on sustainability of meat consumption and veganism

i never put a link to it here, but this year's report from worldwatch institute (state of the world 2008: innovations for a sustainable economy) includes a chapter titled "meat and seafood: the global diet's most costly ingredients" (pdf). a sampling:

... For the poor, whose diets might be confined to starchy staple crops, meat and seafood bring both increased status and added nutrition. For the wealthy, a meal is not complete unless it includes chicken, pork, or beef, while health-conscious consumers often replace the traditional meat serving with tuna, swordfish, or some other seafood. But consumers need to rethink their relationship with all these foods in order to keep them on the menus in fine restaurants as well as on the plates of people in the developing world.

Under this new food paradigm, people will need to reconsider the place of meat in their diets. Raising animals outdoors on grass will necessarily mean that there are fewer of them to eat, and higher prices for sustainably and humanely raised meat will mean shifting this from the center of each meal. The same is true for seafood. Fish, especially the big, carnivorous species, will not be as readily available, and consumers will have to eat fewer of them and more of certain other fish. Chefs, large food buyers, and consumers will need to explore less well known fish species and choose seafood that is lower on the marine food chain.

Many consumers are giving up meat altogether as the health and environmental benefits of doing so become clearer. And it is becoming easier to obtain meat alternatives. Researchers at the Vrije University of Amsterdam, for example, are developing alternative meats based on peas and other legumes that are highly nutritious, extremely economical, easy to prepare, and—perhaps most important—tasty. And consumer perception of these products has been positive, especially when people learn more about how their meat is raised and the ecological impact of raising animals in a densely populated nation like the Netherlands.

While the growth of industrial meat and seafood production is likely inevitable in the developing world, livestock producers and fishers everywhere have an opportunity to improve meat and seafood. When it comes to producing meat, eggs, milk, and seafood, bigger does not necessarily mean better—or even more profitable.

For both meat and seafood, eating lower on the food chain generally reduces the harm done by these products. In the case of fish, the smaller, herbivorous species (shellfish, anchovies, catfish, and tilapia) are less endangered and fished in a less destructive way than the larger, carnivorous species (tuna, swordfish, and shark). For meat, eating fewer animal products in general and eating eggs, beef, pork, and chicken from animals raised on a natural diet of grass is healthier for people, for the animals, and for the environment. ...

it's all very reasonably and convincingly argued. of course, the ultimate answer given by worldwatch is that there is such a thing as ethical "meat and seafood" consumption (personal nitpick: you know, seafood is meat too), which might be sustainable for the planet. but there's no question that the overwhelming push should still be to minimize all that consumption and to encourage various agricultural practices diametrically opposed to what the animal industries are pursuing right now. and i concur.

in a similar vein and tying in the recent food riots, there's this article by george monbiot: "the pleasures of the flesh. if you care about hunger, eat less meat."

i agree with these arguments and the worldwatch position. but i also agree with this excellent essay from an animal-friendly life (written for earth day this year):

... Now, as people are becoming more aware, one of the greatest environmental moves we can make is to consume less, period. And because vegan diets generally require one fourth the energy as meat-based diets, that is similar to switching from an SUV to a Prius. ...

... if everyone was vegetarian, apparently we'd be able to accommodate 8 billion people on planet earth. Not sure what that world would look like but, then, 8 billion vegetarians don't seem likely any time soon. Perhaps this is why you hear some people arguing the need to go vegan for the environment. Vegans more fully offset meat-eaters, or so the thinking might go. Certainly I don't fault those of us with the luxury of controlling their diets for adopting veganism out of environmental and social justice reasons (though I can count on one hand the people I've met who've considered this their sole purpose for being vegan).

After all, nearly a billion people on this planet lack food security, and riots in Egypt, Haiti and elsewhere are bringing the problem into sharp relief. Meanwhile, China and India are rapidly increasing their intake of animal products, with China recently surpassing total U.S. consumption, which has been relatively more stable in recent years, if absurdly high. The neediest on our planet are becoming even more directly harmed by the consumption habits of the wealthiest, as 760 million tons of grain is fed to animals instead of directly to humans, not to mention the 100 million tons of grain being diverted for biofuels this year.

There can be no question that more hunger can be alleviated with a given quantity of grain by completely eliminating animals [from the food production process]. About 2,000 pounds of concentrates [grains] must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain (corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, etc.) eaten directly will support a person for a year. Thus, a given quantity of grain eaten directly will feed 5 times as many people as it will if it is first fed to livestock and then is eaten indirectly by humans in the form of livestock products... -- M. E. Ensminger, Ph.D., former Department of Animal Science Chairman at Washington State University

So, hey, it's understandable if you want to go vegan for environmental and social justice reasons. According to Plan B 3.0, a vegan diet is more sustainable than even a Mediterranean diet. It's just that I don't see many true eco-vegans. Veganism isn't a costume you step into when you feel like being trendy. What's to keep a self-described environmentalist from eating a steak carved from the body of an organic, free range, locally raised sentient being as part of a special occasion? After all, there's no harm in doing so once in a while, right?

Well, maybe not environmentally. That is, if we listen to Michael Pollan, George Monbiot and the others clamoring for us to rush down the "food chain" (only not too far). But of course there is harm in eating animals, and that's where we get into animal ethics... It is good that growing environmental awareness is prompting so many people to examine the consequences of their choices, particularly with respect to the growing appreciation for the impact of their food choices. But, if we want people to go vegan--and to stay vegan--ultimately it's got to be about the animals. ...

(do read the whole thing)