Vegans and Vegetarians Think They Don’t Kill Animals but They Do

Day Lewin · 16-11-2016 11:47AM

Surely it depends on how radically vegan you are?

It is not good to the earth for a person in Ireland to depend on foods -- of any kind -- that are produced far, far away; grown with artificial heating, under plastic, and flown through the air at a high cost in fuel and refrigeration. Rice? In Ireland?
Soya beans?

To really preserve the earth, our mother, you have to eat Local, and that's never going to be easy for a vegan in these latitudes: hazelnut, anyone? Apple? Ah, wintertime...well, there's a few deer...maybe some fungi :-(

While avoiding the use of the skins and by-products is genuinely wasteful. A leather belt or shoe is local, sustainable, bio-degradable: plastic is none of the above.

As ecology writer and bestseller novelist Barbara Kingsolver once wrote “transporting 5 calories’ worth of strawberry from California to New York costs 435 calories of fossil fuel.”

I guess what I'm saying is, one must draw the line somewhere: every species has an impact on some other species. Everything and everyone gets eaten in the end.

But respecting the earth and her biodiversity I see as an imperative duty in these times. So I eat meat, but not too much. And always local.

mathie · 16-11-2016 12:09PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

Surely it depends on how radically vegan you are?

It is not good to the earth for a person in Ireland to depend on foods -- of any kind -- that are produced far, far away; grown with artificial heating, under plastic, and flown through the air at a high cost in fuel and refrigeration. Rice? In Ireland?
Soya beans?

To really preserve the earth, our mother, you have to eat Local, and that's never going to be easy for a vegan in these latitudes: hazelnut, anyone? Apple? Ah, wintertime...well, there's a few deer...maybe some fungi :-(

While avoiding the use of the skins and by-products is genuinely wasteful. A leather belt or shoe is local, sustainable, bio-degradable: plastic is none of the above.

As ecology writer and bestseller novelist Barbara Kingsolver once wrote “transporting 5 calories’ worth of strawberry from California to New York costs 435 calories of fossil fuel.”

I guess what I'm saying is, one must draw the line somewhere: every species has an impact on some other species. Everything and everyone gets eaten in the end.

But respecting the earth and her biodiversity I see as an imperative duty in these times. So I eat meat, but not too much. And always local.

The transport argument is a red herring.
Meat and plants both have to be transported.

_Brian · 16-11-2016 12:20PM

mathie wrote: »

The transport argument is a red herring.
Meat and plants both have to be transported.

Ahh it's not really.

Why would we be eating meat produced in America (north or south) when we produce awesome meat right here in Ireland.
The additional air Miles and resultant global effects are unsustainable long term.

IsaacWunder · 16-11-2016 12:55PM

mathie wrote: »

The transport argument is a red herring.
Meat and plants both have to be transported.

_Brian wrote: »

Ahh it's not really.

Why would we be eating meat produced in America (north or south) when we produce awesome meat right here in Ireland.
The additional air Miles and resultant global effects are unsustainable long term.

You claim eating American meat is a problem as it has to be transported, then criticised anyone for eating American meat as "we produce awesome meat right here in Ireland." But the issue isn't that it's American, rather it's that its meat.

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 01:04PM

_Brian wrote: »

Ahh it's not really.

Why would we be eating meat produced in America (north or south) when we produce awesome meat right here in Ireland.
The additional air Miles and resultant global effects are unsustainable long term.

Because it's cheaper, I suspect.
And yes, Ireland does import meat - it exports far more than it imports, but it imports poultry, pork and even seafood from all over the world : http://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/finance/chicken-in-catering-sector-90-sourced-from-outside-ireland-208213.html
http://www.safefood.eu/SafeFood/media/SafeFoodLibrary/Documents/Publications/Research%20Reports/Where-does-our-food-come-from_-Booklet.pdf

mathie · 16-11-2016 01:15PM

_Brian wrote: »

Ahh it's not really.

Why would we be eating meat produced in America (north or south) when we produce awesome meat right here in Ireland.
The additional air Miles and resultant global effects are unsustainable long term.

You're missing the point.

