RSS feed subscribe

Latest Flickr photos

  • Songkran in Chiang Mai
  • Tina with her big gun
  • Songkran water fun
  • Songkran sound system

Global hunger: The more meat we eat, the fewer people we can feed

March 25th, 2008 Tina Noga Posted in Environment, Food and Drink, General, Health 6 Comments »

There is more than enough food in the world to feed the entire human population. So why are more than 840 million people still going hungry?

The truth: The more meat we eat, the fewer people we can feed. If everyone on Earth received 25 percent of his or her calories from animal products, only 3.2 billion people would have food to eat. Dropping that figure to 15 percent would mean that 4.2 billion people could be fed. If the whole world became vegan, there would be plenty food to feed all of us—more than 6.3 billion people. The World Watch Institute sums this up rightly, saying, “Meat consumption is an inefficient use of grain—the grain is used more efficiently when consumed by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat-eaters and the world’s poor.”

pig

It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh. According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if soybeans were grown instead—more than 17 times as much!

Producing the grain that is used to feed farmed animals requires vast amounts of water. It takes about 300 gallons of water per day to produce food for a vegan, and more than 4,000 gallons of water per day to produce food for a meat-eater. You save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you do by not showering for an entire year.

It should be no surprise, then, that food for a vegan can be produced on only 1/6 of an acre of land, while it takes 3 1/4 acres of land to produce food for a meat-eater. If we added up all the arable land on the planet and divided it equally, every human would get 2/3 of an acre—more than enough to sustain a vegetarian diet, but not nearly enough to sustain a meat-eater.

On top of this the industrial world is exporting grain to developing countries and importing the meat that is produced with it, and thus farmers who are trying to feed themselves are being driven off their land. Their efficient, plant-based agricultural model is being replaced with intensive livestock rearing, which also pollutes the air and water and renders the once-fertile land dead and barren.

If this trend continues, the developing world will never be able to produce enough food to feed itself, and global hunger will continue to plague hundreds of millions of people around the globe. There is only one solution to world hunger - A vegan diet is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world’s most urgent social justice issue.

So the less meat you eat – the more people we can feed! Think about it.


Stop miljø-hykleriet og gør noget for miljøet istedet!

March 2nd, 2008 Tina Noga Posted in Environment, General, In the news No Comments »

Nye tal fra Energistyrelsen viser samtidig, at CO2-udslippet i Danmark sidste år voksede med 0,7 pct, mens energiforbruget steg med 0,5 pct.

Og det er tredje år i træk, at forbruget stiger. Det skriver Ingeniøren.dk.

Men miljødebattens store akilleshæl er tilsyneladende, at den ikke formår at gøre os borgere personligt ansvarligt for den forværrede miljøtilstand. Danskernes CO2-forbrug er alarmerende højt, men der er intet der tyder på, at vi er klar til at omlægge vores forbrug. Det er meget paradoksalt, for samtidig har vi meget travlt med at begræde jordens tilstand og klage over, hvor grelt det ser ud.

Miljøprædikanter som Al Gore har formået at dokumentere for den almindelige borger, hvor galt det faktisk står til med miljøet. Folk får et meget markant billede af miljøtruslen, og skaber for eksempel en sammenhæng imellem vejret og den globale opvarmning i ders egne bevidsthed. En slags dommedagseffekt.

Vi synes tilsyneladende at det er mere interessant at have noget at bekymre os om -end reelt set at gøre noget ved bekymringerne eller rettere for miljøet.

Gad vide hvorfor?