Plant-Based Hunger Solutions: Feeding More With Less, Part 1

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-

There are many angles that could be highlighted in addition to health: pollution, water use, energy conservation, and perhaps the most pressing, global warming. The 2006 United Nations report "Livestock's Long Shadow" details the harm of animal agriculture, especially as the largest anthropogenic (human-induced) emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The UN is far too political to actually say "meat is the #1 contributor to global warming," but they do conclude that it contributes more GHGs than "all transport combined."

You don't need to be a climate change scientist to do the math. What "human-induced" cause could be greater than meat or transport? I don't know of any, and it seems that neither does the UN. For all practical purposes:

Meat GHGs › Transport GHGs → Meat = #1 human cause of global warming.

For agriculture to be sustainable, it must emit less greenhouse gas.

Meat Is Overconsumption

I could go on and on about pollution and global warming, but space (like food) is limited, and I want to explain why reducing global meat consumption is necessary to reduce global hunger for the poor and increase global food security for all.

In short, meat is resource-intensive, food scarcity is on the rise, and meat increases the cost of all food.

Animals are inefficient converters of food, consuming many more calories (and more protein) than they produce. Meat also requires massive amounts of energy, land, and water relative to plant-based options. This is well documented. Even meat proponents concede that vegetarian and vegan diets require less food and environmental resources to feed the world.

Food scarcity is a real issue now, and it's only getting worse. Food consumption has outpaced production for years. The greater the resource scarcity, the more harm caused by meat consumption. With increasingly limited supplies, we just cannot afford the waste.

And time is not on our side. The world's richest and most powerful nations have per capita meat consumption rates several times greater than lower-income countries. Even by non-vegetarian standards, Americans, Europeans, and others in the industrialized world are consuming far more than our "fair share."

But lower-income countries are closing that gap. This is where most of the meat increases are occurring. 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. Combined with the overconsumption in the high-income countries, the UN predicts that global meat consumption will double in 50 years (2000-2050).

The question is not can we "clever" our way out of the environmental destruction and health consequences of increased meat consumption. The question is not how do we meet this increased "demand." Instead, the question is how do we reverse this destructive trend before it's too late? Advocating for reduced meat consumption, vegetarianism, or veganism should be on the agenda of those out to make the world a better place.

It's not idealistic; it's practical.
It's not frivolous; it's necessary.
It's not irrational; it's common sense.

Are you thinking, "But the problem is distribution, not scarcity"? It's the most common retort, and it's a great way to avoid personal responsibility. Tune in tomorrow when I outline how scarcity and distribution are connected. As a bonus, I'll discuss my doubts about the UN prediction for meat consumption to double by 2050 (though they are on track so far). Vegan does not equal perfect, but it's a step in the right direction for a sustainable and ethical food system.