Oh, the animal rightists are not going to like this. Seizing on the claim that meat eating causes global warming, rightists have pushed vegetarianism as an environmental fix. Now, a study has concluded, that eating meat might actually be better for the environment–at least in the UK. From the story:
Becoming a vegetarian can do more harm to the environment than continuing to eat red meat, according to a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu. The findings undermine claims by vegetarians that giving up meat automatically results in lower emissions and that less land is needed to produce food. The study by Cranfield University, commissioned by the environmental group WWF, found that many meat substitutes were produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that were grown overseas and imported into Britain. It found that switching from beef and lamb reared in Britain to meat substitutes would result in more foreign land being cultivated and raise the risk of forests being destroyed to create farmland. Meat substitutes also tended to be highly processed and involved energy-intensive production methods.
Besides, a vegan diet is “murder” too, as I have discussed before:
Plant agriculture results each year in the mass slaughter of countless animals, including rabbits, gophers, mice, birds, snakes, and other field creatures. These animals are killed during harvesting, and in the various mechanized farming processes that produce wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and other staples of vegan diets. And that doesn’t include the countless rats and mice poisoned in grain elevators, or the animals that die from loss of habitat cleared for agricultural use.
Animal-rights activists certainly don’t mention this inconvenient fact in their advocacy materials. But if the matter comes up in debate, they have a problem: They believe it is “speciesist” to grant some sentient animals — including humans — greater value than others; as PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk so famously put it, “a rat, is a fish, is a dog, is a boy.” [Hey, that's a great title for a book!] Thus, they cannot contend that it is more wrong to kill a pig than a rabbit. Nor can they argue that field animals experience less-agonizing deaths from plant agriculture than food animals do from food-animal slaughtering. Field animals may flee in panic as the great rumbling harvest combines approach, only to be shredded to bits within their merciless blades; they may be burned to death when field leavings are burned; they may be poisoned by pesticides; they may die from predation when their plant cover has been removed.
This is all nonsense. What you eat will not cause warming, whether it is meat or tofu. Veganism is fine for those who want it, but it still comes at the cost of mass animal killing. Let’s lighten up.
February 12th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
[...] More here: Global Warming Hysteria/Animal Rights: Tofu Worse Than Meat for UK … [...]
February 12th, 2010 | 2:01 pm
[...] Here is the original post: Global Warming Hysteria/Animal Rights: Tofu Worse Than Meat for UK … [...]
February 12th, 2010 | 3:55 pm
[...] the original post here: Global Warming Hysteria/Animal Rights: Tofu Worse Than Meat for UK … Posted in Animal | Tags: a-study-has, actually-, Animal, claim, eating-causes, meat-might, [...]
February 12th, 2010 | 4:09 pm
Another interesting take on meat as sustainable and eco-friendly agriculture here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692-1,00.html
Virtually the same sentiments from the ultra-free-thinking Utne Reader here:
http://www.utne.com/Environment/Grass-Fed-Beef-One-Sweet-Tasting-Steak.aspx
The bottom line is that ANY agriculture, even organic, displaces other species, and that is our chief impact on those other species. All species compete for food supply, and that’s ok. That is how nature works.
February 12th, 2010 | 6:30 pm
[...] here to see the original: Global Warming Hysteria/Animal Rights: Tofu Worse Than Meat for UK … Pet Connection Blog » Veterinarians divided on animal welfare issuesStephanie Pratt was [...]
February 12th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
When they say meat is murder, it’s so illogical because unless you’re eating rocks you’re eating something that has been killed. My good friend is a vegetarian and whenever he comes over I tell him my houseplants are afraid because there is a serial killer in the house. I’ve heard of studies that have suggested that plants may grow better when their owners talk to them or play classical music for them. If animals should have rights- why not plants?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Don’t laugh. It’s coming, Seann. See my “The Sile nt Scream of the Asparagus” about Switzerland declaring plant dignity. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp
February 12th, 2010 | 9:27 pm
Dear Wesley,
Many *people* die when we build roads, bridges, skyscrapers, etc. Does this mean that it is morally acceptable to kill people?
