Re: environmental impact of vegan diet vs. meat-eating diet

[Guest guest]

I hope you share what you learn. I wouldn't mind co-authoring an article

with you about that if enough good research turns up. For starters, check

out the Oil We Eat in Feb. Harpers. I can't remember his name but he also

has a book out that is hopefully referenced. I think this is an excellent

topic!

Elaine

> I need some good articles that explain why vegan diets (relying heavily on

> soy and/or other typical monoculture crops) are in fact far more

> environmentally destructive than a diet that includes animal products from

> *pasture* raised animals.

>

> This issue keeps cropping up (from vegans or vegetarians) on other lists I'm

> on and it seems that just about everyone is of the mind that meat-inclusive

> diets are far more environmentally destructive than vegan, or largely

> vegetarian diets.

>

> Any links would be greatly appreciated!

>

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> http://www.westonaprice.org

>

> ----------------------------

> “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The Ethics of Eating Meat

http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/ethicsmeat.html

I think Byrne had some articles on the subject on his site

http://www.powerhealth.net/

Dedy

From: Suze Fisher -- <<I need some good articles that explain why vegan

diets (relying heavily on soy and/or other typical monoculture crops) are in

fact far more environmentally destructive than a diet that includes animal

products from *pasture* raised animals.

This issue keeps cropping up (from vegans or vegetarians) on other lists I'm

on and it seems that just about everyone is of the mind that meat-inclusive

diets are far more environmentally destructive than vegan, or largely

vegetarian diets.>>

[Guest guest]

Suze,

Here is an old post that may be of help

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:30:14 -0500

" Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote:

> Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?

>

> This is a very interesting concept that I bet few Vegans ever consider.

>

> http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

>

> Judith Alta

>

> ==========================================

> OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02)

> CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?

> This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral

> foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by

> , a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds

> a new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill

> animals in order to feed themselves?

> turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks,

> in order for people to feed themselves?

> To address the question, applies a principle used by moral

> philosophers to measure the least amount of harm an action might cause,

> called the Least Harm Principle.

> 's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor

> from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal

> rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals

> if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants,

> with no meat, eggs, or milk products.

> What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to ,

> is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production

> and harvest.

> " Vegan diets are not bloodless diets, " said. " Millions of animals die

> every year to provide products used in vegan diets. "

> presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society

> for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the

> conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the

> Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that

> accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet,

> in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population.

> " Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have

> never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to -

> animals of the field, " said. " This, it seems to me, is a serious

> omission. "

> Consequently, asks what is the morally relevant difference between the

> field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so

> that humans may eat.

> Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and

> other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher:

> " Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at

> all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects

> on their populations. "

> has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field

> animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing

> alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population.

> Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and

> harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to

> animals of the field.

> In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer

> entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed

> pastures, according to , less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and

> more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also

> helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams.

> " Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be

> the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture, " said.

> proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would

> replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products.

> According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of

> 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle)

> than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to , is

> mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage

> production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn.

> Applying the Least Harm Principle, argues that people may be morally

> obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to

> cause the least harm to animals.

> 's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal

> cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals.

> Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on

> animal bioethics, is part of a team of biological and social

> scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and

> moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture.

> By Peg Herring, 541-737-9180

> SOURCE: , 541-737-1892

Kick the Habit: Don't Vote!

http://tinyurl.com/439vl

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

> Re: environmental impact of vegan diet vs. meat-eating

>diet

>

>

>I hope you share what you learn.

These were the ones that I felt were the most useful for my purpose:

Grass-fed Animal Products

Good for Animals, People, and the Planet

http://www.consciouschoice.com/food/grassfed1411.html

THE MYTHS OF VEGETARIANISM

http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_vegetarianism.html

MYTH #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's

natural resources.

OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

The Oil We Eat

http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

I wouldn't mind co-authoring an article

>with you about that if enough good research turns up. For starters, check

>out the Oil We Eat in Feb. Harpers. I can't remember his name but he also

>has a book out that is hopefully referenced. I think this is an excellent

>topic!

>Elaine

Thanks Elaine. I think it would be a pretty time-consuming endevour,

especially in researching primary sources, which I just don't have time for

now :-( But I would encourage you to do it if you're interested in pursuing

it.

And thanks everyone for the links :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------