Humans are typically described as omnivores. The word omni is Latin for ‘all’or ‘everything’, and vore stems from the Latin word vorare, which means ‘to devour’.⁽²⁾ The meaning behind the word is thus that humans ‘devour everything’. Recently, however, humans have begun to favour an increasingly carnivorous diet. In the past, this has not been considered a problem,⁽³⁾ but as more detailed studies of the issue illustrate, meat production poses threats to the global climate as well as to the natural environment.⁽⁴⁾

Meat consumption often has a correlation with economic wealth, as meat products are generally of the more expensive foods. For this reason, the largest per capita meat consumption is found in the Western world.⁽⁵⁾ However, people in nations such as China, with its substantial economic growth, increasingly tend to turn to more carnivorous diets as well.⁽⁶⁾ In effect, total meat production is steadily growing.⁽⁷⁾ Whereas the majority of people in Western countries are consuming meat in large and growing amounts, a counterculture of vegans and vegetarians is also spreading. Ethical vegetarianism – eating strictly vegetarian food for ethical reasons – often carries the notion that eating meat is both unethical and unsustainable. This CAI paper investigates the way in which meat is produced and consumed, and attempts to address the question of whether a non-vegetarian or non-vegan diet can ever be sustainable and, if so, how this can be achieved.

The aspect of sustainability

In 1987, Gro Harlem Brundtland led the World Commission on Environment and Development’s (WCED) work in designing the study that resulted in the report ‘Our common future’. The report is often seen as a starting point for the concept of sustainable development. Even though the report, and the novel concepts contained therein, undoubtedly has helped increase awareness and knowledge regarding environmental challenges, many of the world’s environmental problems remain, and the world’s climate keeps getting warmer. The essence of sustainable development, as defined in the report, is inter-generational equity, which means that “states shall conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.”⁽⁸⁾ It is thus vital not to deplete the earth’s resources for short-term economic profit gains. The challenge is to incorporate the positive aspects of economic prosperity, whilst at the same time ameliorate the negative consequences that it has on the environment, climate and social justice.

Consuming and producing meat – different realities

In many developing countries, people can now afford to eat substantial amounts of meat. Despite this, the differences between meat consumption patterns in the world are still large; on average, in developed countries, meat consumption is approximately 80 kilograms (kg) per person per year.⁽⁹⁾ In developing countries, the corresponding number is around 32kg.⁽¹⁰⁾ Not only are there differences in per capita consumption, the meat industry is also not globally uniform. For example, in the United States of America (US), more than 99% of all meat that is consumed comes from Centralised Animal Feeding Operations (SACOs).⁽¹¹⁾ SACOs employ industrial-like production methods, thus earning them the colloquial name ‘factory farms’. The US factory farm model has subsequently spread to Western Europe, and it continues to spread to developing regions as well. In Africa, factory farms are still the exception; but similar to the Western European situation, in this region they are emerging in the more developed African nations such as South Africa.⁽¹²⁾ The Western way of general consumption is sometimes seen as a symbol for “prosperity, independence [and] modernity.”⁽¹³⁾ Hence, Western style consumption tends to be seen as an integral part of ‘development’ and is therefore often actively pursued by developing nations. In the case of factory farming however, the American, and now Western European, model is largely incompatible with sustainability as defined in the aforementioned report. The reasons for this incompatibility are expounded on later on in this paper.

The differences in consumption and production methods correlate strongly with the overall economic situation of a country. For instance, Luxembourg and the US are two of the richest countries in the world in per capita terms; and they are also the top two in per capita meat consumption. India is the country that consumes the least meat per capita.⁽¹⁴⁾ As India is not the poorest country in the world, cultural differences are also accountable for variations in meat consumption patterns. In the case of India, the Hindu tradition of non-violence is often expanded to include animals, which is one major reason for why the country does not consume large amounts of meat.⁽¹⁵⁾ Contrastingly, in the US, meat has been relatively cheap and easily accessible for almost 200 years, and technological innovations, such as refrigerators and railroad systems, have helped turn meat into a “centralized national industry.”⁽¹⁶⁾ Accessibility and low prices have made meat an integral part of American tradition and culture; the traditional thanksgiving turkey is perhaps the most obvious example. Even though cultural differences have some explanatory power in meat consumption patterns, the correlation between economic prosperity and meat consumption is so evident that “economists treat it almost like a law of human behaviour.”⁽¹⁷⁾ The ‘human behaviour’ implies that when a person employs the means to devour meat, he or she will do so.

