Living without Meat
Posted on April 20th, 2010 - 10:30 AMTweet
I used to eat meat throughout my childhood, but never really enjoyed the taste. Only after a graphic showing of a pig slaughter I witnessed in elementary school did I stop eating pig, and once I was in high-school I became of full-on vegetarian. My main reasoning for this was more that I disliked the taste of meat, but the ethics against killing animals was a reasoning as well.
I soon learned that there was another great motive to becoming vegetarian; the negative environmental effects of meat production . There are a variety of different environmental impacts that occur due to the production of meat:
- Air pollution due to dust and liquid manures.
- Fossil fuels, water, and land over-use
- Rainforest erosion and destruction for pasture land
- Water contamination due to animal waste
- Grain and corn grown for animal feed instead of addressing world hunger
The two natural resources that are perhaps most tapped by meat manufacturing are land and water. According to the British group, VegFarm, a 10-acre piece of land can feed 60 people when used for the production of soybeans, 24 people when used for wheat, 10 people when used for corn, and only a mere 2 people when used for cattle. Similarly, the amount of water used is severely disproportional when comparing wheat to meat. In a book written by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, one pound of wheat uses approximately 60 pounds of water while one pound of meat requires about 2,500 to 6,000 pounds of water.
Another issue that the EPA is specifically interested in is the pollution that feedlots and animal wastes are causing in waterways . The runoff from feedlots and animals feces-covered fields is causing some of our waters, such as areas in the Chesapeake Bay, to become unhealthy.
Regulations can be made to help prevent the effects of meat production, but the easiest way to lessen the environmental impacts is to become a vegetarian or vegan. The vegetarian/vegan alternative can be easily accomplished in today’s markets and restaurants. Meat substitutes including tofu, seitan, and soy-based products are more easily accessible in grocery stores and especially in the rising organic food markets. Also, many restaurants are now providing vegetarian options to better suit those who do not eat meat. Making the change can be difficult, but persistence in becoming a vegetarian can lead to a more eco-friendly lifestyle
About the author: Nicole Reising is an intern at the Office of Children’s Health Protection. She is a sophomore studying non-profit management at Indiana University.
Editor’s note: As stated on the “About” page, “The opinions and comments expressed in Greenversations are those of the authors alone and do not reflect an Agency policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy of the contents of the blog.”
Tags: Environmental impacts, Meat production, Vegetarian, Water Pollution
| Permalink | TrackBack
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow us on Twitter
Question of the Week
April 20th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Once I read “Never eat anything with a face.” But since that excludes clams, oysters, and other bivalves, that’s not complete advice.
[Reply]
KahunaMatata reply on April 22, 2010 8:12 pm:
I like the idea of “Eat Meat Without Feet,” which allows for most seafood (and the occasional “Do Oysters have feet?” question) It pretty much renders me a pescatarian.
[Reply]
J Newman reply on April 22, 2010 11:32 pm:
This is so Eurocentric. What about snakes? Several species are considered to have medicinal value; snake bile is touted for male virility, and all snakes are thought to strengthen and restore qi. Snake meat is used both fresh and pickled and is considered a delicacy in China.
[Reply]
R Jeffman reply on April 23, 2010 8:52 am:
Go Vegan America! It’s the only way our planet will survive!
[Reply]
Larry reply on April 23, 2010 7:54 pm:
Right on!
Veg Diet-
Conserves up to 70% clean water
Saves over 70% of the Amazonian rainforest from clearance for animal grazing
A solution for world hunger:
Free up 3,433 million hectares of land annually
Free up 760 million tons of grain every year (half the worlds grain supply)
Consumes 2/3 less fossil fuels than those used for meat production.
Reduces pollution from untreated animal waste
Maintains cleaner air
Saves 4.5 tons of emissions per US household per year
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 27, 2010 8:56 am:
You do realize that produce doesn’t just grow everywhere, right? Yes people can make a garden grow in the summer but (about 90 days), what about winter time? Oh, gosh we’ll have to TRUCK them to the cold climates, and we’ll have to burn MORE fuel pumping MORE water burning MORE fuel in order to irrigate the vegetables and use MORE pesticides and fertilizers getting the soil into shape to produce said vegetables. All this ‘no meat’ talk sounds great on paper but if you REALLY think it through it looses much of it’s glory.
You people really whine about biotech crops but do you realize the massive drop in chemical use since the introduction of biotech vegetables and crops?
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 27, 2010 9:58 am:
It’s possible to grow vegetables all year round using greenhouses and/or being innovative/creative in other ways. I visited Michigan State University a year or so ago and saw hoop green houses at the student run organic farm where they grow greens in the winter!
[Reply]
steve reply on May 4, 2010 11:41 pm:
Greenhouses are made of petroleum products, use huge amounts of power for heating/cooling, use lots of water since it doesn’t rain in a greenhouse, and apply massive amounts of animal waste which exploits creatures with a face and that wouldn’t be right.
[Reply]
Julie reply on April 27, 2010 12:53 pm:
Those who have “thought it through” and studied this issue have shown quite definitively that a vegetarian based system has much less impact on the environment.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 30, 2010 12:07 am:
it’s called eating in season – preserving the harvest in season for eating in the winter, and eating storage vegetables in the winter, just like people did for thousands of years before someone created this backwards economic system where we need to import and export food.
[Reply]
Louise reply on May 1, 2010 1:32 pm:
Well the cows have to be fed something during the Winter months, too. I’m sure we can manage to do the same for ourselves.
[Reply]
Cara reply on April 22, 2010 10:23 pm:
I agree. Never eat anything with a face, or without a face.
[Reply]
Scotty reply on April 22, 2010 10:53 pm:
Yes..meat is the #1 cause of environmental damage..Nicole knows the truth!! :D
[Reply]
Steve reply on May 3, 2010 1:51 pm:
Really. Where did you get this “truth”. I have been a farmer and rancher all of my life and out here in the country on our so called “factory farms” the air and water are clean. Our animals are treated humanly and we love our stock. I wish that city folks would visit a real farm and quit blindly believing the propaganda and garbage spewed by peta and hsus. When I go to the city, I see millions of people driving cars and trucks belching pollution. The air is fiflthy and there are numerous sewage plants, people are dumping tremdous amounts of chemicals and fertilizer on their lawns. You people are blind to the real world. Get out from behind that computer screen and go out into the real world. Enjoy life, enjoy a good steak and quit worrying about what other people are eating. We are all living longer and happier lives than they did in the good old days. I know I don’t want to go back to eating the same few boring things every day.
[Reply]
Maria reply on June 14, 2010 3:35 am:
Steve, I think your statement “I don’t want to go back to eating the same few boring things every day” shows that you need to get out from your limited part of the world too. There are hundreds of fruits, vegetables and grains so that you could try out a different recipe out for every day of the year and not have to eat the same thing twice. Sounds like you need to learn to cook and use more ingredients!
[Reply]
Don reply on April 22, 2010 10:57 pm:
The future is a veg lifestyle..the world is finally waking up! Thanks Nicole!!
[Reply]
Traci reply on April 23, 2010 8:40 am:
I agree! Thank God the EPA knows the main solution, which is getting rid of animal factory farm.
[Reply]
Larry reply on April 23, 2010 7:18 pm:
Fantastic stuff. I’m sure the farmers that grow fruits and veggies are happy about this news. Plenty of meat alternatives available these days, no need to kill animals. Those poor animals in factories are going through hell on earth. :(
[Reply]
Renee reply on May 8, 2010 2:10 am:
Ive been vegetarian for over a year now. I’m amazed at all the really good foods there are. We get a lot of the morning star products. Also plenty of fruits and veggies. And I agree, I became aware of factory farms its just sickening and shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The people that work at those places are desensitized to suffering its scary to me that there are people like that out there.
[Reply]
Dave reply on April 26, 2010 11:20 am:
How about nothing that has a mother?
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Nicole,
Natural is the basic of humanities, forever…. Vegetarian is not of natural, because, I thought, we have been living in the Earth without prohibitions. Aren’t the ancestors ate the meats and then so stronger and smarter ?
[Reply]
Don reply on April 22, 2010 10:58 pm:
Wrong..Albert Einstein was a vegetarian and he’s pretty smart.
[Reply]
Sistah Sue reply on April 23, 2010 9:40 am:
Albert Einstein became a vegetarian on the last year of his life. So that does not prove much about the alleged superiority of vegetarians, as his most important theories were developed while he still ate meat.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 23, 2010 3:21 pm:
The point is Albert Einsein did become a Vegetarian after having developed the theory and it seems like his theory is right again. Look up Nicola Tesla, this guy was super smart and was Vegetarian before the term became was invented. For instant, Benjamin Franklin was a Veg. Ok you do your researc and you’ll be surprised and be Veg if you find out the truth.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 25, 2010 5:59 am:
It may have escaped your notice but we no longer live naturally. There is nothing natural about 6 billion people, all consuming, destroying, and not putting anything back. All through nature if one species begins to demise, its predators will also fall until its numbers begin to rise again. Humans are not like this, we just consume what we like, wiping out anything that gets in the way. The minute we started destroying massive amounts of natural land to plant monocultures of pastures, we loose are place in nature. Veg*anism is a relaistic solution for an overpopulated planet…
[Reply]
anon reply on April 11, 2011 4:59 pm:
THE REAL PROBLEM: Nobody believes in balance anymore, vegetarians think they’re more “humane” and “compassionate” than meat-eaters, and frankly I’m sick and tired of it. I am proud animal lover. I believe all animals were put on this earth for a purpose, be it to be eaten, used for fur, or just to look at. PETA and all the other maniacal so-called “organizations” out there that want to put a stop to using animals are not “animal-lovers” as they claim, they’re animal-worshipers, as are all you other “eat nothing with a face” people. Humans dominate this world, not animals. If you believe that you’re on the same level as an animal, be my guest. It’s certainly not the most normal way of going about things. But leave everyone else who is normal and would like to enjoy the G-d given benefits of meat and the like ALONE. Shut up with your ultimatums and absolutes and threats and warnings. Everything WILL BE FINE, as it has been for centuries. Besides, this vegetarianism is a fad, like the 80s and big hair, and pet rocks and tamagotchis. This too will go out of style once everyone comes to their senses. You want to save the world? Ride your bikes to work and school. Stop smoking 16 packs a day. Walk places. Throw away your television and get a life. Most vegetarians think they’re more humane. Do you feel that way about people too? Do you have an abundance of compassion for a child who is slow, or is your good-will reserved for animals, who don’t have souls like people do? First perfect your love an compassion for your fellow humans. Then worry about your fuzzy animal friends.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:34 am
dislike
[Reply]
Dave in St Louis reply on April 26, 2010 12:06 pm:
Bob,
WHAT? do you dislike?
the facts?
Ignorance dislikes facts and seeks to perpetuate the status quo by hiding from reality.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:37 am
I do not know why you would allow something like this to be posted. Strict vegetarians ccannot obtain a specific nutirient from plants and will get early dementia. The chicldren of long term vegetarian moms suffer from specific birth defects because of this.
The justification for a vegetarian diet based on the above is
[Reply]
Sebastian reply on April 21, 2010 2:12 am:
Care to produce any proof for that, MJ?
[Reply]
Sister Sue reply on April 22, 2010 10:16 am:
The nutrient is B-12 and it is not available from any plant source.
[Reply]
captVeg reply on April 22, 2010 11:02 am:
“While lacto-ovo vegetarians usually get enough B12 through consuming dairy products, vegans will lack B12 unless they consume multivitamin supplements or B12-fortified foods. Examples of fortified foods include fortified breakfast cereals, fortified soy products, fortified energy bars, and fortified nutritional yeast. ”
—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12—
Even most “strict” vegetarians consume dairy, to some degree. Vegans do not. If you are health conscience, you should be just fine.
[Reply]
KaylaC reply on April 22, 2010 6:37 pm:
B12 is from bacteria. Why does meat have B12? Because – surprise! – when you kill something, it starts to rot and grow bacteria. Vegans can easily get B12 from sources like nutritional yeast or taking a supplement. There’s no excuse to eating rotting carcass.
[Reply]
Sistah Sue reply on April 23, 2010 9:48 am:
Meat has B-12 because the animal has eaten and absorbed B-12 from bacterial sources, i.e. unwashed grass with fecal traces on it. You have the same bacteria in your lower intestine, and I don’t think you are rotting quite yet.
This may come as a surprise to you, but not all bacteria are harmful, in fact, you would not live long if all the bacteria you carry around were to be remove from you.
[Reply]
Charles reply on April 21, 2010 8:04 am:
Yes, MaryJoyce, can’t you explain yourself. I think you’re making that up. perhaps because you work for the Beef Council or some such interest group with a stake in controlling what people think about meat … those are pretty strong, if not outright foolish claims you make about nutrition and medical science.
MaryJoyce, WHERE’S THE BEEF?
[Reply]
Sister Sue reply on April 22, 2010 10:20 am:
Charles, google up pernicious anemia and then tell me from which plant source you can get enough B-12 to prevent it.
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 11:43 am:
I take a once-a-day vitimin along with B-12 daily.
[Reply]
Rinalia reply on April 22, 2010 6:25 pm:
There is this magical invention called vitamins. Lots of omnivores take them too. Apparently meat-heavy diets don’t always offer a complete and balanced diet, either. Go figure.
[Reply]
evelusive reply on April 22, 2010 8:27 pm:
B12 is produced by bacteria…. It is not found in meat unless it has been contaminated by fecal matter (the bacteria producing it only present in the bowel). So how about anyone who quotes b12 as a problem for vegetarians/vegans do their research first.
[Reply]
Sistah Sue reply on April 23, 2010 9:49 am:
Do your own research first, and then come back. B-12 is absorbed in the meat of any animal that consumes it, yourself included.
[Reply]
Don reply on April 23, 2010 6:44 pm:
You’re wrong since a lot of meat eaters are deficient in B12, do your research.
[Reply]
Jan reply on April 25, 2010 12:02 pm:
And a lot of carnivores are deficient in common sense.
[Reply]
Jan reply on April 25, 2010 11:12 pm:
“Vitamin B12 is essential to life and good health, and must be consumed in our food. It is found naturally only in animal products, including dairy, and in certain seaweeds, tempeh and nutritional yeasts”
Maybe a vegetarian resource isn’t enough.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 26, 2010 12:33 pm:
SistaSue,
Just because we absorb B-12 in our tissues, doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to obtain it from meat to be healthy.
Just taking a multivitamin with B-12 in it should do the trick!
Sorry to blow your theory that one MUST eat meat to get B-12!
[Reply]
Vanessa reply on April 23, 2010 2:57 pm:
The American Dietetic Association disagrees with you.
‘This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients. Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.’
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028
[Reply]
Jan reply on April 25, 2010 12:00 pm:
MJ: You are absolutely wrong about vegetarians lack nutrients. The truth is there is NO nutrient in flesh or other animal products that is a nutritional necessity. You must be a rancher to make such a moronic statement. Vegetarian and vegan children are immensely more healthy than carnivorelets. Even famour pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock condemned cow milk for infants. What vegetarians and vegans are lacking is a daily dose of recombinant bovine growth hormone (a proven carcinogen), antibiotics (resulting in antibiotic-resistant illnesses), and blood on their hands.
[Reply]
anon reply on April 11, 2011 5:09 pm:
That is the most moronic statement I’ve ever heard. Do you even have children that you are quoting Dr. Spock. For the love of G-d, get a clue. Dr. Spock didn’t “condemn” cow’s milk for any vegetarian reason. As is true for all infants, cow’s milk is hard to digest because infants lack the proper enzyme to digest it. I was personally lactose intolerant for many years before I outgrew it and now I enjoy cheese and milk products all the time. Infants can’t eat honey either. And peanut butter. Wanna condemn eating those as well? Or do you just pick and choose based on your own personal idea of “truth”? You people make me sick.
[Reply]
Dave in St Louis reply on April 26, 2010 12:02 pm:
MaryJoyce, you are wrong. I’ve been vegetarian for over 5 years, actually about 95% vegan and my doctor says that, despite being just short of my 55th birthday, I am a “vigorously healthy man with no health problems”. What you don’t know is that at 6′ 3″ tall, a competitive swimmer, rugby player, rock climber, cyclist, student of karate, etc, I have never weighed in excess of 190 lbs or had a BMI over 22. My cholesterol is lower now than ever in my life, my blood pressure is 119/72 (even WITH caffeine), and my waist is only 30″, the same as when I graduated from university. Most people, when they look at me, misjudge my age by at least 10, sometimes 15 years. If I didn’t have hair streaked with silver (which it has been since I was 30!), I think I’d be judged as 30-something. I also can out-endure most of my friends, even those in their 30s who crash and burn after a 30-minute walk!
I have NOT eaten ANY meat since Thanksgiving 2004 when I converted to vegetarian “cold turkey” by fasting the entire 4-day weekend (THANK YOU, HANA!). Since then, I’ve learned what I could about being vegetarian/vegan and how to do it healthfully. I take daily vitamins, but nothing more substantial than what I took from the day my parents knew I could swallow a pill. I am on no medications, save an occasional antihistamine (which is almost a “dietary requirement” in St Louis!)
So, I refute absolutely your claim that vegetarians are unhealthy… On the contrary, those of us who prefer to eat our foods raw and unprocessed (save cleaning), are much healthier than all of you who eat meat and processed foods since we have fewer animal antibiotics and insecticides in us! Those who are concerned should read up and ask their doctors to monitor their nutritional needs.
[Reply]
Dave in St Louis reply on April 26, 2010 12:20 pm:
MaryJoyce:
Nicole provides specific support for her FACTS in her blog post.
Can you provide the same for your claims that:
(1) “Strict vegetarians ccannot obtain a specific nutirient from plants and will get early dementia.”
and
(2) “The chicldren of long term vegetarian moms suffer from specific birth defects because of this.”
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Please tell me my tax dollars aren’t going to pay for this tripe…
[Reply]
lin reply on April 21, 2010 7:32 am:
This is an improvement over the CDC expenditures for “tripe”. You really should investigate their data and IMPUTED numbers and estimates.
[Reply]
Glen Bell reply on April 22, 2010 10:32 pm:
First government cheese, now government tripe. If we could get some government tortillas and comino, we could make caldo!
[Reply]
anon reply on April 11, 2011 5:11 pm:
Agreed. Let’s overrun them.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I would LOVE to see the math on the 2500-6000 pounds of water to produce a pound of meat…I think your off by a few hundred thousand gallons.
[Reply]
Onionlynn reply on April 22, 2010 12:34 pm:
Aaron, the math is simple, 1 gallon of water = 8 lbs so 2500lbs water would be 312 gallons and 6000 lbs would be 750 gallons. Wait I think that’s how much water we should be drinking as humans. If I remember right cows average around 30 gallons per day.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 22, 2010 4:47 pm:
Correct, but she says 6000 pounds of water per pound of meat! 750gal times 600 pounds dressed weight and you get 450,000 gallons of water. Say this animal lives for two years and for discussion we use the 30 gallon per day number that gets you to 22,000 gallons. For the final 90 days that animal will be on a grain diet for finishing so I’m sure she is using that in her numbers as well but nowhere near 420,000 gallons.
[Reply]
Neu reply on April 25, 2010 9:57 am:
You’re negelecting to include the amount of water consumed in making the animal’s feed (which is likely far in excess of the amount that it drinks). Someone who knows what they eat and how much of it should run numbers on that before you conclude anything about the figure offered.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 26, 2010 1:51 pm:
Yes, Neu it far exceeds the consumption of the steer or heifer but does 420,000 gallons even seem logical to you? Also, that argues against a vegan diet because of the massive increase in irrigation that would be required to raise the produce.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am
VegFarm also doesn’t talk about all the animals that have to die to be able to farm that 10 acres, or admit that much of the land used for raising animals for consumption isn’t suitable for tilling or maintaining for crops.
the numbers for water consumption are a joke and have been scientifically proven inaccurate. so is the information related to greenhouse gasses. repeating the same lie over and over again doesn’t make it truth. rice paddies produce several times the methane that a herd of cattle or dairy cows do (and some dairies are now making improvements to collect the methane and use it as a fuel source! how green is that!)
could we perhaps see some studies about this that don’t come from a biased source (like a group that is already promoting veganism?)
