Cowspiracy is a mock documentary film by A.U.M. (Animals United Movement) Films & Media. The film is a docu-drama, American style affair, or ‘mock-doc’ about climate change and intends to ‘wake up the world’ and shock you into action.
There are hundreds of examples of how easy it is to spin figures to back up a political agenda. Cowspiracy uses ‘facts’ conveyed in bold infographics, interspaced with cleverly cut interviews, and lots of passionate ‘talking heads’ to hide the real political agenda of the film under the pretense it cares about climate change and feeding the world.
Over the last few weeks and months I have had this film mentioned many times in response to my articles about grazing management techniques designed to build carbon and to help climate change. Now I am all for ‘waking up the world’ however I am also increasingly suspicious of amplified statements about cattle ending our existence on earth, so I was compelled to dig a bit deeper.
The opening scene of Cowspiracy introduces the character of the film, Kip, and explains how he was inspired by Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to ‘wake up’ to the threat of climate change. Kip embraced this new paradigm, he tried everything; cycled everywhere, sorted his trash, turned off light switches but sadly it didn’t work – he did not stop climate change! Then, in a life changing moment Kip read an e-mail from a friend and it was suddenly all clear.
He realised that the massive changes in climate were not down to cars and oil after all, but was in fact caused by cows! The e-mail in question was a reference to the ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture organization.1 It stated that cows generated more CO2, 18% more, than the transport system.
Now in itself this is pretty big news and the report did indeed get huge coverage because its figures were so different from previous estimates. The report provided perfect fuel for activist animal welfare campaigners – who love all living beings with the exception of meat-eating humans! The report was also great for the motor industry who suddenly had a perfect ‘scape cow’ for continuing to create gas guzzling monsters which contribute nothing to our food security!
The report received worldwide attention and the 18% became the new undisputed ‘fact’ that was used by any organisation with an agenda. But, a more credible organisation; the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) – a Nobel Prize-winning body of scientists who’s opinions are considered indisputable on facts relating to global warming – released a report the following year stating that the WHOLE of agriculture only attributes 10-12% of GHG emissions2 and enteric methane represents only a portion of overall agricultural emissions. The World Resources Institute’s global warming flow chart (using IPCC figures) allocates just 5.1% of emissions to ‘livestock and manure’.3
But by now the horse was long gone and the door firmly bolted – a pile of manure left steaming in the stable! And by the way, horses – although not ruminants – produce similar amounts of methane to cows and don’t even give us food, so perhaps we should get rid of them too?
So what is going on here? Whose figures can we believe?
Well, it is all down to what is included in the figures.
For instance take the transport sector. A Canadian study shows that if you look at the figures for CO2 produced from burning fuel in vehicles was 31% – if you added in the CO2 created during the manufacture process, oil refining, and road building it was a whopping 51%. In the first example, the other elements of the emissions figure were attributed to a different industry.
There are hundreds of examples of how easy it is to spin figures to back up a political agenda. Cowspiracy uses ‘facts’ conveyed in bold infographics, interspaced with cleverly cut interviews, and lots of passionate ‘talking heads’ to hide the real political agenda of the film under the pretense it cares about climate change and feeding the world. The real agenda of the film is to promote an absolutist argument that a vegan diet is the only answer to climate change and feeding the world, and that ANYONE who eats meat CANNOT call themselves an environmentalist!
In my opinion this strand of veganism is fundamentalist, and allows for only one outcome – to get rid of ALL livestock. To help achieve this goal apparently this abolitionist vegan movement will turn to oversimplifying complex issues, cherry picking worst case statistics, carefully cutting interviews, or showing footage out of its original context in order to promote their propaganda. The real shame here is that the ‘all or nothing’ approach closes down sensible and productive dialogue that may just help us save the planet and feed the world! It is totally at odds with what most vegans and vegetarians want, which is a sensible answer to climate change that helps promote treating animals well.
In Cowspiracy there are just too many ‘spun’ figures and ridiculous oversimplifications to tackle in one lifetime’s work, however here are a few points that may provide a bit of balance to the completely unbalanced documentary. One such point that is very close to my heart is that of the idea that 100% grass-fed cattle are also unsustainable due to the methane they emit over their lifetime and also the amount of land they require (as a conversion ratio) to produce food.
This point completely overlooks the recent soil science findings that have emerged, and continue to emerge, which confirm a healthy pasture has the capacity to lock down most of the methane produced by the grazing animals through the action of methanotrophs. It also neglects to mention that in healthy pasture carbon is sequestered – taking carbon out of the air and locking it safely underground. This process of building soil organic matter through effective grazing has shown to have the potential to tackle rising GHG emissions very effectively not to mention the fact that it creates its own natural fertility reducing the need for fossil fuels – another really big GHG issue! I talk about this topic in much more detail here.4 The way they portrayed the cattle farmers in the film was frankly a disgrace and taken entirely out of context in order to make them look ignorant. But what they said was true – 100% grass-fed cattle have been shown to have NO carbon footprint at and in some studies show a net gain!5
Some plant foods have a high conversion ratio too, and you need a very wide range of plant foods to get the nutrients you need to maintain a healthy human, you can’t live off just efficient grains. Grass-fed meat is highly nutritious food that contains a HUGE range of nutrients in a digestible form with no anti-nutrient side effects…
The point was made that there is simply not enough land to feed us all on grass-fed meat and illustrates this using a calculation based on what the average American eats. Firstly what an average American eats is not a true reflection of what the rest of the world eats. I don’t think it is a productive argument using protein requirements from a country where 38% of Adults are obese!6 And 30% of food is chucked in the bin! I don’t think anyone really thinks the whole world could or should eat this way.
Secondly most of the land used as pasture for grazing cattle is not land that is suitable for growing food for humans anyway. Pasture land tends to be inaccessible, exposed, mountainous, too wet or too dry etc. Contrary to common belief pasture a.k.a. ‘ranch land’ in the USA can be managed in harmony with nature and cattle are an essential part of the eco-system. The idea that land has to be either for nature or for food production is absurd – it can and has to be both. The great plains of America was an incredibly rich habitat and supported millions of wild ruminants which today could be replaced with domestic ruminants to the same overall effect but producing food for us at the same time. We should be focusing on doing this better not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water!
