Fight+Global+Warming+with+Your+Knife+and+Fork

N8323488 LUCY HOOPER DR. JEY RODGERS The Humane Societies campaign aims at vocalizing the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions produced due to agribusiness and factory farming. The movement questions the food industries contribution to global warming through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and compares it to that of human transport methods. A trend in diet change linked to a reduction in consuming meat is evident in this decade and is not only beneficial to our health and wellbeing, but also to the environment.

The Agricultural Sector of Australia manages approximately 52 per cent of Australia’s land. Significant amounts of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are being emitted into the atmosphere at a rapid amount from farming practices causing an increase in global climate change. However, studies have shown that our diet determines our impact on the biosphere (Fiala, 2006) and that engaging in a predominately vegetarian or vegan diet can be beneficial to our physical health and additionally our environmental health. This review will discuss the effects of the agricultural sector and its global effects.
 * //__PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE__//**

**//__LITERATURE REVIEW__//** The //Australian Food Statistics// //2011 – 2012// report (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2013) listed meat as the third most product that Australian families spend their weekly household expenditure on. Further down the list, recorded at seventh, were fresh vegetables. From these statistics, we can support the notion that there is a human demand for meat and meat products. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 supports this idea, stating there is a consumer //preference// for animal products over a consumer need for them. With Australia producing 848583 tones of meat in 2009 (FAOSTAT, 2013) it is understandable that the agricultural industry is inflicting such a largely negative environmental footprint.

The Meat Industry (& productions) has strong eco destructive power and has been summarized concisely from both government and non-government sources. The effects of the industry include toxic chemical residues in the food chain, pharmaceutical additives in animal feeds, polluting chemicals and animal wastes from feedlot runoff in waterways and underground aquifers, loss of topsoil caused by patterns of relentless grazing, domestic and foreign deforestation and desertification that result from the clearing of land for grazing and for cultivating feed, threatened habitats of wild species of plants and animals, intensive exploitation of water and energy supplies and ozone depletion owing to the extensive use of fossil fuels and the significant production of methane gas by cattle (Fox, 2000).

To meet the demand of consumer need, the production of meat is purely about economic and social advances. For this reason, low cost feed is required year round. Due to this astronomical mandate, deforestation around the world occurs. Roos & Sundberk 2011 states that large swaths of forest are being cleared for agriculture because of the important driver in livestock production – the need for soy meal plantations for animals feed.

Deforestation is the foremost leading factor in loss of biodiversity. Clearing of 142,000 km of rainforest annually is leading to a habitat holocaust. Deforestation is the most evident area, which a relationship between human diet and species extinction can be found (Fox, 2000).

Agriculture and the production of meat also has serious impact on water supplies. According to World Watch 2004, humans take more than half the available fresh water on the planet. It is calculated that between 1691L and 10570L of water are required in the overall process by which only 2.2kg of meat is produced (Fox, 2000). The Agriculture Industry consumed the most water in 2010–11 with 1,878 GL or 63% of the total water consumption in Queensland (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011).



From a freshwater resource perspective, it appears more efficient to obtain calories, protein and fat through crop products than animal products.Most of the water footprint comes from the animal feed – the animals’ drinking water only accounts for a minor share. Three key parameters affect the water footprint of animals: feed conversion efficiency of the animal, feed composition and feed origin as stated in the Food Wastage Footprint Impacts on Natural Resources summary report (Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, 2013).

Further climatic fluctuations occur through the use of fossil fuels in agriculture. Global warming is driven by energy consumption and the use of carbon rich fuels that, when burned, emit carbon dioxide which is a planet blanketing gas (World Watch, 2004). A marginal increase in Co2 emissions from agricultural activities has been recorded. Among the top ten emitters, is Australia, which sits at number eight (FAOSTAT, 2013).



The cycle of growing the grain to feed the cattle, which requires a heavy input of petroleum based chemicals, and also the fuel required to transport the cattle to slaughter and to the market are all factors in greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the release of other toxic substances such as methane gas places a further strain on the environment. In 2010, enteric fermentation or methane emissions were measured to release 45.15% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector (FAOSTAT, 2013). According to the World Watch Institute, 2004 there is a strong link between human diet and methane emissions from livestock. As beef consumption rises or falls, the number of livestock in general, will also rise or fall, as will the related methane emissions.