[Reply]
Dave in St Louis reply on April 26, 2010 12:45 pm:
Dannielle,
Just because you don’t like the water consumption or greenhouse gas numbers doesn’t make them false. Let’s see some support for your claims of these being lies.
By the way, while I’m sure that you could design the air handling system in a milking barn to collect methane, how do the cattle feel about having an “ostomy bag” attached to their butts to collect the methane that they release?
:-) I’d love to see that apparatus!
Remember: most cattle for beef production don’t see a barn in their lives. The only shelter they ever get is the truck on the way to the feedlots and slaughterhouses.
And dairy cows don’t spend much time in the barn, generally only enough time to be milked… the dairy farmer wants them out eating grass to keep them producing!
[Reply]
anon reply on April 11, 2011 5:17 pm:
I’m sorry that this is the way your meat is produced. But Kosher meat has very different standards. Our cows experience none of this. And seeing as how I’ve raised calves myself I can tell you that they prefer to be out in the field and not closed in and barn, even in the rain. They like the fresh air, the smell of the grass, they like to roll around in the mud. They like being animals. Stop using human conveniences to apply to animals. It’s innappropriate.
[Reply]
Dave in St Louis reply on April 26, 2010 12:55 pm:
Dannielle,
Yes, some land is unsuitable for dirt farming, but how do you justify cutting down thousands of sq kilometers of trees EVERY YEAR in the rain forests of Brazil alone for the purpose of cattle ranching (yes, only 60-70% of the deforestation is related to cattle ranching)?
Also, you might notice, if you bother to do research, that the deforestation is declining significantly in the last few years, down from about 35,000 sq kilometers a year in 1995… but this is due to the economic decline in Brazil, not from the recognition that this is a non-sustainable practice!
You CAN argue that promoters of vegan and vegetarian lifestyles may be motivated by “biased” rationales, but to discard the benefits wrt the reality of sustainable practice, this is simply sticking your head in the sand.
It would be like fastening a plastic bag over your head and saying that we can breathe normally because there’s air in it and “forgetting” that we MIGHT want to find a way to get more air once that supply is gone.
[Reply]
Karen reply on May 3, 2010 11:35 am:
Don’t where you got your information regarding Brazil’s deforestation, but most of the deforestation has been so they can plant crops.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am
If you believe going vegan is better for the enviroment you are incorrect. Do some research on the effects of growing rice for instance. It’s pretty eye opening.
Furthermore, what should we do with our pets & all other animals that need to eat meat to survive ? Do we slaughter them ? What happens to all the meat animals already in existance ? Who will care for them for the rest of their lives ?
Just a few questions I wonder if you had thought about.
[Reply]
workaday joe reply on April 21, 2010 5:19 pm:
Going vegan is substantially better for the environment in really untold ways. Something like 60 % of the grain grown in this country feeds livestock. Something like 75 % of the antibiotics used in this country are given to cattle. We can’t all be vegan. I think that’s a given, but even a modest reduction in meat consumption could save tremendous amounts of land and water and reduce the need for things like agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, antibiotics, etc.
You may not want to become vegetarian and I don’t blame you, but the facts are firmly on Ms. Reising’s side. Read Omnivore’s Dilemma sometime.
And really, if pets were the only ones eating meat, I doubt this would even be an issue.
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 12:33 pm:
Actually, I was surprised to find out on one of those ‘how it is made’ shows…. dried cat and dog food is really made of grain and sprayed on flavor and nutrients.
[Reply]
Eric Francis reply on April 25, 2010 1:43 pm:
Cate Jenkens at EPA discovered that much dog and cat food is made from…not just gluten…but…euthenized dogs and cats. She was the woman who exposed some early Monsanto studies as being fraudulent; was fired by EPA; sued the EPA; and then got her job back and moved onto pet foods for a while.
[Reply]
evelusive reply on April 22, 2010 8:30 pm:
since when has meat consumption replaced rice consumption??? how is this relevant?
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am
It is all well and good to extol the virtues of lessening our impact on the environment due to meat production. However, humans are not by nature vegetarians and certainly not vegans. Just because some people don’t like the taste of meat doesn’t mean that all people should become vegetarians – that is just simply naive. I too dislike the inhumane manner in which animals are raised for food and slaughtered in this country, but people will not stop wanting to eat meat, fish or poultry. So clearly efforts should be placed on better regulation of the meat and poultry industries. By the way, I did stop eating veal and lamb some years ago due to the inhumane manner all this meat is raised from necessity to keep it from getting tough.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 20, 2010 2:33 pm:
Janet ~
I agree with Janet….
It is all well and good to extol the virtues of lessening our impact on the environment due to meat production. The Government and FDA should help regulate the cattle and pork industry! However, humans are not by nature vegetarians and certainly not vegans. ~ Just because some people don’t like the taste of meat doesn’t mean that all people should become vegetarians – that is just simply naive.
Clearly becoming a vegetarian is great thing. I stopped eating meat but I still enjoy chicken and turkey…….
[Reply]
concerned student reply on April 21, 2010 2:37 pm:
chicken and turkey is meat…..just saying
[Reply]
Dave in St Louis reply on April 26, 2010 1:02 pm:
THANK YOU!
Since when did chicken, turkey and fish cease to be “meat”???
I will also agree with Janet regarding her comment that not everyone should become vegan or even vegetarian…
BUT, on the other hand, it is a shame that people just fail to see the fact that is being pointed out in the medical literature that, at least for the American population (which I hope everyone can agree is grossly at risk for food-related health issues), eating too much meat is directly a cause of the increased incidence of heart disease in recent years.
[Reply]
workaday joe reply on April 21, 2010 5:24 pm:
I would say it is also inhumane to farm unnecessarily large tracts of land to produce the feed needed to raise all of these animals while pushing many wild species to the brink of extinction. Same with polluted waterways that result from feedlot waste, etc. Antibiotics, growth hormones, and estrogenic compounds don’t stay in the feedlot. They end up in the waterways and can significantly alter fish populations and other aquatic life.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 22, 2010 4:49 pm:
Dude, workaday joe…when was the last time you visited Kansas? The deer and turkey population is OUT OF CONTROL! Plus, most of us farmers and ranchers love the sport of hunting more then farming so the last thing we want to do is ruin one of our favorite activities!
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on May 3, 2010 8:53 am:
simple solution, allow predators to live in their natural habitats and there will be no overpopulation of any species…..except man.
[Reply]
Natalie reply on April 22, 2010 7:49 pm:
I call naturalistic fallacy on this one. Humans, particularly males, also have a natural drive to violence–particularly conspecific group killings (aka primitive warfare between each other)–but no one is condoning that.
“Natural” is hardly ever a good enough argument for the normative question of “right” and “wrong” or even the descriptive question of what is good for us. Evolution is not perfect in anyway & if you look a bit into cognitive neuroscience and social science, our natural instincts are often terrifying. Think of the social darwinism… you are speaking with the force of the eugenics movement behind you.
[Reply]
Sara reply on February 16, 2011 8:00 pm:
Janet:
Humans are most definitely by nature vegan. Just because the vast majority of humans now consume meat/dairy doesn’t mean it’s natural. Everything about the human anatomy shows that humans are designed to be herbivores.
Flat, broad teeth. Jaws that move side to side. Small oral openings. Flattened fingernails. Small stomachs. Ph of 4-5 in stomach. Long intestines. ETC
Carnivores have sharp, often serrated teeth. Large jaw opening (to hold prey). Sharp claws (hunting). Large stomachs (to hold prey) Ph of 1-2 in stomach (since primary digestion is in stomach for carnivores, unlike herbivores, i.e. humans, where most digestion is in intestine.) Short intestines. ETC
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I get really tired of reading that Vegetarian eating is the most eco-friendly option: that assertion is far to broad.
While eating low on the food chain requires less input energy as a general rule, one could argue that locally harvested wild game is far more eco-friendly than commercially produced fruits and vegetables (meat beats veg).
For those concerned with animal rights, you have to understand that commercial agriculture kills thousands of animals each year during tilling and harvest (a VERY inhumane death, by the way); further, fertilizers herbicides and pesticides create toxic runoff; tractors consume unbelievable amounts of fuel, and belch out tons of CO2 each year. Commercial farms flat out decimate wildlife habitat, and ravage surrounding environmental quality.
If you want to eat veg, eat local small farm veg. The same goes for meat if you can find it. But don’t demonize meat. Industrial meat production is far from eco-friendly, but industrial veg production isn’t far behind when you take an honest look at the toll it takes on the environment.
It matters far less what you eat, as where it comes from.
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 11:44 am:
I agree with you 100%.
Seriously, I think this is the best comment in this entire blog.
[Reply]
Hoss reply on April 22, 2010 5:29 pm:
Actually, you have it backwards. Where your food comes from matters far less than what you eat. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/do-we-really-need-a-few-billion-locavores/
[Reply]
KaylaC reply on April 22, 2010 6:45 pm:
Kevin: I agree, eating local is ideal — but the fact is, most people eat neither vegetarian NOR 100% local/organic. No all veg people get their protein from hyper processed, shipped-from-who-knows-where foods, when this is not the case. Organic and veg and local is ideal: I try to do my best in all three of these categories. I never buy pesticide ridden, grown in South America produce, and on a rare occasion do I buy the packaged veg foods. But, like Hoss says, where you’re food comes from doesn’t matter as much as what you’re eating — reducing has the biggest impact.
[Reply]
evelusive reply on April 22, 2010 8:36 pm:
Is commercial meat production replaced by agriculture (grain monoculture) or horticulture..? I completely agree with you about supporting small farms though. But i think the best approach would be veganic permaculture (no till, organic and maximum utilage of acres). I also think that meat consumption increases the amount of land used for grain production……
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Interesting View on planting. Apparently She has never taken an Agriculture class to help explain why certain crops have developed and why animals became such a good use of some of the land in the US. Let me enlighten you a bit.
1. The reason wheat is not grown on much of the farmland (because farmers will grow what we will use) is becuase we currently have too much wheat in storage, so obviously the global use of Wheat would need to increase before it is economically feasable to grow more wheat.
2. Beef and Dairy animals actually are very good users of certain land. For those who don’t understand the make up of cattle, they are a ruminant animal, therefor can consume certain forages and grasses that humans and other monogastrics can’t. This means we can get valuable protein feed off of land that can only grown grass and weeds. Products that humans can get no nutritional value from.
3. People can not consume corn. It has to be processed into something else. Corn grows best in the upper midwest climate that unfortunatley is too cold and too short of a growth year to grow many of the vegetables that People need for nutrients. By taking out the Meat, you would need to find many more high protein vegetable sources to give humans all of the Iron, and trace minerals and Vitamins that come from Milk and meat.
I am glad you have the freedom to choose to be a vegetarian and that you have reasoning behind that. But you should really find out more of the real story of Agruculture before you start spreading that going vegetarian will solve the world’s problems.
Also – if we don’t eat meat, that only adds to the amount of animals still alive eating the feed and making the poop that you think is ruining the environment, so you are actually adding to the problem and not fixing it.
[Reply]
Salli reply on April 22, 2010 12:41 pm:
Kuddos Jenny!!! Most people who are against Argiculture don’t know a fraction about it!!! Ag people were the original Earth Day Advocates with the knowledge to back up their stance!!!
[Reply]
Rinalia reply on April 22, 2010 6:41 pm:
The majority of cattle raised for consumption spend less than half of their productive life on forage. Most are fattened on dry feedlots. Most need to be transitioned from pasture to grain. Grain, as I am SURE you know, is entirely inappropriate feedstuff for ruminants.
75% of dairy cattle are housed primarily on dry lots and fed primarily grain. It is difficult to maintain the high level of milk production on pasture alone. Even grass-fed Holsteins are often supplemented with hay.
The type of beef people prefer consuming requires a lot more protein and fat than can be found on “weeds”. Verdant, lush, rich pasture is required for grass-fed “beef”. Hay is often supplemented. It’s not like you can throw a bunch of Charolais out in a big field of weeds and expect a) healthy cattle and b) profitable beef.
As to corn. Last time I checked, you can eat corn. On the cob, even. As popcorn. In cornbread! It’s miraculous. So what if you have to process it. It’s not like you can enter a pasture full of steers and just start gnawing on a rib. Animals are dismembered and processed, reduced to component parts and sold in pieces, so that you, the consumer, can further process the parts via cooking. It’s not much different than processing corn, ‘cept the corn didn’t form friendships, feel pain or emotions or think. Cattle do.
Your last sentence is a whole lot of logic fail. If people did not eat animals, those animals would eventually die off. Broiler chickens are not going to live the life of glory in the wild. Yorkshire pigs are not likely to find a grand living in nature, either. Few breeds of production livestock can truly thrive without constant human intervention.
[Reply]
Sam reply on April 22, 2010 7:54 pm:
Too bad we don’t really get a benefit from cows since grass-fed as far and few between
[Reply]
evelusive reply on April 22, 2010 9:00 pm:
Hi jenny. I would like to offer a counter to some of your arguments.
1. sorry i’m not off to the greatest start i really don’t understand your point here.
2. Beef and Dairy animals (actually called cows) are great at eating certain grasses, however in todays agricultural system it is (apparently)impossible to raise cattle without feeding them grains etc (which is something that we can eat). (etc being protein concentrates), also on this same point, the hooves of cattle destroy the earth that the grasses grow on compacting the soil meaning that native grasses are unable to survive.
3. People can consume corn, or even digest it (if that is what you meant to say, Various cultures have had corn as a staple in their diet gaining little nutrition from other sources at various points in their history (see Italy, Mexico etc). Also agriculture (as a monoculture) is a very expensive (in terms of fossil fuel, water and land consumption) way to get protein, there are much more effective ways to grow food for example Organic Horticulture or Permaculture. You would be very surprised to see what really could grow where if you did the research.
also – If we don’t eat meat and sterilise the animals we have then the population of animals would reduce to basically nothing in approximately 20 years whereas our current trend of ever increasing animal consumption will only contuinue to be a monkey on our back until we finally realise we need to change (remember 20-40 years ago the scientists who first spoke out about climate change were either ignored or ridiculed).
Just Saying..
[Reply]
John reply on April 22, 2010 11:32 pm:
FYI corn is a grass, and beef and dairy animals are cattle (the females are cows).
[Reply]
Rinalia reply on April 23, 2010 10:34 am:
Corn is a grass and cereal grain. Humans can consume it. They may not consume all parts of the plant, but humans don’t consume all parts of animals, either.
There is no singular “cattle”, so folks have relied on “cow”as the singular when referring to an individual bovine. It apparently rubs some people the wrong way b/c it’s a feminine term. What would you prefer us plebs to call an individual cow/heifer/bull/steer/etc.? The general public is not familiar with the specified terms applicable to gender and birthing status. But please, do enlighten us!
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 27, 2010 5:52 pm:
For singular use I normally use calf.
Cow is a bred female, for an unbred female use hefier.
Bull is any male that hasn’t been castrated and a Steer is a castrated bull.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Since when does the EPA use an intern’s opinion from OCHP as a publishable document and Federal government representation? Now, while I realize this may be common practice in government circles (non-employees/contractors making government decisions), it DOES NOT give me the “warm and fuzzies” to know that someone in the employ of the Federal Government is pushing a “vegan” agenda using MY TAX DOLLARS.
As a state government employee, my job is to DO MY JOB and TOW THE COMPANY LINE between 8a-5p. My personal views must be “checked at the door”. While I do not agree with many of the policies my Agency recommends or enforces, I do my job.
I respect Ms. Reising’s right to be vegan, but it is a private right, not a public comment recommended by a Federal Agency on a Federal website. Or is it? Is this some new agenda from EPA? Has the Federal government developed an aversion to meat? Is EPA recommending the disbanding of the meat industries? Based on Ms. Reising’s blog, it sure seems that way.
Get it together. Police your employees. People read what the Government says, and many can’t form enough of an opinion to make their own judgement. They act like sheep (yes, pun intended). Therefore, it is the EPA’s RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that information released if FACTUAL, and follows the RULES of providing data for public consumption.
Thank you for hearing my side of this.
[Reply]
Dan reply on April 21, 2010 10:58 pm:
There is an Editor’s note just below the post explaining to us sheep that the opinions expressed are those of the author, not the EPA. Exactly what rules (I mean RULES) “for providing data for public consumption” are there? Maybe the first rule ought to be read what you are responding too before you write something stupid. But I prefer the First Amendment and fully support your right to raise silly government conspiracy theories about an intern’s blog post.
[Reply]
Taylor reply on April 22, 2010 10:38 pm:
Guess who else’s tax dollars helped publish this blog? THE AUTHORS. And it is her blog with her opinion. Don’t read it if you don’t like it. There are plenty of right wing blogs that want to stifle freedom of speech that I’m sure you would love to read. It is absolutely ridiculous that people are on here whining about their tax dollars being wasted. My tax dollars helped fund an illegal war that is against my morals and ethics. And you’re whining about a blog post??? As for you talking about how it is the EPA’s responsibility to be honest, how naive and brainwashed are you? You think that our government is honest and does everything they can to provide us with facts? HAHAHA. You should really listen to yourself when you say you ignore many of your personal views and beliefs for your job. That is honestly one of the saddest things I have ever heard. Our country needs people who stand up for their beliefs, not people who whore themselves out just for a paycheck. What is the point of your life if this is all you’re doing?
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Being a vegetarian or vegan is fine for personal reasons. The attempt to restrict animal production for food for those who choose to eat meat is unaccapetable.
You do not address the USA specifically and its climate zones and what exactly can be done with the land currently used for livestock or the negative ecosystem effects caused by conversion of land to crops .
An example I shall use is Washington state, which has a large desert/high prairie system. Before that land was irrigated, not much could survive the natural sysytem as far as crops. There were huge dust storms. All of that land had new options with the massive irrigation which lead it to be the agricultural power it now is.
The jackrabbit (hare) and the pygmy jackrabit (rabbit) have become endangered and extinct respectively. They are a major food source for birds of prey which breed in the Columbia River Basin. Birds of prey population numbers expectedly declined as a result.
Jackrabbits were also a big source of food for people as well. They were slaughtered as a neccessary step in progress.
When you transform an area to suit crop needs, you necessarily destroy the natural ecosystem which could have other uses in its natural state.
[Reply]
Paul reply on April 22, 2010 9:59 am:
Where we live agriculture is the lifeblood that keeps small communities alive. We have so many jackrabbits we would be glad to ship some to you folks in Washington in you miss them.
[Reply]
evelusive reply on April 22, 2010 9:06 pm:
You should check out a video on youtube called Greening the desserthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6kTlz6Mk4 crops do not have to be grown the way that they currently are.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Such biased, unsubstantiated opinion should never have been allowed on a federal web site. Is this the message EPA really wishes to send to the hard-working ranchers involved in RESPONSIBLE animal agriculture?
[Reply]
Don reply on April 23, 2010 6:46 pm:
The day of exploiting animals are going to be over soon.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
What about all of the good uses of liquid manure? It’s a fantastic way to recycle and reuse what would otherwise just be waste. Farmers can get a good, non-chemical source of fertilizer that when applied correctly won’t leak into water supplies.
As for manure getting into water supplies from farms, maybe you should check up on all of the regulations that are in place to prevent this.