And thirdly you can’t oversimplify grazing land and producing food like this. Grazing land can be highly effective at building fertility without the need for fossil fuelled fertilisers as part of a rotational system which ALSO produces vegetables and grains. Some plant foods have a high conversion ratio too, and you need a very wide range of plant foods to get the nutrients you need to maintain a healthy human, you can’t live off just efficient grains. Grass-fed meat is highly nutritious food that contains a HUGE range of nutrients in a digestible form with no anti-nutrient side effects unlike many of its more efficient plant alternatives.
The IPCC estimates that plant crops produce 17% of current man-made methane emissions and although I completely agree feeding these plants to animals is simply ridiculous, these emissions don’t disappear when we eat the plants. The plant food we feed to animals isn’t like pouring out a packet of corn flakes into a feed trough! Human plant food has to be highly refined for us to be able to eat it, this all requires energy, water, and chemicals. Animals are very effective at eating much of the ‘waste’ food rejected for human consumption – where would this go in a system with no animals?
We need the world’s pastures to be restored in order to ‘bank’ and help offset this methane – we may as well grow some meat on it! Without beef, sheep, or dairy protein we would need an additional 25% plant food to compensate for the loss of vital nutrients. More land would have to be ploughed, releasing more methane and carbon into the atmosphere and the loss of pasture would reduce the planet’s ability to offset GHG even further. When you compare different crops with their CO2 footprint the picture becomes even more complex. 1kg of rice produces approximately 100g of methane, whereas 1kg of milk produces about 13-26g of methane so there would not be much gain from eliminating milk to instead eat rice.7
In each part of the world we eat different diets with a range of different plant and animal foods all of which have different GHG impacts depending on the unique system from which they are grown. Climate, soil quality, fertiliser and pesticide use, irrigation requirements, route to market, and so much more all have an impact on the overall GHG produced per kilogram of food. Summing this all up with a simple graph is so ridiculous it is almost funny.
The film’s water statistics are equally crazy. It is correct that intensive farming indeed uses vast quantities of water, right from the irrigated crops through to the washing down of a slaughter-house at the end of the process. But especially in the case of pastured animals, at least some of this water returns to the land immediately – it is not ‘locked up’ in the animal! If a cow grazes it drinks very little anyway, but even what it drinks from a stream or trough will be passed directly back onto the pasture within a few hours!
Much of the world’s, and even most US beef is already at least partially grazed on pasture. So the figures that Kip uses to calculate the amount of land required to eat grass-fed beef are just plain wrong. This is not a huge surprise considering the statistics ‘advisor’ for this film (as listed in the closing credits) is the dentist Dr. Oppenlander, who like so many of the other vegan extremists in this film is anything but an expert on sustainability, ranching, the environment, or any other issue tackled in this film.
Allan Savory is in many real sustainability expert’s view, one of the most significant visionaries in climate change and specifically the issue of reversing desertification, his work is thought to potentially hold the answer to reversing climate change.8 In a bizarre scene in the film, Allan Savory was written off by Kip without any real explanation. Allan Savory confesses in his now very famous TED talk (see below), with 3.3 Million views, that as part of the ‘conventional’ thinking about overgrazing, he authorised the shooting of thousands of elephants to try to reverse desertification on National Parks in South Africa. As an animal lover this was a tragic moment in his life, made worse by the fact that the desertification process actually got worse following the removal of the grazing animals. Savory admits this was the biggest mistake of his life and has entirely dedicated his life to finding a solution. Kip declares a man capable of such a mistake should not be trusted. If we are only to listen to experts who have never made any mistakes in life, we may be limiting our field somewhat!
40,000 acres of grassland (probably more by now) is managed under Allan Savory’s holistic planned grazing. The areas of land managed under his methods are turning from arid, degraded land (which can no longer support the communities living from it) back to productive grasslands that have flowing watercourses (drinking water) and healthy regenerative grasslands (food and fertility) – all through careful controlled grazing management. We don’t actually need scientific data here – it just works, go and see for yourself!9, 10
The other main ‘plot’ of the film was to create a conspiracy theory around the idea that environmental agencies are too scared to talk about the impact of agriculture upon the environment. Once again this was backed up with ridiculous edited interviews, out of context comments, and poor ‘scientific facts’. I have followed the world’s most influential environmental organisations for years and can assure you that this idea is codswallop! Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the WWF, among many other environmental organisations, campaign extensively to reduce the amount of factory farmed meat we eat. Most work hard to raise awareness of the devastating effects of tearing down rain forest to grow cereal crops – whether fed to animals or for use by humans directly as in the case of soya oil, land speculation, mining, timber, ethanol production, and paper!
Take a look at some of these hard-working influential campaigns in action:
- Greenpeace’s Ecological Farming and Food campaign
- Friends of the Earth Food and Technology campaigns
- Worldwide Wildlife Fund’s Sustainable Agriculture campaign
So the basis of this film is that agriculture is responsible for more GHG emission as the transport sector is in the US, and that there is a huge cover-up by the environmental organisations because they are scared of the agriculture industry. But, unfortunately, these ‘facts’ are both wrong:
- One of the most recent conflicting data is from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which puts all agricultural emissions at 10%, well below the energy and transportation sectors of 32% and 28% respectively. And can I also point out that the transport sector doesn’t contribute to feeding us in any way! The EPA’s numbers for the US are similar to those numbers for greenhouse gases noted in the 2014 UN Climate Change Committee’s report where the entire agricultural sector in the US (farming and livestock) accounts for slightly over 8% of the total and, so when calculated out, enteric methane from cattle is only 2.17% of the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted.11
- The environmental agencies are as keen as any of us to reduce the amount of factory farmed meat we eat and encourages to look for more sustainable ways to produce food such as organic farming and rearing cattle on land that cannot produce human food crops.
This ‘all or nothing’ abolitionist approach is not helping anyone move forward with this incredibly important debate.