My point is, there is a difference between an intentional and unintentional act.
The environmental aspects of meat production have absolutely nothing to with our moral obligation to them.
Even if meat were the most environmentally sound practice ever it would still violate animals’ rights to not be exploited by humans and viewed as property.
However:
Most farm animals are fed grains – the same imported grains in tofu an other vegan products.
Maybe a better frame of reference would be “very few types of pastured dead animals slightly less eco-friendly than very few imported conventionally grown processed vegan products.”
One can aquire chickpeas and lentils without killing animals. One cannot aquire flesh without killing animals. The same combine that harvests the grain in the vegan products, harvests the grain fed to most of the animals that are killed for their body parts.
You compare local to imported – what about local meat vs local grains? Or imported meat vs imported tofu, etc.? Or imported apples and oranges vs local straw-men?
Finally, anyone can tell the difference between plant and animal as far as ability to feel pain and ability to consciously suffer. They have not evolved the biological requirements. Do you not see that by comparing animal deaths to plant deaths, being an animal yourself, you must include yourself in the comparison? Plants don’t have the capacity to move or avoid pain, why would they feel it, logically – from an evolutionary standpoint? Forgetting to feed your houseplant and it dying is not the moral equivalent of forgetting to feed your dog and him/her dying. Speaking of that, how about the eco-friendly nature of stray and abandoned dog and cat consumption? Put your morals where your mouth is and convince us that there is a moral difference between eating dogs and cats and and eating cows and lambs.
It seems as though you care less about the animals than the environment, and even less about plants – all which you care nothing about until they can benefit you in some way – or only as much as causing them to suffer causes you to suffer. Sadly and selfishly anthropocentric your view is.
Regardless of the extent that killing animals is harmful to the environment, it is directly harmful to the animals, and violates their right to be free from unnecessary harm or death. As much as you value your life and independence, so too does any other animal. We all have a right to be free from exploitation – to not be treated as property of another – human and non-human animals. The least we could do is let them live their own lives.
Peace Is Coming For You
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Peace: But it is an intentional act. Animals in a known place will be slaughtered mercilessly in order to harvest vegetable matter, not some potential death that may or may not happen. Moreover, the deaths are far more painful and gruesome than what happens to professionally slaughtered food animals. In other words, the killing of the field animals is done with, what we call in law, willful disregard for the life, safety, and well being of the animals. If the same thing were done to humans it would be murder, or at the very least manslaughter. Don’t try to wiggle out because you can’t.
February 12th, 2010 | 9:59 pm
Peace: It seems you are saying that what entitles an organism to rights is its ability to feel pain- how did you arrive at that arbitrary conclusion?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Seann: That is classic animal rights dogma, but I’ll let Peace explain further.
February 12th, 2010 | 10:06 pm
all of the meat I eat is vegetarian meat.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Yes, with the exception of fish, the meat I eat is vegetarian, too. Very clever wils.
February 12th, 2010 | 10:26 pm
I also like salad.
February 12th, 2010 | 10:49 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: SHS: Global Warming Hysteria/Animal Rights: Tofu Worse Than Meat for UK Environment http://bit.ly/cicTrx #tcot…
February 12th, 2010 | 11:20 pm
Peace: “We all have a right to be free from exploitation – to not be treated as property of another – human and non-human animals. ”
No, we do not.
At least not as far as other species are concerned. If a shark gets hold of you, it will treat you as lunch. If a lion gets hold of you and hyenas try to take you away, you WILL be treated as property. And millions of small animals treat you as a residence and food supply.
The only rights we have are mutually granted to us by other human beings, in exchange for specific concessions. They are highly subjective and revokable. If we do not treat other humans as property, it is only because (most) societies have agreed that it is better for humanity that slavery not be practiced.
And if we consider the welfare of other species and our environment in our decisions, that is because of the unique perspective of the human race. No other species has any concern for any other species, but we do. Pardon me for being anthropocentric, but I’ve been human my whole life and it’s all I know.
I wish people talking about animal rights would take a moment to figure out what “rights” actually are before trying to decide who or what should have them.