[Reply]
Jennifer reply on April 23, 2010 2:23 pm:
Don’t bother checking up on all the regulations that are in place to prevent this. Very few exist and when they do they are aspirational or voluntary in must cases. Look instead at the water bodies in this country. Sure, many forms of industrial water pollution have been cleaned up in this country, but ag manure runoff is a huge, HUGE source of nutrient overenrichment of streams and estuaries. Moreover, liquified cow poop is not safe and is known to be related to human illness (e.Coli outbreaks, anyone?).
[Reply]
Karen reply on May 3, 2010 12:02 pm:
There is some runoff but not nearly as much as there is from public municipals. If a farmer has an equipment breakdown and has a spill he is slapped with a fine. If a public sewage plant has a breakdown or is flooded there is not so much as a slap on the hand. Then there are also all the towns people who have their lawns sprayed to keep them weed free and looking so good. When it rains where do you think all the chemicals go. Down the sewer system and into treatment plants. There are numerous plants that once the water is treated it goes into streams and rivers. Only trouble is treatment does not kill the chemicals. Again the municipals get a free license to pollute. The good conscientious farmers would never consider dumping into stream, rivers, etc.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Nicole,
You are fortunate to live in a place and time where you can make such personal choices…. Although I do not share your culinary preferences, I do respect your right to choose. There are many naive references in your editorial….too many to list here, but I certainly would not place too much faith in Paul Ehrlich or his calculations…if he were half right in the Population Bomb, we would have all starved to death at least a generation ago….and you probably would not be here today.
[Reply]
nishu reply on April 21, 2010 4:13 pm:
Fortunate to live in a place and time where you can make personal choices? My family as far back as I know has been vegetarian. My great grandmother was almost as poor as one can get and she still was able to choose to be a vegetarian
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I would expect, in the very least, professionlism from an EPA blog. So sad I didn’t see it hear. There is no room for opinion and questionable facts from a vegetarian source. The sad thing is, an animal rights person will problem source this junvnile journalism as an EPA source. Would have expected better from the EPA.
[Reply]
Also Jen reply on April 21, 2010 4:09 pm:
Jen, before you remark on a highly educated intern’s professionalism please attend grade school. I believe it is not “hear” but “here” and not “junvnile” but “juvenile” and your sentence “The sad thing is, an animal rights person will problem source this junvnile journalism as an EPA source” makes no logical sense. Please spare us from reading your garbage unless you can take the time and write proper English.
[Reply]
Paul reply on April 22, 2010 10:05 am:
Before you trash on someones typos make sure you write with proper English. Incorrect punctuation and missing commas highlight this grammatical garbage.
I can’t believe someone resorts to these types of comments because someone has a dissenting opinion that is simply pointing out exaggerated claims made by a group of yuppies.
[Reply]
caheidelberger reply on April 23, 2010 9:21 am:
Funny: I don’t hear anything unprofessional in expressing an informed opinion. Everyone, even a government employee, is entitled to choose what she eats and explain that choice to others. If you don’t like it, just order another hamburger, as I will, rather than trying to claim the person you disagree with is not professional. Keep up the good work, Ms. Reising.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
It is beyond my comprehension that any official blog on a tax-payer funded website would be used to promote lifestyle choices. Boy, US EPA, you keep proving yourself time and time again to be against US agriculture OF ALL TYPES. You demonize time proven methodologies that are environmentally appropriate, sensitive to the needs of a growing population, and that support the economic engine that drives this country down a positive path, rather than following along in the recessionary one.
EPA #fail. I’m telling twitter and facebook.
[Reply]
Sarah reply on April 24, 2010 6:20 pm:
Hey Tricia,
You want some cheese with that whine?
[Reply]
don crozier reply on April 25, 2010 12:14 pm:
I’m telling twitter and facebook.
na na na boo boo
Lifestyle choices that help reduce unnecessary consumption of limited resources. I put this in the same class as recommendations to drive smaller cars and take shorter showers.
‘Nuff said…
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I cannot think of one person that loves animals more than I do, yet I believe it goes against all that is natural that we should not consume meat. Every modern advancement we have made in our time on this earth has been dependent on our ability to produce our own food year ’round. I do believe that we should respect in every way possible the animals that provide us our nourishment, and I think that most farmers are following that train of thought.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 22, 2010 4:25 pm:
watch food inc. and maybe it will open your eyes to how most farmers are being controlled by very large corporations. also, humans are actually not built to eat meat. our intestines are very long and a hamburger takes years to digest. there is a theory that meat-eating is connected to alzheimers. it is a myth and an american tradition that humans are meant to eat meat. but like many things that have gone on in our country for way too long, it is important to be open minded to not eating meat. the environment is impacted by the incredible amount or natural resources used for factory farming. the animals suffer tremendously. and the humans are suffering from higher levels than ever of diabetes, due to the impact of fast food.
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 22, 2010 7:41 pm:
I liked that movie, but you’re crazy to think a hamburger takes more than a day or so to digest. I suppose you believe the disgusting stories the high colonic priests spread about John Wayne. Look it up on Scopes.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 27, 2010 6:01 pm:
Food Inc is a joke. A suffering animal is not a happy animal and if our cattle are not happy they don’t gain weight, simple as that. Our animals eat before we do, we don’t go on vacation and trust them to our neighbors or haul them to a kennel. Animals are our way of life and have been for generations. You farm critics celebrate earth day once a year we celebrate it every single day and have done so for generations, it’s our life blood the only thing we have to make a living from why would we destroy our most precious resource? I’m sick and tired of you people trying to tell us how to farm when most of you have never left the city.
[Reply]
Karen reply on May 3, 2010 12:07 pm:
My family stands with your on your comment.
[Reply]
Karen reply on May 3, 2010 12:08 pm:
For those look at spellings and grammer, tt should have said: My family stands with you regarding your comment.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
You say that another great motive to becoming a vegetarian are the the negative environmental effects. A few facts:
The EPA itself (the organizaiton you are blogging for) put out this fact: The entire U.S. ag sector contributed only 6.4% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2006 (EPA). That includes meat production…and that 6.4% is for the ENTIRE U.S. ag sector! Additionally, conventional beef generates 40% LESS GHG emissions and uses 2/3’s less land than beef produced using organic and grass-fed production systems.
I also want to address your issue with “Grain and corn grown for animal feed instead of addressing world hunger” Only 1% of all the corn grown in the U.S. is sweet corn to be consumed by humans. The rest of the corn is used for livestock feed, ethanol and other uses (like biodegradable corn plastic — good for the environment!!). We cannot grow crops in all areas, and the areas we do grow corn, the quality is not always good enough to be consumed by humans. Thus, we are helping world hunger by feeding this grain to livestock and producing other uses for corn (corn starch, corn syrup, etc) to allow for more food products that are affordable.
[Reply]
James reply on April 20, 2010 2:53 pm:
Who said the land had to be used for corn? Grow a better plant product.
[Reply]
@ag4front reply on April 20, 2010 3:12 pm:
The author of this blog does when she says that we should use land that is growing corn for livestock feed to feed the hungry. Isn’t that what farmers are doing? Growing a crop that can be utilized to produce a protein source for the hungry in the U.S. (which is a bigger population than most believe) and grow enough to export overseas to the hungry? No other crop is as versatile and able to produce so many products than corn. With it, we are feeding our livestock, we are feeding ourselves, we are allowing more food in the stores with the use of corn as a starch, preservative and sweetender, and we are freeing our dependence on foreign oil by producing an environmentally friendly and sustainable fuel – ethanol.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 25, 2010 10:18 am:
Corn ethanol is neither sustainable nor environemtally friendly because it takes more energy to create it than it could potentially yield. It was a failed hypothesis that the corn lobbiests aren’t letting die
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 21, 2010 9:04 am:
Exactly, James. As IF corn syrup is a benefit. As far as I’m concerned, there is no value to “cheap food.” Garbage in/garbage out.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
What a waste. I got about half way through this poorly fact-checked drivel before I started to question whether or not this was to be read as a satire piece. Does Sec. Vilsack have a blog? I wonder what he thinks of this junk.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“The opinions and comments expressed in Greenversations are those of the authors alone and do not reflect an Agency policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy of the contents of the blog.”
This is a blog, folks – and a community blog at that. Let’s decompress a little. If you only read one post on my blog, you might get the idea that I believe a LOT of stuff that I don’t!
[Reply]
@ag4front reply on April 20, 2010 3:21 pm:
This is a blog, but when the author states facts or studies that are not true and contradict farmers/ranchers/food producers “facts” of producing food for you, they have a right to refute.
And why would anyone post a lot of things on a personal blog that they don’t believe.
[Reply]
Nancy Kavazanjian reply on April 20, 2010 4:45 pm:
This may be a blog, BUT it is on the official US government’s EPA website. Your disclaimer doesn’t go very far in protecting you from publishing outright lies or in giving credence to outdated and innaccurate studies. This is an clear case of intentional slander. Additionally the fact that you allow such rubbish to be posted on your website is just one more glaring reason of why US farmers are so disgusted with the EPA.
[Reply]
FloridaFarmer reply on April 22, 2010 3:38 pm:
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t promote this blog with the so called credibility and name of EPA (blog.epa.gov) and then turn around and state that this is blog contains the opinions of the author alone. If the opinions are those of yours alone then you shouldn’t trick people into thinking it’s a blog of the epa? Which is it? Regardless, get your facts straight. I don’t care if you don’t eat another piece of meat again in your lifetime. More for us. But don’t paint a negative of hard-working land-loving farmers and ranchers.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
It seems some of your blogs have a very naive understanding of both meat production and agriculture in general. The American farmer and rancher are the envy of the world, no where is food so abundant and safe and cheap. Farmers and Ranchers live where they work, their office is a field, a feedlot or the open range. We have seen our production grow, the quality improve with our ability to feed more people each and every year. Whether you choose the EPA website to disclose your believes or the coffee shop, it is obvious that some choose to share their beliefs as facts. Most people see through all of that jocking for position and preceived intellect. They know that farmers and ranchers are the salt of the earth, the true environmentalist, the ones that put food on each and every Americans dinner plate, and they do it the cheapest in the world.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on May 3, 2010 9:17 am:
The Simplot livestock are crammed into barren, smelly lots where the cows lay and stand on their feces, even climbing to the top of manure pile to get some fresh air or room to stand by themselves in one town (contaminating the air of surrounding towns), while the Simplot office is in a big city far away from the stench 40 minutes away.
Idaho farmers/ranchers are so not eco-friendly as they constantly poison the fields with chemical pesticides, fertilizers and poisons to kill wildlife. And how is their cry for eradicating the wolf, the bear, the mountain lion eco-friendly.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Really, Don? How many Monsanto and ConAgra folks have offices out on the prairie?
[Reply]
Jason reply on April 20, 2010 3:24 pm:
I live in a small community in Iowa with a Monsanto facility, and I would guess at least 100-200 non-seasonal Monsanto folks have their offices out on the prairie 8-9 months a year. The other 3 or 4 months is inside, but far from any traditional office setting. If anything ever happened to that site, my hometown would die. Maybe that is what you want.
[Reply]
Aaron reply on April 20, 2010 3:44 pm:
ConAgra and Monsanto have offices in almost every area of Kansas. They research new products and grow seed stock. ConAgra has grain terminals and load outs not to mention manufacturing.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Unfortunately the study you have quoted is inaccurate and is in the process of being recalculated after one of the authors admitted errors were made. The Dairy portion of the new study was released today and can be found here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf
An article highlighting the new study: http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/latest-news/un-sheds-light-on-dairy-cow-emissions/31482.article
Ray
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Great post.
I’m a farmer, a meat producer and a meat eater but there’s no question that eating meat consumes far more resources than living lower on the food chain. Yes, I acknowledge that ruminants can turn cellulose into meat, milk and hides. That’s a miracle worth exploiting but most cattle are fattened with grain in the US.
[Reply]
Ted reply on April 21, 2010 1:26 pm:
This is true Keith. Why do you think cattle are fattened on grain? I’ll give you a hint. It’s because it tastes better and it’s more cost effective!
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
This “opinion” has no place on an official US govt web site. It reads like a high school essay by a student with only a narrow biased view of the world. The writer would be much better informed if she were at the other university in Indiana (Purdue), studying to be a manager in a For-Profit business, and rubbing shoulders with some agricultural students.
The “Fellow Blogger” responding to the criticism seems to be as naive and prejudiced against animal agriculture as the writer. Ag businesses, the ones that help make it possible for one farmer to feed at least 200 other people, DO live in the country. Very few have HQs in Washington DC or other East Coast or West Coast cities.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
A see a log of meat-eaters ignorance here. If you think torturing and killing a being that can feel is humane, then you wrong values.
[Reply]
Catherine reply on April 20, 2010 3:28 pm:
I only wish that I were a steer in a feedlot, to be “tortured” by total freedom from predators that may or may not kill me, but definitely maim me… To be fed a consistent diet that I do not have to be constantly looking for… to be free of disease… Animals “feel”, to be sure. But, do they RATIONALIZE their existence? I think not. Just watching nature programming with genuine “wild” animals bolsters my opinion on that.
[Reply]
John reply on April 21, 2010 6:33 pm:
Ask the antelope if the cougar eating it is being humane. Or maybe the robin being eaten by your neighbor’s pet cat. Livestock are produced for meat, to maximize production they are raised in as stress free of an environment as possible. When the animal is slaughtered, it is done in a fashion that the animal doesn’t linger suffering unnessarily- that would make the meat more tough.
P.S. raccoons, skunks and possums are wild life when in a wilderness area, however when they are within 50 yards of your rural home they are vermin potentially carrying diseases that can harm you, your family, your pets and livestock. This rule can be applied, pets are fixed and have a collar, strays are feral and should be shot.
Have a nice Earth Day.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on May 3, 2010 9:30 am:
Catherine and John are very ignorant on the production of meat. The livestock are not kept in a serene environment and are not disease free. The animals are tortured daily by the workers. Their tails twisted off, to help keep the manure from clinging to them….but fails due to the lack of cleanliness on the property. If the newborn calves are kept alive long enough to put feed into, their horns are burned off, with out medical care, only a finger in the eye to help hold it steady for the painful procedure. They are constantly kicked head to gentiles. The animals are hit with tools. The newborn calves are dragged away to where they are starved to death. The females often have their uterus fall out of them. And they all receive antibiotics to help keep the infections down, but fail as all the cows end up with open wounds, red, irritated, enlarged, and oozing with puss.
The meat is contaminated with heavy metals. The US has no standards for this contamination, but other countries do, like Mexico, so our meat is not sold to other countries.
If they were so happy and healthy, why are we so concerned with illnesses like ecol i, mad cow disease ?
You are consuming hormone growth, infection puss, and antibiotics….how is this healthy for anyone?
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Who gave the password to this blog to an intern? This is propaganda at its worst. Just because this is a community blog does not excuse the lack of fact-checking and downright lies. A waste of time and cyberspace.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
This is an offical government website with misinformation presented about the health of the planet and should not be allowed.
“Livestock’s long shadow was disproven by Dr. Frank Milloehner UC Davis and the authors of the study admitted their mistake.
Mitloehner indicated, however, that U.S. livestock’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is around 3% instead of the 18% claimed in the U.N. report.
Pierre Gerber, a co-author of “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” who told BBC that Mitloehner “has a point: We factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn’t do the same thing with transport; we just used the figure from the (U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).”
Of the people by the people FOR the people needs to be revisited
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
All that because I think someone’s effusive rhetorical flourish gushes a bit? I love independent and responsible animal agriculture.
I also love a blogosphere where people actually discuss things rather than spout partisan rhetoric. Many of the comments today have basically told Nicole to just shut her “naive and prejudiced” mouth, instead of engaging with her opinions and offering substantial responses.
[Reply]
Ben reply on April 21, 2010 8:45 am:
I agree with the idea of having an engaging and open dialogue. Let Nicole come back and explain why she used patently false information and a number of other egregious fallacies and abuses of fact and logic. I’d be happy to continue to discuss this all day long, except it will be a short and one sided discussion.
People have been attempting to engage, by illustrating that the information provided by this intern is often misleading and often wrong. I enjoy a setting where people provide opinions based upon actual fact and data, and not emotion.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Am I shocked that this type of misinformation is coming from our current government led by the Obama administration? No, it’s exactly what I would expect!
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
So does the EPA back shutting down all American businesses (what’s left of them) and allowing cattle to graze grass (where they can find it) all over the country so everything can be free-range … or not eaten so we can populate the earth with farm animals and to hell with modern society?
Sure, let’s do away with CORN and GRAIN growing so we can actually starve the earth because that’s what YOU, USEPA, are promoting on your official blog.
Who is running this ship?
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Why is an official government web site publishing the personal ideals of an intern? This is so wrong. Letters of complaint to my senators and representatives will be sent immediately.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Why wouldn’t you publish my rebuttal?
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Does anyone find this “cute?”
To me it’s a little frightening.
How much longer, before the Bureaucrats at the EPA decide they need to regulate meat consumption?
[Reply]
wild rose reply on April 22, 2010 10:51 am:
Maybe the intern knows something, like the decisions been made–to quote her…
“Regulations can be made to help prevent the effects of meat production, but the easiest way to lessen the environmental impacts is to become a vegetarian or vegan. “
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
I’m an intern. I’ve blogged for internships and sold myself for free-lancing.
As an intern and an Internet communicator, I’m ashamed for you.
Your entire post is based on an awful biased that is supported by animal rights groups and inflated food critics. Instead of blogging, why don’t you go walk among the countless people worldwide who are only able to eat because of American agriculture. China, by itself, doubled its demands for American foodstuff (especially commodity crops like wheat and soybeans and meats like beef and pork) in less than a decade. I spoke personally with a Huang Ping, the Chinese Consul General to Chicago, a few weeks ago. He outright said that the poor of China would not eat without our affordable, safe food. They also depend on the integration of American production ag technology to increase their national independence.
One of the most valuable skills to have when participating in Internet communications is common sense. Logic. As an intern for a government organization, there is no reason why you should be given the liberty to voice such a personal and biased view.
It’d be one thing if you were an intern for a vegan/vegetarian organization. It’s entirely another to use a government-funded internship to serve as a soapbox. Especially when the EPA and farmers must understand each other.
As a fellow college sophomore, intern, and communicator, I think you need to head back to whatever school it is you attend, and get some more education. You are not ready to be trusted with something so valuable as an organization’s public image.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I’m at a loss to understand how a tax payer-supported government agency can give the time and access to an intern to spread what can only be described as incredibly naive but politically volatile misinformation. EPA is being irresponsible — the disclaimer is inane.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
A disclaimer at the end of the article states “Opinions are of the author only.” I have issue with EPA providing the forum though – after all it is “THE OFFICIAL BLOG of the EPA.” Include all the disclaimers you want EPA, you are still advocating anti-ranching hyperbole with such a post. Farmers and ranchers should be outraged.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
An agency of the federal government has no business having an “official blog” and at the same time saying that it “does not reflect an Agency policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy of the contents of the blog.” That is ludicrous. It’s like a company having a blog and letting anyone write on it without checking whether it might alienate its customers. EXCEPT that this is paid for with OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!! This is just simply WRONG! No disclaimer can correct that.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
To the EPA: The point the uninformed intern was trying to make was discredit some time ago. It would be nice if she was required to do research before posting. Or possibly just watching the news from time to time might help. I am very upset to see a goverment agency allowing such mis-conduct to happen on a public blog.
By Gerald Warner Environment Last updated: March 25th, 2010
61 Comments Comment on this article
It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unravelling. The latest reversal of scientific “consensus” is on livestock and the meat trade as a major cause of global warming – one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to eco-vegetarian cranks. Now a scientific report delivered to the American Chemical Society says it is nonsense. The Washington Times has called it “Cowgate”.