Nicolette Hahn Niman, following her excellent book ‘Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production’ calls for a ‘third way’. Maybe instead of arguing back and forth for and against eating meat, we could look at a mixture of solutions:
- 1/3rd of the world’s surface is grassland and 70% of those are degraded. If we work on finding ways of restoring these grasslands we can capture enough carbon to reverse climate change and return communities back to their lands to grow food for themselves.12
- Organic farming has the potential to produce as much food as ‘chemical’ farming without the heavy environmental impact of being reliant on fertilisers, machines, and pesticides. If we put expertise and effort into developing organic farming methods, improving crops, and farming techniques instead of just working on GMO just think what we could achieve.13
- We have, and will always have, vast quantities of land unsuitable for ploughing and cultivating. Most of this land as well-managed pasture can produce a wealth of healthy foods from nutritious meat through to milk, cheese, and butter. Some of this land will be woodland and sensitive habitat but even the most delicate ecosystem can produce what can be called ‘default’ livestock. Conservation grazing animals (used to maintain moorlands, limestone pasture’s etc), wild game, and certain prolific wild plants can be a major sustainable contribution to our food.
- Any food system – particularly a plant-based one – will have an element of food waste, by-products, and failed crops. We can waste this or we can feed this to omnivore animals like chickens and pigs to make more food.
One of the best researched and comprehensive books on the subject I have read is Simon Fairlie’s ‘Meat – A benign Extravagance’. In his book he outlines how it could be possible to feed a hungry world by halving the amount of meat we eat and incorporating the above ideas. I agree with him, and feel strongly that the simple argument ‘eating meat is bad for the environment’ is grossly oversimplified and avoids meaningful discussion around one of the biggest potential solutions.
So what is an ethical meat eater’s response to the film ‘Cowspiracy’? Simple – grazing animals.
I would love to hear your views on the film so please do leave a comment using the comments box below.
References
- Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues and options. In FAO Corporate Document Repository. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
- Metz, B., Davidson, O., Bosch, P., Dave, R., Meyer, L. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (8)63. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4_wg3_full_report.pdf
- Herzog, T., Pershing, J., Baumert, K.A. (2005). Navigating the numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Change Policy. In World Resources Institute. Retrieved from wri.org/publication/navigating-the-numbers
- Watson, C. (2015). The Super-food That Nobody is Talking About… Yet!. In Primal Eye Magazine. Retrieved from http://primaleye.uk/the-super-food-that-nobody-is-talking-about-yet/
- Wang, T. Teague, W.R., Park, S. C., Bevers, S. (2015). GHG Mitigation Potential of Different Grazing Strategies in the United States Southern Great Plains. In Regeneration International. Retrieved from http://www.regenerationinternational.org/blog-five/2015/10/5/ghg-mitigation-potential-of-different-grazing-strategies-in-the-united-states-southern-great-plains
- Rettner, R. (2015). Here’s How Many Americans Are Now Obese. In Yahoo! News. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/many-americans-now-obese-064426938.html
- Fairlie, S. (2010). Meat: A benign extravagance. Hampshire, UK: Permanent Publications. Pp. 171.
- Lovins, L.H. (2014). Why George Monbiot is wrong: grazing livestock can save the world. In The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/19/grazing-livestock-climate-change-george-monbiot-allan-savory
- Schwartz. J. (2013). Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth. Vermont, USA: Chelsea Green Publishing. Pp. 60–66.
- Niman, N. H. (2014). Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production. USA: Chelsea Green Publishing. Pp. 34–44.
- (Anonymous). (2014). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012. In United States Environmental Protection Agency Online. Retrieved from http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-Chapter-6-Agriculture.pdf
- (Anonymous). (2007). $90/Tonne for Carbon. In The Land. Retrieved from http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/90tonne-for-carbon/54723.aspx
- Halweil, B. (2006). Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? In WorldWatch Institute. Retrieved from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060
57 Comments
Thank you for this comprehensive and intelligent response to ‘Cowspiracy’. Unfortuneately I believe that it will go unread by the militant prozelytic vegans. They simply ignore any sound and scientific argument. I have noticed as well that they systematically discard any of Allen Savory’s talks on the basis that ‘he murdered tens of thousands of elephants’ and that such a ‘psychopath’ cannot be taken seriously or trusted. At the same time they are completely overlooking the fact that they themselves are suggesting the very same erroneous solution, only this time not to eliminate elephants but farm animals. How about that? These people are really cracking me up. Luckily they are only a very small minority even though they seem to be making a hell of a lot of noise. I believe it only seems this way, though, because their claims are so outrageous. It is probably better to focus on all the intelligent and open minded people out there instead.
Thanks Petra, you are right, we are very unlikely to change the mind where minds are already closed. I do think it is worth focusing on people who are ready to listen, there may not be as many of us but we can make a noise too then we are passionate about something. Let’s do that
Thanks so much for your comment. Cx
He completely misses the point! Being vegan, without question will reduce environmental damage and humans do not NEED to eat meat! End of! That whole article yada yada (yawn) yada is in defence of a meat eaters desire to eat the flesh of another (once) living creature. Please WAKE UP! Those living beings have a right to life and we have no right to take their lives. Please go defend something with true ethical value. Killing can NEVER be ethical nor justified.
I disagree on every level and feel that this is exactly the sort of distracting argument that stops us all pulling together to try and eradicate factory farming, heal desertified grasslands and well as push for more organic farming. But thanks for your input.
Killing when it is not necessary is not ethical. Arguing instead that you can kill if there is less ecological damage does not address that there is no need to kill. If you want to call yourself an ethical meat eater, you have to address the “killing” part of your premise and not the “ecological damage” part. Shifting the focus away from killing is a red herring.
To use your words, “Yours is exactly the sort of distracting argument that stops us all pulling together to eradicate animal farming.”
But thanks for your input!
And yet the killing aspect is the very red herring brought up here by a vegan trying to make a petty argument against the entire aspect of meat eating, regardless if it is ethical or not. Is this entire article not about ecology and environment, and instead about the philosophies or opinions of killing animals? No, it’s not.
