The End of Meat is NOT Here
The year is 2017, I’m sitting around the dinner table one afternoon with various members of my family. We’re talking about the ag industry, something common in the Purviance household, and I decide to tell my family about some of the things I’d seen on social media. My claims involved the usual suspects: false information spread by PETA, young animal rights activists confusing a dairy cow with beef steer, vegans claiming a plant-based diet is far superior, etc. At the end of my rant, I say, “they hate us, y’all — they hate farmers and ranchers. And if we don’t do something about it, what will happen to the industry?”
Everyone got quiet, we were all contemplating a world where our livelihood was taken away from us. My grandpa Dennis was the one to break the silence. “Well… what would they do for food then?” he asked with a chuckle and pretty soon we were all laughing. Yeah, I thought, what would they do?
I think about this moment regularly and often wonder: what would a world be like without farmers and ranchers? How would the un-trained people who don’t even have time to water their houseplants or “travel too much” to own a dog raise crops and livestock to feed their families? This week, I was once again reminded of my family’s conversation when I saw an opinion article in the New York Times (NYT) titled, “The End of Meat is Here,” and dear God, I pray this statement isn’t predicting the future.
Let’s first look into the NYT article.
“Animal agriculture is now recognized as a leading cause of global warming,” this article claimed.
On the contrary to this claim, NASA’s website says, “On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.”
Keywords to read there are “lesser extent,” and “agriculture.”
“…a quarter of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 say they are vegetarians or vegans, which is perhaps one reason sales of plant-based ‘meats’ have skyrocketed, with Impossible and Beyond Burgers available everywhere from Whole Foods to White Castle,” the NYT article claimed.
I cannot find data from a valid source to back up the claim that a quarter of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 say they are vegetarian or vegan. I also would like to comment that saying the sale of plant-based meat has “sky-rocketed” is a little asinine. Of course it’s sky-rocketed within the past few years… it wasn’t around 20 years ago. The claim that plant-based meat “sky-rocketed” in sales is like saying the sale of smart phones “sky-rocketed” within the past 10 years. Yes, it’s true but it’s a relatively new product meaning just one purchase could merit a “sky-rocket” in sales compared to a few years ago… when it wasn’t widely known or produced.
Now, I’m not here to take away from plant-based proteins’ success… in 2019 alone, Impossible and Beyond both had a good year. However, during this time of pandemic, have you taken a moment to look at the shelves and coolers at the grocery store? I’m sure you’ve seen the numerous photos of a completely empty meat cooler while the plant-based protein section is fully stocked.
“We cannot protect our environment while continuing to eat meat regularly. This is not a refutable perspective, but a banal truism. Whether they become Whoppers or boutique grass-fed steaks, cows produce an enormous amount of greenhouse gas. If cows were a country, they would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world,” was the next big claim that jumped out to me from this NYT article.
If you’ve followed along with my blog for any amount of time now, I’m going to apologize for sounding like a broken record when I say this… AGRICULTURE ISN’T DESTROYING THE PLANET — AGRICULTURE IS FEEDING IT.
The most recent data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that agriculture as a whole is only responsible for 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally. This number is composed of emissions from every sector of the agricultural industry, not just livestock production. Therefore, this includes emissions from crop production as well — you know, the stuff plant-based protein sources are made of.
The NYT article goes on to reference Project Drawdown (“a nonprofit organization dedicated to modeling solutions to address climate change”) which claims following a plant-based diet is “the most important contribution every individual can make to reversing global warming.”
Now, changing your diet may be the most convenient way to do this. However, it makes little to no difference. I’ve looked into the facts and figures, I’ve conducted my own experiments, I know the truth — and genuinely, leaving meat out of your diet reduces almost nothing, if anything at all. Biking to work, living without an air conditioner, and/or simply recycling does better for the environment than eating plant-based does.
If you haven’t watched this video on how going vegan can effect your carbon footprint, please do so! This is what I was referring to when I said “I’ve conducted my own experiments.”
Livestock eat vegetation and roughage which is not suitable for human consumption. Livestock live on land which is not suitable for crop production. And even if we didn’t slaughter them for meat consumption, livestock would still be around, and they would still reproduce at the rate they currently are because breeding is natural for livestock animals. If anything, NOT slaughtering animals would result in over population.
“We cannot claim to care about the humane treatment of animals while continuing to eat meat regularly. The farming system we rely on is woven through with misery,” is yet another claim made by the NYT article.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you cannot stomach the thought of eating an animal, okay, that’s fine, good for you… no one will fight you on your opinion. However, to say livestock are treated inhumanely is obtuse and uneducated.