The cow-burp hysteria reached a crescendo in 2006 when a United Nations report ominously entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.” This led to demands in America for a “cow tax” and a campaign in Europe at the time of the Copenhagen car crash last December called Less Meat=Less Heat.
Now a report to the American Chemical Society by Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, has denounced such scare-mongering as “scientifically inaccurate”. He reveals that the UN report lumped together digestive emissions from livestock, gases produced by growing animal feed and meat and milk processing, to get the highest possible result, whereas the traffic comparison only covered fossil fuel emissions from cars. The true ratio, he concludes, is just 3 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in America are attributable to rearing of cattle and pigs, compared with 26 per cent from transport.
Mitloehner also makes the deadly serious point: “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.” Precisely. The demonising of cows and pigs is just another example of global warmists’ callous indifference to starvation in the developing world, as in the case of the unbelievably immoral and reckless drive for biofuels – pouring Third World resources for subsistence into Western liberals’ fuel tanks – and, notoriously, carbon trading.
Week by week the AGW collapse intensifies. Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited. Now it turns out the great cow-burp scare is bovine excrement too. The global warming scam is, to the majority of people, an object of derision. The scientific community has also at last wakened up. They are smelling the coffee in more and more institutions these days.
This week the Science Museum in London announced it is revising its stance so that its Climate Change Gallery will now be renamed the Climate Science Gallery, to reflect its new position of neutrality in the climate debate. Chris Rapley, the director, said the museum was taking a different approach after observing how the debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”
When did you ever hear that sort of thing before? But that is fair enough: neutrality, a level playing field and an equal voice is all global warming sceptics have ever asked for. Given those reasonable conditions, the truth will out and we will win. The signs are that a lot of scientists have been moved to assert their integrity, encouraged by the increasingly huge breaches sceptics have made in the defences of the AGW camp. Others may simply have calculated they may have backed a loser and it is time to take out some insurance.
Whatever the case, it is a different world now in the war against the AGW scam. Zac Goldsmith, warmist fanatic and Tory candidate, is telling environmentalists that green issues are vote losers. He should tell Dave that and stop him making an even bigger fool of himself. We are experiencing a tipping point in the climate war and the advantage is slowly but irresistibly moving towards the sceptics.
Tags: global warming
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I see that ag folks and meat eaters are responding to this very opinionated post on a very governmental blog. You make eating meat sound like something “bad” your parents made you do as a child. Fortunately for many of us, we ate meat (and continue to eat meat) throughout our lives. Meat is an excellent source of many vitamins and minerals that have helped us extend the average human life in the US. Many starving countries dream about having the protein we have to bump up their population health. They also want to have the production capabilities that our farmers today have. In response to your bullet points: 1. Farm families live where they raise livestock, so the air they breathe is important. 2. Renewable fuel use is growing to replace fossil fuels and manure is a valuable resource to naturally fertilize the plants that sustain you.3. Water quality is a constant concern of livestock farmers and no one industry is more heavily regulated and followed than the livestock industry. 4. Corn grown across the US is not sweet corn- it is processed into thousands of products and fed to livestock or turned into fuel. You should do a little more homework on world hunger before it becomes a platform for you. On any of the points above, I challenge you to find better air quality, better waste management, and better water conservation then you will find on America’s farms. Your excuses for not eating meat are what we call, manure.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
As a meat eater and a daughter of an Ex-vegetarian. I have seen how unsuitable a vegetarian diet can be to certain body-types and races, who have evolved eating meat. It is certain that not all animal agricuture is as green as it could be, but just as humans have evolved eating meat, the practice of how we grow our meat supply has evolved because of human practices. As always the anti-rights for humans, groups have mislead the writer of this article and millions of others with what amounts to flat out lies with a little sugar coating. Heres a toast to the farmers and Ranchers that grow our cheap food supply with the best abilities of any farmers in the world, and with the least amount of impact on the environment of any farmers in the world while just barely scratching out a living!
[Reply]
Rarian Rakista reply on April 23, 2010 8:14 pm:
Being a vegetarian is ” unsuitable to some races”, lol.
Which races would that be? The only one I can think of is Klingon.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I think the water needs of raising animals includes the water needed to grow the animals food as well. A cow goes through a lot of food to get that huge, but also a lot of steriods and other chemical additives that I dont want to be putting in my body.
If people dont know about pollution from animal farming, it is willful ignorance. They are only a google search away from multiple accounts of waterway poisonings and other crimes against nature.
Some comments say that it is natural for people to eat meat, and that may be the case… but not in the way that these animals are raised. For example, where in nature would you find chickens confined so close together that their feet dont touch the ground? We are no longer talking about the natural order of things.
And as for health concerns, I stopped eating meat when I was 12 yrs old, and 15 years later I still feel good. Yes, you have to watch what you eat, but so does anyone who stays away from certain foods (anyone have food allergies?)
The response to this blog shows the anger/hate toward vegetarians that always surpizes me. They act like there is something wrong with you. You can not possibly be a normal healthy person and not eat meat! No one has ever explained this anger to me… so I just think that somewhere deep inside…. they feel guilty about killing innocent animals for no good reason. They are trying to justify it in their minds. They can insult me as much as they want. At the end of the day, my conscience is clear.
[Reply]
Aaron reply on April 20, 2010 5:27 pm:
I don’t know of a farmer who uses the anger and hatred those on the extreme left use towards us, if my comments come off as angry I apploizige for all farmers out there.
We use growth hormones in some beef production. But the estrogen levels in a steak from an implanted steer/heifer is tiny in comparison to say a head of cabbage, or a cup of soy milk. Second, even if you figure into the water used to raise a feeder steer from birth to death her numbers require that animal to consume 625 gallons of water per day from drinking and eating feed that uses water in production. Third about pollution, I would love for you to take a tour of a livestock operation or any farm operation and have a nice visit with the manager/owner and see for yourself what environmental impacts take place and the amount of time they pour into containing and caring for the environment there are no stronger stewards of the environment then a farmer, I’ve said it hundreds of times, we need more active environmentalists and fewer environmental activist.
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 10:37 am:
As you say, the manager/owner must pour a lot of time into containing and caring for the environment in order to minimize any impact. I am happy for any farmer who does this. And of course, not only time but money as well. I am sure that there would more cost to do things the earth friendly way. Any farmer who does this should be proud.
However, it is not likely that every farmer will choose to do things the cleanest way and pour all that time/money into it. Thus, the problem.
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 20, 2010 5:37 pm:
Ambrosia – I do not see any “anger/hate toward vegetarians” in the comments. Maybe anger at the government for allowing a certain agenda to be promoted on a taxpayer funded website. Meat eaters are not advocating that everyone eat meat – but there are MANY vegetarian/vegans who want all of us to stop eating meat – to save the planet or the animals, or whatever. That is what kind of annoys us. Eat whatever you want and keep your hands off my steak!
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 11:01 am:
you do not see any because it is not directed toward you. Here, let me take some quotes and change “vegetarian” to “meat eating” and see if you find it insulting….
“Meat eating is not of natural, because, I thought, we have been living in the Earth without prohibitions. Aren’t the ancestors ate the veggies and then so stronger and smarter ?”
“Strict meat eaters cannot obtain a specific nutirient from meat and will get early dementia. The chicldren of long term meat eating moms suffer from specific birth defects because of this.”
“I believe it goes against all that is natural that we should consume meat.”
I can find many more, but most are along the same lines. You are unnatural and unhealthy. Along with some comments about a hidden agenda about making everyone vegetarians too. No one is trying to take your steak away. (From my point of view, the meat eaters are trying to make everyone eat meat too by calling you unatural and so on)
Yes, I have met some vegetarians (some vegans) that push their diet. From my experience, the most vocal ones are the ones who end up going back to eating meat. My theory is the same for them as the vegetarian haters. They are not secure and have to justify themselves.
Believe it or not, I dont really talk about this in real life. People dont usually find out I am a vegetarian until we go out to eat together and I order a veggie burger or something. Then they have to ask me before I say anything. I dont have a problem with meat eating. My boyfriend almost only eats meat. When we go out to eat together and we order two meals, I will give him my meat and he gives me his veggies :)
………………………………………………………….
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 12:04 pm:
let me be clear:
I am PRO-CHOICE when it comes to eating meat. Although it is against my morals, I would not force my decision on anyone else. Nor would I try to make any laws against the practice. What happens in your stomach is your own business.
(Yes, I will keep my hands off your steak. Wouldnt want to touch the bloody thing anyway)
[Reply]
Kansas Farm Wife reply on April 21, 2010 11:30 am:
Ambrosia – “a google search away”? Didn’t you ever learn to not believe everything you read on the internet? If we believed everything we read on the internet I might believe aliens were planning to attack and take over the world next week. Or I might believe that the farmers that feed this country (my husband, father, brother, uncles, grandfathers, and family for generations back) were dumping chemicals and manure in every stream, pond and lake they could find. They are stripping our soil and blatantly contaminating it with chemicals and raising meat so packed with steroids that it makes our teenage boys grow breasts and our girls hit puberty at 9.
But since I know that you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet (and have some common sense) I know that all of those things are untrue. Lets stop and think about this for a second. Does it make any sense to use farming practices that harm the Earth? Hmmm….pretty sure not. Farmers across this country spend a large amount of time learning new ways to produce enough food to feed a hungry world in ways that mean we can continue to produce that food indefinitely. More and more are learning to use no-til or limited-til farming practices to conserve soil. They are diligent about the amount and timing of fertilizer and herbicide applications to make sure the end product is safe for consumption. They learn about better livestock handling practices that are not only ethical but keep the animals calmer and the farmers safer.
But wait…how do I know all of this? Because I live it. Day in and day out. What do you live Ambrosia? Have you ever been to an actual farm? Have you ever seen these “chickens confined so close together that their feet dont touch the ground”? I doubt it! Have you walked a week in a farmer/rancher’s shoes? I doubt it! Have you worked from sunup to sundown to get a crop in the ground just to watch a single hail storm wipe it all out a month later? I doubt it! Have you ever gotten up at 2am in the middle of a snow storm just to find a cow has calved and the calf is freezing? Have you ever carried a 90lb calf like that in your arms back to the truck, hauled it home and warmed it on the floor of your bathroom with a space heater the rest of the night? No? I have!
And I’ve also experienced the pride of harvesting a successful crop. I’ve hauled those calves back to their mamas and seen the happy reunion. And I’ve sent those same calves off to be butchered, because farmers/ranchers feed the world. And I take alot of pride in what I do. I take pride in the fact that my family and others like it feed the world!
So if you don’t wanna eat meat you just go right ahead. But don’t spout falsehoods that you “googled” and think farmers and ranchers in this country are just gonna sit there and let you. This is our life and our livelihood. We are angry because people like you, who know nothing of the real day to day activities of food production read some stuff on the internet and think you know it all and cast us as evil for producing food to feed the world.
Oh…And Ambrosia…I have a Masters of Science degree and can tell you there is no scientific evidence the “steriods and other chemical additives” you talk about have any effect on the meat or milk produced. In fact, it is shown to be the opposite. As the other responder stated, there is more estrogen in many vegetables than in meat.
So check your facts and maybe, just maybe, you should walk a mile in the people’s shoes you are criticizing, maybe you will learn something, instead of spending your day reading factless myths on google searchs.
And sense it is so cruel how I raise livestock for meat consumption I have about 320 cows with calves less than a month old. Would you like to give them a new place to live??? I thought not. Cause the one thing “animal rights” people never talk about is what will happen to all these animals that are meant for food consumption if we just stop eating them.
Lets think about that one a minute. Why don’t you do a little research on the impact banning horse slaughter has had on the number of starving, abused horses being abandoned in this country. I bet your eyes might be opened just a little. And horses aren’t even raised for meat. So increase that problem exponentially and then YOU come up with a solution. Google? It won’t give you that answer either.
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 11:31 am:
Google is a search engine. If you have a brain, you can tell the difference between some crazy person’s website and state environmental enforcement records that show up in the results. So I do apologize, I should have been more specific. Anyone who has a brain can do a google search…..
…. for example, if you google search “polluted waterways fined agriculture” the 4th link in the results is on EPA’s official website page: Clean Water Act (CWA): Agriculture-Related Enforcement Cases
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lcwaenf.html
And honey, you shouldnt assume anything about my education. I have a bachelor of science in Mechanical Engineering and some masters credits. I found the masters classes to be pretty easy elective that are just twice the price. Ya basically just show up and pay for them. I am not that impressed.
Honestly, human consumption in both meat and veggie farming is bad for the environment. Just think about all the forests that have been cleared away for farming. All the animals habitats that have been destroyed. Animals that have been hunted to extinction. All the fuel being used to run tractors and transport. All these things have their impact on the earth, the question is just which is worse.
The problem is there is just too many people to feed either meat or veggies without using some kind of questionable chemicals. That is why I always try to go for the local farmers produce, but I can not help what is in my cereal.
By the way, my grandfather used to have a small farm. Yes, those chickens were treated well. He used natural fertilizer, and the veggies were delicious. Although the first time I saw him kill a chicken made me think twice about eating one. But I still love eggs from local farms.
Yes, I have not seen the animal cruelty personally. I am sure most farmers do not. However, I have seen the pictures of the chickens so close together that their feet dont touch the ground. I dont think you should blame the people who put those pictures out, but blame those few farmers that make the rest of you look bad. You should be able to be proud of what you do.
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 11:59 am:
As for the 320 cows, I think the question would not be “what should you do with them now” but more like “why do you have them in the first place”
The horses is an interesting topic. It reminds me of all the dogs/cats that are bred that end up unwanted/abused/killed. It seems odd that people pay a thousand dollars for a dog breed when there are perfectly good dogs that are in the shelter for free.
It makes me wonder if people should have anything to do with animal breeding at all. Then you have the population issues to deal with. Do you hunt the deer to thin them out or else they starve in the winter? Deer was always my favorite animal as a kid, and I knew from Bambi that I could never kill one, so I guess if everyone was like me, they would just starve. Luckily, there are plenty of people who hunt them and plenty of people out there like my boyfriend who eat them….
I believe that a balanced food chain is good for the environment. However, humans have multiplied to the point that the food chain is no longer in balance. We can not really feed everyone and keep things in natural order. In my opinion, there are too many of us and it is not going to be good for the earth no matter what we do.
[Reply]
cindyb reply on April 22, 2010 1:19 pm:
That is the conundrum. What do we do with the extra people? Do we choose to raise food in the most economical method possible to feed them? Or, do we decide to go back to natural food systems — hunting and gathering — and take care of the excess population that way by allowing starvation and disease to thin it down to what can be supported in a natural system? What is more important — the welfare of the earth, the animals or the humans? There is little doubt that modern farming methods have allowed the growth of cities and the amenities (and problems) they provide and the growth of the world’s population. How do you choose to reverse that and deal humanely with the consequences of reduced food supply? This discussion really has less to do with food consumption choices than it does with the viability of the world’s population and who will survive if food production is drastically reduced in response to environmental concerns. Who should make that choice?
[Reply]
evelusive reply on April 22, 2010 9:33 pm:
cindyb, or alternatively who will survive if food production is drastically reduced because our planet is no longer habitable due to runaway climate change.
My point being, the truth isn’t as obvoius (or simple) as everyone seems to think, there is so much no one understands.
[Reply]
Fellow Kansan reply on April 24, 2010 1:26 pm:
Kansas Farm Wife
Thank you for your comment!! I couldn’t have said it better myself. I also have a Masters in Animal Science and grew up involved in agriculture. I invite anyone to come to Kansas and see the real, family operated farms and ranches. I understand there are pictures and videos of poorly managed facilities and unfortunately those are what people find when they submit a google search. However, most people do not manage their ag operations in that manner, remember it is our living and we care about each individual animal! Notice, how many people go on to study animal science to help improve animal health, management, nutrition and learn how to provide a better, easy, less stressful life for each animal. I know the facilities and ranches today are much more accommodating to animals then they were 50 years ago and we can thank people like Temple Grandin and everyone involved in agriculture who strive to improve their operations. Now lets work on getting our REAL story out!!! It is going to take people like you and me to post pictures and tell our stories about properly managed facilities. I also encourage everyone to do their own research on agriculture and stop reading biased websites from extremely opinionated and radical groups. The internet is a wonderful tool but keep in mind anyone can post anything and make up false statistics (obviously) so try to spot the difference between fact and opinion.
[Reply]
JT reply on April 28, 2010 1:05 pm:
Well, Kansas folk, I’m one of you. Born and raised in Kansas farm country. But I’ve been away from it, and have seen other ways of living. I can no longer pretend that producing meat is anything other than destroying the future of our grandchildren. The planet simply cannot sustain the massive numbers of cattle needed for almost 7 BILLION people. You’re living in dream world if you think otherwise. Take your own advice and explore outside your own experience. Your view of reality is very, very limited.
[Reply]
Bil reply on April 22, 2010 11:00 pm:
I read several blogs before choosing yours to respond to. I am truely interested in why there are so many acrimonious statements made in these blogs. I am a beef producer. I am employed by a company who produces about a million head of cattle per year for meat. I am not interested in changing the opinion or belief any vegeterian (what ever their degree). I do not know who started the food fight and do not fear for my way of life. However, I do not like being called inhumane, cruel or it being said that I put hormones, pesticedes, fertilizer and other poisons in the product I produce. I have a Masters Degree and am quite intellegent and informed and those are lies. My only question for anyone who reads this is to provide me with your top two trusted sources that support your beliefs. I don’t need any insults or clever comebacks. I just want to know what makes your side so emotional about your beliefs.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Best wishes to you Nichole to pursue your meatless dreams on what ever 10 acres you happen to legally own. It’s your right as owner of that property to go feed as many soy-hungry people as you can.
But spouting this fact-less drivel in order to sway intervention on my personal diet and my personal property is ridiculous.
If I own 10 acres and choose to feed one single person on my piece of property—or nobody for that matter—then that is my right. It is MY property.
I understand that the self-important mindset at a buracracy like EPA is to protect the greater good. But there is nothing good about falsly demagoging a sustainable food-production practice such as food-animal production.
Best wishes on a successful future at EPA. God willing, you’ll make a great janitor there someday.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
It sickens me to think that my tax dollars are going toward paying some intern to spread a vegan agenda under the Governments name. This is absolutely crap and I expect an explanation. There is no way I will stand for the EPA publishing an anti-ag piece. Someone deserves to be canned today.
[Reply]
Ambrosia Brown reply on April 22, 2010 11:41 am:
Oh, the evil vegan agenda! lol.
[Reply]
Don reply on April 23, 2010 6:51 pm:
It’s sickening that my tax money is going toward subsidizing the meat industry.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I just have one question…how does 10 acres of land only produce enough CATTLE to feed two people? My family bought a whole cow from a butcher once (why my dad did that, I don’t know)…we had meat in the freezer for MONTHS. From ONE cow, and it wasn’t even that big! Those numbers can’t be right, ’cause one cow fed our family of four (including a very hungry, growing teenage boy, and everyone we gave meat to since we had nothing better to do with it) quite well!! One cow does NOT just feed two people! You would have to raise only enough of one cow to equal one package of grounded up meat..and if you figure out how to do that then please, let me know. If those numbers aren’t quite right, I have to wonder about your other “facts” here.
Also, I’d like it if you covered the other side of the issue. How much land do we use with fields? How much natural ecosystems have suffered due to land-loss or pesticides from fields? How much water run-off from crops carries pesticides with it that leech into the surrounding environment? How much oil and gas is used to get the crops planted, grown, harvested, washed, processed, and sent out? What are some health risks of both eating meat and being vegetarian? What are the costs associated with eating a vegetarian diet as opposed to an omnivorous one? It’d be nice to see the other side of the fence, and would actually improve your argument (unless, of course, farming plants is worse than farming animals).
