More on Meat and Sustainability -- and a Challenge to Environmentalists
By Monica @ 3:54 PM   
I've had several diligent people forward me this news story via email over the past few days. It's a popular summary of a new "study" that "proves" that red meat causes cancer. The particular claims with regard to this article have already been thoroughly rebutted elsewhere and I have it on Dr. Eades' own word that he is going to blog on this study as well. The authors of this study need to go back and take a good statistics course and learn how to control other dietary variables correctly.
But now I get to my point. Interestingly, this "red meat causes cancer" article heavily mixes "dietary" science (not that the dietary science is even good) with "advocacy" science. In other words: not only is meat bad for us, it's bad for the environment. Here we go again. Articles such as these are why I recently blogged on this topic of meat and the environment here and here. Some people may not care, but I think it's important to evaluate these claims to see whether they are actually true. The idea that meat eating is unsustainable is appearing more and more in the popular press, and the message is getting shriller and shriller.
Someone whom I can't remember once said, "Advocacy science is not science." I think there's a great deal of truth to that statement. When we become advocates of something, it can cloud our judgment and objectivity and create a confirmation bias. (This is also true for "paleo" dieters and meat eaters.) We should always be on the lookout for deviations from our assumptions -- unless, of course, they are the most basic of facts.
Thankfully, I am not the only blogger who has recently picked up on this topic of meat and the environment. Here are some excerpts from an enlightening post by Robb Wolf entitled Meat, Global Warming and Markets: The Fish paper starts off with some dismissive language about the “over-hyped” benefits of fish oil…then changes tac(sic) completely and begins hand wringing about fish-stocks and sustainability. Oweee-kayyy. Tens of thousands of studies citing the benefits of n-3’s, synergy with what we know about our ancestral diet, the ONLY cited reason for the aparent(sic) health of the Inuit on their ancestral diet…and it’s all han(sic)-waved away, never explained…and the rest of the paper is focussed(sic) on the hot topic of global warming and sustainability! Keep this in mid as we look at a clinical intervention of the paleo diet in humans. In this paper a represnetitive(sic) paleolithic diet is compared to the the much vaunted mediteranian(sic) diet…in a sick population of folks WITH ischemic heart disease. It’s worth noting that the paleo-nay-sayers have whined for years: “there is no evidence! We need clinical studies!!” Well…here is a clinical trial showing compelling evidence for the superiority of a paleo diet over a medeteranian(sic) diet…and the main critiques of the paper focus on sustainability, not the validity of the science at hand. Here is a similar study with similar, non-science related critiques which focus instead on environmental issues and sustainability. Before I go on I want to come clean with what my political leanings are: Lover of free-markets, strongly identify with the Liberatarian(sic) party. This puts me squarely in a position to constantly piss-off and annoy left-leaning hippies and religious right-wingers alike. If you can piss nearly everyone off, you know you are onto something good. So, on the one hand I’me(sic) very happy to see the positive press these paleo clinical trials are getting. Right on the heels of that excitement and optimism is a sinking feeling when the discussion shifts to global warming, sustainability and the like. Why? Because it is shifting the argument just as the vegetarians are getting painted into a corner with no escape. The notion that our ancestral diet is the healthiest one, if right, will gain momentum and support. The only way to discredit this way of eating then is to throw up a boogey-man of fear and play on peoples guilt...