Ironically, in no way did Caroline state that we should pull together to end animal farming. “Animal farming” encapsulates the same kind of animal raising that the main author is pushing for, and lumping that together also conveniently creates a distraction away from the entire context of what was being said.
I am vegan and I have to say that I agree with you on this. I actually became vegan after watching ‘Cowspiracy’ however since then I have found out much more about the meat/egg/dairy industry which has cemented my vegan lifestyle. HOWEVER, having said that, I do not believe that eating animals or animal products in itself is wrong if they have come from a truly ethical source. Not everyone is going to become vegan or vegetarian so it would be far more powerful if all the people who care about animal welfare and the environment worked together to push for change, instead we make up these disjointed groups who argue amongst ourselves which detracts from the debate/discussion that we could and should be having with those who are causing the most harm to animals and our environment.
I know that a lot of vegans disagree with me on this but I think it does more harm for veganism when we ostracise others who might have different views but actually really care.
On the contrary. As a vegan, you are not excluded from killing animals. You contribute to killing animals simply by eating. Many animals, from small mammals to insects and even larger animals like deer, raccoons, feral pigs, etc. through poison from pesticides and directly at the animals themselves (especially mice), trapping, shooting, and getting caught up in farm machinery. You also contribute to killing of farm animals by purchasing the same products that come from the same source that get fed to animals, i.e., tofu and oil comes from soybeans, so what is used for humans and wasted, that waste gets fed to animals, largely chickens and hogs.
As in nature, life is made possible through other lives. No animal lives forever, and many animals’ lives are sacrificed so others can live. You sacrifice the lives of plants so you can live–you know that plants are living things too, right? Just like you sacrifice the lives of animals that try to make an existence on the field so that you may have a purely vegan diet. We have every right to take their lives as necessary in order for us to live, as you willingly do when you choose to purchase tofu from the grocery store.
We also have the right to take their lives if they are too ill or injured to live. But tell me, how can killing “never be ethical nor justified” if that sick animal is in a lot of pain and discomfort, and will continue to be until its life eventually ebbs away as we just sit back and watch it die a slow and painful death? And how can killing never be ethical nor justified when the killing itself is so quick and painless that it doesn’t know what happened, also done equally to perfectly healthy animals intended for consumption? How is the properly-dispatching of an animal with a well-placed bullet less humane than getting eaten alive by a pack of wolves?
I suggest you inform yourself more on the environmental damage done by producing crops, though at this point it appears that you would rather shut your ears and not listen to anything else except what other vegans have to say. Too bad.
lol…I remember being 16 too. It gets better.
Hi! I just wanted to say I was really hoping to see an article like this one after watching the ‘documentary’ a few weeks back. Thank you for writing it.
Thanks Anne, this sort of feedback is really encouraging to me. I appreciate your comment. Cx
Self evident truths of history in nature are there for all to see. Unfortunately most have become so disconnected that they have been overlooked.
Simply put cloven hoof big game ruminants that chew their cud, recycle carbon back into soil fertility, in a synergistic and symbiotic relationship with human inedible plants and soil microbes. Humans developed their brains from hunting and eating them. It is no accident that the bone marrow of these mammals, now largely manifested in cattle, is similar in composition to the fats of human brains.
Until the last 60 or so years, throughout history the milk and meat fats of such animals were grass fats, except for when the Egyptians ran into apparent trouble leading to the ancient, beware of worshipping the fatted calf. Plus our own health problems in modern society, which coincide with the introduction of fossil fuel grain farming and grain fatted meats predominating.
Statistics in my local area indicate at the height of polluting King Coal industries in 1900, deaths from heart disease and cancers were less than 6% with farm inventories indicating well over 100 lb per capita in grass fed beef eaten.pork and sheep meats were less than 20lb each and chicken less than 2lb.
Today the vast majority of meat eaten is grain fed with most being chicken. Except for less than 2lb per capita of local grass fed beef available most beef is grain fed. Total consumption of meats is surprisingly roughly the same at about 200 lb per capita, yet heart disease and cancer runs at about 60%, 115 years later.
In addition around the world scientific trials are proving the wholesome benefits of cattle grazing and carbon recycling back into soils as they were built throughout history by the beasts of a thousand hills.
In our own grassland, cattle husbandry based on indigenous systems, evolved over thousands of years in British Isles, we have double soil carbon in thirty years, the equivalent of a tonne of Co2
Per acre per year plus consistently fattened beef with essential nutrients higher than most fish in the ground beef. The all important brain fat Omega 3 is as high as the best fish with marrow broth running at 1500mg Per100g in 6:3 balance of less than 1,5:1, plus much more in ant cancer CLA.
All in all we got our brains from following and eating the grass formed fats from this kind of red meat, around the world where grasses grow.
It is simple logic that was innate common knowledge amongst cattle people in my child hood which has to be rediscovered by modern science as it now is. Unfortunately it may take a while for the grain/brain washing of the majority to realize the whole truth, but through social media and Internet connections it will happen.
Thanks so much for your wonderful and involved response. Cx
Bingo!!!
I have read of variuos studies on diet and blood chemistry influencing ADHD symptoms in children and all point to the influence of sugar chemistry in foods and the effects on the Brain. I would love to see a consolidation of this science and beleive it would ultimately show that meat based protien and fats have a far greater influence than are given credit for. It certainly worked with our kids. So much to say and never enough space. Thanks, Lincoln
I agree with most of what you say, however I don’t think it is fair to say the transport industry doesn’t feed us. People in towns and cities rely on transport to bring their food to them from the countryside. Just as the farmer relies on transport to get his crops to market.
It is a good point, but was meant to illustrate that the transport sector should not be directly compared as one is a food source. Thanks so much for your feedback. Cx
Thanks Caroline! Excellent piece, well written with great clarity of thought and lack of dogma.
The simplification and convenient approach to environmentalism and health can be a real obstacle to an evolved perspective of both our ancestral wisdoms and our cutting edge solutions. Keeping people from jumping head first to absolute conclusions is a tough task but one that can yield a better future.