As others have said it's not economical to grow all the food for a nation within that one nation.
The way the world works economically food is transported.
I'd love to live in a flower power world where that's not the case but it is.

The point I'm making is that the cost of producing meat is so many, many multiples of producing plants.
As I stated previously in the thread the cost of producing a steak is far higher that the cost of producing a similar dinner composing of plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

"Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation."

"Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States."

Mooooo · 16-11-2016 01:45PM

There have been record grain harvests globally in the last number of years and grain stored. IT has never been as cheap. The reason it's not directed to those who need it is money and politics not because the cows are eating it all

Mooooo · 16-11-2016 01:51PM

mathie wrote: »

The transport argument is a red herring.
Meat and plants both have to be transported.

You'd find more food quality grain would have to be imported as while we can grow most crops here harvesting creates difficulties. Whereas all the meat can be produced here. It's the consumers have to drive it. At the end of the day if they pay less for imported meat from .countries with lax regulations that's what they buy over the product produced here with way more transparency. Until that changes not much else will. Also the amount of waste because supermarkets don't want an odd shaped carrot etc is unreal.

ScumLord · 16-11-2016 02:18PM

mathie wrote: »

according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation."

I'd love to see that list of green house generators. That stat sounds a bit ridiculous.

"Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States."

Outside of Chickens and other battery animals who really uses grain to feed animals? Europe has a climate for grass, China has vast plains of grassland. It seems like the farming world is taking the blame for things mainly Americans do.

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 02:42PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd love to see that list of green house generators. That stat sounds a bit ridiculous.

Outside of Chickens and other battery animals who really uses grain to feed animals? Europe has a climate for grass, China has vast plains of grassland. It seems like the farming world is taking the blame for things mainly Americans do.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

9% overall, but yes, the 5th largest.

I think grain is actually quite widely used throughout continental Europe to feed cattle. My great-uncle had a farm in the 80s (he's retired now) and a lot of what he would feed his livestock was manufactured animal feed.
It made far more economic sense for him to use his land to grow crops rather than grass, and buy the feed. He lives in Austria.

And chicken and poultry make up 37% of Irish meat consumption.

ScumLord · 16-11-2016 02:56PM

Shenshen wrote: »

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

9% overall, but yes, the 5th largest.

I see it's restricted to US industrial emissions. It's worded incorrectly in the post I quoted. The stats ignore all natural carbon emissions. IE: are domestic animals really producing more gas than all the other animals combined? So it's a bit disingenuous to say domestic animals are the fifth largest source of greenhouse gases in the world, when you're leaving out many of the natural sources of greenhouse gases and restricting it to one of the most industrialised country in the world.

I think grain is actually quite widely used throughout continental Europe to feed cattle. My great-uncle had a farm in the 80s (he's retired now) and a lot of what he would feed his livestock was manufactured animal feed.
It made far more economic sense for him to use his land to grow crops rather than grass, and buy the feed. He lives in Austria.

So where did he keep the cattle? I'm assuming he must have kept them in a shed all year round if they didn't eat grass. Austria would have better land than us, he makes a fair point but we should have laws in place that give farm animals a certain amount of space, it would force farmers to make a choice between crops and meat.

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 03:04PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I see it's restricted to US industrial emissions. It's worded incorrectly in the post I quoted. The stats ignore all natural carbon emissions. IE: are domestic animals really producing more gas than all the other animals combined? So it's a bit disingenuous to say domestic animals are the fifth largest source of greenhouse gases in the world, when you're leaving out many of the natural sources of greenhouse gases and restricting it to one of the most industrialised country in the world.

So where did he keep the cattle? I'm assuming he must have kept them in a shed all year round if they didn't eat grass. Austria would have better land than us, he makes a fair point but we should have laws in place that give farm animals a certain amount of space, it would force farmers to make a choice between crops and meat.

Well, yes, it's US numbers, mostly because I couldn't find numbers for other countries, other than US and Australia. I'm not even sure Ireland would have published its statistics in such detail.

And please note that the stats say "Agriculture", not just animals. The scope is a bit wider than that.

