Jiglu: Farmtalking: Discussion: RE: Why vegans were right all along

Originally from: Farmtalking

Thanks Susan! –

Monbiot has always provided extremely thought provoking articles and I remember he was with Jonathan Miller one of the most staunchly supportive journalists 'on our side' during the FMD crisis!

Originally from: Susan Staunton

As I see you posted a link to a very thought-provoking article by George Monbiot (he is nothing if not that!) I thought you would indulge me as I do likewise Jane

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,865114,00.html

Originally from: Brian Marshall

A very silly argument. Stop the population rise first, before you attempt to make the world's peoples vitamin B12 deficient. { It doesn't occur in the plant kingdom }

Originally from: Susan Staunton

Author wrote:
Thanks Susan! –
Monbiot has always provided extremely thought provoking articles and I remember he was with Jonathan Miller one of the most staunchly supportive journalists 'on our side' during the FMD crisis!

Yes and as he makes clear here, he is a meat-eater. Just one who ponders what we are doing in the name of it that's all.

Still on a more positive note just back from my local Somerfields who now not only stock Scottish born and bred beef, but also with the (very local) farmer's own name and address on it. Now I know anti-globalisation types like Monbiot would probably decry this having a fundamental opposition to the whole concept of supermarkets, but given that realistically they are here to stay at least it's a tiny step in the right direction?

Originally from: brentns

Subject: [farmtalking] RE: Why vegans were right all along
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:23:38 +0000 (GMT+00:00)
A very silly argument. Stop the population rise first, before you attempt
to make the world's peoples vitamin B12 deficient. { It doesn't occur in
the plant kingdom }

Even in a low energy "sustainable" scenario.. grazing/browsing animals on land not suitable for arable or biomass fuel production could still make sense.. as can hunting wildlife
One can make the argument that our fossil fuelled animal agriculture be cut back.. however , the extremists who rail against meat eating.. purportedly as a matter of principle.. are simply dishonest..
It's a question of scale, not of principle..
After all.. hunter/gatherer, on a limited scale is the one lifestyle that we know can be sustainable

Author wrote:
As I see you posted a link to a very thought-provoking article by George
Monbiot (he is nothing if not that!) I thought you would indulge me as I do
likewise Jane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,865114,00.html

The impending crisis will be accelerated by the depletion of both phosphate fertiliser and the water used to grow crops. Every kilogram of beef we consume, according to research by the agronomists David Pimental and Robert Goodland, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,865114,00.html

Pimentel's views

Last orders please ... room is running out at the global dinner table

If all people are to be fed adequately and equitably, we must have a gradual transition to a global population of 2 billion. A population policy ensuring that each couple produces an average of only 1.5 children would be necessary. If this were implemented, more than 100 years would be required to make the adjustment.
This suggested population for Earth is based on a European standard of living for everyone and sustainable use of natural resources. A reduction in the world population to 2 billion, as well as a reduced per capita consumption rate, would help reduce the severe pressure on surface and groundwater resources. Also, if pollution were controlled in most river and lake systems worldwide, increased fish production would be possible. Although a rapid reduction in population could cause social, economic, and political problems, the continued rapid growth to 10 or 12 billion people will result in an even more dire situation, with potentially greater problems.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/11/1026185085718.html

I was curious what i might find in the way of figures for the UK somewhat analogous to Pimentel world figures.. Here's all i've seen so far. I'm somewhat surprised that that the OPT figures would be so high relative to Pimentel's world figures.. I would have thought off the top of my head that the UK with a relatively high pop density.. would need a proportionately greater pop reduction (caet par).. however haven't gone thorough any of the doubtless myriad assumptions..underlying the figures quoted..
Incidently seems to me this Pimentel figure of 2B for the world are at the (very) high end of estimates for "sustainability" emananating from the hard core Malthusians

OPT researchers have concluded that a population of 30 million may be the largest that the UK can sustain throughout the next century if its continuing damage to local and global environments is to stop and its citizens are to enjoy an acceptable quality of life http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.britain.html

OPT believes that if everyone is to enjoy even a modest level of consumption the present populations both of the UK and the world as a whole are too high
– globally by a factor of two to three. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.optimum.html

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.projection.html

It should be clearly understood that the Party does not support repressive or coercive population control measures but, rather, is seeking to avoid their imposition. Our emphasis is on scientifically based education on the subject
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policy/mfss/popul.html

Seems the Green party is the only one to (somewhat) openly air the subject..albeit gingerly.. as population issues are very politically sensitive..

cheers
brent

Originally from: Susan Staunton

Author wrote:
A very silly argument.