Personally, I know grass fed quality clean beef and animal protein plays a crucial role in mine and my family’s health. I am committed to a green solution for the ethics, my children’s future and my love of nature and animals. Finding a bridge of sustainability between personal optimal health and the planets well-being is a key to adoption by those dissociated from the environment as well as those that dismiss the value of nutrient dense animal superfoods.
Keep up the good fight (without the polarization as you’ve done here)
I really appreciate you feedback, what I want to achieve more than anything is to unite people not to distract our focus by arguing over individual closely held beliefs. I think we could all get behind the idea that we need to heal our land so lets push for that. Thanks Cx
Good job with the critique, Ms Watson. Thank you.
A technical point that only furthers your argument is that there are 40 Million acres (rather than 40 thousand as the article states) using Holistic Management globally (according to the Savory Institute and Holistic Management International).
Bon Apetit!
Owen you are so right, I hadn’t spotted the error!! Ill fix it. Thanks for your lovely comment. Cx
Hi there – I am was former Paleo, now vegan. I appreciate your analysis of the film. I found the film interesting but I hope you don’t think that all vegans would necessarily assume the conclusions were true. I actually quite agree with your take on grazing animals and ethically eating meat. My choice was hugely based on my wanting to cause no further animal suffering. I actually think that the ethical meat eater and the vegan/vegetarian have SO MUCH in common. There is so much wrong with the factory farming system right now that both groups should join together to stop the suffering animals endure during their lifetimes. I think any disagreement between the two groups ultimately comes at the end of that animal’s life and to be quite honest, I’d love to work together rather than against one another when much of what we want is the SAME THING. It’s hard to read things that so quickly villify vegans and honestly, is not really helpful to the ethical meat eater’s argument – Rather, finding points of commonality will help both of us get what is best for our earth!! Thanks
I completely agree with you and your comment warms my heart. I understand that most vegans and vegetarians care deeply about the planet and animal welfare and we really need to pull together to focus on a common goal. This fragmentation and these distracting arguments are allowing the time to run out for our planet, for those people starving throughout the world and for those animal suffering in inhumane systems. Thanks for for you comment it means a lot CX
If this is your stance you should use different vocabulary. The intensive agriculture industry is so large and powerful that all who want a more sustainable food industry should band together. Villifying vegans and using derogatory or inflammatory language is unhelpful.
I don’t agree that I have used language that is inflammatory, I also want all of us to work together for the common goals. But it is about time someone stood up and said that there are meat eaters out there who genuinely care about the planet and animal welfare. In fact, this is the driving force of EVERYTHING I do. I want to see a ban on factory farms and a move toward 100% organic farming and I also feel that healing our desertified lands has the biggest hope for the future of our planet. All the other arguments that continue on the sidelines pull us away from a common goal. It is simply unrealistic to think that we can convert everyone to eating a plant based diet and I genuinely feel this is a terrible solution for our planet due to all the reasons I mention in my piece and regardless of if you believe it or not, this is not because I am trying to justify eating meat.
Yes – like the slave owners who genuinely cared for the welfare of their slaves
As a vegan animal rights activist for 42 years, I can tell you that we vegans are not interested in animal “welfare,” which to meat-eaters means giving the animals a “nice death.” We are fighting for the RIGHTS
As a vegan animal rights activist for 42 years, I can tell you that we vegans are not interested in animal “welfare,” which to meat-eaters means giving the animals a “nice death” so they can feel okay about eating them. Nor are the ethical vegetarians, most of whom aspire to be vegan but haven’t gotten there yet.
No. We are fighting for the RIGHTS of animals to LIVE, and not to be killed for any reason. I get that this is completely beyond people who see nothing wrong with depriving a fellow being of life to eat his/her flesh, even when other alternatives exist. Unless you internalize the truth that there is NO humane way of killing someone who does not want to die, you will not understand the motives of ethical vegetarians and vegans.
But apart from that, I want to address one of the article’s fallacies: You state, “The great plains of America was an incredibly rich habitat and supported millions of wild ruminants which today could be replaced with domestic ruminants to the same overall effect but producing food for us at the same time.”
The key word in that paragraph is “was.” It is mind-boggling that you propose putting millions and millions of cows on land now cris-crossed by roads and highways and loaded with human habitation. That impracticality is why those extraordinarily efficient and horrifically cruel factory farms now exist.
No, even if a bunch of cities could be razed and ALL the original grasslands reclaimed for livestock, an “incredibly rich environment” would not reappear, just as it does not reappear when lumber companies plant trees to replace those they cut down. Instead, their homes removed, countless species are driven to extinction. What remains is a monoculture, the antithesis of an “incredibly rich” DIVERSE habitat.
Make no mistake that this would happen. Maybe you don’t realize that cattle ranchers use the taxpayer-funded USDA Animal (killing) Services to exterminate competitor species like mustangs and wild burros. They kill bison because they fear brucellosis will infect the cattle. Poison, traps, aerial gunning, denning (killing young in their dens) are used to prevent commercial livestock loss by coyotes, wolves, mountain lions and other wildlife on public lands. The poisons also kill any creatures unlucky enough to snack on the dead predator, including companion animals like dogs and cats.
People who eat meat (even though they could be healthier by foregoing it) try to justify their predilection in any way possible. I appreciate the research that was done for this article, much of which may be accurate, but the unassailable fact remains that killing for food, when not necessary for survival, is simply WRONG.
Thanks for your thoughts, I believe that as humans we are designed to eat meat and as long as we take appropriate measures to select from the right rearing system and consider the slaughter process properly we should feel no more guilt than a lion killing its prey. I am happy to kill an animal for meat myself and feel that we have become sadly disconnected from this process which has led to huge corporations taking control of the food systems and allowing the most disgusting treatment of habitats, workers and animals. To think that a plant-based system is bloodless and sustainable is – in my opinion – dead wrong. Thanks for your feedback.