He kept them in a shed year-round, yes. There are only two regions in Germany in Austria I'm aware of that would keep cattle outside, and that would be in the high alps and in the far north of Germany on the coast. I think both of those areas simply don't lend themselves to crops quite so much and are consequently used for livestock. But the vast majority of farm animals in continental Europe would rarely if ever see the sky.
They were kept decently enough, with a good bit of space for each of the cows. Environmental laws and animal rights have quite a strong lobby in Germany and Austria, so legislation and minimum requirements are a bit better.

ScumLord · 16-11-2016 03:18PM

Shenshen wrote: »

He kept them in a shed year-round, yes. There are only two regions in Germany in Austria I'm aware of that would keep cattle outside, and that would be in the high alps and in the far north of Germany on the coast. I think both of those areas simply don't lend themselves to crops quite so much and are consequently used for livestock. But the vast majority of farm animals in continental Europe would rarely if ever see the sky.
They were kept decently enough, with a good bit of space for each of the cows. Environmental laws and animal rights have quite a strong lobby in Germany and Austria, so legislation and minimum requirements are a bit better.

Ireland should make a real hard effort to bring in stricter animal welfare laws across Europe. All those guys would have to abandon their animal production leaving the market ripe for an Irish takeover.

loveisdivine · 16-11-2016 03:23PM

It wold be great if someone could come up a with a new argument against veganism that actually stands.

Of course, as a vegan, I am still responsible for the deaths of animals. But I have to eat to survive. So I choose to try and reduce the death and suffering caused by me. The easiest way for me to do this is by being vegan. It causes the least amount of suffering and death.

Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose

Don't forget, an awful lot of the corn, soy and grains etc produced go to feeding animals in the meat industry. So not only are you causing the suffering and death of the animals you eat, but also the secondary suffering and death of the animals killed when harvesting their food too.

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 03:28PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Ireland should make a real hard effort to bring in stricter animal welfare laws across Europe. All those guys would have to abandon their animal production leaving the market ripe for an Irish takeover.

Wouldn't hold my breath - it's going to sound ridiculous, but it'll be very tough indeed selling Irish beef in Germany in particular.
Germans love a good health food scare, and after the BSE outbreak in the UK years ago, many wouldn't touch anything from "over there". And before you say it, the general German public would not make a difference between Ireland and the UK, unfortunately.

Mooooo · 16-11-2016 03:31PM

loveisdivine wrote: »

It wold be great if someone could come up a with a new argument against veganism that actually stands.

Of course, as a vegan, I am still responsible for the deaths of animals. But I have to eat to survive. So I choose to try and reduce the death and suffering caused by me. The easiest way for me to do this is by being vegan. It causes the least amount of suffering and death.

Don't forget, an awful lot of the corn, soy and grains etc produced go to feeding animals in the meat industry. So not only are you causing the suffering and death of the animals you eat, but also the secondary suffering and death of the animals killed when harvesting their food too.

explain that last paragraph there

kunst nugget · 16-11-2016 03:35PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Wouldn't hold my breath - it's going to sound ridiculous, but it'll be very tough indeed selling Irish beef in Germany in particular.
Germans love a good health food scare, and after the BSE outbreak in the UK years ago, many wouldn't touch anything from "over there". And before you say it, the general German public would not make a difference between Ireland and the UK, unfortunately.

Irish Beef exports have increased year on year in Germany. It increased sixfold in six years from €17 million in 2009 to €120 million in 2015 according to Bord Bia. The grass fed beef doesn't seem to be a tough sell in Germany at all.

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 03:35PM

Mooooo wrote: »

explain that last paragraph there

Vegans - responsible for the accidental death of many small animals during harvesting
Omnivores - responsible for the accidental death of many small animals during harvesting + responsible for the death of the animals fed with the corn that was harvested

It wouldn't be my kind of argument, people should be free to choose what they want to eat. I would prefer if they ate less animals, but I'm not going to do anything to make them. Their choice.
And I think the "you're killing more than me" a bit odd - it's not a competition, last time I checked.

loveisdivine · 16-11-2016 03:36PM

Mooooo wrote: »

explain that last paragraph there

Well people say being vegan is pointless because we still kill animals for our food. Like mice etc when grains are harvested.