I respect vegetarians, but honestly, you guys aren’t making much of a difference in the world. Stores have always been putting in more meat on the shelves than they could sell, so even in a town like mine where a LOT of people boast about being vegetarian/vegan the stores are well-stocked with meats of various kinds, and often have to throw some out every month (yet they don’t lessen their supply). We’d have to get the vast majority of people to become vegetarian or vegan, and honestly that’s not going to happen (I know I could never do it; there’s plenty of ways you can kill yourself being vegetarian (I have a friend who almost died trying, even though she did it “right”, her body just couldn’t take it), and honestly, I love the taste of meat. It’s part of my balanced diet, and a more realistic goal would be to have everyone, like us over-consuming Americans, to cut back).
I still say no matter what you eat, you’re killing a living being, so why is it less cruel to kill something that can’t even defend itself? Plants do have feelings, and can feel pain, and react to things such as music and touch.
I also say that we should do a lot of good for our environments and ecosystems by supporting LOCAL farming (for vegetables, animals, fruits…whatever), not big corporations. It helps your local economy, it’d be less mechanized and might provide more job opportunities in the area, and you’ll know where your food is coming from and can perhaps even monitor how they do it to ensure no animal cruelty is taking place (this, of course, wouldn’t work in cities or anything, unless they had those amazing green-roofs made of grass, and planted crops up there somehow…but I don’t see that working).
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
The author cites Paul Ehrlich as a source. He is famous as the author of “The Population Bomb,” published in 1968, in which he said food production could not keep up with population growth. He flatly predicted that “hundreds of millions” of people would starve to death in the 1970’s and 1980’s “in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” When agricultural production increased and mass starvation failed to occur, this dire prediction was omitted from subsequent editions. Ehrlich is not a good source.
EPA has a “duty of care” to provide a little adult supervision to its intern work force.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
This is a sad commentary on the state of our educational institutions. It appears to be the result of indoctrination rather than education. I get concerned thinking of how many people who share this philosophy are actually working for the EPA. It leads me to the conclusion that our Federal government is far too big and bloated and the only way to change it is to start slashing budgets.
[Reply]
Chris reply on April 22, 2010 8:31 am:
Lets start slashing budgets with unpaid interns, brilliant.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
the greenest thing you could do is forget about becoming a vegan, and not have children. the human footprint is great whether you eat meat or vegetables.
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 20, 2010 11:11 pm:
That’s not even required. We need brains and a willingness to adapt and improve our way of life. We are not happier compared to some other communities (i.e. Costa Rica, etc.). World population is stabilizing.
[Reply]
Woody Pfister reply on April 21, 2010 10:31 pm:
Eric – the greenest thing you could do (an likely the greatest contribution you could make to humanity) is to off yourself and reduce your carbon foot print to zero (after decomposition is complete.) Fare thee well!
[Reply]
JT reply on April 27, 2010 10:50 pm:
Do both, as we have, and your bases are covered. All the recycling in the world can’t begin to equal the reduction in impact from not reproducing and not eating meat.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
If the posts are not reflective of EPA then the blog should be hosted on wordpress.com, blogger, or a site that is not directly affiliated with EPA. Because the site has epa.gov in the URL, the post appears to represent official communication from the EPA. The disclaimer you provide is good, but third-party URL hosting would be another good step to alleviate any confusion.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
I read that cattle farts and burps create 18% of the greenhouse gasses (humans exhale 8%!). We should switch to kangaroos if we want to keep eating steak. I’ll give up meat for legal pot. Happy 4-20!
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Awesome post Nicole, lots of great points! Thanks!
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Miss Reising – be thankful you live in a country where you can make the choice to eat what you want (for now). You may choose to eat tofu and veggies until your heart is content. But please do not propagate falsehoods to be fact. Just because you believe your references to be fact, doesn’t mean they are. The livestock industry in this nation is heavily regulated to prevent pollution. You may not believe it, but livestock producers are very environmentally conciencious. They can’t scratch their “rumps” without reporting it to the EPA or the state that is mandated to carry out their rules and regulations. And it’s not easing up any either. American agriculture is what built this great country and and is what feeds you to this day – no matter what you eat. Educate yourself with more than biased material before you “blog” about your choice of food if you reference material to support your choice. Now, to those of you who have responded in support of the agriculture/livestock industry, to you goes a big THANK YOU!! Obviously there is still work to do on educating the public. So many lies and propaganda is belched out on the internet and other publishings to demonize the industry. To the EPA – it disgusts me to see a topic like this on this website. No wonder farmers/ranchers/livestock producers cringe when the letters E P A are spoken from the lips of any person no matter the topic. This agency has become a political tool to further agendas – not protect the environment. Now, go to your favorite restaurant and order a steak while you still can.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Here’s a reference, if there’s interest-
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Anyway Nicole, don’t let the negative posts get you down. These things need to be addressed. It won’t be pretty or pleasant in the beginning, as you can see.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
That is your choice….but I choose my pork chops on the grill with a little season salt and pepper—Yum-Yum!! That’s what is great about this country…we are free to choose…let’s keep it that way!!!
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
The science demonstrating the disproportionate environmental impact of meat production relative to the cultivation of grains and vegetables is long-standing and well-established. It’s obvious that most of the above commenters want nothing to do with the facts. The federal government is under no obligation to suppress facts or viewpoints that conflict with the economic interests of special interest groups like meat producers or cattlemen’s associations. Given the obesity epidemic in the United States and the heavy environmental toll of meat production Americans would do both themselves and the world a favor to decrease their consumption of meat.
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 20, 2010 10:42 pm:
Well put JC. I’m from Detroit and I don’t hear much from those displaced from the auto production industry blaming science and knowledge for their woes. Most of you wanted to let our US auto companies die completely with a knee jerk! Some people need to grow up and get some prospective and sense of world community- and concern for war, nature and our grandchildren. Let’s not be stifled by hate and fear. Ideas are free. Mother nature may have given us some breathing room by shooting some cooling sulfur particles 5 miles up. Adapt!
[Reply]
chainranchlady reply on April 21, 2010 12:19 am:
Have a steak J.C. it will clear your thinking
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 22, 2010 4:56 pm:
JC, you do realize that 85 percent of the US land is not suitable for cultivation right?
Oh and David, Check into the growing ag sector in Detroit. Michigan State is working on increasing food production in all the blighted building in Detroit. I’m serious, check into it and tell your fellow workers up there to get involved and you may land a great job!
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 22, 2010 7:52 pm:
Thanks Aaron. I’m aware of it. They’re planning a big demonstration project at the “abandon” State Fairgrounds (Just south of 8 mile on Woodward) too! It will be an urban demo to the rest of the rust-belt. Pretty exciting. Oh, if they would legalize marijuana, what a winner!
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Thank you for helping prove yet again that the federal government is quite proficient at wasting our tax dollars. I’m boggled as to why this is even on an official government website.
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
When one reads this article they would like to go out and stop all animal farming, but if farmers can not have animals then to be fair we need to rid all the dogs and cats and rats and snakes, ect… The farming of animal agriculture is the oldest known occupation , according to the Bible , Adam was a farmer of plants and animals, now if animals were bad then why were they created? There is also those vegetarians who eat chicken and seafood but no other meat, what is the deal with this , ever heard of a catfish farm or sea farming? Yes, those are farmers and what about the Pearl farmers, that raise oysters for only pearls , let me guess Jewelry is acceptable.
I also see where people talk of the run off of manure and how it poisons the water supply, have they ever visited a sewer plant and see them dump water in a river and then hope the next town down stream doesn’t get sick? In conclusion, i have one question to ask all anti animal people IS IT BETTER FOR A FARMER TO FENCE IN AND FEED ANIMALS OR LET THEM STARVE AND GET HIT BY CARS AND TRUCKS LIKE DEER AND SO FORTH???????
[Reply]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
There are always 2 sides to every story. My husband and I dairy farm in a small dairy community in Oregon. We are surrounded by 5 rivers and are 6 miles from the Pacific Ocean. We have so many EPA compliances that we are regulated by, it is a daily concern. We are so regulated by when we can put manure on our property and have to keep track of it daily. This is a major concern, we are well aware of the impact our dairy has ecologically. We do not use any cemicals other than manure to fertilize our land. Our cows eat grass 7 months out of the year and are fed corn silage and hay the rest of the year. We are inspected on a monthly basis and have watch dogs that are constantly monitering dairy farmers. Cows are our passion thats why we do this, it is not because we make lots of money. We are barely surviving. These are generational farmers that work 365 days a year to put food on America’s table.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 12:04 am
There is so much misinformation in this writing that I don’t know where to start correcting it. My family raises cattle for a living. We send our cattle to a feedlot to fatten so they can be sent to a slaughter plant and on to a packing plant where the meat winds up in grocery stores and restaurants across the world so people can have great beef to consume. This is a fact of life and it has been since the beginning of time. Our family has been a part of this practice for over a 100 years and I hope my grandchildren and their children can continue this life for another generation or two or three, or four so people who do enjoy a great steak and a juicy hamburger can do exactly that. I ask this of Nicole…have you ever worn leather shoes, carried a leather hand bag, colored with crayons, used perfume, deodorant, worn lipstick, or played touch football? Well you can choose to not eat meat, but the by- products produced from MY COW provides you and your family with not only these items, but many, many more. My COW also utilizes land that is useless for any other thing but grazing. MY COW’S contribution to poor water quality is minute compared to the contamination by lawn fertilizers in urban areas. MY COW provides your pet with food, toys, bedding, shoes and teeth cleanser. Nicole, your diet is your business, but to use a federal blog to sway others is unacceptable. Your personal blog is probably the place for that.
[Reply]
nishu reply on April 21, 2010 4:06 pm:
Just because you happen to raise cows (a living thing with the sole purpose to die) does not mean that it is the most environmental friendly option for our Earth. And by the way my country uses no products may from cattle and 80% of us our vegetarians and we run smoothly.
[Reply]
Sister Sue reply on April 22, 2010 10:29 am:
You’re from India, right? Here’s a newsflash for you: milk, butter and cheese are “products from cattle” and I know Indian vegetarians use those a lot.
[Reply]
JT reply on April 27, 2010 1:26 am:
I, and most other vegetarians, go out of my way to avoid leather and other slaughter byproducts in deodorant, shampoo, toothpaste, clothing, etc. And many millions of people get by just fine without touching footballs or wearing lipstick or perfume. No lawn chemicals either. Good grief, you’re so indoctrinated by your family history that you really can’t see that it is possible to choose to live without killing animals. I feel very sorry for your children, and hope they can find more compassionate means of earning a living.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 12:12 am
Dear Ms. Reising: I was so offended by the misrepresentations in your post that I found Ms. Jackson’s contact information at the EPA, on Facebook and Twitter and have posted the following. I am now posting this same letter on all the agricultural websites and providing that same contact information for the Director. I think that Ms. Jackson, the Office of Children’s Health and Indiana University should hear from the agricultural community.
Dear Ms. Jackson,
I took the time to locate a method of contacting you after reading a blog that purports to be your agency’s website. As an attorney and a farmer/rancher, I was very upset to see the outright lies and distortions posted by an intern named Nicole Reising on what is labeled the Official Website for the EPA: Greenversation.
The lame attempt to distance the Agency from the statements of the author on this blog is further evidence that the blog should not exist at all. I am expected to be responsible for the actions of my employees and I expect no less of you.
http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/04/20/living-without-meat/comment-page-1/#comment-29517
If you take the time to read the PAP this misguided youngster is spewing forth in the name of your agency, you might want to apologize to the American Agricultural Community for the lapse in judgment in allowing the use of a government website to further Ms. Reising’s misguided personal agenda.
Joane Pappas White
Attorney at Law
Price, Utah
[Reply]
Fellow Blogger reply on April 21, 2010 9:08 am:
One would think an attorney would have the basic reading skills necessary to see that nowhere is this site “labeled the Official Website for the EPA: Greenversation.”
The official website for the EPA is here. If you look very carefully, you’ll find, down at the bottom right of the Official Website for the EPA, a collection of links for Social Media. Among them is, “EPA’s blog.”
Greenversations is the official EPA blog, and they’ve clearly stated its purpose and mission. Treating materials posted here as if they’re official position statements of the EPA is foolish and culturally illiterate. It isn’t an official position clearinghouse; it is a place where EPA employees are allowed to express opinions and encourage conversations about green topics. Thus Greenversations.
Rampant screaming extremism from either side is irresponsible and does nothing to further anyone’s understanding. Most of you have driven Ms. Riesling further towards a vegan agenda, further out of reach of reasonable conversation.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 7:50 am
as a hoosier I apologize for this lame brained blog from a student in my state, its evident that this intern has been a vegan too long, i am also appalled at the waste of my taxpayer money on a government website and taxpayer time. God help us if we are paying for her “brainwashed education” to boot. No wonder our government is broke.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 9:33 am
The extreme political bias of this EPA sponsored blogger is highly objectionable on so many levels and EPA’s disclaimer excuses none of them. EPA should immediately apologize to the hard-working farmers and ranchers of this nation for this highly improper use of our tax dollars and seriously consider getting out of the blogosphere business. Otherwise, I’m certain there are any number of Members of the U.S. Congress that would be more than happy to help EPA adjust their appropriations for such uses.
[Reply]
nishu reply on April 21, 2010 3:47 pm:
Political bias? Please justify this wording selection.
Please also explain why the EPA must apologize to farmers and ranchers. Do you also believe that people who blog about cigarette use should apologize to tobacco manufacturers?
[Reply]
Woody Pfister reply on April 21, 2010 10:37 pm:
Nishu – Vegetarianism is part of your religion. Fine. But you, nor EPA should be imposing your beliefs or values on the rest of us. Nicole’s post belongs on her own blog or on a vegan blog. EPA should not be promoting opinions about lifestyle. They already have farmers, ranchers, and industry under assault.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 10:23 am
Nicole,
I really like your post a lot, it was almost like I was reading my own sentiments exactly.
The statistics may be controversial (I don’t see why the raw science behind this type of study is so hard to agree on), but it should be obvious to anyone that there is some sort of environmental benefit to being a vegetarian somewhere down the food chain. The backlash is strictly an emotional/economic issue.
This is a quasi-religious debate for me. We all have a limited time to do good on this earth, no reason not to be innovative. Being the only Muslim vegetarian in the tri-state area, I understand it’s not easy to stand alone and proud. May Allah (God) bless you!
Malika
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 10:34 am
Beef cattle are one of the worlds ultimate renewable resources. We ranch in a fragile environment, because of controlled livestock grazing this land is in better shape than ever. Lets add a little realism to this discussion. Our land is unsuitable for crop production, it is a tremendous grazing resource that is renewable. Sunshine, water and grass are converted into a high quality and great tasting protien source. We provide habitat for many migratory birds, the deer & antelope really do play here. Let’s not forget the ranching families. ( I’ve spent my entire adult life in production agriculture and have yet to meet a “factory farmer”) We are close caring communities with virtually no crime and 100% graduation rates in our high schools producing young men and women that are highly sought after because of their background, work ethic and skill sets.
Beef cattle also provide many by-products for pharmaceutical products and uses. Cattle have great similarities in organic chemical structure to humans. Our bodies will easily accept a medication or treatment made with these components. Some of these products are synthesized, but many are still made from beef animals because they are much more economical without sacrificing quality, whether they are used in surgery, research, or routine health care.
The soap you washed your face with this morning; the baseball equipment in the closet; even the sheet rock and the paint on the walls of your home – all of these contain a by-product which is derived from cattle! By-products are used in all types of mechanical items to get us where we’re going. Chemical manufacturers use numerous fatty acids from inedible beef fats and proteins, for all sorts of lubricants and fluids. Antifreeze contains glycerol derived from fatty acids to keep your car running cool. Tires have stearic acid which makes the rubber hold its shape under continuous surface friction.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 10:51 am
The green battle was disproven already, as to the effect of ranching on the land it actually improves the quality of the grass. There is a lot of ag land that is not suitable for farming, but is excellent for pasture. Our bodies and brains need the complete proteins found in meat. If you are not endorsing the opinion of the author, perhaps have him place it on a non government website.
[Reply]
Nishu reply on April 21, 2010 12:52 pm:
I would like to see where you acquired the facts that
- some ag land is only suitable for pasture.
-our bodies and brains need proteins found in meat
I am a hindu living in a community heavily populated by Indians who are almost all Vegetarians. As far as I can tell we are all as healthy or healtheir than those who consume meat. In fact ,y grandma recently celebrated her 96th birthday and is still going strong.
[Reply]
concerned student reply on April 21, 2010 3:06 pm:
Nishu,
You obviously do not know anything about soil, the nutrients within the soil, or the uses of different soil types. Many soils do not contain the nutrients nor make-up to be used for crop or vegetable production. They can, however, grow grasses. These grasses are grazed by cattle….the average beef cow has a diet of 78% grass in their lifetime. And since you probably don’t know this either….cows are cattle that have had at least one calf. “Cow” is not the correct term for all beef animals. Our bodies do need proteins that are available in meat. They are available in other foods, but the best source (and most easily accessible) for our body is meat. Meat contains a complete protein source that has all of the amino acids, while many other sources are missing certain amino acids which means we can only absorb all of the amino acids at a level equal to the most limited one. PS. I also have a grandmother who is in her 90s and she has eaten meat every day of her life….a few times a day.
[Reply]
nishu reply on April 21, 2010 3:38 pm:
Eating meat a few times a day is anything but healthy and uses high amounts of energy. You speak of meat like a true American. Next time your in an Indian community please notice the visual health differences between Americans and Indians. Meat has obviously extended your waist lines! But if that is how you would like to live then enjoy.
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 21, 2010 8:18 pm:
Thanks for your perspective nishu. Some of us value it highly. Yes, it’s hard to admit you’re right, but you surely are.
[Reply]
Luke reply on April 22, 2010 10:31 am:
It is not the meat that is the problem, it is the life style that goes along with it. It is not the meat, but the processed foods cooked in grease and fatty oils that are the problem. American farmers (in America) are making it possible for you to live a better life here in America. If you don’t like it, live somewhere else.
[Reply]
Rarian Rakista reply on April 23, 2010 8:05 pm:
It is the meat, unless you are an athlete or a manual laborer there is no way eating meat/cheese every day is not going to have a lasting effect on your vascular system and other internal organs. That is not to say you can not be equally healthy to a strict vegan if you eat mostly leaner meats and only than a few times a week. That is probably the diet our species is most accustomed to.
There are no triglycerides in vegetable fat, there is far less cholesterol and they digest far easier.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 22, 2010 4:59 pm:
Nishu–85 percent of the US land is HEL (Highly Erodible Land) and not suitable for cultivation.
[Reply]
Sarah reply on April 24, 2010 6:31 pm:
that’s because it’s been ruined by ag production.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 26, 2010 2:02 pm:
Nooooo Sarah, it was deemed by the soil conservation districts back in the 20’s and 30’s as such and was never put into production. Have you EVER heard of CRP? or Conservation Reserve Program? PLEASE folks, do a little research.
[Reply]
wild rose reply on April 22, 2010 10:30 am:
Ecosystem Management
Ranching has proven to be the best economic and environmental use of the Sandhills. The natural resources which make the area suitable for ranching also benefit a wide diversity of flora and fauna. In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began an ecosystem approach to resource management in the Sandhills.