Lynn, thank you for stating everything I was thinking! While the article makes good points, the bottom line is that people mistake the “vegan agenda.” What I can say vegans stand for is ANIMAL RIGHTS. Slaughtering an animal “humanely” or “not humanely” is like saying to me “shooting an innocent puppy in the face” vs “putting a puppy who’s not sick down via tons of nice sleeping drugs.” If there’s nothing wrong with the animal, why take it away from its family? Why kill it at all? I have heard people say what Caroline has said below and I quote: “I am happy to kill an animal for meat myself…” I have had friends and acquaintances tell me “well we raise animals and kill them ourselves” and my response to that is simply: “WHAT?!?!” I could never ever raise a sweet animal, ESPECIALLY not one as smart and caring and compassionate as a cow or a pig, or even a turkey or a chicken, and then kill it and then drain its blood and then eat it. Chew its muscles. I can’t even go down the poultry and beef isle in the grocery store without feeling a gag reflex when I look at blood pooling beneath the plastic wrap as people pick out what cut of pig they want to eat. Anyways, I always welcome hearing the other side’s opinion, and I hope people can be clear: I am not judging you if you eat meat! It’s not my place, I don’t know you. I know I can only speak for the way my brain and heart works and I simply don’t want to kill any animals. Plant based diets not being sustainable? I know a GORGEOUS, healthy, successful professional bodybuilder who has gone vegan for 10 years now and he laughs at the “we were meant to eat meat” argument. He goes, “What is this, year 10,000 A.C.?” lol! He’s like “our teeth have changed, we are NOT living in hunter-gatherer societies anymore, people.” I’m like, dang you’re right. He and his other vegan athletes live a VERY affordable and comfortable and happy lifestyle and tell me that not only is it sustainable, but delicious! The choice is yours. Again, thank you, Caroline for sharing your article! Both sides of the coin are always important
Alana, think of it this way: Let’s say that cute puppy is a cute little piglet. Oh they’re darn cute when they’re little, right? But that little piglet grows up into a very NOT-cute. big, heavy pig that can eat you out of house and home and make you feel scared and threatened if some bad behaviours you thought were “cute” when little turned out to be very dangerous and frightening as adults. And as a big adult, you’re either going to have to be forced to keep feeding it so that it can live, or put it to better use as food. A puppy is a poor analogy because puppies, even in the Korean dog-meat market, are of little value as meat, and of course us North Americans consider them pets, not food. And yet it’s a perfect analogy when the adult phase is included because lots of puppies grow up as big, not-so-cute dogs that can maintain some bad behaviours that weren’t corrected when they were young. People who find out that puppy becomes a high-energy, rambunctious and troublesome adult don’t want that dog anymore and either abandons it as a stray or surrenders it to a dog rescue as an unwanted, unloved animal that became unloved and stressed out and very unhappy because the people didn’t know how to properly care for it and give that dog what it really needs, and that’s not just love, but more structure, exercise, and a job to do. And many of those dogs get euthanized because no one wants them and the shelter can’t take in any more, or they’ve got such severe behaviour problems that they aren’t suited for adoption. What’s ironic is that most livestock aren’t taken in with good intentions and sent down a long, undeservingly hellish road like with a lot of humanized pets. Though the CAFOs aren’t the most humane environments for raising animals, the animals that get raised and treated as the animals they are and have that one bad day has had a better life than that puppy-turned-dog I was talking about. So, would you sooner shoot a puppy that will turn into that particular dog, or shoot a cow that has had a great life overall and will die so quick and painlessly it didn’t know what hit it? I know you would rather do neither, and that’s your prerogative, but just think about it.
Nicely put, Lynn!
Fair comments Lynn,I too hate the way that the cattle barons can do whatever they want and it’s a good thing that Cowspiracy was made,many of us need a voice against those cattle barons and their financial hold over governments and countries too weak to fight them,luckily
religion will help us to kill one another with the likes of Isis and any other other extreme groups wanting to kill us so there’s part of the answer to our overpopulation problems but I’m afraid that the output from all the factory farms will poison all the air and water in the end,global warming will kill many more of us and then the tree huggers and yoghurt knitting vegans will eventually inherit the earth.
Joking aside,I do love human beings and animals but we are completely unsustainable parasites.
Lets face it,we deserve mass extinction we have been asking for it for years.
Absolutely no food system is bloodless. No food system, not even the “vegetarian” large-scale (and small scale) farming is exempt from the destruction and killing of animals that “deserve a right to life.” If you really want ALL animals to have a right to life it’s ideal to stop eating and/or grow your own food where you have 100% control over how you grow it and how animals that infiltrate your food stores and garden and help themselves to the bounty you grew for yourself are ultimately treated. Otherwise, animals that are “not to be killed for any reason” are being killed so that you can eat. Field mice, voles, rats, deer, feral pigs, grasshoppers, bees, hornets, and plenty of song birds are killed off so that you can eat. Equally devastating is how land that should’ve been left as grassland is plowed up to produce corn for humans and animals. Animal rights and factory farming have both come about because people have become so far removed from Nature they don’t understand the dirty, nauseating reality that animals die for any reason and there’s nothing any animal rights activist can do about it.
You have also made an apples-to-oranges comparison to Caroline’s quote. She said how the Great Plains was incredibly diverse some 200++ years ago, and you try to argue that *now* it’s “impossible” to mimic that state because of fragmentation caused by humans. Note how Caroline recognized that the Great Plains was covered by WILD RUMINANTS like bison, and note how you tried to counter with using the subject of cows. Notice any discrepancies yet? Cows weren’t as populated as the bison were back then, and nor was the land as fragmented, if at all. Bison could freely roam across the landscape, where as cattle have been adapted to be managed in more confined areas. After Christopher Columbus introduced Spanish cattle to the Americas they stayed in the southern desert areas instead of moving around so much like bison have famously done. So, in today’s world cattle are very adapted to being managed in the highly fragmented areas because they need humans to be moved, to be encouraged by efforts to bunch up more as an effort to mimic bison herding behaviours, and to come back to a previously grazed area after a lengthy period of time.
