NEWSBYDAWN MONCRIEF

First, a brief recap of part 1, from yesterday:

Global food scarcity is an increasing problem, which is made worse by increases in inefficient, resource-intensive meat production/consumption. It's not just that we need to feed more people (a linear increase). Low- and middle-income countries (with large population bases and high population growth rates) are consuming more resource-intensive animal products, so the effect is multiplied. The United Nations predicts that this, combined with the already high per capita consumption rates of the wealthy nations, will result in global meat consumption doubling over 50 years (2000-2050).

Scarcity and Distribution Are Connected

So meat consumption is increasing, and more people will go hungry? Yes, because we have more people to feed due to population growth and because distribution is increasingly uneven, with more meat-eaters bidding away food staples from the world's poor.

It's common to hear people (even experts) say that hunger is a problem of distribution, not scarcity. But it's not a question of scarcity versus distribution--scarcity and distribution problems are connected.

When scarcity is high, distribution issues are exacerbated because there is even less to go around. It seems obvious, but it needs to be made crystal clear--increased scarcity increases hunger, and meat increases both scarcity and distribution disparities.

It's basic supply and demand.

Eating meat increases the demand for basic food supplies (grain, corn, soy, etc.) much more than consuming these staples directly.

The increased demand for basic staples increases their price and makes it more difficult for the world's poor to buy food. Instead, those who are better off buy the food for animal feed to produce meat. Some countries actually export food during famine, selling food for feed while their own people starve because they can't afford it.

In short, your hamburger increases the price of their corn, grain, soy, etc.

-Continue reading after the jump-

Guest post time! Contributor Dawn Moncrief, executive director of FARM and Well-Fed World, will be sharing her wide-ranging knowledge and experience (see her bio in the post's sidebar) with us both today and tomorrow, writing on the connections between eating animals and environmental concerns and, especially, world hunger. Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow. -SE

Part 1: Let's Be Reasonable

Vegetarians and vegans are sometimes dismissed as being irrational and driven by our emotions, which is ironic, considering that we can claim both the scientific and the moral high ground.

We are very fortunate that "kicking the meat habit" is not only a better way to feed ourselves and the world more generally, but also the best choice for the environment and (of course) the animals, farm animals and wildlife in particular.

The benefits are so far-reaching that it's not an exaggeration to say that "going veg" is one of the best choices (if not the best choice) we can make to help solve the world's most pressing and stubborn problems. Huge benefits are available for an incredibly small price: a little effort to make the change and a little inconvenience while more restaurants and grocers continue to increase their options.

So why the resistance? Why are Americans the largest per capita meat consumers in the world (40% more than Europeans)? Eating meat is not motivated by our concern for health. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are America's top killers in large part thanks to meat, which is fiber-less, vitamin-free, cholesterol-filled, and saturated with saturated fat.

It's not like we don't have other options. There's plenty to eat without eating meat. Look closely, and you will notice that it is meat-defenders who are quick to deny hard facts as if they were Jim Perdue with billions to lose. Eating meat is not only emotionally motivated and habit-driven; it is also irrational and less sustainable.

Want proof?

-Continue reading after the jump-