[Reply]
wild rose reply on April 22, 2010 10:37 am:
Cultivation attempts in the early 1900’s failed because the semi-arid climate did not provide adequate rainfall to sustain row crops. Today, abundant groundwater supplies and center pivot irrigation has made it possible to irrigate the porous and erodible sands. The sandy soils require large amounts of water and fertilizer to grow crops. The excess water leaches agrichemicals downward to the local water table. Domestic wells are becoming contaminated with nitrates and pesticides. Pumping water from deep depths to the surface has flooded the local water table and increased stream flows. Thus, adding to the impact of wetland drainage and channelization.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 11:24 am
What I wanted to say has already been said, thanks to all the AgVocates who have taken time to share our distaste over the inaccuracies of this blog post.
At the end of the day, I think what Sal Vitale Says: on April 20th, 2010 at 12:46 pm sums it up best. “Get it together. Police your employees.”
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 12:37 pm
This is a very interesting peice. It is crazy to think how much energy we use and waste when eating meat. Plus, with such a fat country thinking about eating more fruits and veggies isnt such a bad idea.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I am very encouraged by the conversation our country has been in about the source of our food. Essentially, unless you grow it yourself, or you know who did, there is a bit of fear involved in what we put into our bodies. The fear in this case has caused us to turn to a governmental agency to do what we cannot, find out where our food is coming from.
Here is what I have to say about this discussion…Make your own lifestyle choice. DO NOT MAKE MINE FOR ME! If you choose to eat only chlorophyll and find reems of research to substantiate and defend YOUR choice, good for you. Live with it, but do not ask me, my family or the rest of the world to live your lifestyle choice. I have made my lifestyle choices and have not asked you to live the same way.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I find it very interesting that people all of a sudden find such a huge interest in where their food comes from. It is astonishing to me how people can spend their entire life in a city with the only animals they see being squirrels in the city park (that had to be built there so the city-slickers can feel they are connected to nature) or on TV. I have spent many summer days on the side of the road trying to explain to some random person that was driving by what animals were in the pen by my house because they didn’t know it was a beef cow. Just a few generations ago, all families had a small farm where they raised some of their own food and sold what they didn’t use. Then people decided they wanted to live in cities with white collar jobs and have somebody else provide their food. Well guess what? 2% of the population is doing just that. We (farmers and ranchers) have taken on the task of not only feeding Americans, but people in countries across the world. We work every day to grow enough food so that people can sit in an hour long commute in their hybrid cars with coffee to drive to work in the 11th floor office building and then go home to their beautiful house in the suburb. If you want to continue with the lifestyle you have in a world that allows you to not think about where your next meal comes from, then so be it. But, do not criticize the people that have spent everyday of their lives trying their best to utilize new technology and every ounce of strength they have to produce food to feed you. “Industrial Agriculture.” What is that? It’s the people feeding you. It might not be the farm you’re thinking of, but then again, the only farm you’ve ever seen is one in children’s books.
[Reply]
nishu reply on April 21, 2010 4:15 pm:
How does this apply to the blog. I believe Nicole’s idea will in fact encourage people to be aware where their food comes from. Why are you so angry at those people living in cities?
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 21, 2010 8:21 pm:
You’re right. If we all moved to the country, we’d REALLY trash it. City living is the lowest impact living.
[Reply]
Farmer's Daughter reply on April 22, 2010 1:27 pm:
It is not anger at people living in cities but at their lack of knowlegde in agriculture. If they are going to make accusations against farmers then they need to know all the facts. People in cities do not realize the negative impact that they also have on the environment. The fingers are being pointed at the farmers. Maybe everyone needs to look at what they do to. Farmers feed the world, in case you were not aware of that. We have figured out the best ways to grow crops, and if everyone wants it changed, lets say to organic, the prices are going to increase. I don’t see anyone saying they want a higher prices on food. This is a free country where everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Farmers are not forcing people to eat meat, so why should these activist groups be allowed to push their views? Take a walk in a farmer’s shoes, and you will learn a lot, not from the internet!
[Reply]
Sarah reply on April 24, 2010 6:34 pm:
If it’s a free country, then I want the farmers to stop polluting our water, air and land. I want them to stop polluting our native plants with biotech. I want them to stop polluting our groundwater.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
As a farmer and an AgriBusiness Educator, I also find Nicole’s article uninformed and a little disturbing. I’m okay with Nicole having an opinion, but NOT on the official blog of the EPA! How unprofessional.
[Reply]
Rarian Rakista reply on April 23, 2010 8:00 pm:
Well give us your opinion or stop trying to quell hers with your rants.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I applaud anyone who can live a vegetarian lifestyle. But I think it’s important to recognize that meat can be grown and eaten in sustainable ways. Unfortunately, it’s not the way the vast majority of meat is eaten or grown in this country.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I was shocked at the number of posts in this thread and read the comments first, followed by the original post. To be honest I was surprised at how the discussion reflects broad generalizations on both sides of the issue and how it devolved into tired rants from both sides. I disagree with Nicole on the merits of a vegan diet vs. my occasional burger, but kudos to EPA for letting the thread roll on. Don’t forget people, the .000000000000% of a “tax dollar” that was used to afford a college sophmoroe the opportunity to provide her opinion allowed all 100+ of you to provide your own.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I hope she learns to write correctly if she is going to make a career raising money for non-profits.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 6:07 pm
When did the EPA site become an advertisement site for Vegetarian NGO’s?
It is one thing to practice a lifestyle based on your own beliefs, but don’t preach to us in a “holier than though” viewpoint with misinformation. We are fortunate to live in a country that has as productive of an agricultural sector as we do that allows consumers such a wide variety of foods that are affordable to so much of the population.
However, meat production is not the root of all evil. Not all land is suitable for crop production, perhaps because of soil conditions or maybe climate. But farmers do find ways to make that ground productive by the practices they use. Highly erodible land may be left in pasture and grazed. Ground that can be used for commercial agriculture is manged to minimize the inputs used while maximizing the productivity and preserving the grounds ability to sustain crops. A farmer has no incentive to pollute the ground and water he/she and his/her family depend on. Advances in seed genetics have allowed farmers to produce more food using less chemicals to control weeds and pests. Changes in tillage practices help to reduce erosion. Manure is a valuable source of soil nutrients that allows crops to be more productive and responsible farmers manage this resource to prevent it from leaching away from their ground because it can’t help thier crops if it is washed down stream. Even vegetable producers realize they are not going to be able to have everthing they produce find a home on the dinner table. By having a livestock sector they can sell their excess and off quality production into that is still going towards producing a nutrient dense affordable meat, egg, poultry or dairy product, it allows them to sell their other production more affordably to you as a consumer.
As you celebrate Earth Day, I hope you take a moment to thank a farmer, they realize they are the real stewards of the environment, unlike some mis-informed interns.
I worry about what we are teaching (or failing to teach) our youth if they are not seeking to find accurate information before drawing conclusions. What a terrible world we will live in if mis-informed people jump to the conclusion they should be making decisions for everyone else. Wouldn’t it be better if we trusted to people to make appropriate decisions for themselves and provided them with the information that they needed to make a sound decision?
Perhaps that is the problem with the current governmental leadership, they don’t trust people to decide for themselves.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 6:38 pm
While Nicole is allowed to have her opinion, the official blog of the EPA should be reserved for sharing facts and not opinion. It might be a smart move if EPA would monitor and approve/not approve an intern’s proposed post.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 10:49 pm
EPA has worked tirelessly against the interests of the American farmer and rancher. Now that political hacks are in charge, their agenda is out in the open.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:41 am
The shocking thing is not that college sophomore intern posted an opinion piece about being a vegetarian on an EPA forum intended to facilitate dialogue. No the shocking thing is that big agri-business responded so swiftly, Including the President of the American Farm bureau, with calls by agri-business leaders for the EPA to shout down this post. One can only conclude that agri-business pays people to monitor public dialogue and discourse in some Orwellian shadow bureaucracy, intent on pouncing at every opportunity to control and direct dialogue about the food we eat. What are they so afraid of??
[Reply]
Another Chris reply on April 22, 2010 11:25 am:
The reason farmers & ranchers, and the commodity and agriculture groups that reprsent farmers and ranchers are asking for the blog to be pulled is because it displays several inaccurate comments about agriculture and points to studies with false information about the food they produce. Since this piece is on an official government website, accuracy should be of the utmost importance to this agency.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and choices. However, taxpayers are questioning why a government agency that regulates agriculture is hosting a personal opinion blog against agriculture practices. This blog leads many to believe EPA could be regulating based off emotions, not science or facts. This blog only hurts EPA’s image in the eyes of taxpayers.
[Reply]
Chris reply on April 22, 2010 11:51 am:
Did you read the disclaimer at the end, put there by the EPA?? Anyone “lead to believe the EPA could be…..” based on this blog, has a serious reading comprehension problem.
[Reply]
Another Chris reply on April 22, 2010 12:24 pm:
I did read the disclaimer but as I said earlier, the blog post may lead readers to believe EPA is regulating based off personal agendas, emotions, etc. EPA can post disclaimers all day, actions speak louder than words. Not many people will read the disclaimer, all they see is an opinon piece on a Goverment Agency Website.
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 22, 2010 8:02 pm:
The kazillion comments are disclaimer enough. Why the heck should they pull it, because your embarrassment for the EPA? Are you afraid people will get educated after reading it and research?
“Farmer’s Daughter reply on April 22, 2010 1:27 pm:
…Take a walk in a farmer’s shoes, and you will learn a lot, not from the internet!
No knowledge from reading?! Geeze, is this 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 (Bradbury, not that other movie)? Farmers don’t blog or comment on the internet? Don’t step on any cow pies during that insightful walk.
[Reply]
Rarian Rakista reply on April 23, 2010 7:58 pm:
It is a fallacy to say that you can’t give an opinion on something because you are not a “true” member of x group. It is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Reading over the posts here it seems that it is the agri-businesses that are arguing from fallacies and not the OP.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 am
“The Offical Blog of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” has created quite a stir when a college intern, with passion and some naivete is allowed to share her thoughts on the blogging site. The responses point out numerous inaccuracies in Nicole’s blog, and many of those responses also contain inaccuracies and overstatements. Our Federal and State governments already have many rules in place for water rights, CAFO runoff, use of fertilizers and herbicides, and food quality. Eat meat, or don’t eat meat. In the absence of a science based demonstration that meat production and consumption create a significant net negative impact this will remain a personal choice; as it should. EPA seems to be moving to a point where emotion and opinion are on the scale of decision making along with scientific fact. As we grow older we tend to become wiser, and I believe wisdom comes with recognizing the difference between what we know and what we believe to be true. Wisdom is partially borne of skepticism. I pray that EPA leadership undertakes policymaking and rulemaking based on facts and not emotion; that they spend our tax dollars on initiatives that are prioritized based on science, and the primary, secondary and tertiary effects of those initiatives. NOTE TO EPA: Please exercise wisdom in communication, policymaking, and rule making; and tread carefully when making comment on, or when influencing personal choices. Seek to understand. Knowledge is power.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:44 am
You speak about grain and corn grown for animal feed instead of addressing world hunger. This is completely bogus if you look at the amount of corn that the government is taking for the production of ethanol and if the livestock sector is out of the question they will use corn in other ways not to feed world hunger. Also the livestock industry is using corn by-products to supplement other feed ingredients so your going to tell the people that world hunger can be solved with using distillers grains?
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 am
take it down
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:38 am
A CAST study found it takes 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, that’s everything from drinking water to irrigation water….about the same as 18 10 minute shows.
Your toilet uses way over a gallon per flush.
[Reply]
chris reply on April 22, 2010 12:01 pm:
from the blog…”one pound of meat requires about 2,500 to 6,000 pounds of water.”
435 * 8lbs/per gallon = 3480 lbs, well with in the range cited by Ms. Reising.
Thanks for showing her your support.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 22, 2010 5:02 pm:
No Chris, he already did the conversion from pounds to gallons. Read my reply above.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 22, 2010 9:41 pm:
6000/8= 750 gallons per pound. 750 gallons x 600# dressed weight = 450,000 gallons of water per head. Just put that into perspective a large feedyard holds 50,000 head of cattle, multiply that by 450,000 gallons of water and see how much sence her numbers make. 22,500,000,000 gallons of water….how logical is that?
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:03 am
I don’t appreciate my tax dollars being spent to have biased bloggers dictating what we should eat.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
CONGRATS!
I have been checking the EPA blog from the beginning and this entry has by far the most comments. I am sure it probably has the most views as well.
A successful blog is read by many and gets people talking(commenting). If they agree or disagree, it doesnt really matter. This is by far the most action I have seen so far on one of these blogs. Keep this up, and more people will be visiting these blogs to see what is posted next. CONGRATS on a job well done! :)
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Vegetarian or meatatarian…if you eat today, thank a farmer.
[Reply]
David Mc reply on April 22, 2010 8:05 pm:
Thanks farmers
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:14 pm
This opinion piece was written carelessly without any responsibility. The author spreads false information that feeds the fire against American agriculture. How irresponsible can one be?
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:14 pm
This article may have a few bits of truth, but it has many missrepresentations of facts that will misslead readers. I hope the author does more research in the future and discovers the missconceptions.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
If global shipping were to be shut down and North America no longer acquired produce from South America during the winter months. How many Vegetarians would starve from lack of food?
Shouldn’t the EPA be pushing the agenda of offering financial aid to dairies and feedlots to install digesters to process the manure that is generated at these locations? This is a great source of electrical power generation without the use of fossil fuels. Many other countries have been using digesters for methane gas fuel sources we need to rethink and move forward with that and bio mass fuel generators as well. The residual byproducts after processing can then be spread on fields to raise new crops with little or no risk of impact on the environment.
[Reply]
Rarian Rakista reply on April 23, 2010 7:52 pm:
None, we are self-sustaining for beans, rice, potatoes, corn, peppers, carrots, beets, etc.
The fancy folk at whole foods might be sad they can’t chow down on some strange-shaped fruit after they do pilates but us old-fashioned American beans and rice vegetarians will be just fine.
Maybe we should listen to the lady and try not to eat meat/cheese 7 days a week for 3-4 meals a day. Our internal organs and the planet may thank us.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Congratulations to EPA for starting to address the environmental impacts of our diet choices.
This is culturally-sensitive topic yet is as important, if not more, to the health of our environment as transportation, energy use, and material consumption.
I applaud EPA for their guts on this one.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Good for you, Nicole. By upsetting the factory-farmers, you may help spark a national conversation on the detrimental environmental impact of meat consumption.
And what about the tax subsidies to factory farms for cattle and corn, that warp food prices so that junk food is cheaper than healthy food? That needs changing, too.
[Reply]
Another Chris reply on April 22, 2010 4:50 pm:
You might want to do some research before you assume tax subsidies go to cattle ranchers. Livestock farmers and ranchers do not receive any subsidy payment from the governement. When they lose money, they go to the bank and borrow money to continue feeding a growing world population. Ag subsidies are only paid to grain farmers in years they do not make a profit so they can plant another growing crop the next year to ensure food security for this country.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 22, 2010 5:05 pm:
Ummm, You do realize that most of the USDA budget goes to SRS and Food Stamps right? Also, I don’t agree with subsidies but farmers don’t have a choice and thirdly you outta look into the amount of subsidies that are poured into solar and wind energy, it will shock you.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Excellent post! Thank you for having the guts to say what really needs to be said. It is not anti-rancher to encourage people to eat less (or no!) meat. Thank you!
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
If you don’t wish to consume meat, that is your choice. America is a free country where every citizen can eat as they wish.
I love meat and will never give it up. This morning I cooked myself a pork loin roast with rosemary and garlic that I’ll have for dinner tonight. On my way home from work, I’ll be picking up a few pounds of ground beef from the supermarket… it’s on sale this week.
To all the hardworking ranchers, butchers, grocers, and everyone else who makes it possible for me to enjoy your wonderful products, I thank you for all you do. I will be purchasing your products for the rest of my life. Keep up the good work.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
thank you for braving the big guns and posting this. america needs to know the effects of the meat industry. thank you!
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Great post!
It’s a no brainer- You don’t need research to know that factory farms and the production of meat are ruining the earth.
Think of all the feces, blood and excrement from the animals we slaughter for food. It doesn’t magically disappear. Last I checked, plants don’t emit urine, blood and excrement which release harmful toxins in the air we breathe. It has to go somewhere (like the Gulf of Mexico for one hence it’s named the “dead zone”).
[Reply]
David reply on April 22, 2010 5:26 pm:
Animals in nature emit excrement and blood too. They’ve been doing so for millions of years. That doesn’t seem to have ruined the earth.
And plants do emit harmful toxins. Roll around in some poison ivy sometime if you don’t believe me.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm
If the EPA does not vouch for the accuracy of material on its sites, you need to stop the blog on your site.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
What a bunch of tripe. I completely respect your right to have an opinion, but don’t be so presumptive as to confuse your opinion with fact.
I hope you wrote this learned treatise on your own time and not while on your taxpayer-funded “job.”
As an aside, I can see the merit of learning valuable life lessons from a twenty year old college kid.
[Reply]
tuffyt reply on April 23, 2010 10:30 am:
RuralGuy,
What facts are you talking about? Could you link to some published, peer-reviewed articles that include data to refute Ms. Reising’s post.
As far as taxpayer money, as a PhD student I will happily spend my government funded stipend on sustainable agricultural practices as part of a vegan and not factory farming.
I hope that 20-year old’s across the US see the downward spiral of the current meat/dairy industry and make the decision to do something about it…
Cheers,
TuffyT
[Reply]
Rarian Rakista reply on April 23, 2010 7:46 pm:
1. You give no reason for us to believe that her blog post was opinion and not fact.
2. You would be surprised of the latitude given to employees of government agencies to have and share an opinion when they are not being run by an administration headed by political demagogues.
3. Age had nothing to do with the validity of someone’s opinion or argument. Jesus was in his 20’s when he was performing magic tricks and giving advice, are you saying we should not listen to Jesus?
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
All you nay-sayers need to take it down a notch.
This viewpoint is valid.
Research has been done, maybe not by the company in which you have stock, but done none-the-less.
[Reply]
William R. Simonson reply on April 22, 2010 11:05 pm:
I agree! High-energy vegetable concentrates produced from high-energy plankton are already available.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Has anyone figured what environmental impact wild animals and birds have on the earth? How much does it cost us as taxpayers to care for the wild beasts? At least livestock farmers work more hours a day than you vegan computer button punchers, and pay their taxes and health insurance and provide a low cost, nutritious, safe food product. Farmers are less than 2% of the 300 million U.S. population, and feed more than 146 people with their work. How many people have you environmental, vegan wackos fed today?
[Reply]
Sarah reply on April 24, 2010 6:43 pm:
oh please give it a break. the heavily subsidized farming industry has polluted our earth. talk about socialism! you know what, I have a big problem with the ‘food’ that you are whining about. how about giving us food that isn’t pesticide laden. how about giving us food that isn’t gmo laden? that would be real food.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 27, 2010 9:07 am:
Oh Sarah, the ‘green energy’ sector is by far and away the most heavily subsidized industry bar none. GMO’s allow us to use much less pesticides, actually we don’t even have a license to purchase insecticides on our farm, thanks to BT corn we don’t have to spray for corn borers any more. Thank you technology!
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I agree with above comments: valid.
Some of these comments are just ridiculously ignorant… no wonder so many Americans have terrible, terrible health problems….
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Bravo. It seems most of the backlash about this stems from disagreements with her opinions, not her facts. It is within reason to question the effect that animal agriculture has on the environment. The United Nations report has shown that the effect is detrimental. Posts like this help us to move forward in our understanding of food, animals and the environment and should not be censured. You all should not be so angry and defensive, it appears like you have something to hide or insecurities about the issue.
ps. 14 year vegan, elite athlete, masters degree in nutrition.
[Reply]
A. Trekkie reply on April 22, 2010 11:12 pm:
Well, if the UN said it then it must be true.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Awesome Nicole. Well done, and good on ya for being so motivated. Now if only the people who get paid–and not just intern–at the EPA would be so awesome as you, and made some moves towards helping us be better/cleaner animals.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
This blog post makes me want to go get a cheeseburger.