Lynn, as much as you do not wish to believe that cattle grazing can in fact create a biodiverse habitat for wildlife and can be used to reclaim such natural areas, they do exist. I personally have visited several locations where cattle grazing is utilized to maintain biodiversity and encourage wildlife habitat where no grazing can. There are also numerous ranches that encourage wildlife and do not consider wildlife as “competitor” species on that ranch. The one ranch I worked on as part of a rangeland research crew had plenty of pronghorn antelope on it (and coyotes), as well as deer, moose, and elk, and none of those animals provided enough impact to be considered as competition with the cattle being raised on that ranch. And there were plenty of wildlife, every day there would be sights of wildlife, and not once did I hear the ranch manager complain how they were taking away the food meant for the cows.
Thank you for your excellent article. Freerange farming is the way to go. GMO, feedlots and battery breeding should be banned. The way we farmed a 100 years ago is far better than present methods. It is greed that has gotten us to where we are today.
Thanks Carrol, absolutely, thanks for the supportive comment. CX
Hi, I am with Stacey here.. My family lives mostly on a plant based diet. I don’t like words like vegan because it’s a trap. It’s obvious that eating animals can be the basis of an ecological lifestyle in many parts of the world. However, industrial agriculture is obscene and I want no part of it. As a mother I know that I secreted the same hormones as a cow does when she gives birth; hormones like oxytocin, which bond mother and baby together. When her calf is removed so that she can be milked, she must experience the same horror and grief as I would. For that reason I reject dairy foods. There are so many alternatives. It’s about suffering and refraining from causing it. Of course worms die when soil is cultivated, for example. It’s a matter of degree. We all have to navigate a path with our conscience.
Thanks for your constructive comments.
Hi, just a comment, animals don’t necessarily feel the same as we do. think about the turtle that lays 300 eggs a year, and in her 200 year old life only a few survives, which she never meets…
Hi Caroline – great article very useful info.
Hypothetical situation: The world does adopt rotational, pasture and herd grazing for all the benefits it can bring and leaves factory farming a feedlots behind. Are there any thoughts or estimates on what would be the optimal amount of animal consumption, in these ideal conditions? It seems that there is a consensus that it would have to be less than current levels – do you tend to agree with that?
Thanks Owen, I would love to be able to give you an answer, but I think it is impossible to say in general terms. Each area of the world needs to be treated differently. Climate, culture the health of the land and the route to market all play a part in what is the most efficient, healthy and best solution for a country or region. In the UK Simon Fairlie puts forward a compelling case for eating half the meat we currently eat. My instincts tell me from the knowledge I have of this situation we all need to cut meat consumption down and eat seasonally and organically where possible. I also think a huge factor is addressing the waste issue and growing our own where we can too. Thanks for your super question. Cx
What is an ethical meat eater?
It’s someone who’s brainwashed by the meaningless “humane” label perpetrated by companies like Whole Foods and Food Network TV personalities, to make themselves feel good about stabbing a sentient animal in the neck or paying someone else money to stab a sentient animal in the neck. With or without the environmental impact, there is nothing ethical about consuming “meat” or other animal “products”. They are all products of death – even the secretion ones like eggs and milk. Killing = unethical. Therefore the phrase “ethical meat eater” is a complete oxymoron devoid of meaning.
Thank you for a very well-written article. You’ve quite nicely covered most of the points I try to get across to people about the reality of land use and animal impacts, and probably more gently than I do.
I’ve not seen the film, and I probably won’t; I don’t have time. As a grass farmer on karst terrain, the common misconception that all farmland can or should be plowed and planted is very frustrating.
Here, we’ve gone from 0% soil organic matter in many areas, to over 8% in ten years – attributable ONLY to the inputs of the cattle under carefully managed grazing. Same farm. Slightly different cattle. Entirely different management system.
Nature worked this out centuries ago – we need to understand it and work WITH her. Staging another battle in a war between humans and nature is absurd – any thinking person knows who will ultimately win this.
Hello,
Good piece.
Though I fail to see how we can go up to 200 kilograms of meat per person in the world without factory farming.
In short: we need bigger and better factories.
We have to think about the poor people in the who can’t afford meat.
China is building the worlds biggest factory right now which will produce meat from about 1 million genetically identical cows each year. This is very promising news.
Also Brazil is hoping to become the biggest meat producer on the planet so hopefully the price on meat can go down so everyone can eat healthy.
We can save the planet by building better factories that can handle animals automatically. I am talking about robots that will grow and slaughter and transport animal product. And not just for food but also for fur and skin.
This is what really can save the planet and also let everybody on the planet enjoy animal product.
Today it is only in America where people can eat 125kg of meat a year. Hopefully soon the whole world can do this. And I am talking about everyone not just the rich countries.
About the methane these factories will have great filters which will absorb the methane so the animals will be held in huge factories which will handle methane and the waste they produce.
Genetically modified animals and bigger and better factories is the future.
Allan Savor is no better than a vegan. What he is talking about is not sustainable. You can not lower the price on meat by producing it like that. Sure the top 10% of the population can eat that meat and call themselfs “good” but to me that is bullshit and no better than a vegan.
You don’t seem to understand, eating vegan is cheaper for most people they fail to realize they are easily brainwashed by the idea of almond milks and tofu. It doesnt have to be that way. Google cheap vegan meals and you will find some that live on like 5 dollars a day. The fact that youre excited by this news is absoloutely inconsiderate to the well being of animals. Farm animals are not machines to modify, milk and let die. They are sentient beings like us and obviously feel what you are doing. Imagine living a life in their “shoes” and repeat what you just said. I think if you don’t value another beings life just as much as your own you shouldn’t be giving advice on what is right. If they built the factory in brazil you think that precious land wouldnt be taken down with it? Every second an acre of rainforest that is vital to our ecosystem is being taken down. Thousands of species go extinct per year, yet youre copncerned with whats healthy for humans and what shouid happen? Even if you were concerned with the ecosystem and the animals, guess what? It will impact you. Destroying an ecosystem affects everything in it.
I am afraid Stanley I have no words for this comment!!!!
Obviously the multi-billion dollar meat and dairy industry is going to send its stooges to try to discredit – the ethical, health and environmental catastrophe that meat and dairy causes.
Btw ethical meat eater is an oxymoron unless the person is a scavenger.
