Vote+with+your+fork

Bree-Anna Crocker n8831297 Tutor: Steve Badman

VOTE WITH YOUR FORK 

The artefact above is a meme depicting a masculine character from a television show and his obvious aversion to receiving a meal devoid of any meat. It draws attention, in a humorous manner, to the fact that plant-based foods are consumed by the animals that ultimately become food for humans, and implies that meals lacking meat are inferior and undesirable for human consumption, particularly for men.

PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE Factory farming and the mass production of meat is unsustainable and has major impacts on the environment. The livestock sector is a key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (Gerber et al., 2013; Steinfeld et al., 2006), which are central to the issue of climate change. Climate change affects health both directly and indirectly; extreme weather conditions and events can directly impact health, while biological changes in response to climate change to infectious and vector-borne diseases, and changes to food and water supplies and air quality can also have adverse health effects (Cleugh, Stafford Smith, Battaglia, & Graham, 2011; World Health Organisation [WHO], 2005).

In addition, the inequitable distribution of resources globally enables starvation and food insecurity to continue in some areas while overconsumption occurs in others. There is enough food produced to feed the entire global population (World Food Programme [WFP], 2013) however more than two thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock rather than for human consumption (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Hence, inefficient farming practices can affect food security in more ways than one – farming can impact health directly by the quality and volume of food produced, and indirectly through environmental impacts such as excess water consumption and contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change (WFP, 2013).

LITERATURE REVIEW

The industrialization of meat production has resulted in the rise of intensive farming, with large corporations known as factory farms now dominating the industry. Factory farms treat animals like commodities on a production line, and operate to maximize profits regardless of the suffering inflicted on the animals. The strong shift towards intensive farming has improved production efficiency but also produces large quantities of animal wastes within relatively small areas, which can have dire consequences for the environment (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2012).

The agricultural sector is the largest user of freshwater resources, and in 2000, accounted for 70% of water use and 93% of water depletion worldwide (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 126). The livestock sector is particularly water intensive, and while there is direct use of water, it is the indirect use required to produce feed for livestock that is responsible for the bulk of the excessive water use (Naylor et al., 2005; Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003; Steinfield et al., 2006).

Calculating the quantity of water required to produce different foods can be problematic, with estimates varying due to different calculation methods and inclusion criteria (for example, the inclusion or exclusion of direct and indirect water use). Some reported estimates of the volume of water required to produce 1 kilogram of grain/plant-based protein are 500-4,000 litres (Ilea, 2009) and approximately 1,000 litres (Pimentel et al., 2004). In contrast, estimated quantities of water required to produce 1 kilogram of meat range from 10,000 litres for industrially produced meat (Ilea, 2009) and 16,000 litres for beef (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2003, as cited Ilea, 2009), to 43,000 litres for beef (Pimentel et al., 2004) and 3,500 litres for broiler chicken (Pimentel &Pimentel, 2003). Furthermore, it has been reported that that producing 1 kilogram of animal protein requires approximately 100 times more water than producing 1 kilogram of grain protein (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003), and the water use associated with a vegetarian diet is reportedly around 1,000 litres less per week than a non-vegetarian diet (Marlow et al., 2009). While Ridoutt, Sanguansri, Nolan and Marks (2012) argue that meat production systems are diverse and may not necessarily impose a heavy burden on water resources, it is undeniable that the water demands for meat production exceed those for plant-based foods.

In addition to water consumption, factory farming often results in water pollution by the leaching and runoff of minerals from soil or by direct disposal of animal wastes into waterways (Hooda, Edwards, Anderson, & Miller, 2000; Martinez, Dabert, Barrington, & Burton, 2009). Livestock manure contains a considerable amount of nutrients (primarily nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) in addition to drug residues, heavy metals, and pathogens, which can accumulate in the soil and contaminate water (Marlow et al., 2009, p. 1700S; Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 136). To increase growth rates and feed efficiency, hormones and antibiotics are commonly used in intensive farming, however a large portion of these drugs are not degraded in the animal’s body and therefore ends up in the environment. Consequences of these drugs being excreted into the environment can include bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, and possible endocrine disruptions in humans and wildlife in response to hormones present in water supplies (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 143).

// Australia is one of approximately 34 countries that approve the use of hormones in beef production (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 142). //  The scientific consensus is that it is extremely likely that the climate changes observed over the last 60 years are a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (Cleugh et al., 2011, p. 1; Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 5). The agriculture industry, particularly the livestock sector, is a significant contributor to anthropogenic emissions (Cleugh et al., 2011; Gerber et al., 2013; Steinfeld et al., 2006), with the livestock supply chain being responsible for 14.5% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions globally (Gerber et al., 2013, p. 15).

Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the livestock sector are largely a result of land-use changes, such as deforestation, for the expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops, which also contributes to land degradation through overgrazing and erosion (Marlow et al., 2009; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Intensive livestock farming also produces more carbon dioxide emissions than traditional farming methods, mainly because animals are usually raised indoors and therefore more energy is required for heating, cooling, and ventilating, in addition to feed production and transportation (Ilea, 2009).

Ruminant animals (such as sheep and cattle) emit methane as a by-product of digesting feed, and this gas forms about 44% of the livestock sector’s emissions (Gerber et al., 2013, p. 15) and has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. xxi). In 2008, methane was the largest component of agricultural emissions in Australia, accounting for 9.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions (Cleugh et al., 2011, p. 105). Methane produced by animals constitutes lost energy that would otherwise be directed toward animal growth; hence a reduction in methane emissions would benefit production efficiency and decrease the sector’s contribution to climate change (Cleugh et al., 2011, p. 105; Gerber et al., 2013, p. xiii).

The livestock sector is also responsible for 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions, which has 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and the acidification of ecosystems (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. xxi). Thus, as the meat industry is a significant contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it also has the potential to help mitigate climate change through improved technologies and efficiency (Cleugh et al., 2011, p. 106; Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. xxi).

There is a direct link between greenhouse gas emission intensities and the efficiency with which producers use natural resources (Gerber et al., 2013). Livestock production is the world’s largest user of land (Naylor et al., 2005; Steinfeld et al., 2006), accounting for 70% of all agricultural land globally, and 30% of the planet’s total land surface (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. xxi). It is estimated that for every 1 kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed approximately 6 kilograms of plant protein, and the amount of grains fed to livestock in the United States alone is sufficient to feed approximately 840 million people following a plant-based diet (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003). There are currently around 842 million hungry people in the world, 98% of whom live in developing countries (Gerber et al., 2013), despite there being enough food produced to feed the entire global population (WFP, 2009).

// To put this into perspective, this equates to approximately 36 times the current population of Australia. // By 2050, the global population is expected to increase by 50%, which will consequently place food production systems under more pressure (Pimentel et al., 2004; WFP, 2009). The increased demand for food, combined with the declining availability of resources required for food production (such as land, water, and petrol-based fertilizers) indicates that it is critical that changes are made to ensure our food production systems are efficient and sustainable (WFP, 2009).

CULTURAL & SOCIAL ANALYSIS

The evidence that Australia’s climate is changing is strong (Cleugh et al., 2011), and while climate change will have serious implications for Australia, it is poorer people, particularly those in developing countries, who will suffer the most from the impacts of climate change, as they tend to be more dependent on climate-sensitive local resources and have more limited coping capacities (Ilea, 2009, p. 156). According to the FAO, climate change may cause developing countries to lose around 280 million tonnes of potential cereal production (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 5), thus increasing the risk for hunger.

These are examples of how the McDonaldization of the meat industry, which ultimately should increase efficiency (Ritzer, 2011), can produce or contribute to irrational consequences. In addition, Weber’s prediction that irrational consequences inevitably occur in rational systems is evident when examining the impacts of intensive farming, particularly the livestock sector. While the amount of meat being produced has increased, this food production system is largely inefficient, with more food being put into the livestock sector (in the form of plant-based foods such as grains) than the amount of food it puts out (in the form of meat). Factory farming also inflicts suffering on animals, despite the general belief that animals should not be made to suffer (Bratanova, Loughnan, & Bastian, 2011).

The question of whether humans should eat meat has long been debated, along with the meat paradox; how people can love animals but also love meat. According to Bratanova, Loughnan, and Bastian (2011), the popularity of having pets suggests that our culture does value the lives of animals, thus indicating a discrepancy between moral beliefs and behaviour. Moral concern is typically judged on the perceived capacity to suffer, and research suggests that people are motivated to avoid the conclusion that they are involved in the harm of a morally worthy animal. Furthermore, research indicated that once we categorize a particular animal as “food”, our perceptions of the animal’s capacity to suffer are diminished, which consequently alters our perception of their moral worth (Bratanova et al., 2011). Another study reported that people who eat meat tend to associate animals with less characteristics and emotions that are typically perceived to be uniquely human than vegetarians do, which facilitates moral disengagement, and this effect is more pronounced in traditionally edible animals than animals that are perceived as non-edible (Bilewicz, Imhoff, & Drogosz, 2011).

