Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
7
6
7
1
5
5
7
10
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Meat Habit is Fueling World Famine
- From PETA
By PETA - People for Ethical Treatment of Animals
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Meat fuels famine??
I just had to add a comment on the supposition that livestock eats food that could be put to better use being fed to humans.
Wrong.
First of all, livestock consume plants that we humans don't/can't eat: hay, straw, alfalfa, rye grass, etc. Though in some cases they are fed humans products, it's not enough to feed the world.
Also, food grown for human consumption needs to be grown on certain types of soil, which may not be readily available. The most suitable land has a temperate climate, rich humus, sufficient rainfall, is close to water, and has an abundance of natural "pest" control (ie: lady bugs, spiders, etc). Unfortunately, this land is usually occupied by plants and animals , so in order to make it profitable for human crops, the native species have to be evicted. Then, the earth has to be cleared, an infrastructure built, and finally crops will be planted and processed.
However, this poses a certain problem: huge ecosystem damage and animal mortality. Food chains are destroyed, and the environment is irreversibly compromised. Vegans say we can use the existing land originally used for livestock: but that is incorrect.
Livestock land does not = crop land. In most cases, it is very unsuitable. The soil is often hardened, churned up, filled with waste from the animals, and completely depleted of the natural, healthy microorganisms that usually reside in soil and make it productive for crops. It would take much time (and money ) to re-cultivate the land for crop production. No corporation would be willing to do this; instead they will clear more and more already fertile land, keeping the land originally used for livestock barren and untouched.
If the world went vegan, the supply plants will either remain constant, meaning the poor won't reap the benefits, or more land will be cleared, which harms our environment more and more.
- scarlet1979
May 31, 2009 3:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
multiple uses
You don't seem to be disputing the fact that meat production requires a great deal more land than the production of vegetables and grains. That's good. It's a simple ecological principle that each step up the food chain normally requires several times the resources as the level below.
It's true that some of the land used for grazing animals would not be suitable for growing crops. Unfortunately, much of that same land is not suitable for grazing animals either! Sure, they can eat the vegetation that grows there, but in doing so they're doing serious damage to the environment . In some cases it may be trampling and compacting the land, promoting erosion, depositing manure where it will wash into streams, or over-consuming rare native plants.
The replacement of meat with vegetarian foods would certainly make more land available for growing crops, but it's not only about feeding more people. Fewer meat eaters would make more land available for all kinds of uses, whether you want homes, factories, parks, parking lots, or wilderness. Untouched land has a great deal of value. For instance, there's a little thing called "biodiversity."
- Paul108h
October 27, 2009 7:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How many Masai?
How much cattle kill Masais and how much is killed by the rich countries? Let's compare pollution and breeding-related problems between rich countries and Masai. Actually there's no comparison. Not so many decades ago in most towns and villages people gathered to kill a few pigs or cows or lambs and they used to get the most of them. Think about all different types of meat that a pork gives: tripe, ham, chops, face, muzzle, ears, feet, sirloin, ribs... And people didn't eat meat everyday, rather they learned how to preserve it so that it lasted for a whole year.
Now think about the meat industry in the United States, people eat meat everyday without any consideration, just because they can afford it. Meanwhile , rivers, aquifers, the air is being polluted, forests destroyed to grow food for animals , ... Is this the same situation as with Masai? Please, look for a better comparison because this one does not add up.
- joancarles
May 31, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.