Meat: Unnaturally low prices

In the 2008 American documentary film, Food Inc., an interviewee claims that factory farms are capable of producing “a lot of food, on a small amount of land, at very affordable prices.”⁽¹⁸⁾ This can be considered as a truth with modifications. Factory farming is a source of numerous environmental problems and a significant driver of global warming. Livestock farming is estimated to contribute 18% to global warming.⁽¹⁹⁾ Moreover, to state that industrial livestock farming is efficient and that it requires but a small amount of land is a simplification. Even though the actual factory farm might not take up much space, industrial livestock are largely fed on corn and soya – two crops that need vast amounts of space to flourish. In 2007/2008, 35% of the world’s grain was used to feed farm animals.⁽²⁰⁾ Moreover, these crops are heavily subsidised by the governments in many Western countries, foremost the US.⁽²¹⁾ The aforementioned “affordable prices” quoted in Food Inc. are thus in large part due to farm subsidies. This means that the prices are not as affordable as they appear on the surface; the production costs are simply latent.

Additionally, the environmental harms of industrial livestock farming are not included in the prices of the finished meat product. This is a systemic error referred to as a ‘negative externality’.⁽²²⁾ To take one example, a factory farm that produces pig meat may pollute the water of a nearby river, which in turn harms plants, wildlife and human health, as the toxic waste flows downstream. These consequences cost money, but they are not a part of the price of the pork chops or the hot dogs that were the outcome from that same farm. Therefore, meat prices should often be higher than they currently are to take into account externalised costs, and if prices seem low in the grocery store, the actual costs tend to be hidden by subsidies and/or environmental degradation.

Problems associated with factory farming

The environmental problems of factory farming are well known and the aim of this paper is not to provide a detailed description of them. Notwithstanding, a brief presentation of the main environmental and human health problems associated with industrial livestock farming is offered below.⁽²³⁾

• Livestock farming is one of the main drivers of global warming.
• CAFOs often have inadequate facilities for treating waste and manure. Waste from factory farms is a pollutant of air, water and land; and poses a threat to human health.⁽²⁴⁾
• CAFOs are typically heavy users of antibiotics, which can lead to antibiotic resistance. This can be passed on to human beings.⁽²⁵⁾
• American beef cattle and dairy cows are, to differing extents, fed growth hormones. These can remain as a residue in the meat or milk products from these animals and pose threats to human health.⁽²⁶⁾
• Grain used for meat production is up to ten times more inefficient per calorie than grain eaten by people directly. Factory farm meat production is thus inefficient and a source of hunger and malnutrition.⁽²⁷⁾
• 25% of the global water footprint is used in meat production.⁽²⁸⁾
• Poor sanitation on farms can lead to the development and spreading of diseases such as E.coli O157:H7 and salmonella.⁽²⁹⁾
• Apart from the environmental issues mentioned above, industrial livestock farming also carries a number of ethical and social dilemmas regarding animal welfare and working conditions that are not to be forgotten or diminished.
• Finally, a meat rich diet is linked to a number of health problems such as cardiovascular diseases and some forms of cancer.⁽³⁰⁾

Possible solutions: Towards more sustainable meat consumption and production

An alternative to the problems related to meat production and consumption is offered by vegetarianism and veganism. Still, for humans to stop eating animals altogether is a radical, and possibly not desirable, suggestion. Therefore, other options ought to be sought. In any case, a lowering of global per capita meat consumption would be needed to halt the negative effects that meat production has on the climate and the environment. In order to achieve this, changes at policy level would most likely be required. This paper has suggested that by subsidising the feed of animals at CAFOs, and by not including environmental and climatic problems – so-called externalised costs – into the price of the finished product, the relatively low meat prices are due to manipulation of the market. By including environmental and climatic effects into the meat price, and by removing or at least redesigning farm subsidies, meat would become more expensive. Conventional economic theory suggests that when the price of a commodity goes up, the demand for it goes down.