Badgers are being mass murdered because they allegedly cause TB to cows that are killed to give cancer to humans so that big pharmaceutical companies keep making money
Just one example
I can assure you I am not involved in a multi-million dollar industry (if only you know how funny that actually was!) and I do not consider myself a stooge. I care deeply about the environment and animal welfare and this is a genuine call to action to make some changes that could really help our world. Thanks for your input.
Caroline,I too recently watched Cowspiracy.it’s an interesting and thought provoking film from which I learnt many things.
We have a massive and totally unsustainable meat industry that can be cruel and brutal.I have worked on dairy as well as arable farms and can see both sides of the argument.Sadly the fast food industry produces an aweful lot of waste material and it’s this which causes problems for our water and air supplies.In Europe it has been worked out that one acre of land can support 2 & 1/2 livestock units,I’m not sure that there is a figure in the US,strange to say that the data needed to answer this question is very hard to come by and probably because it will show that the industry is unsustainable will be the reason why we cannot see this data.
In order to save our planet we need to stop using fossil fuels,we need to stop all IVF treatments,if people cannot have children then there must be a good reason,we must also allow people to die if they wish to opt out instead of keeping them alive.
The other amazing fact is that Nicola Tesla came up with free power for the world back in the late 1890’s but because of the greed of the industrialist J.P Morgan his idea’s were bought up and destroyed to stop them becoming a reality.A similar thing happened to Mr Diesel who developed an engine to enable farmers to grow their own fuel but the internal combustion engine and dirty energy people found this to be a threat to their profits and their shareholders and so he too was eliminated.
So until corporate greed and the insanity of the banking and the global finance fraternity is tamed and selfishness made an offence punishable by death
this madness will continue ad infinitum.
Cowspiracy certainly makes you rethink how you live your life but in all honesty we have too many people on this planet and we really need a healthy bit of culling or else we try to colonise other planets in the solar system.
It’s an exciting time to live with the internet,solar,wind and wave energy and nanotechnology but in order to save our planet we really need to share the dwindling resources better than they are at present.
It’s simple. We shouldn’t be hurting animals.
My sister forwarded me this article as I recently became vegan after watching “Cowspiracy.” Though apprehensive to reading your article at first, I am always willing to educate myself on the “other side of the coin.” I grew up eating meat, sometimes I still crave a burger and bacon… but living a vegan lifestyle has made me truly happy: I can now live in a way that reflects my morality and compassion whilst becoming healthier at the same time. I’m not saying non-vegans don’t possess morality, compassion, or health, but veganism has helped me live my truth. I will say that your word choices describing vegans made me cringe. I can’t speak for all, but I am an open-minded person, not just a vegan, willing to converse with those who possess differing positions. To say that vegans love animals except human meat-eaters put a bad taste in my mouth. My family eats meat…my roommate worked in a slaughterhouse…my friends are agriculturalists…we are all people with different ideologies. I do, believe that if a person does eat meat, grass-fed is the way to go, and I commend you for passionately sharing your truth with the world. I just wanted to let you know, from a new-found vegan, maybe consider different word choices when describing people who are simply humans with a different panacea. Thank you.
Couldn’t agree more Jimi,my family all still eat meat,I stopped about 3 months ago but I still use milk in cooking and teas/coffees etc,you can’t force people to stop something that they love to do.We all must do things through choice.
I’m afraid that we must put the price of meat up,a sentient thinking beings life
has to be more worthy than the price of the cheapest cuts you see in the cheapest supermarket,but the trouble is how to we know that extra money will go into improving the conditions? We don’t.
As you say,grass fed is the only way forward although I have also heard how animals raised all year round in an enclosed place have seemed to be happier than those out in all weathers.
I used to work on dairy and arable farms and there are so few of those small holdings left,they are either mega-farms or commercial farms and all the commercial ones around me is grow for the winter feed or for the biodigesters and making country living folks lives a misery when they spread that shite on the land once a year.
Sorry to say it but unless we can move off to another planet somewhere we will have to cull millions of humans,after all,we are like parasites,we take and don’t contribute or give back,therefore it’s high time we went.
Time for another world war I think and the crisis in the middle east is just that.
I watched the film Cowspiracy six months ago. I found it to be very well-researched and scientifically sound. It shows how the mainstream environmental groups have largely ignored the impact of cattle framing on the environment, simply because agribusiness has a lot of clout in the American political system. One of the reasons why animal agriculture is an environmental problem is because it is so fuel-intensive. Therefore, I think it is irrelevant to debate about whether cars versus cows cause more pollution. Even grass-fed cattle farming has been shown to contribute to greenhouse gasses. People may be resistant to cutting meat out of their diets, but it is a sacrifice worth making, for the sake of your own health as well as for the environment and compassion for animals.
Love the article. As an open minded person, I know there is more than one way to do everything. A society does not solely exist on meat for proteins and cannot replace the protein with just plant matter. So we have another industry producing pills and supplements to make up for losses , depleting resources and creating more carbon emissions. IF…society went to a total plant-based food system, GMO’s would have to be use to protect the crop and they would have to be re-engineered continuously, getting more franken as we go. Unknown side effects will rise. Water… California cannot feed the whole US and Kansas cannot grow fruit or rice. We will have huge droughts and plant production will get more expensive do to constantly relocating due to over use. You can’t grow in a mtn. range. Ending hemp prohibition will help. Plus, assuming all animals were safe from slaughter, what happens when their overpopulation occurs and they start invading crops , devastate surrounding land and cause vehicle accidents from the massive herds? The whitetail deer on our Nat. parks is a perfect example of overpopulation. They will have to be killed to control. Relocation is too expensive. Besides, you can’t feed an army on carrots and tofu. Those calories burn fast. Just some thoughts.
Thank you for taking the time to dig into this. Unfortunately these days there are a lot of trendy “well thought out solutions” to the world problems. Most actually perpetuate the current predicament and distract us from tackling the real issues at hand. Sadly many people love to jump on these band wagons. It seems it is a lot easier to do than the deep introspective examination that is required to bring about the real change in ourselves and thus the world.
I completely agree, thanks so much for your comment.