This is a rebuttle to just a small portion of an important diary that was on the rec list, "antibiotics in our food can kill us".
I also care about how we treat the animals who provide us with our main source of protein. I am not a vegetarian, I am a true omnivore, as are most Americans. We should not have to radically change our diets because of the greed of the large producers in agribusiness.
This is exactly the problem we have. I hate to call anyone out, I know it's not recommended but this is what is killing us and our planet because we believe that we shouldn't have to change our diets and our way of thinking. But the issue is this. We have to.
And these are the reasons why, there are many and they are varied.
I read a piece this week about Energy Required To Produce a Pound of Food (and this is NOT a recommendation for us to eat more corn, corn is such a huge problem for us nutritionally and environmentally. Not the point of the article I linked).
Table 2: Energy Efficiency of Various Foods (Measured as Food Calories / Energy Used in Production)
Their second table looks at the comparative efficiency of producing foods; they note:
Roughly twenty-five times more energy is required to produce one calorie of beef than to produce one calorie of corn for human consumption. Dairy products are actually fairly energy efficient, as they are very dense in calories. Vegans may indeed be able to boast that their diets use 90% less energy than the average American's, and even those who eat only eggs and dairy can lay claim to significant energy efficiency.
So we don't have to radically change how we eat?
And how about this? Meatless Mondays
Health Benefits
* REDUCE RISK OF HEART DISEASE. Beans, peas, lentils, nuts and seeds contain little to no saturated fats. Reducing your intake of saturated fats can help keep your cholesterol low and reduce your risk of heart disease.
* MAINTAIN HEALTHY WEIGHT. A plant-based diet is a great source of fiber, which is absent in animal products. Foods rich in fiber make you feel full with fewer calories, resulting in lower calorie intake and less overeating. On average, Americans get less than half the recommended daily quantity of fiber.[1]
* IMPROVE OVERALL QUALITY OF DIET. Consuming dry beans or peas results in higher intakes of fiber, protein, folate, zinc, iron and magnesium with lower intakes of saturated fat and total fat.[2]
Environmental Benefits
* REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the meat industry generates nearly one-fifth of the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are accelerating climate change worldwide . . . far more than transportation.[3] And annual worldwide demand for meat continues to grow. Reining in meat consumption once a week can help slow this trend.
* MINIMIZE WATER USAGE. The water needs of livestock are tremendous, far above those of vegetables or grains. An estimated 1,800 to 2,500 gallons of water go into a single pound of beef.[4] Soy tofu produced in California requires 220 gallons of water per pound.[5]
* HELP REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE. On average, about 40 calories of fossil fuel energy go into every calorie of feed lot beef in the U.S.[6] Compare this to the 2.2 calories of fossil fuel energy needed to produce one calorie of plant-based protein.[7] Moderating meat consumption is a great way to cut fossil fuel demand.
Meatless Mondays was started as a way to get Americans to think differently about what they eat, small changes rather than big changes. No one thinks that we can get everyone to be a vegetarian. I myself am an omnivore although I don't eat pork or beef anymore. I also am careful about where I buy my chicken and turkey, sustainably farmed and raised. I make sure the fish I eat is also sustainably caught and no longer eat Tuna or Eel even though I have a huge love of Sushi.
And it's not just Climate change, it's not just the energy it takes to produce our meat, we have to change a lot about what we eat, from the fast food to the fish.
The Japanese don't think they have to change what they do either. Even though the Bluefin Tuna is on the brink of extinction, Japan Plans to Ignore Any Ban on Bluefin Tuna because:
Historically, he said, almost no species added to the Cites endangered species list had ever been removed. "We don’t believe the bluefin tuna is endangered to that extent," he said.
Hubris. We're not the only ones to suffer from it but the whole world will suffer from our choices.
Overfishing.org - A global disaster
What is overfishing
Overfishing can be defined in a number of ways. However, everything comes down to one simple point: Catching too much fish for the system to support leads to an overall degradation to the system. Overfishing is a non-sustainable use of the oceans.
Below are a few definitions in use by organisations and governments.
The practice of commercial and non-commercial fishing which depletes a fishery by catching so many adult fish that not enough remain to breed and replenish the population. Overfishing exceeds the carrying capacity of a fishery. 1
Catching too many fish; fishing so much that the fish cannot sustain their population. The fish get fewer and fewer, until finally there are none to catch. 2
Fishing with a sufficiently high intensity to reduce the breeding stock levels to such an extent that they will no longer suppport a sufficient quantity of fish for sport or commercial harvest. 3
What is causing overfishing
Worldwide, fishing fleets are two to three times as large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species and as what our oceans can sustainably support. On a global scale we have enough fishing capacity 4 to cover at least four Earth like planets.