In an economic world that is determined by market forces, it is important that prices reflect reality. A second, more ideal aim is not only to have meat producers and consumers pay for externalised costs, but to aim for making meat production environmentally sustainable. In fact, many of the negative consequences that stem from animal agriculture are the effects of less than ideal production methods and not inherent problems of livestock farming.

Many of the problems related to factory farm methods are in fact results of the feed that is provided to the animals. As mentioned above, currently livestock at factory farms are, to a very large extent, fed on corn and soya. Much of the global warming caused by livestock farming stems from deforestation activities to make space for crops used for feeding animals. As a result of high demands, large areas in South America are deforested in order to clear land for soya plantations, for example.⁽³¹⁾ A diet of corn and soya, in combination with growth stimulants, make cattle grow rapidly. In this fashion, beef cattle can be slaughtered in as little as 14-18 months after birth.⁽³²⁾ In comparison, grass-fed cattle generally produce about 15-20% less beef, and it takes them approximately 25% longer to reach slaughter weight.⁽³³⁾ However, in terms of nutrition and digestion, cattle do not easily digest corn and soya. Due to this feed, large quantities of bacteria develop in the bowel of the animals. In combination with unsanitary conditions on numerous CAFOs, many antibiotics are given to factory-farmed animals for preventive purposes. Altogether, around 70% of all antibiotics used in the US are given to healthy farm animals,⁽³⁴⁾ which can create “new strains of dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria,”⁽³⁵⁾ which pose a serious threat to human health.

Another problem area concerning factory farms has to do with water consumption. Approximately 25% of the global water footprint stems from meat and dairy production.⁽³⁶⁾ About 98% of that 25% comes in the form of virtual water – the amount of freshwater required to produce a commodity – from the feed that the animals are given.⁽³⁷⁾ Farm animals do not necessarily have to be fed on corn, soya and other crops. For example, ruminants such as cattle and sheep are able to consume and digest grass, while pigs are capable of consuming waste from human food consumption.

By allowing cattle to graze on a sustainable grazing system such as ‘Management Intensive Rotational Grazing’ (MIRG) systems – where herds are moved from one part of the pasture to another in a systematic way in order to maximise the quality of the forage, and by letting pigs consume waste from human food, many of the abovementioned problems would be significantly reduced. In this way, humans and farm animals would not ‘compete’ for the same resources, and food that could be eaten by humans would be set free. By employing sustainable production methods, meat could actually become a net surplus in the pursuit of food security.⁽³⁸⁾ In fact, it would be possible to produce about half of the meat that we currently consume without feeding grain to livestock that could be eaten by people. By incorporating these sustainable approaches into the current food system, an additional 1.3 billion people could be fed.⁽³⁹⁾ An accompanying positive effect of the changes proposed in this paper would be fewer health problems related to meat-rich diets.

The world’s population is predicted to exceed 9 billion people by 2050; compared to today, an additional 2 billion people will thus have to be fed.⁽⁴⁰⁾ Food insecurity is already an issue, especially in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. A question that arises therefore is whether or not a global food system that utilises a widespread CAFO type meat industry can manage to feed a population of 9-billion people.

The big problem is that as of now, due to a broken system, it is not economically profitable to produce meat sustainably. There are no ethics embedded in the free market. Therefore, the most profitable way of doing something will prevail. A discussion about what the ‘most profitable’ way of producing meat is would be welcomed. Is it profitable in the long run to have an agricultural system that pollutes air, water and land, leads to diseases and increases global temperature? It has proven to be profitable in the short term, but in the aforementioned report, Our Common Future, sustainability is defined as intergenerational equity. The question that must be addressed is thus: does the current system work for intergenerational equity? The answer is no, it does not.