Really? I don't think either the author of this piece, George Monbiot, or the renowned "anti-beef" campaigner, Jeremy Rifkin, are suggesting that cattle should be eradicated from the face of the earth, but merely that there numbers should be controlled and that they should be farmed in a more natural way – bearing in mind that Rikfin's comments are directed very much at US beef production: Americans consume almost a quarter of all the beef produced in the world. Every 24 hours 100,000 cattle are slaughtered in the United States. The average American consumes the meat of seven 1,100-pound animals in his or her lifetime, in other words approximately 1 1/2 – 2 lbs a week!!! Now I know that B12 is a very important vitamin, but it is required in smaller amounts than any other known vitamin and it is further best absorbed in small quantities and can be derived not only from beef, but also from eggs and dairy produce. Excessive consumption of beef on the other hand is a proven contributory factor in heart disease, strokes, and cancer

You talk about controlling the world's human population rather than controlling its beef numbers, but this beef goes almost exclusively to the first world and whilst its numbers has have multiplied 5-fold since the early 50s its human population certainly hasn't.

I got quite involved in this debate last year and here is a link to an article Rifkin wrote and which appeared in the Graun, together with a very small extract from his 'Beyond Beef' website, a link to which can also be found at the foot of this reply.

Regards
Sue
a beef eater!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4415252,00.html

From: ...

Originally from Rifkins 'Beyond Beef' website

How will the Beyond Beef campaign affect the family farm?

A. The family farm has been among the chief victims of the powerful beef industry lobby; every small farmer in America knows this. For years, the beef lobby has been able to secure cheap subsidized feed at the expense of American farmers whose costs of production often exceed the price of feed set by the government. Small scale ranchers are also exploited by the beef industry giants who are now able to control and manipulate the price of beef through various market arrangements.

While Beyond Beef is asking people to cut their beef consumption in half, the campaign is also encouraging consumers to demand humanely and sustainably raised beef when they do eat meat. The Beyond Beef campaign will help preserve the family farm by providing a new market niche for beef that has come from cattle who are humanely raised under sustainable, organic standards. It is impossible to raise cattle under such standards in giant corporate feedlots: only the family farm is capable of filling this new market. Small farmers are encouraged to make a transition to humane, sustainable husbandry practices to fill this new and important need.

The Beyond Beef campaign is also advocating a bold new farm policy in the United States -- one that encourages a transition from feed to food production by rewarding the nation's small farmers with higher prices for growing food for human consumption. We believe that it is past time for the government to move its priorities away from policies and programs that subsidize feed for livestock and toward programs that subsidize food production for needy human beings, The Government should greatly expand its aid programs to distribute grain surpluses to needy people at home and abroad.

From: ...

Originally from an American rancher who owns grazing land in the Amazon, describing the attitude of cattle colonists in the Brazilian rain forests:

"We only got hooked on grain-fed meat just as we got hooked on gaz guzzling automobiles. Big cars 'made sense' only when oil was cheap, grain-fed meat 'makes sense' only because the true costs of producing it are not counted"

And from Ehrlich and Ehrlich, authors of 'The Population Explosion'

"Family farmers are the victims of public policy that gives preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the Beef Cartel the biggest hog at the trough"

And yet another from the Exec. Director of a meat industry organization:

"The amount of meat lost each year through careless handling and brutality would be enough to feed a million Americans for a year"

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html

Stop the population rise first, before you attempt to make the world's peoples vitamin B12 deficient. { It doesn't occur in the plant kingdom }

Originally from: Farmtalking

Author wrote:
And maybe when we consider all of this in the light of this:

.....and in the light of this – 'EU's secret plans hold poor countries to ransom' which was also a posting from Brent!

