Europe and Japan (Myers 1984; Rifkin 1992). The United States contains only 5% of the world’s population, yet it produces, imports, and consumes more beef than any other country (My- ers 1984). The beef imported from Latin Ameri- can rain forest regions ends up as fast food burg- ers, as we know from United States Vice President Al Gore’s eyewitness testimony upon visiting the Amazon (Gore 1993, p. 23). It also ends up as processed meats and pet foods. Myers notes that “Convenience foods . . . constitute the fastest- growing part of the entire food industry in the United States” (Myers 1984, p. 130); 50% of all meals, he indicates, are now consumed in either fast food or institutional settings. According to Ar- nold Newman, for each North American fast-food hamburger “the environmental cost is half a ton of rainforest. . . . Expressed as forest area, the cost is 67 square feet—more than 6.25 square meters of forest—for every hamburger sold” (Newman 1990, p. 126). This pattern demonstrates force- fully the connection between meat eating and rain forest destruction—what Myers calls “the ‘hamburgerization’ of the forests” (Myers 1984, p. 142). As is well known, the inherent nature of rain forests is such that when cleared, only poor quality, unsustainable pastureland remains, and this contributes to the dynamic of expanding de- struction as new grazing areas are sought to re- place older, exhausted areas (Collins 1990).

THE VEGETARIAN ECONOMY

By contrast, a vegetarian economy would enable humans to live more lightly on the land. There are several reasons for this.

CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES AND ENERGY

As we have seen above, in terms of energy con- sumption this alternative approach to producing food is more efficient. In addition, the new econ- omy would free up land and other natural re- sources the world needs for greater food produc- tivity. A vegetarian diet takes pressure off the ecosystem by the simple expedient of permitting humans to eat lower down on the food chain, thus enabling us to take greater advantage of so- lar energy and other resource inputs.

LESS ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

A vegetarian economy, particularly if it employed organic methods and respected indigenous plant diversity, would yield lower levels of environmen- tally degrading waste products. Most, if not all, of the nonhumanly edible remains of vegetarian ag- riculture are recyclable either as fertilizer or as raw materials for the production of consumer goods of various kinds.

REDUCTION OF IMPACT ON SPECIES DIVERSITY

Vegetarian food production that avoided falling into the trap of promoting exclusively nonindige- nous monocultural agriculture would help rem- edy the meat economy’s disastrous impact upon species diversity. In terms of our example above, rain forests would no longer be clear-cut to make way for cattle grazing. The rain forests’ crucial contribution to maintaining the regulative pro- cesses of the biosphere, on which all life depends, would continue unhindered. Furthermore, “Stud- ies in Peru, the Brazilian Amazon, the Philippines and Indonesia suggest that harvesting forest prod- ucts sustainably is at least twice as profitable as clearing them [i.e., the rain forests] for timber or to provide land for agriculture” (Food and Agricul- tural Organization of the United Nations 1995, p. 62). This shows that protecting species diversity can also yield direct economic benefits for people.

CONTRIBUTION TO A BETTER WORLD ORDER

By allowing for the possibility of feeding more people adequately worldwide, a vegetarian econ- omy could also contribute to a more just and peaceful world order—which may be viewed as a

73

Fox: Vegetarianism and Ecosystem Health

contribution to ecosystem health if we are willing to admit into our thinking a wider than usual con- ception of “ecosystem,” namely, one that includes the human community. Of course food distribu- tion problems are only in part a function of the system of food production that is in place; eco- nomic and political issues are even more out- standing. But at least vegetarianism would signify a start in the right direction.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing, very compressed overview of a veg- etarian economy is of course bound to be tenta- tive and conjectural, since such a worldwide sys- tem for producing food remains only a future possibility. However, the negative environmental impacts of the meat economy are palpable, of a great order of magnitude, and are with us right now. There are good reasons to infer that a vege- tarian alternative would represent a major im- provement upon this lamentable reality.

