Can+meat+be+part+of+a+'low-carbon'+diet?


 * Amy Smith**
 * n8829675**
 * Tutor: Judith Meiklejohn **

media type="custom" key="24288914"

** Artefact **
The production and consumption of meat has intensified and increased since the hunter-gather days (McAfee et al., 2010). Cows produce vast amounts of methane in their digestion process; this methane emission contributes significantly to pollution and, consequently climate change(Rosenberg, Vedlitz, Cowman, & Zahran, 2010). This has been shown in the YouTube clip presented and suggests if human’s had less demand for meat, there would be a reduction in climate change, and much better prospects for the overall health and wellbeing of the population.

What is meat doing to public health?
The concerns for public health when consuming meat are very complex and can be witnessed directly through over-consumption, in particular of red meat and indirectly through the effects on our environment(Boer, Schosler, & Boersema, 2013). According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2008) 33kg per person per year of lean meat is required in order to receive adequate nutrition. The consumption of meat in developed countries far exceeds this amount by two and half times, with developing countries following similar trends (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008). As the demand for meat consumption increases more cattle are being raised thus producing more greenhouse gas emissions. World agriculture, particularly livestock production, accounts for approximately 14% of greenhouse-gas emissions and therefore contributing largely to climate change (Gerber et al., 2013). The health consequences of excessive meat consumption include obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes(McAfee, et al., 2010). The indirect effect of climate change also influences health by causing rises in cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases, vector-borne diseases and higher rates of mortality and morbidity (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010).

What the literature is saying
Diets with a focus on meat consumption are widely documented and the many studies that are attributed to this subject show the benefits and detrimental affects of consuming it. Williamson, Foster, Stanner & Buttress(2005) discuss consuming red meat claiming it can lead to a much higher risk of chronic disease such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer and diabetes. This is supported further by a study which shows eating red meat increases the risk of mortality from cancer by 16% and increases the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease by 21% (Pan et al., 2011). The American Institute for Cancer Research also provide convincing evidence that red meat consumption increases the risk of colorectal cancer (The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Reseach, 2011). These studies show the importance of considering the health effects associated with the intake of red meat, however, there are also many studies that highlight the benefits of meat consumption in the diet. Lean meat is a complete source of protein, omega-3 fats, vitamins and minerals (Li, Siriamornpun, Wahlqvist, Mann, & Sinclair, 2005). McEvoy, Temple & Woodside’s (2012) study shows a diet which includes a moderate intake of meat can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and mortality. This idea is further supported in many other studies showing the health benefits of low to moderate intake of meat, in particular focusing on the Mediterranean Diet (Nagao, Iso, Yamagishi, Date, & Tamakoshi, 2012). The evidence of whether or not we should be eating meat is contentious however what research is consistently showing is plant-based diets, which have lower meat consumption, lowers the risk of disease and improves over-all health outcomes (Bach-Faig et al., 2011).

Is our desire for all this meat a driving force behind major environmental damage?

Global warming is a topic raising great concern and when the signs of climate change are being recognised worldwide people are looking for answers. The 21st century was recognised with some of the warmest years on record (Gerber, et al., 2013). As much of the damage associated with climate change is irreversible adaption methods are crucial to the future survival of the planet (Mazmanian & Jurewitz, 2013). According to a recently revised report by FAO, (Gerber, et al., 2013) 14.5% of green house gases are caused by animal agriculture. This report provides a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities in relation to livestock and their effect on climate change. It shows cattle are the largest contributor of emissions representing more than 63% (Gerber, et al., 2013). Nearly half of these emissions are from eccentric fermentation, the digestive process from cows that results in methane(Department of Agriculture, 2012). Methane is the most potent green house gas trapping 21 times more heat than CO2(Gerber, et al., 2013).

Extensive land clearing for the grazing of cattle has huge impacts on the environment and more than 40% of the total available land in Australia is used for grazing animals (Department of Agriculture, 2012). Deforestation has been shown to increase local temperatures as the removal of trees reduces the capacity for absorption of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, consequently contributing to climate change (Haines, 2008). According to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (2012), 92% of land degradation is caused by the high stocking rates of grazing animals such as sheep and cattle. Land degradation results in soil erosion, salinity and acid soils (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2012). Erosion is the affects of land clearing; this process creates water runoff, which takes the topsoil and its nutrients away with it, affectively destroying the land(Department of Agriculture, 2012). Salinity also caused by land clearing and irrigation creates in increased salt concentration in the soils, having adverse affects on plant growth (Department of Agriculture, 2012). Barbier (2000) argues that increases in unproductive land will be unsustainable. He discusses that acquiring new land for agriculture is cheaper than methods to repair damaged land and it will not be possible to support the growing population and further be a barrier to reducing rural poverty (Barbier, 2000).

