Richard Dawkins: When I see cattle lorries, I think of the railway wagons to Auschwitz


There is a growing concern among a majority of U.S. consumers about the health and well-being of animals being raised to be food. For its new report, AnimalWelfare: Issues and Opportunities in the Meat, Poultry, and Egg Markets in the U.S., Packaged Facts’ conducted an online survey that found that nearly 60% of consumers say they are more concerned today than they were a few years ago about the treatment of animals raised for food.

Here are five reasons for giving up meat:

  1. The environmental impact is huge

Livestock farming has a vast environmental footprint. It contributes to land and water degradation, biodiversity loss, acid rain, coral reef degeneration and deforestation.

Nowhere is this impact more apparent than climate change – livestock farming contributes 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. This is more than all emissions from ships, planes, trucks, cars and all other transport put together.

Climate change alone poses multiple risks to health and well-being through increased risk of extreme weather events – such as floods, droughts and heatwaves – and has been described as the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century.

Reducing consumption of animal products is essential if we are to meet global greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets – which are necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. 

  1. It requires masses of grain, water, and land

Meat production is highly inefficient – this is particularly true when it comes to red meat. To produce one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain – to feed the animal – and roughly 15,000 litres of water. Pork is a little less intensive and chicken less still.

The scale of the problem can also be seen in land use: around 30% of the earth’s land surface is currently used for livestock farming. Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources.

  1. It hurts the global poor

Feeding grain to livestock increases global demand and drives up grain prices, making it harder for the world’s poor to feed themselves. Grain could instead be used to feed people, and water used to irrigate crops.

If all grain were fed to humans instead of animals, we could feed an extra 3.5 billion people. In short, industrial livestock farming is not only inefficient but also not equitable.

  1. It causes unnecessary animal suffering

If we accept, as many people do, that animals are sentient creatures whose needs and interests matter, then we should ensure these needs and interests are at least minimally met and that we do not cause them to suffer unnecessarily.

Industrial livestock farming falls well short of this minimal standard. Most meat, dairy and eggs are produced in ways that largely or completely ignore animal welfare – failing to provide sufficient space to move around, contact with other animals, and access to the outdoors.

In short, industrial farming causes animals to suffer without good justification.

  1. It is making us ill

At the production level, industrial livestock farming relies heavily on antibiotic use to accelerate weight gain and control infection – in the US, 80% of all antibiotics are consumed by the livestock industry.

This contributes to the growing public health problem of antibiotic resistance. Already, more than 23,000 people are estimated to die every year in the US alone from resistant bacteria. As this figure continues to rise, it becomes hard to overstate the threat of this emerging crisis.

High meat consumption – especially of red and processed meat – typical of most rich industrialized countries is linked with poor health outcomes, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and various cancers.

These diseases represent a major portion of the global disease burden so reducing consumption could offer substantial public health benefits.

Currently, the average meat intake for someone living in a high-income country is 200-250g a day, far higher than the 80-90g recommended by the United Nations. Switching to a more plant-based diet could save up to 8 million lives a year worldwide by 2050 and lead to healthcare related savings and avoided climate change damages of up to $1.5 trillion.

The rising interest in animal welfare appears to be an outgrowth of consumers’increased concerns about the safety of the food supply with a growing belief, supported by several studies, that if the animals are raised in healthier circumstances the meat and dairy products produced from their will be safer and healthier. The Packaged Facts’ survey found that over 70% of consumers believe that agricultural products are healthier if grown more naturally.

Food companies at every level of the production and delivery spectrum, aware of both consumer and investor concerns, have been taking steps to improve the quality of life of the animals in their supply chains. The decision by individual companies to improve animal welfare is often grounded in the desire to both be competitive and to appear competitive.

There are many areas in the way that farm animals being raised for food are treat about which activists and consumers alike have concerns. The four areas which are of highest concern to consumers with an interest in animal welfare are handling (including slaughtering), housing, food and water, and antibiotic use.

It is apparent from the number of companies that are engaged in animal welfare practices or that have announced their plans to begin doing so that the food industry has passed a tipping point in its relationship with the animal welfare movement. The pace appears to be escalating although there is no guarantee that there may not be a slowdown coming as the more difficult decisions will need to be made.

Animal Welfare: Issues and Opportunities in the Meat, Poultry, and Egg Markets in the U.S. examines consumer attitudes and concerns about animal welfare and the many specific steps that food industry participants are taking to address these concerns. It also examines the role of federal and state government agencies in setting animal welfare guidelines and the increasingly impactful part played by animal welfare organizations, specifically those that offer certification to the food companies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s