"The "free trading" Bush administration has dashed any hopes that the WTO talks will change this. Pandering to lobby groups, it has adopted a farm bill that will increase spending on agriculture by 80%, or $8bn a year. More than three-quarters of the benefits will go to the richest farmers and agribusiness companies. The costs will be borne by a wider constituency, including cotton farmers in west Africa, rice farmers in Vietnam and maize producers in the Philippines, who must adjust to the surge of cheap US exports"
and much of what was in this link from Jane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,902365,00.html
on the OT – A Message from Dr Richard Lawson thread
we start to see the picture more fully?
Author wrote:
Author wrote:
A very silly argument.
Really? I don't think either the author of this piece, George Monbiot, or the renowned "anti-beef" campaigner, Jeremy Rifkin, are suggesting that cattle should be eradicated from the face of the earth, but merely that there numbers should be controlled and that they should be farmed in a more natural way – bearing in mind that Rikfin's comments are directed very much at US beef production: Americans consume almost a quarter of all the beef produced in the world. Every 24 hours 100,000 cattle are slaughtered in the United States. The average American consumes the meat of seven 1,100-pound animals in his or her lifetime, in other words approximately 1 1/2 – 2 lbs a week!!! Now I know that B12 is a very important vitamin, but it is required in smaller amounts than any other known vitamin and it is further best absorbed in small quantities and can be derived not only from beef, but also from eggs and dairy produce. Excessive consumption of beef on the other hand is a proven contributory factor in heart disease, strokes, and cancer
You talk about controlling the world's human population rather than controlling its beef numbers, but this beef goes almost exclusively to the first world and whilst its numbers has have multiplied 5-fold since the early 50s its human population certainly hasn't.
I got quite involved in this debate last year and here is a link to an article Rifkin wrote and which appeared in the Graun, together with a very small extract from his 'Beyond Beef' website, a link to which can also be found at the foot of this reply.
Regards
Sue
a beef eater!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4415252,00.html
From Rifkins 'Beyond Beef' website
How will the Beyond Beef campaign affect the family farm?
A. The family farm has been among the chief victims of the powerful beef industry lobby; every small farmer in America knows this. For years, the beef lobby has been able to secure cheap subsidized feed at the expense of American farmers whose costs of production often exceed the price of feed set by the government. Small scale ranchers are also exploited by the beef
industry giants who are now able to control and manipulate the price of beef through various market arrangements.
While Beyond Beef is asking people to cut their beef consumption in half, the campaign is also encouraging consumers to demand humanely and sustainably raised beef when they do eat meat. The Beyond Beef campaign will help preserve the family farm by providing a new market niche for beef that has come from cattle who are humanely raised under sustainable, organic
standards. It is impossible to raise cattle under such standards in giant corporate feedlots: only the family farm is capable of filling this new market. Small farmers are encouraged to make a transition to humane, sustainable husbandry practices to fill this new and important need.
The Beyond Beef campaign is also advocating a bold new farm policy in the United States -- one that encourages a transition from feed to food production by rewarding the nation's small farmers with higher prices for growing food for human consumption. We believe that it is past time for the government to move its priorities away from policies and programs that
subsidize feed for livestock and toward programs that subsidize food production for needy human beings, The Government should greatly expand its aid programs to distribute grain surpluses to needy people at home and abroad.
From an American rancher who owns grazing land in the Amazon,
describing the attitude of cattle colonists in the Brazilian rain forests:
"We only got hooked on grain-fed meat just as we got hooked on gaz guzzling automobiles. Big cars 'made sense' only when oil was cheap, grain-fed meat 'makes sense' only because the true costs of producing it are not counted"
And from Ehrlich and Ehrlich, authors of 'The Population Explosion'
"Family farmers are the victims of public policy that gives preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the Beef Cartel the biggest hog at the trough"
And yet another from the Exec. Director of a meat industry organization:
"The amount of meat lost each year through careless handling and brutality would be enough to feed a million Americans for a year"
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html
Stop the population rise first, before you attempt to make the world's peoples vitamin B12 deficient. { It doesn't occur in the plant kingdom }
Author wrote:
As I see you posted a link to a very thought-provoking article by George Monbiot (he is nothing if not that!) I thought you would indulge me as I do likewise Jane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,865114,00.html

Originally from: Susan Staunton

And maybe when we consider all of this in the light of this:

"The "free trading" Bush administration has dashed any hopes that the WTO talks will change this. Pandering to lobby groups, it has adopted a farm bill that will increase spending on agriculture by 80%, or $8bn a year. More than three-quarters of the benefits will go to the richest farmers and agribusiness companies. The costs will be borne by a wider constituency, including cotton farmers in west Africa, rice farmers in Vietnam and maize producers in the Philippines, who must adjust to the surge of cheap US exports"

and much of what was in this link from Jane

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,902365,00.html

on the OT – A Message from Dr Richard Lawson thread

we start to see the picture more fully?

Author wrote:
Author wrote:
A very silly argument.
Really? I don't think either the author of this piece, George Monbiot, or the renowned "anti-beef" campaigner, Jeremy Rifkin, are suggesting that cattle should be eradicated from the face of the earth, but merely that there numbers should be controlled and that they should be farmed in a more natural way – bearing in mind that Rikfin's comments are directed very much at US beef production: Americans consume almost a quarter of all the beef produced in the world. Every 24 hours 100,000 cattle are slaughtered in the United States. The average American consumes the meat of seven 1,100-pound animals in his or her lifetime, in other words approximately 1 1/2 – 2 lbs a week!!! Now I know that B12 is a very important vitamin, but it is required in smaller amounts than any other known vitamin and it is further best absorbed in small quantities and can be derived not only from beef, but also from eggs and dairy produce. Excessive consumption of beef on the other hand is a proven contributory factor in heart disease, strokes, and cancer
You talk about controlling the world's human population rather than controlling its beef numbers, but this beef goes almost exclusively to the first world and whilst its numbers has have multiplied 5-fold since the early 50s its human population certainly hasn't.
I got quite involved in this debate last year and here is a link to an article Rifkin wrote and which appeared in the Graun, together with a very small extract from his 'Beyond Beef' website, a link to which can also be found at the foot of this reply.
Regards
Sue
a beef eater!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4415252,00.html
From Rifkins 'Beyond Beef' website
How will the Beyond Beef campaign affect the family farm?
A. The family farm has been among the chief victims of the powerful beef industry lobby; every small farmer in America knows this. For years, the beef lobby has been able to secure cheap subsidized feed at the expense of American farmers whose costs of production often exceed the price of feed set by the government. Small scale ranchers are also exploited by the beef
industry giants who are now able to control and manipulate the price of beef through various market arrangements.
While Beyond Beef is asking people to cut their beef consumption in half, the campaign is also encouraging consumers to demand humanely and sustainably raised beef when they do eat meat. The Beyond Beef campaign will help preserve the family farm by providing a new market niche for beef that has come from cattle who are humanely raised under sustainable, organic
standards. It is impossible to raise cattle under such standards in giant corporate feedlots: only the family farm is capable of filling this new market. Small farmers are encouraged to make a transition to humane, sustainable husbandry practices to fill this new and important need.
The Beyond Beef campaign is also advocating a bold new farm policy in the United States -- one that encourages a transition from feed to food production by rewarding the nation's small farmers with higher prices for growing food for human consumption. We believe that it is past time for the government to move its priorities away from policies and programs that
subsidize feed for livestock and toward programs that subsidize food production for needy human beings, The Government should greatly expand its aid programs to distribute grain surpluses to needy people at home and abroad.
From an American rancher who owns grazing land in the Amazon,
describing the attitude of cattle colonists in the Brazilian rain forests:
"We only got hooked on grain-fed meat just as we got hooked on gaz guzzling automobiles. Big cars 'made sense' only when oil was cheap, grain-fed meat 'makes sense' only because the true costs of producing it are not counted"
And from Ehrlich and Ehrlich, authors of 'The Population Explosion'
"Family farmers are the victims of public policy that gives preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the Beef Cartel the biggest hog at the trough"
And yet another from the Exec. Director of a meat industry organization:
"The amount of meat lost each year through careless handling and brutality would be enough to feed a million Americans for a year"
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html
Stop the population rise first, before you attempt to make the world's peoples vitamin B12 deficient. { It doesn't occur in the plant kingdom }
Author wrote:
As I see you posted a link to a very thought-provoking article by George Monbiot (he is nothing if not that!) I thought you would indulge me as I do likewise Jane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,865114,00.html

Originally from: Susan Staunton

Author wrote:
Author wrote:
And maybe when we consider all of this in the light of this:
.....and in the light of this – 'EU's secret plans hold poor countries to ransom' which was also a posting from Brent!

Absolutely, self-interest and protectionism only ever seems to disenfranchise the poorest in the world doesn't it – Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, pays the US $314m a year in import taxes because textiles and garments are levied at 5–7 times that of industrial goods!

Monbiot, Rifkin et al are undoubtedly mavericks and thorns in the side of establishment, as I hope we all were to a certain extent during FMD and as Jonathan Miller continues to be in his excellent 'Mean Fields' column (his latest crusade against the BBC licensing fee is a wonder to behold, exposing not only the iniquity of this but also that Greg "oi use lot aht there' Dyke's dumbing down extends to its legal department equally as much as it does to its output). But surely we need people like this to prick out conscience and to make us question the status quo even if we ultimately still decide to adhere to the latter?

And talking of self-interest and protectionism on a more domestic front I must return to my annual "just exactly what is the most out of date item in my larder". Why is it always the cochineal, which not content with being 6 years old also has a loose top to ensure your fingers are stained red for days?

"The "free trading" Bush administration has dashed any hopes that the WTO talks will change this. Pandering to lobby groups, it has adopted a farm bill that will increase spending on agriculture by 80%, or $8bn a year. More than three-quarters of the benefits will go to the richest farmers and agribusiness companies. The costs will be borne by a wider constituency, including cotton farmers in west Africa, rice farmers in Vietnam and maize producers in the Philippines, who must adjust to the surge of cheap US exports"
and much of what was in this link from Jane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,902365,00.html
on the OT – A Message from Dr Richard Lawson thread
we start to see the picture more fully?
Author wrote:
Author wrote:
A very silly argument.
Really? I don't think either the author of this piece, George Monbiot, or the renowned "anti-beef" campaigner, Jeremy Rifkin, are suggesting that cattle should be eradicated from the face of the earth, but merely that there numbers should be controlled and that they should be farmed in a more natural way – bearing in mind that Rikfin's comments are directed very much at US beef production: Americans consume almost a quarter of all the beef produced in the world. Every 24 hours 100,000 cattle are slaughtered in the United States. The average American consumes the meat of seven 1,100-pound animals in his or her lifetime, in other words approximately 1 1/2 – 2 lbs a week!!! Now I know that B12 is a very important vitamin, but it is required in smaller amounts than any other known vitamin and it is further best absorbed in small quantities and can be derived not only from beef, but also from eggs and dairy produce. Excessive consumption of beef on the other hand is a proven contributory factor in heart disease, strokes, and cancer
You talk about controlling the world's human population rather than controlling its beef numbers, but this beef goes almost exclusively to the first world and whilst its numbers has have multiplied 5-fold since the early 50s its human population certainly hasn't.
I got quite involved in this debate last year and here is a link to an article Rifkin wrote and which appeared in the Graun, together with a very small extract from his 'Beyond Beef' website, a link to which can also be found at the foot of this reply.
Regards
Sue
a beef eater!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4415252,00.html
From Rifkins 'Beyond Beef' website
How will the Beyond Beef campaign affect the family farm?
A. The family farm has been among the chief victims of the powerful beef industry lobby; every small farmer in America knows this. For years, the beef lobby has been able to secure cheap subsidized feed at the expense of American farmers whose costs of production often exceed the price of feed set by the government. Small scale ranchers are also exploited by the beef
industry giants who are now able to control and manipulate the price of beef through various market arrangements.
While Beyond Beef is asking people to cut their beef consumption in half, the campaign is also encouraging consumers to demand humanely and sustainably raised beef when they do eat meat. The Beyond Beef campaign will help preserve the family farm by providing a new market niche for beef that has come from cattle who are humanely raised under sustainable, organic
standards. It is impossible to raise cattle under such standards in giant corporate feedlots: only the family farm is capable of filling this new market. Small farmers are encouraged to make a transition to humane, sustainable husbandry practices to fill this new and important need.
The Beyond Beef campaign is also advocating a bold new farm policy in the United States -- one that encourages a transition from feed to food production by rewarding the nation's small farmers with higher prices for growing food for human consumption. We believe that it is past time for the government to move its priorities away from policies and programs that
subsidize feed for livestock and toward programs that subsidize food production for needy human beings, The Government should greatly expand its aid programs to distribute grain surpluses to needy people at home and abroad.
From an American rancher who owns grazing land in the Amazon,
describing the attitude of cattle colonists in the Brazilian rain forests:
"We only got hooked on grain-fed meat just as we got hooked on gaz guzzling automobiles. Big cars 'made sense' only when oil was cheap, grain-fed meat 'makes sense' only because the true costs of producing it are not counted"
And from Ehrlich and Ehrlich, authors of 'The Population Explosion'
"Family farmers are the victims of public policy that gives preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the Beef Cartel the biggest hog at the trough"
And yet another from the Exec. Director of a meat industry organization:
"The amount of meat lost each year through careless handling and brutality would be enough to feed a million Americans for a year"
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html
Stop the population rise first, before you attempt to make the world's peoples vitamin B12 deficient. { It doesn't occur in the plant kingdom }
Author wrote:
As I see you posted a link to a very thought-provoking article by George Monbiot (he is nothing if not that!) I thought you would indulge me as I do likewise Jane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,865114,00.html