Australian stock consume up to 12 million tons of grains such as wheat, barely, sorghum and oats (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008). This additional feed requires large quantities of fertilizer fuel, pesticides, water and land to produce (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008). Fertilizer use in crop farming for stock is well documented (Erisman, Bleeker, Galloway, & Sutton, 2007; Jennie, Stephen, & Barry, 2013) with studies showing the excess run off of nitrogen into the streams, rivers and waterways causes irreparable damage. Eighty percent of the land next to The Great Barrier Reef is being used as farmland for cattle grazing;the consequences of fertilizer run-off in the Reef is depleted oxygen which results in the death of many marine ecosystems (Erisman, et al., 2007).

Scientists, climate experts and policy makers have disputed for years whether climate change exists. There has been debate as to what has caused it, what is accelerating it and strategies of how to mitigate it (Harley et al., 2011). In line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) there is now a general consensus between scientists that human activities among other things are significantly contributing towards climate change (Rosenberg, et al., 2010). Boer, Schosler & Boersema (2013) Explains one easy opportunity to ease climate change is to simply eat less meat. Nordgren (2012) maintains while hi-tech solutions are suggested to reduce the effects in the livestock sector, they are simply not enough and reducing meat production and consumption is a necessary option.

// What is climate change doing to our health as a population? //

There is a complex relationship that exists between humans and the environment. Heat waves, floods, droughts, storms, sea level rise, and air pollution are all effects of climate change and each of these events have shown to negatively affect population health (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). During high temperatures the health impact can be direct, for example injuries obtained during an extreme weather events or indirect by triggering cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). Cardiovascular hospital admissions have shown to increase as a result of warmer temperatures, this is due to a decline in air quality with the production of pollen, mould spores, fine particles and dust (Michelozzi et al., 2009). Vector-borne diseases are predicted to increase due to the rise in temperature that allows for prime breeding conditions(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). The World Health Organisation (2013) recognises malaria, dengue fever and ross-river virus among many others as being vulnerable to climate change. It is crucial to develop health measures, monitor and try to mitigate the effects of global warming on public health (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010).

Cultural and Social analysis
Meat production and consumption is a major cause of many environmental and health problems, which begs the question why do we eat and produce so much meat? This a question more often open for discussion now than ever before, possibly because meat consumption has more than doubled in the last fifty years creating a huge demand for land water, animal, feed, fertilizer, waste disposal (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008). The role of meat in nutrition is not being questioned, only the amount and the immense cost to society it brings. For those who do not wish to take into account the environmental damage they may want to consider the economic viability of meat production, which should bring them to a realisation that the days of over-consumption of meat are coming to an end (Walker, Rhubart-Berg, McKenzie, Kelling, & Lawrence, 2005). Many of today’s conservationists are already acutely aware of the damage meat production causes to the environment (Gerber, et al., 2013). Unfortunately, this seems not to be so keenly observed by general society, yet we are still in the early days of shifting our ways of thinking. This may be somewhat due to the fact that media still bombard Australians with suggestions that meat is a big and necessary part of the Australian Diet (Meat & Livestock Australia, 2013). Australians have been accustomed to and brought up with the thought that meals should include meat and three vegetables. Australian’s meat eating culture has a big role to play in this over-consumption of meat. You don’t need to watch television for long before you see Australian Beef campaigns to promote their superiority and consumption(Meat & Livestock Australia, 2013). Beef for hearty, warming winter meals and summer campaigns to “throw another steak on the barbie”(Meat & Livestock Australia, 2013). The cultural conception that meat is connected with masculinity, power and privilege is another reason many men tend to consume a meat-based diet (Ruby & Heine, 2011). In 2011, a study looking at whether masculinity was associated with meat concluded that vegetarians are generally perceived to be less masculine than omnivores. Further, their studies mention how in most cultures, manliness is earnedby social displays and therefore, is socially not biologically determined (Ruby & Heine, 2011) There are more options for the availability of interesting fresh vegetarian food making it more accessible to the average person(Vegetarian Victoria, 2010). The move to vegetarian and vegan diets whether partially or entirely is however being embraced by some and is now a more accepted option than in previous years (McEvoy, et al., 2012). Public campaigns of animal rights groups, the health rationale, and the environmental movement have all played their part (McEvoy, et al., 2012). A survey commissioned by the Vegetarian & Vegan Society (2010) shows 5% of Australians now classify themselves vegetarian or vegan. Celebrities such as Helen DeGeneres openly talk about their vegan status these high profile personalities will have an influence the dietary patterns of their followers.

Reflection
The over-whelming simplicity of this YouTube clip highlights the ease at which consumers could make a big difference to climate change. There’s nothing simple about simplicity. The clip is a clever way of portraying a huge issue with clarity that even a child could understand. The piece has clear intent that sends out a message quickly while delivering humour. It cuts to the chase and provides concise information in a funny modern, non-judgemental manner making it acceptable to a large audience of all ages.

This assignment has taught me to consider the bigger picture using rational and logical objectivity to obtain knowledge about a subject. It has showed me the importance of being critical of the material available through research and to understand the limitations of them when considering whether social norms are still relevant. These social norms can be perpetuated by society through marketing, role models and cultural theories. By questioning and analysing the data we can develop a broader method of addressing issues.

Who knows in 50 years meat may price itself on the market and become a social no just as smoking has become now.

Comments
[]

[]