Fast forward to today, we still have the hand-wringing Malthusiast’s who are convinced we are all on a collision course with disaster unless we bocome low-fat vegetarians and export this lifestyle to everyone else on the planet. Much todo is made that a more meat based diet is unsustainable…but then again, modern farming practices rely on non-renewable fossil fuels, and as such plant based diets are apparently unsustainable also! Somehow the study authors find that a lacto-ovo diet is superior to alternative approaches…I’d like to dig through that study and see what they are using for numbers, but it just does not sit well. Interestingly, no one looks at the picture when we are talking grassfeeding and a more paleo type diet. Perhpas(sic) counter intuitively, a meat, fruit and vegetables diet appears to kill FEWER animals than a vegetarian, grain based diet…this throwing the least harm notion on it’s head. Also, small scale grassfed meat production appears to not only be sustainable, but also highly profitable. Most of the energy production of meat is tied up in grain production. Shift to grassfed meat and you remove this expensive and dirty process from the equation while also increasing the health of meat consumers. Can we feed everyone like this? Will global warming kill us all? The best way to control ALL these problems is some kind of population control and ironically, the best population control is prosperity. Rich nations have fewer children. The counter salvo from the Malthusiasts is that rich nations require a lot of energy…true, but we are only seeing the beginning of green, sustainable energy, and the main driving force here is an open market. India and China are bypassing decades of development the US went through and are comparitively much cleaner than we were. Speaking of sustainability…the US is headed for a serious problem with health/healthcare and the answer being bantied about is state funded healthcare…whcih has been a stunning failure everywhere else it’s been instituted, but we seem bent on this path…because in the words of Sen. Mcgovern(sic) “We must do something”. My main point here is that we need to tackle these issues ONE AT A TIME. When the vegetarians start shifting arguments mid-stream this is BS and it obscures the topic at hand. This is also the classic ploy of someone who is loosing an argument. My secondary point is that the “sustainability” issue is anything but clear and history has shown that markets and innovation trump doomsayers…no matter how badly they want the end-days to be at hand.
Indeed. In my previous writings, I hadn't even gotten into the idea that cattle might create a carbon sink on pasture, because foraging on grass spurs its growth via activation of the intercalary meristem. I would not be surprised if the articles Robb links above mention this point. I didn’t bother to do a search on Cambridge Scientific Abstracts to find articles that supported my point when I wrote about environmental effects of meat here and here, and more distantly in the past, here. Why didn't I do this? First, I already have a firm grasp of ecology (I have a bachelor's, master's, and PhD degrees in biology with a heavy focus on courses in ecology). Thus, I can already deduce that the basic arguments from the vegan/environmentalist side do not add up. However, my arguments would have been more well-supported with evidence from quality peer-reviewed articles. (I stress the term quality since we all know there is a good deal of very bad science that has been nominally peer-reviewed.) So I have to thank Robb for providing these links to some apparently peer-reviewed sources in his post above. Though I haven't read them yet, I suspect they will provide a good start for more in-depth research.
I may do a heavier literature search at some point with better supporting documentation for the exact energy inputs for vegan/industrial, vegan/nonindustrial, meat heavy/industrial, and meat heavy/nonindustrial diets. Someone really needs to do such research and that research, whatever the findings, needs to be honestly publicized. Unfortunately, the popular press has a tendency to skew the reporting toward their own biased position. People have heard the "meat is unsustainable" claim so frequently that I fear it is growing a life of its own.
Regardless of the fact that it may be interesting to know how much energy is used to produce various types of foods, I don't understand why people are getting worked up about cattle and the potential effect of cattle on global warming. This is "science" that is conducted in a manner that is blinkered to evolutionary history, just like the dietary "science." It makes no sense, even if you think global warming is a significant long-term problem for humanity. What were pre-industrial levels of these supposed "greenhouse gases"? We know the answer for CO2, but methane is rarely discussed in global warming circles in this regard, though it is reputed to have a much more potent effect than CO2. Grass-fed cows may produce half the methane as grain-fed cows, but reasonable estimates are that there were, in pre-settlement days, anywhere from equal to twice the amount of bison biomass as the biomass in our current national cattle herd.
Thus, I pose the following questions to all enviromentalists who believe meat is a problem for the environment:
1) Was there a “methane” problem prior to white settlement during the days when millions of majestic bison roamed the plains of the Americas?
2) If the bison herd was producing roughly equivalent amounts of methane thousands of years ago in comparison to the national cattle herd today, why are we worrying about it? This is a natural level if you consider humans to be "non-natural" and the source of the problem here.
I have not yet heard or seen a logical rebuttal to these two basic questions. I'm open to reasonable arguments. Any takers?
Labels: Bison, Buffalo, Global Warming, Grass-fed, Just Say No To Bad Science, Meat Myths, Modern Ignorance, Nutritional Guidelines, Pastured
| 