On top of the overcapacity many fishing methods are unsustainable in their own way. These methods have a large impact on the basic functioning of our marine ecosystems. These unselective fishing practices and gear cause tremendous destruction on non target species. Bycatch 5 / discards 6 and bottom trawling destruction are two examples of this.
Why is overfishing a problem
In the first chapter we discussed already that globally fishing fleets are at least two to three times as large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species. To explain why overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea on the scale of the problem. This is best done by looking at some figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1 The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time of the real situation.
* 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
* 20% are moderately exploited
* 17% are overexploited
* 7% are depleted
* 1% is recovering from depletion
The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems.
* We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and at risk of collapse.
* We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for social, economical or dietary reasons.
The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000 people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the Newfoundland fishermen.
Fishing down the food web
It's not only the fish that is affected by fishing. As we are fishing down the food web 3 the increasing effort needed to catch something of commercial value marine mammals, sharks, sea birds, and non commercially viable fish species in the web of marine biodiversity are overexploited, killed as bycatch and discarded (up to 80% of the catch for certain fisheries), and threatened by the industrialized fisheries. 4 Scientists agree that at current exploitation rates many important fish stocks will be removed from the system within 25 years. Dr. Daniel Pauly describes it as follows:
„The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we'll have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated by plankton." 5
Is it becoming clearer? Do you see why we have to have to change our diets and why we actually have to "radically" change our diets if we want to see things continue? And how dire is this?
How our food system is destroying the nation’s most important fishery
Take the example of crops growing hundreds of miles inland in the "I-states," and the putrefying aquatic ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River Basin empties into the Gulf below New Orleans. It drains the U.S. Heartland and upper Midwest, home to most of the country’s prime agricultural land outside the state of California. Lots of fertilizer is applied every year in this watershed to produce lots of non-organic corn, soybeans, cotton, and rice. Massive amounts of agricultural nutrients escape these fields through erosion, runoff, and leaching through soil into groundwater. These intended-nutrients-turned-agricultural-pollutants have disastrous effects when they accumulate in the Gulf waters.
"Dead Zone" The term sounds morbidly ominous, with good reason. During the summer months, a huge amount of water with limited dissolved oxygen ranging from 5,000 to 8,000 square miles in size (approximately the size of Connecticut to that of New Jersey) forms in the Gulf.
Nitrogen and phosphorus runoff nourishes algae, causing massive blooms in the water. As algae decompose, oxygen is removed from the water. Aquatic life forms are asphyxiated and die off. Stocks of large fish dependent on these tiny plants for food are affected, causing fishermen to experience a lower catch and the possible loss of their livelihoods. Result: U.S. consumers are deprived of seafood from one of the nation’s most important fisheries.
Satellite view of the Gulf. In the red areas, a vast, nitrogen-fed algae bloom has risen, blotting out most sea life underneath. NASA-NOAH image
Yep, how we grow our food is contributing to it all, the ocean health, our health, it's all connected. It's why I'm not just learning ecological restoration, learning to be an ecologist but I'm part of the Slow Food movement, they are all connected! And the choices we make have an impact. And yet, no one wants to tell Americans they have to make radical changes because, well, it's just not popular. It's going to be too late people.
There was a diary this week that should have been on the rec list, Scientist: 'There's still time' to save the oceans by mwmwm.
"There’s a great opportunity to take action to save what we can while we still can, but we first have to understand what is going on,"...
"What is going on," according to Earle, includes the deterioration of the world’s coral reefs, the overfishing and poaching of important ocean carnivores like the blue fin tuna and increased pollution of the sea, largely a result of Western abundance and overindulgence.
Due to industrialized nations’ insatiable appetite for tuna, a 100-kilogram tuna can be sold for $100,000, Earle said, making it one of the most overfished species in the world.
"We take 100 million tons of wildlife out of the sea every year," she said, "and most of it is just bycatch," caught unintentionally by fishermen after the big-ticket fish.
And then, toward the end of the article, is the telling quote:
"This is a moment in time, maybe a decade, when there’s still a chance," she said.
If we don't radically change, things are going to radically change for us. And even though many of you will scoff at this last part of my diary, that's fine, scoff all you want.
But we cannot put factory farming out of business unless everyone in America makes a conscious choice to eat less red meat! Not only that, we need to support locally produced and sustainably raised products, meat and chicken. You do not need to give it up completely but we cannot continue with the idea that meat is an everyday part of our diets.
The only change you have control over completely, are the choices you make. We can urge our Government to do more and I continue to do so, but really, I talk to the people around me as well, I have more sway over friends and family than I do my Senators and Congresspeople. We have to radically change how we eat or we will regret it.
We have to radically change things. It's not going to be a choice for much longer.