But a large portion of the grains harvested go to feeding commercial farm animals. So by eating meat, you are not only responsible for the animals you eat being killed, but you are also responsible for the mice etc killed to harvest the food for the cattle/chickens etc.

The point is being vegan still results in less harm. There's always going to be some harm done, some creatures inadvertently killed. It's about reducing that harm.

ScumLord · 16-11-2016 03:36PM

loveisdivine wrote: »

It wold be great if someone could come up a with a new argument against veganism that actually stands.

Of course, as a vegan, I am still responsible for the deaths of animals. But I have to eat to survive. So I choose to try and reduce the death and suffering caused by me. The easiest way for me to do this is by being vegan. It causes the least amount of suffering and death.

Being a consumer probably does far more harm than eating animals. Your electronics purchases probably lead indirectly to deaths, even of children. You're probably contributing to the suffering of underpaid workers, the destruction of rainforests, the list is endless. Look how much plastic you consume, how much paper you consume, these things come from the place animals used to live but now don't because the trees were cut down to make coffee cups.

There isn't really and argument against veganism, it's a choice, nobody needs to be vegan, nobody loses out by not being vegan, becoming vegan doesn't save one animal from slaughter. All that happens is that person that decided not eat meat any more doesn't eat meat anymore, the world continues on it's merry way as if nothing changed.

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 03:37PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Irish Beef exports have increased year on year in Germany. It increased sixfold in six years from €17 million in 2009 to €120 million in 2015 according to Bord Bia. The grass fed beef doesn't seem to be a tough sell in Germany at all.

Interesting.

When I moved over here a few years back, people back home were falling over themselves to tell me not to touch the beef. And the dairy, either, just to be on the safe side.

I wonder if it's a case of being sold without being labelled? Sold to restaurants and catering businesses, for example?

loveisdivine · 16-11-2016 03:38PM

Shenshen wrote: »

And I think the "you're killing more than me" a bit odd - it's not a competition, last time I checked.

Perhaps you should tell that to the meat eaters that like to use it as a way to call us out! "err, well, you're not perfect either cos mice get killed for your soy!"

Well duh, most vegans don't claim to be perfect. We're just trying to reduce the suffering we cause.

mathie · 16-11-2016 03:39PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Being a consumer probably does far more harm than eating animals. Your electronics purchases probably lead indirectly to deaths, even of children. You're probably contributing to the suffering of underpaid workers, the destruction of rainforests, the list is endless. Look how much plastic you consume, how much paper you consume, these things come from the place animals used to live but now don't because the trees were cut down to make coffee cups.

There isn't really and argument against veganism, it's a choice, nobody needs to be vegan, nobody loses out by not being vegan, becoming vegan doesn't save one animal from slaughter. All that happens is that person that decided not eat meat any more doesn't eat meat anymore, the world continues on it's merry way as if nothing changed.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian

Marco Springmann, a research fellow at the Oxford Martin School’s Future of Food programme, tried to quantify just how much better: he and his colleagues built computer models that predicted what would happen if everyone became vegetarian by 2050. The results indicate that – largely thanks to the elimination of red meat – food-related emissions would drop by about 60%. If the world went vegan instead, emissions declines would be around 70%.

Food, especially livestock, also takes up a lot of room – a source of both greenhouse gas emissions due to land conversion and of biodiversity loss. Of the world’s approximately five billion hectares (12 billion acres) of agricultural land, 68% is used for livestock.

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 03:41PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Being a consumer probably does far more harm than eating animals. Your electronics purchases probably lead indirectly to deaths, even of children. You're probably contributing to the suffering of underpaid workers, the destruction of rainforests, the list is endless. Look how much plastic you consume, how much paper you consume, these things come from the place animals used to live but now don't because the trees were cut down to make coffee cups.

There isn't really and argument against veganism, it's a choice, nobody needs to be vegan, nobody loses out by not being vegan, becoming vegan doesn't save one animal from slaughter. All that happens is that person that decided not eat meat any more doesn't eat meat anymore, the world continues on it's merry way as if nothing changed.

