Understanding My Shift to Vegetarianism: A Scientific Perspective
Written on
I identify as a scientist and am currently in the process of formalizing my education in this field, specializing in food production and market dynamics.
My interest in these topics ignited during my time as an aquaponist. However, I soon realized that aquaponics wasn’t the sustainable farming method I initially thought it to be.
This led me to explore regenerative agriculture, complemented by MOOCs from Wageningen University, which clarified the distinctions between sustainable and organic practices.
Through my reading of academic literature and works from leading food experts, I ultimately decided to adopt a vegetarian diet. I primarily avoid animal products, except for parmesan, which brings me close to a vegan lifestyle.
This choice has been on my mind since my teenage years; I was vegetarian in my late teens and early twenties, largely for ethical reasons, focusing on animal welfare and considering organic animal products as a suitable option.
However, I now recognize that organic products are not a viable solution when evaluating their environmental and health impacts, especially given the high consumption rates in Western nations over the past six decades.
Recent studies have highlighted that excessive meat consumption is a significant factor in the obesity epidemic.
Thus, opting for meat over plant-based diets harms not only the environment but also our health. To put it simply, unsustainable choices equate to unhealthy ones.
In the following sections, I will detail the science-backed reasons for my vegetarianism.
First Step: Disproving a Common Misconception
Organic Meat Can Be Just as Dangerous as Conventional Meat
In October 2015, a report from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that there was sufficient evidence to classify processed meats as group 1 carcinogens due to a link with bowel cancer.
Red meat was categorized as group 2A, meaning it is "probably carcinogenic to humans."
Additional research has corroborated these claims, revealing that meat consumption is associated with various health issues, including childhood asthma, cardiovascular disease, and obesity.
The rise in these conditions in Western nations prompted researchers to examine the relationship between high-meat diets and health complications.
It's no surprise that the U.S. leads in healthcare spending among developed nations, coinciding with its position as one of the highest meat-consuming countries.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American consumes approximately 123 kilograms of meat annually.
Following the U.S. are Australia (122 kg), Argentina (109 kg), New Zealand (101 kg), and Spain (100 kg).
Health issues related to excessive meat consumption are not merely long-term; for instance, in 2016, 52 public health laboratories in the U.S. reported 7,015 cases of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) infections, as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Meat products carry a heightened risk of such infections, especially when consumed rare or raw, due to potential surface contamination during slaughter and improper handling in kitchens.
CAFOs and AFOs: Feeding the Next Global Health Crisis
Ultimately, we must address the issue of antibiotic resistance, where bacteria and fungi evolve to resist medications meant to eliminate them.
According to the WHO, this represents one of the most significant threats to global health, food security, and development today.
In the U.S., at least 2.8 million individuals contract antibiotic-resistant infections annually, leading to over 35,000 deaths.
Worldwide, about 700,000 people die each year from drug-resistant infections, including tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are primary contributors to this alarming trend due to the excessive use of antibiotics on healthy animals, a practice intended to avert outbreaks in densely populated facilities. Additionally, antibiotics in feed accelerate livestock growth.
In 2020, approximately 160,000 tons of antibiotics were administered to farm animals. In the U.S., around 80% of total antibiotic consumption is allocated to non-therapeutic use in livestock.
Meat is Unsustainable, Regardless of its Production Method
One of the first concepts I grasped while working as an aquaponist was the feed conversion ratio (FCR). This metric assesses an animal's efficiency in converting feed into body mass. For instance, beef cattle can have an FCR as high as 43:1, meaning 43 kilograms of feed are needed to produce just 1 kilogram of beef. The lower the FCR, the more efficient the food source. Notably, broilers exhibit the lowest ratio among meat types, at just 2.3:1.
Consequently, meat is inherently an inefficient food source, particularly when produced organically and grass-fed, due to longer breeding cycles. In AFOs, livestock can be ready for slaughter within a year, while organic farms typically require at least two years.
Moreover, organic farms yield lower outputs than conventional ones and necessitate more land, with 8,000 to 20,000 square meters of pasture needed per animal.
Despite some practices that positively impact the environment, such as effective grassland use for livestock grazing that preserves carbon sinks, a recent study published in Nature Communications argues that the drawbacks of organic meat production outweigh its benefits.
This is attributed to emissions from the animals themselves through manure and digestion, as well as stable heating. Additionally, longer breeding cycles demand more feed, water, and care for the animals.
Previous studies have indicated that a complete transition from conventional to organic practices, given existing consumption trends, could lead to increased emissions.
Furthermore, organic farming does not resolve the issue of the significant water footprint associated with meat production; for instance, producing 450 grams of steak requires approximately 7,006 liters of water.
The Meat Industry: A Major Contributor to Climate Change and Other Crises
The carbon footprint associated with meat production encompasses all greenhouse gas emissions linked to this sector, including deforestation in Africa, Asia, and South America.
In Brazil, livestock farming is responsible for 75% of Amazon deforestation.
Why does this happen?
The meat industry requires more land than is currently available to cultivate the vast quantities of fodder needed to meet rising demand. The primary rainforests have taken centuries to develop nutrient-rich soil, which we are degrading in a matter of decades.
The carbon footprint from meat production comprises:
- Enteric emissions from ruminants (such as cattle and sheep)
- Methane and nitrogen dioxide emissions from livestock manure
- Nitrous oxide emissions—300 times more potent than carbon dioxide—due to synthetic fertilizer usage for fodder production
- Emissions resulting from transporting fodder across countries
However, the environmental impact of the meat industry extends beyond greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental Damages Attributed to CAFOs and AFOs
Here are some of the environmental harms caused by CAFOs and AFOs:
- Water Pollution: Eutrophication caused by manure discharge and excessive fertilizer use on fodder crops (A single intensive farming operation with 500 pigs generates 193 billion liters of manure and urine annually).
- Land Degradation: This includes deforestation leading to desertification.
- Water Scarcity: Trees, which have a high capacity for water retention, lose this ability when forests are destroyed.