Culture and society play an important role in shaping eating habits, with meat historically being associated with power and privilege (Ruby & Heine, 2011), and most foods being defined by gender, consequently making consumption of particular foods semiotic (Sobal, 2005). Meat (especially red meat) and masculinity are particularly connected in Western societies (Sobal, 2005), and research suggests that people who eat “masculine foods” are perceived as more masculine while people who eat “feminine foods” are perceived as more feminine (Ruby & Heine, 2011). Similarly, two studies of undergraduates from a Canadian university found that participants perceived vegetarians as less masculine than omnivores (Ruby & Heine, 2011). Thus, social norms and stereotypes should be considered when strategies are devised to increase public awareness of the environmental and health implications of meat consumption.

ANALYSIS OF ARTEFACT & OWN LEARNING REFLECTIONS

The artefact is a representation of the current norm in contemporary Western societies; that meat is associated with masculinity and many men do not consider a meal without meat to be a “real” meal (Sobal, 2005). The gendering of food is largely culturally constructed rather than biologically based, and the artefact depicts the typical resistance to consumption of inappropriately gendered food, in an attempt to avoid being de-masculinized (Sobal, 2005, p. 140).

In addition, I also find the artefact symbolic of the inefficiency of mass meat production; where enormous quantities of plant-based foods (that could feed the entire global population) are fed to livestock to produce more meat for Western societies.

A key point I will take away from this research is that individual food choices – meat or non-meat, type of meat, and where the food was produced – do have an impact on the environment. The meat industry is increasingly driven by demand (Steinfeld et al., 2006), and therefore consumers vote with their wallet and fork. As members of an affluent nation, we have the opportunity to (and should) make choices that minimize adverse effects on the environment. Reducing meat consumption and only purchasing animal products that are produced locally and not in a factory farm is a way that individuals can support a more sustainable and kinder food system.

REFERENCES

Bilewicz, M., Imhoff, R., & Drogosz, M. (2011). The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. //European Journal of Social Psychology, 41//(2), 201-209. doi:10.1002/ejsp.766

Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. //Appetite, 57//(1), 193-196. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020

Cleugh, H., Stafford Smith, M., Battaglia, M., & Graham, P. (2011). //Climate change: Science and solutions for Australia// [PDF version]. Retrieved from http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6558.htm

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Hunger statistics. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). Meat production and the environment. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/production.html

Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, … Tempio, G. (2013). //Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities// [PDF version]. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

Hooda, P. S., Edwards, A. C., Anderson, H. A., & Miller, A. (2000). A review of water quality concerns in livestock farming areas. //Science of the total environment, 250//(1-3), 143-167. doi:10.1016/S0049697(00)00373-9

Ilea, R. C. (2009). Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. //Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22//(2), 153-167. doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9136-3

Marlow, H. J., Hayes, W. K., Soret, S., Carter, R. L., Schwab, E. R., & Sabate, J. (2009). Diet and the environment: Does what you eat matter? //American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89//(5), 1699S-1703S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736Z

Martinez, J., Dabert, P., Barrington, S., & Burton, C. (2009). Livestock waste treatment systems for environmental quality, food safety, and sustainability. //Bioresource Technology, 100//(22), 5527-5536. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.038

Naylor, R., Steinfeld, H., Falcon, W., Galloway, J., Smil, V., Bradford, E., … Mooney, H. (2005). Losing the links between livestock and land. // Science, 310 // (5754), 1621-1622. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213593622?accountid=13380

Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., Wolfe, B., Karabinakis, E., … Nandagopal, S. (2004). Water resources: Agricultural and environmental issues. //Bioscience, 54//(10), 909-918. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216471744?accountid=13380

Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. //American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78//(3), 660S-663S. Retrieved from http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf

Ridoutt, B. G., Sanguansri, P., Nolan, M., & Marks, N. (2012). Meat consumption and water scarcity: beware of generalizations. //Journal of Cleaner Production, 28//, 127-133. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.027

Ritzer, G. (2011). //The McDonaldization of society// (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. //Appetite, 56//(2), 447-450. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018

Sobal, J. (2005). Men, meat, and marriage: Models of masculinity. //Food and Foodways, 13//(1-2), 135-158. doi:10.1080/07409710590915409

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). //Livestock’s long shadow// [PDF version]. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

World Food Programme. (2013). What causes hunger? Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes

World Food Programme. (2009). //Climate change, food insecurity and hunger: Technical paper for the IASC task force on climate change// [PDF version]. Retrieved from http://www.wfp.org/climate-change

World Health Organisation. (2005). Climate and health. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/factsheets/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html

REFLECTION

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64696736

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64697024