Concluding remarks

Making one of the world’s dirtiest industries green would require massive changes to how the work in that industry is carried out. Nonetheless, greening the meat industry is theoretically possible. It is not dependent on technological advances that lie way ahead in the future – the knowledge is present today. Greening the meat industry to make it sustainable would mean a win-win situation for people and the planet. A sustainable meat industry would mean that less meat is produced, and such meat would come at higher prices. Because of this, moving towards sustainable meat production is controversial. Nevertheless, when looking at the two options soberly, it is difficult not to see that the benefits by far outweigh the drawbacks. Factory farming is not yet widespread throughout the African continent – hopefully that is how it will remain. For Africa, a choice can still be made. Doing things according to a Western fashion is said to symbolise progress. In the case of factory farming however, Africa should look at the facts, learn from the mistakes that have been made in the West, and think one step further.

Written by Oskar Holst ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Contact Oskar Holst through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Enviro Africa unit ( enviro.africa@consultancyafrica.com).
(2) Online Etymology Dictionary, search word: omnivorous, http://www.etymonline.com.
(3) ‘Is it sustainable?’, Worldwatch Institute, 21 September 2012, http://www.worldwatch.org.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Tepper, R., ‘World’s meat consumption: Luxembourg eats the most per person, India the least’, The Huffington Post, 4 May  2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.
(6) Charles, D., ‘The making of meat eating America’, WNYC, 26 June 2012, http://culture.wnyc.org.
(7) ‘Meat production continues to rise’, Worldwatch Institute, 9 October 2012, http://www.worldwatch.org.
(8) ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future’, UN Documents, http://www.un-documents.net.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Foer, J.S, 2009. Eating animals. Back Bay Books: New York.
(12) ‘Is it sustainable?’, Worldwatch Institute, 21 September 2012, http://www.worldwatch.org.
(13) Macdonald, M., ‘Food security and equity in a climate constrained world”, in Assadourian, E. et al., 2012. State of the world 2012: Moving toward a sustainable prosperity. Worldwatch Institute: Washington, D.C.
(14) Tepper, R., ‘World’s meat consumption: Luxembourg eats the most per person, India the least’, The Huffington Post, 4 May  2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.
(15) ‘Hindu ethic of nonviolence’, Hinduism today, February 1996, http://www.hinduismtoday.com.
(16) Charles, D., ‘The making of meat eating America’, WNYC, 26 June 2012, http://culture.wnyc.org.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Kenner, R., et al., 2009. ‘Food Inc.’, Magnolia Home Entertainment: Los Angeles.
(19) Foer, J.S., 2009. Eating animals. Back Bay Books: New York.
(20) Macdonald, M., “Food security and equity in a climate constrained world”, in Assadourian, E. et al., 2012, State of the world 2012: Moving toward a sustainable prosperity. Worldwatch Institute: Washington, D.C.
(21) ‘For a healthier country, overhaul farm subsidies’, Scientific American, 19 April 2012, http://www.scientificamerican.com.
(22) Business Dictionary, search word: negative externality, http://www.businessdictionary.com.
(23) Suggestions for further detailed readings are provided at the end of this paper.
(24) Foer, J.S., 2009. Eating animals. Back Bay Books: New York.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Lin, D., ‘Why are factory farmed animals given antibiotics and hormones such as rBGH?’, About Animal Rights, http://animalrights.about.com.
(27) Monbiot, G., ‘I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly’, The Guardian, 6 September 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(28) Hoekstra, A.Y., ‘The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy’, Twente water centre, University of Twente.
(29) Foer, J.S., 2009. Eating animals. Back Bay Books: New York.
(30) Pearson, C., ‘Eating meat linked to diseases, report says’, Huffington Post, 18 July 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.
(31) Soliani, A. and Dantas, I., ‘Amazon deforestation jumped six-fold on expanded soy planting, Brazil says’, Bloomberg, 18 May 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com.
(32) ‘Interview Michael Pollan’, PBS, http://www.pbs.org.             .
(33) Mathews, K. H. and Johnson, R. J., ‘Grain and grass production systems’, USDA economic research service, http://www.highlandcattleusa.org.
(34) ‘How much do antibiotics used on the farm contribute to the spread of resistant bacteria?’, Scientific American, 4 February 2011, http://www.scientificamerican.com.
(35) Ibid.
(36) Hoekstra, A.Y., ‘The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy’, Twente water centre, University of Twente.
(37) Ibid.
(38) Monbiot, G., ‘I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly’, The Guardian, 6 September 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(39) Ibid.
(40) Ibid.