You'd have to explain that last one. On average, a person will consume 11 cows, 27 pigs, 2,400 chickens, 80 turkeys, 30 sheep and 4,500 fish in their lifetime (USA data again, but I doubt it would be vastly different here), what happens to them if they don't get eaten?
Thrown away?

loveisdivine · 16-11-2016 03:42PM

ScumLord wrote: »

All that happens is that person that decided not eat meat any more doesn't eat meat anymore, the world continues on it's merry way as if nothing changed.

Actually other stuff happens too. When people change what they eat, it helps change the overall demand for different foods, which changes production.

http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=8395&catId=1

Dairy farmers in California are opting for more sustainable crops. Bloomberg writers Leslie Patton and Lydia Mulvany analyzed the shift in California from dairy to almonds, revealing that 350,000 acres of almond groves have been incorporated into the state’s agricultural lands in the last decade. In contrast, the number of dairy cows in the state has fallen by 10,000 in the period between January and July of this year.

kunst nugget · 16-11-2016 03:44PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting.

When I moved over here a few years back, people back home were falling over themselves to tell me not to touch the beef. And the dairy, either, just to be on the safe side.

I wonder if it's a case of being sold without being labelled? Sold to restaurants and catering businesses, for example?

Not at all. They are selling based on it being a quality product because it's Irish.

http://www.fdbusiness.com/bord-bia-launches-an-irish-beef-promotion-with-german-steakhouse/

http://www.bordbia.ie/corporate/press/2015/pages/BeefExportsGermany.aspx

"REAL is a key customer of Irish beef in Germany, importing over 5,000 tonnes each year. Today's meeting allowed us to recognise the valued strategic partnership between REAL and the Irish beef industry" commented Mr. Cotter. "It was also an opportunity to present an update on the Irish food industry's Origin Green programme to a key global retailer."

Earlier this year, REAL launched a national promotional campaign to celebrate its 50th birthday and selected "premium Irish beef" as the key focus of its TV campaign.

_Brian · 16-11-2016 03:45PM

The truth is widespread veganism would be just as unsustainable and damaging to the planet as beef/meat farming.
The scales of production required would be massive and damaging as more land would need to be intensively farmed.

It would be much better for both people, animals and the environment if the focus was redirected to eating local produce which is sustainably produced.

The talk of secondary suffering of animals being killed during the harvesting of grain - and if the grain is going to feed vegans does this magically not happen, or it it suddenly seen as collateral damage that they die when harvesting food for vegans.

It's much more sensible to put efforts into sustainable production of mixed foods including beef which is very attainable because people like to eat meat and so getting them aligned with the notion will be easier.
Putting efforts into converting everyone away from meat to be vegan is like chasing the end of the rainbow, it might look possible but everyone else is laughing at you for chasing the impossible.

It's a hell of a lot easier to sell the notion of improved animal welfare to people than the notion that they will spend the rest of their lives eating quorn or whatever made look like a steak.

Mooooo · 16-11-2016 03:45PM

loveisdivine wrote: »

Actually other stuff happens too. When people change what they eat, it helps change the overall demand for different foods, which changes production.

http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=8395&catId=1

Not much point in comparing almond groves over 10 years to dairy cows over 6 months. main reason for the cow cull has been drought in cailifornia and poor prices due to a global oversupply

Shenshen · 16-11-2016 03:47PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Not at all. They are selling based on it being a quality product because it's Irish.

http://www.fdbusiness.com/bord-bia-launches-an-irish-beef-promotion-with-german-steakhouse/

http://www.bordbia.ie/corporate/press/2015/pages/BeefExportsGermany.aspx

5k tons?

Ok, that sounds a lot at first, but keeping in mind that the German population is 80 million strong, and that meat consumption each year is around 7.3 million tons, this is nowhere near as much as I thought when you first posted about the exports!

Mooooo · 16-11-2016 03:51PM

The majority of beef exports go to the uk, hence the reason brexit could be big hit to the beef industry. the figure for germany off that second link is actually 21k tonnes not 5

Vegans and Vegetarians Think They Don’t Kill Animals but They Do

Comments