Personally, I have been around livestock production my whole life and I have never seen an animal be abused. I’ve visited countless ranches, had my eyes on thousands of cattle, and cared for multiple barnyard animals myself and not once have I witnessed animals being treated with cruelty.
What I have seen, however, is people risking their lives to save the life of an animal. I’ve seen people kicked in the head, quite literally, just in an attempt to doctor a sick cow. I’ve heard the stories my dad, grandpa, and others just like them have told about how they went out of their way to save an animal’s life. And for what? Money? Don’t get me wrong, an unhealthy animal ultimately effects a rancher’s pockets — but with livestock markets so unreliable (and more often than not down) there’s no one I know who’s a rancher “for the money.”
“Don’t we need animal protein? No. We can live longer, healthier lives without it,” is possibly my favorite claim from the NYT article because this takes me right back to my six-week vegan experiment.
During my time as a vegan, I felt consistently terrible. My hair fell out, I had no color in my face, my skin was dry, I had no energy, I was bloated… basically going vegan did not do me any good. Currently, I am following the carnivore diet to get an accurate comparison and I can honestly say that all of those problems are not only gone, but improved. My hair feels better, my complexion has improved, my skin is incredibly clear (and my psoriasis is quickly fading, it’s almost gone), my skin is producing a normal level of natural oils again, I have a high energy level, and I am not bloated… eating meat is doing me a lot of good. Personally, I love the way I feel on this diet so much I will probably continue to do it even after my six weeks have passed.
I would like to point out the claims I made are true, however the claim that veganism does good for the body is true as well. Just like any diet, it all depends on YOU and the way your body reacts. I’ve seen many videos of people who claim veganism made them feel like a million bucks — good for them, but it’s not going to make everyone feel that way. Personally, I NEED animal protein, and based off of my vegan experience, I don’t see how I could live a longer, happier life without it.
This article also compares meat to cake and said, “Of course, meat, like cake, can be part of a healthy diet. But no sound nutritionist would recommend eating cake too often.”
Before I went vegan, I spoke to several nutritionists and dieticians — none of them said they would recommend for me to follow a vegan diet.
This article also talks about factory farming which in-and-of-itself is a lot to wrap your brain around so I’ll keep it simple: the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture reports 96 percent of American farms are family owned. In my opinion, we should be more worried about keeping these families in business than “factory farming.”
The last claim from this article I want to talk about is this: “A 2015 study found that a vegetarian diet is $750 a year cheaper than a meat-based diet.”
My wallet from my time as a vegan is laughing at that statement. I spent, on average, upward of $75 a week for one person to follow a vegan diet. Now, on the carnivore diet, I spend an average of $35 a week. Sure, a squash is going to cost less than a steak. But you need to consume a larger quantity of vegetables and grains than meat to satisfy your hunger and reach your daily calorie requirement. After a while, buying mass quantities of fruits and vegetables adds up as well.
The article wraps up with the following statement: “With the horror of pandemic pressing from behind, and the new questioning of what is essential, we can now see the door that was always there. As in a dream where our homes have rooms unknown to our waking selves, we can sense there is a better way of eating, a life closer to our values. On the other side is not something new, but something that calls from the past — a world in which farmers were not myths, tortured bodies were not food and the planet was not the bill at the end of the meal.
“One meal in front of the other, it’s time to cross the threshold. On the other side is home.”
Here is a photo of my Grandpa, sitting at the dinner table and praying. I took this photo for a story that ran a few years ago in the Angus Journal — it felt appropriate for this subject matter.
Well, the author got one thing right: the horror of this pandemic. I know this week’s issue of the Western Ag Reporter is supposed to be about putting the Coronavirus on hold for a minute and focusing on beef, but at this point the two topics are intertwined.
The real horror of this pandemic is not meat consumption — it’s the problems within the agricultural industry. It’s a national meat shortage. It’s a trash cattle market. It’s milk dumping. It’s food banks who are desperate for ground beef. It’s local restaurants who are going out of business. It’s the packing plants who’ve had to shut down, leaving countless people without a paycheck.
The “happy ending” of this pandemic, so to speak, is that many people have come to realize just HOW essential the agricultural industry is. “The End of Meat is Here,” this article claims, but I would argue that it’s quite the opposite: the end of unappreciative consumers is here.
I’ve closely monitored what people are saying about the agricultural industry during this time and it’s not so much as a gripe but a praise. People all over are thanking farmers and ranchers for doing their job, and I’ve got to say, it’s pretty nice being appreciated by the people who we keep fed and clothed.
So, circling back to my grandpa’s question of “Well… what would they do for food then?” Grandpa, I think after years of wondering, our consumers have finally figured it out.