We also need to take account of the fact that the global human population grows by 250,000 daily, and this represents additional stress and strain on planetary resources, biodiversity, and ec- osystem carrying capacities. Even a vegetarian ap- proach to feeding everyone will have its toll. Nev- ertheless, one estimate suggests that there are already in the world today some 4 billion vegetari- ans—about 2.3 billion in China and India alone (Pimentel, personal communication 1999). Tak- ing all factors into consideration, it appears evi- dent that if there is to be a hope of feeding every- one in the future, an even greater shift toward herbivorous diets will be essential.

If we care about ecosystem health, we ought— individually and collectively—to factor it into our decisions leading to action and into our plans and policies. One of the guiding ideals of ecologically informed ethical thinking is that we ought to min- imize our species’ harmful impact upon the bio- sphere. Therefore we ought to make those life- style choices that help achieve this objective, among these being a shift to vegetarianism. A diet that re- lies heavily on meat only appears affordable and environmentally sustainable to those who are un- aware of the larger ecological costs of meat produc- tion, or assume that they don’t have to be weighed into our choices and their consequences, or else be- lieve that the costs can be passed on to others, nota- bly those in developing nations and future per- sons. We all have to eat, and some appreciable

negative repercussions for the planet as a whole are inevitable as we pursue this natural end. But we should aim to curtail the ecological stresses that are under our species’ control. A commitment to vegetarianism seems clearly to be the best way to reduce the environmental harm and degradation caused by humans’ quest for nourishment, and should for this reason be made by all of us.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author expresses gratitude to David Pimentel for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.

REFERENCES

Animal Alliance of Canada (n.d.) Enviro facts about livestock production. Compiled from Worldwatch Paper No. 103 (Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch In- stitute 1991); Government of Canada,

The State of Canada’s Environment

(Ottawa, ON: Supply and Ser- vices Canada 1991); and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

Livestock Market Review 1993

(Ottawa, ON: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1993). Animal Alliance of Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

Barnard, N. (1993)

Food for Life: How the New Four Food Groups Can Save Your Life.

Harmony, New York. Bloyd-Peshkin, S. (1991) Mumbling about meat.

Vege- tarian Times

170

, 66–75. Chen, J. (1990)

Diet, Lifestyle and Mortality in China: A Study of 65 Chinese Counties

. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Collins M. (ed) (1990)

The Last Rain Forests: A World Con- servation Atlas.

Oxford University Press, New York. Fiddes, N. (1991)

Meat: A Natural Symbol.

Routledge, London, U.K.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Na- tions (1995)

Dimensions of Need: An Atlas of Food and Agriculture.

ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, California. Fox, M.A. (1999)

Deep Vegetarianism.

Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Gore, A. (1993)

Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Hu- man Spirit.

Plume Books, New York. Government of Canada (1991)

The State of Canada’s En- vironment

. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Hill, J.L. (1996)

The Case for Vegetarianism: Philosophy for a Small Planet.

Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Lappé, F.M. (1992)

Diet for a Small Planet

, 20th ed. Bal- lantine Books, New York.

McKisson, N. & MacRae-Campbell, L. (1990)

The Future of Our Tropical Rainforests.

Zephyr Press, Tuscon, Arizona.

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 2 June 1999

74

Melina, V., Davis, B., Harrison, V. (1994)

Becoming Vege- tarian: The Complete Guide to Adopting a Healthy Vege- tarian Diet.

Macmillan Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Myers, N. (1984)

The Primary Source: Tropical Forests and Our Future

. W.W. Norton, New York. Newman, A. (1990)

Tropical Rainforest

. Facts On File, New York.

Noske, B. (1997)

Beyond Boundaries: Humans and Ani- mals.

Black Rose, Montreal, Quebec. Pimentel, D. (1997) Livestock production: energy in-

puts and the environment. Scott, S.L. & Zho, X. (eds).

Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Animal

Science, 47th Annual Meeting

(24–26 July 1997, Mon- treal). pp. 16–26. Canadian Society of Animal Sci- ence, Montreal, Quebec.

Rifkin, J. (1992)

Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture

. E.P. Dutton, New York. Robbins, J. (1987)

Diet for a New America.

Stillpoint, Wal- pole, New Hampshire.

Strange, M. (1988)

Family Farming: A New Economic Vi- sion

. Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco.

Wilson, E.O. (1993)

The Diversity of Life

. W.W. Norton, New York.

Copyright of Ecosystem Health is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.