February 13th, 2010 | 12:28 am
[...] Global Warming Hysteria/Animal Rights: Tofu Worse Than Meat for UK … TUMEKE!: more redneck raw meat policy – why not ban sunlight for …Eating meat kills the Earth; going vegan kills the Earth « Don SurberThe Meat StylusBefore there even was a Muhammad, The Main Road to Jewish …Main Street Electrical Parade returning to Walt Disney World Magic …T-shirts with pro-democracy message seized in Hong Kong | PoliticsWestpac Velocity Rewards Credit Cards – Earn Velocity Rewards …“Earn Money at Home Online”:How to do it Quickly!Watch the Special Valentines Day Message From Michael! | Michael …How to Make Money at Home Earn Money Online Successfully on the … View the Contact Powered by Mobile [...]
February 13th, 2010 | 3:03 am
The global warming is major cause of cutting down the green belt and continuous emission of the carbon dioxide from industries and vehicles which creates a layer in the atmosphere which traps the sun raise inside the earths atmosphere and which raises the earths temperature.
February 13th, 2010 | 11:57 am
[...] things as well–and most seriously wrong about the dignity of non-human animals. Indeed, in his latest post his cites a previous article in which, apparently, his love for steak confuses his ability to be [...]
February 13th, 2010 | 6:49 pm
I’ll reiterate my thoughts from the last time this issue was raised:
Couldn’t it be said that a meat-based diet involves BOTH types of killing animals, since soy and corn are harvested on a grand scale to feed livestock?
And it seems as though lessening or eliminating the inadvertent killing of animals during the harvesting of grain can be a goal, whereas in meat “production” the killing of an animal is an obvious and necessary step.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Except, some animals are grass fed and the study found that fewer animals would be killed if we had a ruminate based meat diet, along with vegetables etc.. But the point isn’t the number killed, or even the manner in which they are killed–much worse for the field mice and the poisoned rats in the silos. The point is that except in the most rudimentary gathering or farming, unsustainable for our numbers, animals will die so people can live–no matter our diet. There’s no way around it.
February 14th, 2010 | 5:48 am
[...] Secondhand Smoke – in his defence, he qualifies his statement with “at least in the UK”. The Telegraph – reproduces the original article, with a new title: Becoming vegetarian “can harm the environment” Fiona Macrae takes it a step further: How being vegetarian does more harm to the environment than eating meat. And it seems that Fiona may have toned down her original wording, as Google caching shows she’s changed from “It is a claim guaranteed to wipe the smug smile off vegetarians’ faces” to “It is a claim that could put a dent in the green credentials of vegetarians”. Above Top Secret has a thread entitled “Vegitarians are destroying the environment” [sic] Caroline Stocks of Farmers Weekly Interactive helpfully includes an apparently invented quote in her title: Meat eating ‘greener than veggie diet’ Karl’s Weird News just comes out and says it in his title: Vegetarians are bad for the environment Don Surber from the Daily Mail is perhaps taking the piss with “Eating meat kills the Earth; going vegan kills the Earth”, but perhaps not. The Blog Prof Jason Ramsey of Top News generously includes “might” in: Meat eating might help environment The Australian doesn’t just reproduce the article, but puts a bit of thought into perpetuating the fallacious reasoning [...]
February 16th, 2010 | 2:13 pm
We are all learning know that tofu and soy and many other processed vegan meat substitutes are bad for our health and for the environment. That doesn’t mean we have to go back to eating meat, even grass-fed naturally farmed meat. It just means stick to the basic natural foods, preferably local, and avoid processed foods and soy, and eat less of them too.
Have you seen Food, Inc, or read Eating Animals? Factory farming is killing people, children and adults, from diseases and infections and ineffective antibiotics. Factory farming has to be stopped before a huge catastrophe hits. Please don’t confuse animal rights with the need to stop factory farming, you don’t have to abandon human exceptionalism to recognize that there is a huge problem in our food supply. Please watch Food Inc!
April 8th, 2010 | 10:38 am
[...] THE GLACIERS TO MELT because it wasn’t measured! And let us not forget the UK study that said eating meat was better for the environment then vegetarianism there because of the global warming consequences of importing soy bean [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact