From: abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT)
Subject: Environmental reasons, Part 5
Organization: Abo Akademi University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:35:56 GMT

Continued from Part 4


%% Living off the fat of the land %%

   The first line  of defense against animal agriculture's  ecological
side-effects is individual action: eating less meat,  or no meat.  The
health  benefits  alone are  compelling: the saturated fats  in animal
products  increase one's  risk  of heart  disease,  stroke,  and  even
certain types of cancer.
   In fact, results of a recent comprehensive study of diet and health
in China suggest that the  healthiest range for fat consumption is  10
to  15  percent  of  calories,  about  a third  of  current  U.S.  fat
consumption.
   But  personal  decisions to eat foods lower on the food chain won't
suffice without corresponding changes in governmental codes that allow
the livestock  industry  to  deplete  and  pollute  resources  without
bearing  the costs.   What's needed is  enough citizens demanding that
lawmakers take aim at the ecological side-effects of meat production.
   There is a  lot to do.   Overgrazing on public  land in the western
U.S.  for example, continues largely  because the BLM and  the  Forest
Service  subsidize and mismanage cattle grazing.  This fact is readily
apparent where fences divide public  from private land.  On the public
side, where the government charges just $1.90 per head  of cattle  per
month, ranchers  run  as many  cattle as they can, and the land  is in
various  stages  of  becoming desert.  On  the private  side,  grazing
charges are typically five times higher, and the land is in far better
condition, with denser and more diverse vegetation.
   Revenues  the  government  gets  from its bargain-basement  prices,
furthermore,  cover  scarcely  one-third  the  costs  of  its  present
inadequate management.   They  are  far  too  meager  to  support such
necessary efforts as vigilant monitoring of range  conditions, fencing
off degraded areas, and ensuring that ranchers keep their herds moving
to  lighten  the burden  on  the land.  The  House  recently  approved
increasing  grazing  fees to $8.70  per head per  month  by 1994,  but
despite the strong margin of passage, 232-192, the measure faces stiff
opposition in the Senate. [it did not pass]
   The federal government  also  takes the  blame for  some  waste  of
irrigation  water  through what  Congress estimates is a $2.2  billion
annual subsidy to western water projects.  Between $500 million and $1
billion of that amount goes to feed and fodder growers.   Fortunately,
long-term public water contracts are coming up for  review across  the
west  in  the  next  five years,  giving environmentalists a chance to
challenge the pork barrel politics that have prevailed so far.
   In the  rain forests of Central America,  the U.S. government could
exert its influence by pressing local leaders  to halt the cattle boom
in the forest.  Up and  down the isthmus,  governments  lavish credit,
tax-breaks, and extension services on cattle ranchers while neglecting
small farmers and the landless poor.
   From  there,  environmental  reformers  might  move on  to  tighten
regulation of  the  water and atmospheric  pollution  that  flows from
animal and  feed farms.   Next,  they  could  go after  animal  farms'
excessive reliance on fossil fuels.  If such efforts succeed, the full
ecological cost of meat and egg production will show up clearly in the
price  of  a pork chop or chicken  breast.  Then  people's pocketbooks
will guide them down the food chain.
   A diet centered on plant  foods may sound bizarre to Americans, but
for most of the Earth's citizens it's the norm.  Worldwide, only about
one in four people eats  a  meat-centered diet.  But that  is changing
rapidly  as incomes in other  nations rise.  For example, the Japanese
diet  of rice  and  fish is  succumbing to  the  onslaught of high-fat
fast-food.   Per-capita  consumption of red meat in  Japan has doubled
since 1975.  Koreans and Taiwanese are following suit.
   The logical  extension of this trend -- a world where everyone eats
as  much meat  as Americans -- is  a recipe  for ecological  disaster.
Supporting just the world's current population of  5.3  billion people
on  an  American-style diet  would require as much energy as the world
now  uses for all purposes, along  with two-and-a-half  times  as much
grain as all the world's farmers produce.   How many planets would  it
take  to  feed the world's projected  future population of 10  billion
people on the American ration of eight ounces of grain-fed meat a day?
   If the global food  system is not to destroy  its ecological  base,
the  onus  will  be  on  rich  nations to  shift  from consumption  of
resource-intensive foodstuffs toward modest fare.