[Reply]
Parrot Head reply on April 22, 2010 11:24 pm:
I once tried to amend my carnivorous habits. I made it nearly seventy days. I was losing weight eating sunflower seeds and drinking lots of carrot juice and soaking up rays.
But at night I’d had these wonderful dreams about some kind of sensuous treat. Not zucchini, fettuccini or bulgur wheat but a big warm bun and a huge hunk of meat.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 23, 2010 8:43 am:
I like mine with lettuce and tomato, Heinz 57 and french fried potato. Big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer, good God almighty which way do I steer…FOR MY CHEESE BURGER IN PARADISE!!!!
[Reply]
Rinalia reply on April 23, 2010 10:36 am:
Nothing says sexy sensuous like the bloodied corpse of a dead animal, am I right?!?
[Reply]
Bea Elliott reply on April 23, 2010 2:49 pm:
Remember your “wonderful dreams” are an innocent somebody’s worst nightmare… If my 200 pound “meat and potatoes, Southern fried” husband could go veg for 2+ years and be happy about it… Anyone can!
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 pm
You have all missed the obvious solution to avoiding steroid infused, genetically modified, unsustainable, socially irresponsible food sources.
EPA’s 303d list identifies millions of miles of our nation’s streams and rivers that are unsafe for drinking, swimming or boating. The fish and wildlife that live there need to be relocated. Some of our bays are even unsafe to look at. You don’t need to contribute to non point runoff carrying excess nutrients and agricultural chemicals to lakes, rivers and bays by eating genetically modified vegetables produced by greedy corporations.
Confined animal feeding operations are death camps for animals who would otherwise be free to explore their spirituality and relationships in nature. After being raised by ranchers who breed away all of their natural individuality, brand them, inject them with steroids and chase them wearing chaps, these poor animals are removed from their friends and families and taken to red states.
The obvious, and only possible, solution is to exclusively eat plants and animals that come from directly nature by hunting and harvesting them in their natural environment. Harvesting food naturally is safe and simple. Many healthy, edible plants can be safely harvested in state and national parks. Avoiding high traffic areas, or areas where anyone at all is watching, will greatly improve your success. Wild game can be found year round along most roads and highways. You don’t need to kill it yourself, so don’t worry about animal cruelty. For the freshest meat, look in the hours just after dusk when wildlife and traffic coincide the most.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Thank you Nicole Reising for bringing out the truth…You are greatly admired and a great hero…Peace and blessings!! Go Veg!!
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Great job, Nicole!
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:03 am
Nicole, I totally support your message. Love you girl!!!!!!!!!
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
Bravo for this article. Even if you are not a vegetarian, you must agree that the AMOUNT of meat Americans is consuming is outrageous. It’s destroying our environment and making us sick.
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
Dear Nicole,
Please write more about this topic, I’m looking forward to (Living Without Meat, Part 2) Don’t let the meat/dairy industry bully or scare you to not writing more about this..I got your back, that’s all you need. :)
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:46 am
Crazyness, is this article. I have read many like this. These people trying to push their beliefs on everyone else, filling them with lies. Almost like the p;oiticians that are running this country. Trying to get people on your side, by telling them what sounds best. It would be nice, for once, if one of the rediculous articles were actually researched before written. There are pros and cons for everything, but at least get them both right, and factual. If America does stop killing animals for food today, we’ll say beef animals. That would be, we’ll say, 100,000 animals extra each day. Sure that number may go down a bit from dying off, or them eating each other, or whatever. America would be so over run with these animals, we wouldn’t be able to drive down the road. We especailly wouldn’t have land to plant more crops. Well we could, but the over run animal population would take care of the crops. Animals breed, and that doesn’t stop. When they breed, more animals are born. If the only place for those animals to go, is to pasture. Then we better have a lot of pasture land. Good job on the thought process.
[Reply]
Bea Elliott reply on April 23, 2010 3:13 pm:
I’ve heard that one before! If we don’t kill them they will eat us — Or they will reproduce like bunnies! Of course neither is true. In fact most cattle are so modified they wouldn’t be able to mate if they want to – Same goes for hogs and turkeys… All are artificially inseminated. And this whole conversion to a plant based diet isn’t going to happen over night… It will be a slow enough progression so less and less animals are being bred till finally none – At least not for any “civilized” country’s consumption needs. Instead we will be supporting farmers who grow our healthy plant based foods. And no one will be eaten by cows or pigs I assure you that.
[Reply]
Sarah reply on April 24, 2010 6:44 pm:
good argument Bea!
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on April 26, 2010 4:33 pm:
I did not say that the animals would eat us. I did say, they would eat each other. Please quote, not make up a quote. Also, a lot of these slaughter cows, in fact most, come from small farm operations. These operations do not AI, but breed naturally. I know this, because I have been involved in many of these operations. Animals, are animals. Just like us, and they breed naturally. They have reproductive organs, and yes, they do work.
Good argumant Bea, too bad it doesn’t make any sense.
[Reply]
This topic has taken over my brain reply on April 27, 2010 10:14 pm:
great feature… I am currently doing extensive research on this issue which is why I now am another voice to this post. Really I just wanted to say that after “The Meat!” spelled ‘ridiculous’ wrong, I stopped reading…
[Reply]
Anonymous reply on May 3, 2010 10:19 am:
actually most of the livestock would die quickly, they have lost the ability to reproduce and care for themselves.
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
I encourage everyone here to read an excellent book on this subject called “Dominion” by Matthew Scully (former speechwriter for George W. Bush).
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Bravo Nicole! You are right on target. There will always be resistance when there is a paradigm shift as evidenced by the length of time took for the general public and government to admit that smoking kills which was clearly obvious for decades. Due to corporate interest and ignorance, the shift to a plant-based diet will be a long and hard one. Millions more animals will suffer; our land and water will continue to be usurped and millions of people will continue to die from meat-based diet induced illnesses (i.e., heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers). Right now, the extraordinary efforts of the meat and dairy industry to maintain the status quo appear to be winning and continue to keep most people in denial and ignorance. Eventually people will make the connections for themselves and realize that a heavy meat-based diet is not sustainable or healthy for anyone. Keep up the crusade; some are listening. I’m committed to never ingesting another piece of meat or cheese in this lifetime. In doing so I am improving my health, helping save the planet, and not participating in the extreme cruelty of factory farming. Keep up the good work!
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Go Vegan! Its the only way we can save the earth!!!
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:19 pm
‘.. in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the “faunivores”, with the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). ..
http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf ‘… There was no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-based foods in the diet. The American Journal of Cardiology http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 Consequences of thinking and behaving like we’re omnivores, to wildlife, ecosystems, the environment – a global perspective:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080119143335/http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Thank you SO Much for encouraging a meat free diet, you’ve my full support! At least cutting your meat intake by half will make you healthier, will save you money and you’ll be helping our planet. 19% of GLOBAL WARMING is caused by raising livestock, you also won’t be supporting corporations that torture the animals, check out “Meet your Meat” on youtube. Thank you for the post.
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Bravo Nicole. Thank you for writing about this topic. Eating animals is bad for the animals, the environment, and our health. It’s time to evolve. Go vegan!
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
It absolutly amazing me that the people who do not eat meat think everyone in the country should follow that practice. I don’t like asparagus, spinach, some types of squash and a few other veggies. So lets get rid of them. Of course raising meat producing animals of any type uses water. I thought growing vegetables also took water. At least my garden does. Have you come up with a new type of plant that does not need soil and water to grow? Also to the lady that says animals are so “modified” they will not reproduce in the wild. You need a refresher course in the “birds and bees”. If farms and ranches are ruining the world as stated earlier why is it that some of the cleanest air and water found in the areas of the country are where food is produced.
[Reply]
Rarian Rakista reply on April 23, 2010 7:39 pm:
Clean water, lol. I used to live right next to a ranch and no one drank the water downstream from it for about 20 miles. You could not even fish in it it was so nasty. One year it caught fire.
Clean air; maybe, but its been pretty well disproven that livestock contribute significantly to greenhouse gases.
[Reply]
LMD reply on April 27, 2010 5:33 am:
Does it ‘amaze’ you that ppl who don’t smoke, perhaps have never smoked, tobacco, think everyone in the country should follow that non-smoking practice? Sometimes, there is a benefit to generalizing, or at least an obvious reason for generalizing.
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Awesome post, thank you for the excellent use of stats on the environmental impact!!
Moral implications are for each person individually to decide, but when it comes to the environment the stats speak for themselves. Also, the stats are encouraging not just for those who choose to be entirely vegan but for those who choose to simply cut back on their consumption of animal products.
There are some who get extremely defensive when they think they are being preached at to convert to 100% vegan, but your post is very inclusive and shows that even a gradual reduction of meat in a person’s diet can have a HUGE impact! Simply cutting out 1 pound of meat per week can save 2500-6000 pounds of water – and I know there are a ton of other benefits to cutting back that single pound of meat!
Well said, way to stick it out there!!
[Reply]
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Not only can we feel good about our health as vegans but also about the fact that we bipass the added environmental detriment. Thanks Nicole, excellent article!
[Reply]
April 24th, 2010 at 1:18 am
Thank you, Nicole, for raising this issue and providing some important information!
It’s sad to think that there are some people who would use their hard-won freedom to harm and endanger themselves and others – human and non-human.
[Reply]
April 24th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
for anyone who hasn’t seen Food Inc.
PBS is airing a limited showing on TV or you can watch it here on their website:
I highly encourage you to watch, then get your family and friends to watch, we can change this system on viewer at a time.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/foodinc/photo_gallery_watch.php
[Reply]
April 24th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
great post! it says it all in such a succinct manner. people always ask me, a vegetarian, if I feel bad about land cleared to grow soybeans. Uh, humans aren’t the biggest consumers of soy- cattle are!
[Reply]
April 24th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Great article Nicole! And I’m very glad EPA is using these Greenversations to bring up important topics.
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 4:36 am
Thank you for promoting vegetarianism , good job
vegetarianism is in deed the best you could do for this planet !
actually veganism is even better , anyone should consider to go vegan
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Thank you!
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Oh, Nikki,
My wonderful cousin. I’m so proud of you! :)
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Great job getting some press on this issue. I am glad the EPA is able to bring these things up and hopefully will be able to act on these words sooner rather than later. GO VEG
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
How about if we all stop trying to legislate and/or force our preferences on everyone else? This is not a one size fits all world, each of us is unique, our needs are tailored to a level of our being humans rarely access with any awareness. Trust your own unique knowing, don’t over-think your health, your body will tell you what you need, just pay attention and stop judging.
Each of us is at a different place on our journey. Leave the manipulating/coercing/shaming/guilting behind and wake up to the truth of the diversity of life, eh?
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Nicole and Editors, thank you for a great article. It’s amazing that common sense thinking can be construed as fringe. It’s also amazing that there are so many people who are scared to consider, even for a moment, how changing something basic in their lives might be for the better.
I’d like to know how people’s comments on this blog correlate to the kind of vehicle they drive. My guess is that a lot of those so indignant that their tax dollars might be spent on this post, are getting about 11 mpg in their SUVs. Which do you think costs more?
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Thanks to Nicole and the EPA for having the courage to stand up against the heavily taxpayer-subsidized meat industry. No one who eats dead animals is paying the true cost of providing it. There aren’t enough regulators on earth to effectively police all the ag producers, and much of the abuse and pollution goes undetected. I applaud the few conscientious farmers who practice humanely, but we all know the sheer numbers of animals produced precludes true humane care. Factory farms are the norm now. So farmers, police your own and speak up for change instead of wasting your time yelling at vegetarians. Practice what you preach and do your own research before condemning the facts presented. And that means not taking what the USDA feeds you as truth. Practice what you preach and go visit factory farms and slaughterhouses. It will make you ill.
And guess what, I’m from Kansas farm country! Ate meat three times a day. Until I saw what happens at a slaughterhouse 25 years ago. And it’s worse today. As I said, it will make you ill.
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
This article has generated more comment than, I guess, any other and has even made it onto some national news broadcasts. It is a very important issue. Otherwise, it would not have generated nearly so much discussion. For me, my family on my mother’s side were small family farmers beginning in South Carolina before the Revolutionary War and then migrating to Indiana in the 1820s. My uncle was a small family farmer in Indiana for many, many years and served on both the local Co-op Board and the local Rural Electrification Administration Board. I spent time on his farm for a number of summers in the 1960s. My uncle had livestock–some dairy cows and some hogs. Never more than 10 head all together. And they were allowed freedom to roam on his pastureland. The cows were in the barn only at night or for milking and were in stalls that allowed them movement and a chance to lay down on straw to rest. He never had what today is called a large meet or hog farm where the animals are confined most or all their lives and mistreated. Animal waste was recycled in a manure spreader and used to fertalize the crop producing fields. My uncle raised corn, wheet, alphalfa, and beens and the total land he owned was 250 acres including the house, pasture, woodlot, fields. The best way to help prevent getting meat products from a meat factory is to buy locally raised and produced meat if you can and also buy locally raised, organically grown produce. It is a good idea to reduce meat use because fat in the meat thatis eaten can get into human arteries and cause build up leading to heart problems and it is very hard to trim all fat out before eating. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.
[Reply]
April 25th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Nicole, thank you for your bravery and honesty! Well done!
I am a vegetarian for these reasons:
1) The environment is the number one reason. There are now too many people on the earth to sustain a carnivorous diet for all of them. It just won’t work, and there is plenty of good scientific evidence for this. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
2) Factory farming is needlessly cruel to animals. To make meat cheap enough, it’s going to be cruel to the animal. And the factory farming meat industry fights tooth and nail to keep it that way.
3) There is mounting scientific evidence that a vegetarian diet is more healthy than a carnivorous one.
4) A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a carnivorous one.
What a breath of fresh air – an open dialogue sponsored by the US Government, despite the best efforts of the giant corporations!
[Reply]
Carolyn reply on April 27, 2010 8:20 am:
I agree,Nicole–thanks for initiating this discussion. And I thought you would find it interesting to note that the Farm Bureau opposed a bill in Mississippi to make cruelty to cats and dogs a felony. Connect the dots. What is it they feared? That such a law might somehow impact the meat industry? What does that tell you?
Meat is a habit, like smoking. It isn’t a necessity for a healthy life. When folks like Mr. Bailey’s family farmed, the portion of meat eaten was very small. Animals grazed naturally. Folks worked much harder physically back then, too. With our super-sized meals and portions, we are killing ourselves with meat and fat. The suffering of the animals on a factory farm is incredible. Karma is a bitch.
[Reply]
April 26th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Cheers to you, Nicole! There being so many human beings on the planet, going vegetarian is what we have to do for our future.
[Reply]
April 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
To Ms. Nicole Reising…I applaude your posting! I just read there is push back from AFBF over this post. TOO BAD! It’s about time people speak up!
[Reply]
April 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Great post, Nicole!
I hope your bosses at EPA are supporting you; they are no strangers to controversy. I think it’s laudable that despite the backlash against the EPA and your post, that your post is still there.
IMHO, it was obvious that your post was opinion from the perspective of proposing ONE possible solution to the issue of a sustainable future that is severely challenged by factory farming. Our planet’s sustainability is a very complex problem that will be solved by an armamentarium of solutions, each contributing variously in terms of approach and benefit.
Best wishes and don’t let any one repress your right to reveal the truth.
[Reply]
April 26th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
It seems odd that the contribution of livestock to greenhouse gases is outdated in these discussions. The latest calculations estimate that eating meat contributes 51% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Reducing one’s meat intake is the most effective way to reduce one’s carbon footpirnt.
[Reply]
April 26th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Hello to all vegans that obviously found each other on this blog. I must say you all found ways that makes your lifestyle seem like the perfect answer to everything. BUT… the very same problems supposedly reported above in the original article are seemed to be accelerated by farming practices to grow corn that you all think is the only thing needed to live on.
•Air pollution due to dust and liquid manures – I don’t know if you have ever seen dust fly from pasture land but if you have call me I want to see it. It would be the first time in my 23 years of farming experience that has ever happened! Other forms of air pollution if you call it that is odor. HMMM and I suppose none of you have FARTED!!
•Fossil fuels, water, and land over-use – This is just ridiculous, ranchers conserve better than farmers for they have learned better grazing practices produce better grasses that let me see oh yeah create more OXYGEN that seems to not be getting to your brains. Seems to me you’re biting the hand that feeds you!!
•Rainforest erosion and destruction for pasture land – I’ve been to the Rainforest National Park of North America wait no there is no such thing.
•Water contamination due to animal waste – Read up there is a book 2000 pages long of restrictions to protect you.
•Grain and corn grown for animal feed instead of addressing world hunger – OH YEAH you feel so bad for animals and now you want to starve them….. just remember vegans my food shits on your food….lol
[Reply]
JT reply on April 27, 2010 2:58 pm:
Proud, I guess you’re not aware that we do actually have rainforest in North America, in the Pacific Northwest. It would be destroyed by beef cattle, just as it’s being destroyed in Central and South America.
Your contention that ranchers conserve better than farmers is laughable. How ya doin’ “conserving” all those natural predators you guys so love to kill off?
Yourr 2000 page book of restrictions is only as good as the enforcement that should come with it, and that is minimal. Admit it, no one’s watching you break those rules. You don’t want rules. You want it to be like the wild west days, when ranchers were the real men. Those days are gone. There are too many humans on the planet now to even begin to supply them with meat in any kind of sustainable fashion. Too many people eating too much meat…that’s the reality of today, whether you’re ready to accept it or not.
[Reply]
April 26th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Kudos for this article! Vegetarianism is by far the best possible diet for a healthy planet, as well as for a healthy body! Raising livestock creates massive amounts of pollution and is helping to quickly destroy our environment. Vegetarianism is not only an ethical way to live, but one that can help us sustain the planet.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 12:54 am
I guess methane oxidizes after a couple decades to regular old CO2. Is this involved in the “adjusted” figures?
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Further proof that lawmakers enact laws and that 5 big, thick oaken doors back in the bowels of Washington, DC far from the voting public is a academician really setting policy. No interns don’t set policy, but they often become employees who do. Lets make these people accountable to the public.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 8:51 am
I just really wish these geniuses sitting in offices pontificating these lies would actually go outside to farms/ranches and see for themselves how our food and fiber is produced. Then maybe they wouldn’t “just use a figure” from a U.N. report.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 10:27 am
The Bible states, in scripture to Peter, that all foods are given by God for man’s nursement.
[Reply]
JT reply on April 27, 2010 2:49 pm:
“Man’s nursement”? Just goes to show Bible thumpers aren’t the most educated bananas in the bunch.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Thank God the EPA is finally paying attention. I am a vegan now after many years getting on and off the vegetarian lifestyle. My first reason, many years back, was because of the treatment of factory farmed animals. To this day, my reasons are moral and not health related. However, I do believe that the farming of animals on this enormous scale cannot properly be managed without pollution and destruction on many levels. I just got over a salmonella infection I got from infected celery.. I am just today better.. which magnifies the truth that not even veggies are safe from this unless we get the manure out of the water supply. Regulations are obviously not enough. We need to scale it down and people need to eat less meat.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 11:01 am
The assumption aand stats cited here are not valid nor are they reflective of the real world. This is just the case of a opinion with heavy emotional investment being supported by selected facts and statistics and have no real substance. American food production is best, most efficient, safest, and most humane in the history of man and you want to attack it. Odd. Every bit of food you prevent from being produced by it just means more rainforest somewhere gets slashed and burnt because that becomes the only source of food for those people.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 11:10 am
To each is own, deer taste gooooood
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I was recently at a vet meeting where a well menaing but emotionally biases person touting an all vegetable dog food stated that it is now a scientifiic fact that dogs aren’t carnivores and can live on vegetable diets naturally. This so typical of the whole vegan perspective, they selctively find proof for obsurd postions. To be true vegan you must be a wealthy urbanite from a highly technological culture to get the nutrients you need. Man evolved to be an omivore, in fact he very poorly equiped to even eat grains unless highly processed. There is nothing natural about being vegan, just the opposite. It is a case of emotion and misplaced desire being constued as science and truth. Look at your teeth, your digestive system with the cloud of bias and it quit clear we need meat. Just like the poor misimformed dog food person saying that it is now proven that obligate carnivores, dogs, aren’t carnivores. Wishful thinking just doesn’t make it so. But the number one issue is tha I’ll bet that 95% plus vegan have never lived on a farm or been involved seriously with food production. They think they know, but have never reallye expereinced any of it.