The livestock production sector is one of the most resource intensive and environmentally costly activities on the planet. Globally, it is the leading factor in greenhouse gas emissions, the loss of biodiversity and one the leading sources of water use and pollution. To put it simply, the greater our dependence on meat and other animal products, the more we commit to these resources (forest, land, water and fossil fuels) to satisfying this demand (Fox, 2000).

**//__CULTURAL ANALYSIS__//** Before the 1980’s meat, milk and eggs were an unaffordable luxury for most people in Africa and Asia, consumed only on rare occasions. A high proportion of the larger livestock in developing countries was not primarily kept for food, but for other important functions, such as providing draught power and manure and serving as an insurance policy and a capital asset (Bond, 2008) however, because of the increase in global population, food security or lack thereof, is back on the agenda. Each year, approximately one third of all food produced for human consumption in the world is lost or wasted. This food wastage represents a missed opportunity to improve global food security. The loss of land, water and biodiversity, as well as the negative impacts of climate change, represents huge costs to society that are yet to be quantified. The direct economic cost of food wastage is about USD 750 billion. With such figures, it seems clear that a reduction of food wastage at global, regional and national scales would have a substantial positive effect on the natural and societal resources. This reduction would not only avoid pressure on scarce natural resources but would also decrease the need to raise food production to meet population demand (Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, 2013).

Nevertheless, there are gross inequalities world wide including poor peoples lack of resources, unequal income distribution, conflict and hunger. Harmful economic systems are the principal cause of poverty and hunger. The underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems of the world. Control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically end up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive (Carroll, 2013).

Husserl’s theory of awareness of others and the idea of empathy could be applied throughout the international community to secure our global food system. The world produces enough food to feed everyone and yet there is a worldwide food crisis. If we actively endeavor to be aware of others we could attempt to reduce these socioeconomic inequalities, in turn feeding people nationwide and decreasing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia alone.

In 1984, Pierre Bourdieu, theorized that we treat our bodies according to our social identities. For example, a typical male Australian would probably not give up eating barbequed steaks because this is something that he feels is idealistic of his social identify. We need to break through these stereotypes worldwide so that we can have a subjective impact to discontinue the ‘Mcdonalization’ of society and end this world food crisis.


 * //__LEARNING REFLECTIONS__//**

The chosen artefact is a exemplification of the effects that our society can have on the environment. Many mitigation strategies have been developed that could cause an international shift in the issue of food security, yet because of our fear of the unknown we do not wish to initiate these programs. Our social identities play a role in our diet and cause a certain naivety towards the rest of the world’s disparities.

We have the knowledge and we also have the power. Should we choose to reduce meat, dairy and eggs in our diets, humans could singlehandedly reduce the amount of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide being emitted into our ozone. Vegetarianism and Veganism encourages us to think of ourselves as //part of// nature rather than //apart from// nature. This outlook recognizes the importance of ecologically sustainable human activity and affirms the requirement that we seek to minimize our impact on the planet and the amount of harm we do in the course of looking after our own essential needs (Fox, 2000).

If we detach ourselves from the fear of the unknown, we have a great ability to make inherent changes in our world. I have learnt that one single aspect of public health can affect an international community. I believe the artefact accurately questions society and their values and beliefs. This is a global problem and to fix it, we need to come together to provide a global answer.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). //Water account, Australia, 2010-11.// Retrieved from [] Bond, M. (2008). The trouble with meat. //Engineering & Technology, 16.// Carroll, J. (2013). PUB209 Health, Culture and Society: Introduction to Health, Culture and Society [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-4958882-dt-content-rid-1061746_1/courses/PUB209_13se2/Introduction%20to%20Health%2C%20Culture%2C%20and%20Society%20FINAL%20VERSION%202013.pdf Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. (2013). //Australian Food Statistics 2011-2012.// Retrieved from Department of Agriculture website []
 * //__REFERENCES__//**

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). //Australia: Selected Series 1961-2009 [Data File].// Retrieved From [|http://faostat.fao.org/site/610/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=610#ancor]

Fox, M. A. (2000). Vegetarianism and Planetary Health. //Ethics and the Environment, 5(2),// 163-174. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department. (2013). //Food wastage footprint impacts on natural resources 2013.// Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations []

Roos, E., Sunberg, C., Tindaker, P., Strid, I., Hansson, P. (2012). Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat production? //Ecological Indicators 24,// 573-581.

World Watch Institute. (2004). Meat. Now, It’s not personal. //World Watch Vision For A Sustainable Word.// Retrieved from [|www.worldwatch.org]

1) http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64676870 2) http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64677106
 * //__REFLECTION__//**