World Wildlife Fund Betrays Animals With Soy

Recently, Sustainable Food blogger Sarah Parsons wrote an article titled Study Says Vegetarians Hurt Environment more than Meat-Eaters.

The study Sarah Parsons cited in her article jarred me at first, because it was commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund. Researchers found that a person harmed the environment when switching from a diet built around domestic beef and lamb reared locally to a diet based on highly processed meat substitutes.

The study creates a false dichotomy between either a diet of local beef or a diet of  imported and highly processed meat substitutes, such as tofu. Vegetarians don't need Tofurky; there are many other local, sustainable, unprocessed choices. The study lacked any real knowledge of what foods comprise a vegetarian diet and I had to wonder: why would the World Wildlife Fund commission this study?

At first glance, you'd think WWF would want to support tofu — WWF is a member of the Round Table on Responsible Soy. The RTRS is "an international platform in which soy producers, soy merchants, the soy processing industry, banks and societal organizations are collaborating in order to establish and implement in practice sustainability criteria for the worldwide cultivation of soy."

The RTRS intended to create a label of responsibility for soy products that meet certain social and environmental standards. The RTRS has come under fire by 230 environmental groups for "greenwashing" soy that is irresponsibly grown in South America. Soy can be labeled "responsible" when harvested from lands deforested after May 2009, if it can be demonstrated that it was not prime forest. The RTRS also plans to label genetically modified (GM) beans as responsible. GM soy accounts for 60 percent of global soybean production. Argentina produces almost exclusively GM soybeans, and Brazil's soybeans are 64 percent genetically modified. Together, these countries produce almost half the world's soy crop.

So why doesn't WWF want to promote tofu consumption? Animal feed is the main market for GM soy. Factory farming relies on GM soy for animal feed, and by supporting GM soy as a member of RTRS, WWF is effectively endorsing cruel factory farming practices.

WWF may not be overly concerned with factory farming, however, because, as WWF Canada reminds potential volunteers, WWF is not an "animal rights group, an animal welfare organization, or a humane society." Still, industrial soy production conflicts with the WWF's mission statement: "to conserve biological diversity, to make sure that renewable natural resources are used sustainably, and to reduce the pollution and wasteful consumption that is taking its toll on species and landscapes around the world."

Large scale soy production has caused environmental destruction in South America. GM soy has meant the loss of animal habitat, deforestation, degraded soil fertility, as well as the large scale displacement of local communities and small farms. 150,000 small farmers have been driven off the land so that more soy can be grown. Production has fallen of staple foods such as milk, rice, maize, potatoes and lentils.

GM soy is also resistant to some herbicides, which is increasing the use of other dangerous chemicals. Farmers are now using twice as much herbicide as in conventional farming systems.

What does this boil down to? Environmentalists and animal welfarists should not be supporting GM soy.

If you are going to buy beef, buy grass fed. If you are going to buy tofu, buy non-GM tofu. And if we're going to compare the sustainability of vegetarians vs. omnivores, we should at least be comparing organic apples to organic apples and look at the environmental impact of different locally-sourced diets. We should leave imported soy products out of the equation and off our plates.

Photo Credit: Joyosity