[Reply]
JT reply on April 27, 2010 2:47 pm:
Earl, you’re the misinformed one. Dogs are not obligate carnivores, as are cats. Dogs are ominivores. And I have lived on a farm. I do know what it’s like. I will choose not eating dead animals any where I live.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
This blog seems to be missing a critical point. The numbers and the discussion appear to assume that all meat is grain fed. I agree that feedlots pollute. And ruminant animals (i.e. beef) are not adapted to feedlots. Beef cattle have multiple stomachs which allow them to efficiently digest forage material such as grass; however, they are not good at digesting grains, such as corn, so keep the corn for people. Another option is to eat grass-fed beef which can be raised with virtually no fossil fuel inputs (no diesel, no fertilizer, etc). In addition, raising beef on grass allows us to produce food on a large portion of the western United States that otherwise would not be producing food due to poor soils and lack of rainfall. Raising grass-fed beef is sustainable due to the minimal inputs.
[Reply]
aaron reply on April 27, 2010 2:08 pm:
Very true Roy, the only problem is the massive amount of acreage to raise the cattle. Here in Kansas we run between 8-12 acres per head of feeder steer or heifer depending upon location. In the Western United states it takes three or four hundred acres to sustain a single animal. That and grain feed beef is much more tender and tastes better!
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Good for Nicole to say what NEEDs to be said! Still, I eat meat! I don’t eat a lot, and do get a lot of fish and vegetables, but once or twice a week we have some kind of local beef.
What needs to be said more realistically is to stop buying FACTORY FARM MEATS. Those are bad in almost every possible way; pollution, mad-cow, hormones and antibiotics, labor practices and unfair competition by having bought-and-paid for politicians running interference in Washington.
America needs a new agricultural paradigm that assesses the true costs of factory, corporate food production.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Thanks so much for bringing more light to this issue. I think it’s really important to take oppurtunities to talk about the benefits of a veg based diet when ever possible.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Adoption of a well-planned vegan diet is a scientifically valid way for Americans to reduce the amount of land and water required to raise their food and to reduce the cost of government environmental regulation of the meat industry.
This is verifiable by any competent student who examines the issue in light of the consensus science universally accessible through the curriculum and library of any accredited U.S. institution of higher education.
It takes less land and water to raise a vegan diet, and a smaller livestock industry costs less to regulate.
The U.S. population is on track to double in about 80 years. We need to reduce average per capita livestock product consumption by fifty percent over 80 years just to keep the industry’s impact from getting any bigger than it already is.
But the livestock industry is already much too big. Fifty percent of the total U.S. land base is now used to raise livestock. We need to get as much of that land into forest and perennial biomass as possible in order to mitigate global climate change and improve our national soil, water, and energy security.
I am ashamed that EPA editorial leadership is not providing more support to Nicole Riesing. It should not be up to an intern and a university sophomore to show the world how the EPA should be doing its job.
[Reply]
Jonathan Maxson reply on December 17, 2010 12:56 pm:
After further reflection I have decided to strengthen my original position.
I am also disturbed by the editorial staff’s “lame attempt to distance the Agency from the statements of the author on this blog,” as one prior commenter put it. How is it that the United States EPA is not able to provide the public with an authoritative statement that backs up what any college sophomore can easily determine for herself by consulting the consensus scientific literature and performing a few simple mathematical and logical operations?
I fully agree with many previous commenters that the EPA should indeed exercise responsibility for the actions of its intern in this case, not only out of respect for the intern, but also out of respect for the American people.
Americans deserve a straightforward answer from the EPA. Does a meatless diet use less land and water, create less pollution, and cost less to regulate, than the standard American diet?
This should be an extremely simple question for the EPA to answer. If the scientists at the EPA are unable to do so, and in short order, Ms. Jackson should be called to account. If the science involved was in any way complicated, I would not feel so strongly about this, but the principles, data, and mathematics at play are so basic, it is difficult to understand how any credible scientist can possibly disagree with the logic of Nicole Reising’s argument.
I challenge any scientist in the EPA, or anywhere in the world, to argue that Americans cannot raise a complete plant-based diet on about 1/2 acre per capita using existing agricultural methods, which is to say 150 million acres for a population of about 300 million people, or double that acreage for a projected population of 600 million by the end of the century.
At present, Americans in the lower-48 use less than 150 million acres of cropland to raise plant-based foods for people, but they use over 200 million acres of cropland to raise feed and forage for livestock, and they use almost 1 billion acres of cropland, range, and woodland pasture for all livestock production. In other words, Americans use 50% of their lower-48 land base to raise livestock, and only 8% to grow plant foods, when they could in fact so easily feed the entire population on just 10% of the land base that they would still have a surplus for export.
It obviously takes less water, creates a smaller ecological footprint, and requires less regulatory oversight to grow a plant-based diet for all Americans on 200 million acres of cropland than it does to a raise a meat-based diet on over 1 billion acres of multiple land classes. Is there any credible scientist at the EPA, or anywhere in the world, who can produce a valid challenge to this argument?
It is very much in the best economic interests of all Americans to increase the percentage of vegans and vegetarians in our population, and to provide livestock producers with incentives to transition their lands into forest and perennial biomass wherever possible. This is essential to our national energy security and to the protection of the climate, water, and ecosystems resources on which the future of our society so critically depends. There may still be a quite valid role for conservation stocking on our nation’s arid lands, and this, combined with a smaller number of livestock producers and the realistic expectation that demand for livestock products will continue to remain a component of American culture for generations to come, should only serve to bolster the long-term economic security of our nation’s most responsible and sensibly zoned ranchers.
I believe the EPA owes the American people an official statement on the scientifically valid environmental benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets.
See my full post here.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Thanks to the EPA and Nicole for this post. I’m glad for the attention it has attracted. All of us, producers and consumers both, have an obligation to question conventional agriculture and consider the real cost of food production.
[Reply]
April 28th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Current issues with the animal industry: land, air, and water pollution; disease (such as Swine Flu); chemical use (higher in animal industry than in vegetable industry); the rise of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes (all have been directly linked with meat consumption, and there are others); antibiotics, growth hormones, and other chemicals that WE EAT when we consume animals; deforestation (largely due to increased cattle grazing in the rainforest); loss of biodiversity, famine (it takes more grain to make meat than if you just fed people the grain directly); animal cruelty, general global destruction (per the United Nations and other credible scientists – animal agriculture is the number one cause of global warming); increased incidents of food poisoning and meat recalls that have been tainted with E.Coli, Salmonella, Listeria, etc (these organisms come from animals farming specifically!); and the fact that the run-off from CAFOs has gotten into our food supply and caused the “Spinach Outbreak” and other food contamination.
Isn’t this enough for us to realize the “cost” of animal products FAR outweghs the benefit?
[Reply]
Aaron reply on May 11, 2010 1:40 pm:
Again, please research how many hormones are in your Soy Latte’ or in a cabbage salad…I’ll give you a hint, there is nearly as much estrogen in a head of cabbage as there is in a birth control pill. And how is the chemical use in the Animal Industry higher then in growing vegetable industry?
[Reply]
April 28th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Just wanting to show my support of the site. My son and I have recently gone veg. are on our way to vegan.
[Reply]
May 1st, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Come on, guys. Let’s be straight about this.
The people getting all riled up about this article are doing so for selfish reasons. Either they are livestock farmers and want the money, or they eat meat and don’t want to feel bad about it.
The fact of the matter is, it’s just common sense that the most sustainable, environmentally friendly and healthy diet is vegan. It’s glaringly obvious, even aside from facts and figures.
Enough of the food chain debate. Feeding your cat beef and pork hardly supports your argument now, does it? If you want to go back to the “natural” food chain, then be my guest. Go out into the wild and hunt the food to sustain you and your family. But don’t go and buy a skinned chicken breast and then give me that that it’s natural.
[Reply]
May 4th, 2010 at 7:49 am
HEADLINE: INTERN OUTSMARTS THE CATTLE INDUSTRY!!! One of the cattle industry’s hopes is that their “dirty little secrets” (pun intended) will not be exposed. By taking Ms. Reising’s bait and hook, they have succeeded in exposing themselves to more scrutiny. Congratulations Nicole!!!! Since the cattle industry has responded with such vigor to this blog, they have forced the public spotlight back onto their practices.
Who knew a little ‘ole intern from Indiana could so easily outfox the cattle industry–CONGRATULATIONS! You make us all proud!
[Reply]
Aaron reply on May 11, 2010 1:37 pm:
We open ourselves to scrutiny, I wish the people who are in charge of ‘climate change’ would be just as open about their data and political agenda. We invite city folks, non farmers and school children to our farms every day to teach them about agriculture and how the industry has changed for the better over the years. Less then a hundred years ago nearly the entire population of the United States raised their own food, today it’s less then two percent. Why? It’s hard work, high risk and low financial reward. We are one of the most regulated industries in the nation, Louie we make our living from the land, it is our only resource why would we ruin it?
[Reply]
May 4th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
So when people say they are vegitarians due to the fact that they simply don’t like the taste of meat I can whole heartily respect that but when people try to use the excuses such as water contamination and the inhuman treatment of animals to back their claims is when i start to lose faith in them. First of all the videos the humane society likes to show that is a rarity and those who do that should be punished but not those of us who extremely care for our animals. Secondly, when they say that the animals are polluting the air and water and consuming grains that should be used for human needs, I would have to say that if everyone in the world stopped eating meat, that the world would become so over populated that the waste from so many added animals would result in a fast and wide spread pandemic of new diseases and viruses. You say that today’s animal producers contaminate the water and air but we are designing new and more ecofriendly ways of disposing of the water such as manure run power plants. The vegans go as far as to condemn us for giving our animals antibiotics and vaccines to stop the spread of disease and keep our animals alive. Its ironic how we as animal producers get condemned for killing animals but also trying to keep them alive with the same medicines we give ourselves every day….
[Reply]
May 24th, 2010 at 2:50 am
good post,thank you for share
I think your post is ok
[Reply]
May 30th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
pig should not be eaten.
meat is provided by Allah so we should try to eat it.
[Reply]
June 8th, 2010 at 5:55 am
Congratulations Ms Reising! The backlash to your post is an indication of just how deep denial runs in this country. The mess we’re in with animal centric agricultual practises is indeed global, but the influence the US has on the rest of the world demands that we demonstrate true leadership and lead the way forward with the courage to change.
You have succeeded indeed in activating an important conversation. Do not take the negativity personally, as it has nothing to do with you but the fears of others who sense that their way of life is threatened and don’t yet understand, obviously, why things must change.
Howard Lyman is a great example of a career cattle producer who finally woke up and realized the seriousness of the problems he himself was a part of. Today this former fourth generation Texas rancher advocates a vegan diet and speaks out candidly about his insider knowledge of animal agribusiness. He wrote a book called ‘The Mad Cowboy’ and there is an excellent documentary by the same name that tells his story.
There is no time to waste in addressing the seriousness of the problems facing us on this planet (from global warming to widespread hunger ). In the UK, other areas of the world, and a few places now in North America stockfree farming is a growing movement proving the viability of food production free of all domestic animal inputs, and their inherent problems.
Visit the Vegan Organic Network online for further information on this critical topic .
Just a few days ago a new UN report announced the necessity of moving away from meat and dairy wherever possible. Contrary to what one poster here has tried to pass off as the truth, the contribution of animal agribusess to global warming exceeds the impact of all vehicle transportation COMBINED.
UK Gaurdian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
Full report:
http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/documents/pdf/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report_Full.pdf
Oh, and I should mention that I’m a healthy vegan going on thirty meat and dairy free years. keep up the good work and remember that caring about animals and the environment the way you do is a STRENGTH, no matter who tries to pull you down.
[Reply]
June 14th, 2010 at 3:36 am
Nicole, well done on writing this blog! I applaud you for putting out information that doesn’t receive a lot of mainstream airplay.
[Reply]
June 17th, 2010 at 12:40 am
Great post.
As addicted to Pilates , the objective was to purifying my body , than started to be vegetarian ( not full time yet ) for over 10 month now.
It is just blessing!
[Reply]
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:38 am
Nicole, well completed on writing this blog! I congratulate you for putting out information that doesn’t accept a lot of conventional airplay.
iraqi dinar
[Reply]
August 13th, 2010 at 12:15 am
To get some numbers on the people who contract food borne illnesses associated with meat, check out the CDC website. Actually, the only pathogen that can be spread in meat despite adequate cooking and sanitary handling practice is BSE- mad cow disease. The other food borne illnesses aren’t necessarily restricted to just meat- so eliminating meat from the diet wouldn’t eliminate the problem.
[Reply]
August 27th, 2010 at 2:34 am
Such a nice blog with all true point!
[Reply]
September 7th, 2010 at 10:21 am
I think it’s hard to live without meat, but you have to actually discipline yourself to get the results you really want. This must take some getting used to. Just like before, I was completely a bread lover, not until I developed yeast intolerance.. so I had to do the right
Yeast Free Diet. Now I am used to healthy living with greens and a balanced diet as well.
[Reply]
September 16th, 2010 at 12:20 am
I agree that being a vegetarian can have a great effect on the environment, we seem to have more problems eg. my husband is allergic to yeast , maybe due to the pollution in our food. And our family now on a Yeast free diet
[Reply]
September 21st, 2010 at 7:33 am
That’s what bodybuilding has given me. When a teen or an adult begins home workouts, planning a safe and workable schedule with a trained professional who are good at producing results is essential. Once teens get involved in such programs, they learn to be disciplined and dedicated.
[Reply]
October 3rd, 2010 at 10:19 am
That is all good but in the end we all are human beings and are doing the things we like and enjoy. If you like to eat veg food that is good but what if I do not like it? What should I eat then? As to environment, many things influence the environment in bad a way, like polution cars produce, did you stop driving a car? I suppose no. The thing is that everybody should somehow contribute to the planet we all live on some of us decide to be a veg, some to choose bicycle instead of car and some to join greenpeace.
[Reply]
October 3rd, 2010 at 10:20 am
That is all good but in the end we all are human beings and are doing the things we like and enjoy. If you like to eat veg food that is good but what if I do not like it? What should I eat then? As to environment, many things influence the environment in bad a way, like polution cars produce, did you stop driving a car? I suppose no. The thing is that everybody should somehow contribute to the planet we all live on some of us decide to be a veg, some to choose bicycle instead of car and some to join greenpeace.
[Reply]
October 19th, 2010 at 4:02 am
I like your blog and such a useful information sharing. I appreciate your blog and thanks for that.
[Reply]
October 21st, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Go Gluten-free
[Reply]
October 30th, 2010 at 5:36 am
The humane society likes to show that is a rarity and those who do that should be punished but not those of us who extremely care for our animals.
[Reply]
November 3rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I believe that there are more minerals and vitamins that our body needs in fruits and vegetables than in most kinds of meats, it is healthier too.
[Reply]
November 4th, 2010 at 9:23 am
I guess it’s ironic that I could not imagine eating only veggies, I mean I was raised on meat and I like meat. I think there are plenty of other ways to help the enviroment. However saying that I don’t think I could eat my dog.
[Reply]
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:52 am
Meat is animal flesh that is used as food.Most often, this means the skeletal muscle and associated fat, but it may also describe other edible tissues such as organs, livers, skin, brains, bone marrow, kidneys, or lungs.
[Reply]
December 8th, 2010 at 3:51 am
wheres the beef
[Reply]
December 17th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Its hard to live without meat.I am scared from reading this post only.
[Reply]
December 21st, 2010 at 7:18 am
I would like to appreciate the work of blog author that the person provided us with an extremely excellent information regarding the topic. Ireally learned something from this blog and started to contribute my ideas via commenting on this blog. Keep it up
[Reply]
March 20th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
okay dont get me wrong on this but has anyone ever tried fasting? I mean seriously because toxins and other stuff that is filtered through are bodies are collected in body tissues if you fast your body will get rid of all that toxin and waste from the foods you eat, especially meats which uncooked or undercooked can cause a lot of problems.
[Reply]
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:51 am
I appreciate your blog. It is such an informative blog. keep it up!
[Reply]
March 25th, 2011 at 8:04 am
Questo è tutto buono ma alla fine siamo tutti esseri umani e stanno facendo le cose che ci piacciono e godere. Se ti piace mangiare veg cibo che è buono,heatersfloor. ma cosa succede se non mi piace? Cosa dovrei mangiare allora? Per quanto riguarda l’ambiente, molte cose che influenzano l’ambiente in un modo cattivo, come le auto producono inquinamento, ti sei fermato alla guida di un auto? Suppongo che nessuno. Il fatto è che tutti dovrebbero in qualche modo contribuire al pianeta viviamo tutti su alcuni di noi decidono di essere un veg, alcuni a scegliere bicicletta al posto di auto e alcuni di unirsi Greenpeace.
[Reply]
March 28th, 2011 at 5:09 am
I appreciate this. Thanks for the informative article.
[Reply]
March 30th, 2011 at 1:50 am
It is rather interesting for me to read this article. Thanx for it. I like such themes and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read more soon.
[Reply]
May 12th, 2011 at 4:12 am
Thanks for the read, after coming across the other day I am becoming more and more interested but still am not sure if I should become a vegan or start out trying as a vegetarian. Any thoughts?
[Reply]
October 12th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
Webmaster of
[Reply]
October 18th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
There is so much evidence out there that shows that we were all meant to be vegetarians. It’s a challenge to switch over but it can be done.
[Reply]
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:42 am
I guess it’s possible to live without meat, but who wants to?
[Reply]
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:22 pm
People have and always will eat meat, although you can live without it, I wouldn’t want too that’s for sure.
[Reply]
November 2nd, 2011 at 5:53 am
Very interesting and informative!
[Reply]
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I don’t think meat is the problem, it’s the commercialization of it. The large feedlots and production that they have turned it into is where the problems occur. God didn’t even intend for cows to eat corn, but we still feed it too them because they grow larger faster. If we just went back to small farms it would make a huge difference.
[Reply]
November 30th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
I do think that meat is the problem.
[Reply]
December 1st, 2011 at 2:20 am
Please write more about this topic, I’m looking forward to (Living Without Meat, Part 2) Don’t let the meat/dairy industry bully or scare you to not writing more about this..I got your back, that’s all you need. :)
[Reply]
December 20th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Thanks for the info. I don’t know if I could live without eating meat, especially fish. I do love my veggies more than anything else, but I just can’t get enough protein without eating some kind of meat. I don’t like red meat much, but I do eat it on occasion, like a few times a month. If there was a way to get enough protein without eating meat, I would try it.
[Reply]
December 27th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Meat is just a part of every day living for most people. I could not live without it as I do not see enough vegetarian alternatives.
[Reply]
January 10th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Beautiful Post! I have recently become more aware of the environmental hazards of eating meat and have made a concerted effort by eating more vegetables and removing meat from not only mine but my family’s diet.
[Reply]