As promised.

I'm posting my paper fresh-from-the-turning-in. I thought I would condense my paper a little bit for geniality's sake, but what the hay. I also thought I would spruce it up because I'm not the proudest of my grammar and syntax, but what-evs. I am proud of the content. So ignore the rest!
Here it is, cliche-ness and lamity of it all. Also-the form didn't transfer completely from Word, but you get the idea. I've highlighted the "sexy-points" so you guys can tell when the information is getting interesting.

There are various reasons to eat less meat. Doctors have warned against the over-consumption of meat for health reasons for decades. Animal rights groups have pleaded consumers to acknowledge the cruel practices of the meat industry and go vegan or vegetarian. Now scientists are urging the community to reduce our meat consumption in an effort to help save our environment, as many reports and studies are proving a link between pollution and the devastation of eco-systems and the meat and fish industries.

The old image of wide, open ranges and cattle ranchers is transforming into vast factory farms, machinery, and cages. Around the turn of the 20^th century the Industrial Revolution transformed the meat and fish industries, bringing machinery, efficiency, and productivity to the forefront. Upton Sinclair was one of the first critics of the revolutionized meat industry in his muckraker classic, The Jungle. His work opened the eyes of the community to the evils of the industry, prompting regulations and government control. Most people assume to this day that the government protects our interests regarding what we eat, that strict regulations ensure a healthy product, a healthy working environment, and a healthy community. The trouble with this assumption is that the regulations are not only insufficient, they are seldom enforced. According to Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation,

The meat-packing industry’s response to The Jungle established a pattern

that would be repeated throughout the twentieth century, whenever health

concerns were raised about the nation’s beef. The industry has denied that

problems exist. [Its] strategy has been driven by a profound antipathy to

any government regulation that might lower profits.[i]

This lax enforcement of regulations is accompanied by massive government subsidies, aimed at keeping prices low for the consumer.[ii] So, what exactly is wrong with the meat industry? How does it effect the environment? First of all, the meat industry uses 70 percent of the world’s agricultural land for production.[iii] Much of this land is used to produce the feed to support their operations, as factory farms are quickly replacing open-air ranching. This land is being used inefficiently. A 2.5 acre plot of land can produce enough cabbage to feed 23 people, whereas the same land could only feed 2 people from chicken, and 1 person from beef.[iv] This data is disturbing, considering the fact that 70 percent of our usable land is being used to feed so few, especially as population levels skyrocket. In the coming years, we simply won’t have the resources to continue this way.

In addition to the poor usage of our limited land, the meat industry is a major pollutant in our community. Peter R. Cheeke, professor of animal agriculture at Oregon State University, wrote:

Raising cattle in huge feedlots [and] consolidating swine and poultry

production into huge confinement units… [is] a frontal assault on the

environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems.[v]

Factory farms cause a toxic environment for those unfortunate enough to live nearby. For instance, “Factory hog farms commonly emit copious amounts of animal waste produced in their facilities into huge open-air pits called lagoons,” which sometimes leak diseases and ammonia into our communities. Additionally, we are running out of clean water, and the meat industry is exacerbating the issue. Not only does the meat industry pollute our waterways with tons of animal waste, it also uses an extraordinary amount of water for production. According to Soil and Water specialists of the University of California Agriculture Extension, it takes only 23 gallons of water to produce one pound of lettuce, whereas one pound of beef requires about 5,214 gallons of water in California.[vi] To put these numbers into perspective, a person showering 7 minutes per day for a year would use roughly the same amount of water. Furthermore, the meat industry is a huge drain on our oil resources and a producer of greenhouse gases. “A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home,” according to Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Sciences of Japan.[vii] These numbers are not including the transportation of the feed and meat.

The fishing industry is no better. The introduction of new technology has allowed the fishing industry to increase its catch nearly tenfold in the last fifty years. In the last several years the world’s oceanic fish catch has stabilized because we’ve reached our limit. We simply cannot catch more. “In 1997, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that 11 of the world’s 15 major oceanic fishing grounds had gone into serious decline as a result of overfishing.”[viii] Additionally, over a third of all fish species are threatened with extinction. One answer to the problem of overfishing has been the emergence of aquaculture, or fish farming, the solution has proven as dangerous as the problem. Fish farms have received negative attention for various troubles. First of all, “Diseases and parasites thrive in the densely populated conditions of fish farms, and can easily spread to wild populations.”[ix] Secondly, it takes about 5 pounds of wild fish to produce a single pound of farmed fish or shrimp, so the argument that aquaculture saves natural grown fish is moot. Thirdly, waste disposal problems from fish farms destroy our waters. The diseased and filthy waters the fish are not disposed of appropriately. Additionally, more and more fish products consumed in the US are imported from as far away as Thailand (as much as 80 percent) as demand increases and production remains the same. Finally, there is the issue of genetic modification. Much of our farmed fish has been genetically modified to suit the farming environment. About 15 percent of all farmed fish escape into natural waters, and these fish prove a destructive force to their fragile ecosystems. “Studies show that genetically modified fish are more aggressive, consume more food, and attract more mates than wild fish… [though] their offspring will be less likely to survive.”[x] Some scientists worry that this could lead to the rapid extinction of some species of fish.

The question remains: What can we do to help? There are ways that we can still enjoy these foods without the guilt of environmental destruction. However, we have to be more careful about what we buy. For instance, “A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef, raised on grass rather than concentrated feed, emits 40 percent less greenhouse gases and consumes 85 percent less energy.”[xi] Fresh caught fish is more nutritional and flavorful than farm-raised, store-bought alternatives. People can also rely more heavily on fruits, vegetables, and grains, or adhere to a vegetarian lifestyle if they wish to help our ailing environment. These alternatives are not only better for the environment, they’re also healthier choices for ourselves.

---

[i] Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002) 205.

[ii] “Deadly Diet that is Killing the Planet.” Editorial. Western Daily Press January 28, 2008: 12.

[iii] “Deadly Diet that is Killing the Planet.” Editorial. Western Daily Press January 28, 2008: 12.

[iv] Robbins, John. The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World. (Boston,

MA: Conari Press, 2001) 294.

[v] Robbins, 235-6.

[vi] Robbins, 236.

[vii] Fanelli, Daniele. “Meat is Murder on the Environment.” New Scientist, vol. 195 issue 2613 (2008): 15.

[viii] Robbins, 295.

[ix] Robbins, 299.

[x] Brooks Vinton, Sherri and Ann Clark Espuelas. Real Food Revival. (New York, NY: The Penguin Group, 2005) 99.

[xi] Fanelli, Daniele.

So, there it is. And there was so much more information that I had to omit for space-reasons. And, with that, I should mention that this information is not intended to point blame or to try to convert anyone to a strict vegan diet. There are small ways that we can all help. I've been increasingly pondering avoiding most seafood and dairy, unless it has been produced as humanely and sustainably as possible. You can buy local (which not only ensures the freshness of the food, but also supports local businesses, reduces transportation pollution, and is healthier because it contains the optimal amount of nutrients). Buying local in the Portland area is so easy, and we really have no excuse. Even if we never see the full extent of our pollution on the world in our lifetime (which I highly doubt we can totally avoid), our kids are going to inherit this earth, and their children after that. They will see it. No matter how you look at it, the meat and fishing industry is simply unsustainble. This word used to annoy me, but then it really sunk in as to what it meant. It cannot sustain life. I think that's pretty terrifying. I think we can all do little things that are so small and minorly inconvenient to us, but make such a difference in the long run.

Anywho, I'm rambling, and I need to step down from my soapbox now.