Why eating meat is irresponsible

In Eating Animals Jonathan Safron Foer wrote, "We see farmed animals so rarely today, it becomes easy to forget all of this. Earlier generations were more familiar than we are with the personalities of farmed animals and the violence done to them. They would have known that pigs are playful, smart, and curious (we would say "like dogs"), and that they have complex social relationships." This is the description of our lives. Through either inundation or lack of participation we become desensitized to the world around us. We don't notice the volume of music or the amount of violence on television; we become blind to the people present while we text and talk to people on our mobile phones.

Surrounded by violence, we shun compassion and write off empathy as weakness. Submerged in pornographic imagery, we neglect commitment and love.

Yet in order to be caring human beings we must challenge ourselves not to forget and not to allow sensory overload to be our excuse for harming the planet and our fellow animals.

Today millions of animals are tortured and slaughtered so that some people can devour filet mignon for lunch and dinner.

According to PETA, "it takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons." And, "it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and even fish on fish farms must be fed up to 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce 1 pound of farmed fish flesh."

The US Geological Survey supports Peta's figures and adds that, "Estimates vary a lot due to different conditions of raising cows and to the extent of the production chain of water that is used. It takes a lot of water to grow grain, forage, and roughage to feed a cow, as well as water to drink and to service the cow." The numbers the USGS provides are in order to make a hamburger (it doesn't list the weight). According to their figures 4,000-18,000 gallons of water are required to produce a hamburger. Compare that to wheat, which requires about 110 gallons of water.

In the very near future, the great crises that face our planet, lack of fossil fuels, global warming, poverty, will be upon us. Perhaps the greatest challenge will be access to fresh water; this challenge will affect all of us, as opposed to what it is today, mostly people in impoverished areas. If we don't take our water consumption seriously now, we will face dire consequences in the future.

As for the amount of grain needed for 1 pound of beef, consider the numbers from the UW Extension.

There are reasons why you have heard many numbers because it depends a bit on production practices and your definition of a pound of beef. An old rule of thumb is that it requires 50 bushels of corn to finish an animal for our U.S. desired endpoint (USDA choice grade; USDA yield grade 2 or 3; approximately 28% body fat). There are 56 pounds of corn in a bushel, so you will need around 2,800 pounds of corn to produce an animal that weighs 1,250 to 1,350 pounds. This equates to 2.07 to 2.24 pounds of corn per pound of finished animal. The reason you have numbers that are much higher than that may be due to many factors. Cattle convert (pounds of feed per pounds of gain) at around 5.5 to 6.5 in the feedlot. That means you need to feed about 5.5 to 6.5 pounds of diet (assuming normal finishing diet) for an animal to gain 1 pound. However, they do not enter the feedlot until they already weigh 600 to 900 pounds. During that time, they consume mostly forage prior to entering the feedlot (most producers use forage because it is cheaper and a good use of fiber that would otherwise not be harvested). So, it is misleading to say that it takes 6 pounds of corn to make 1 pound of beef. The reason you may have heard 20 pounds of corn is because not all the 1,250 to 1,350 pounds of live animal is consumed (as beef anyway).

According to UW Extension, the amount of feed required depends on the definition of use of an animal. If we limit the definition to beef then the amount of grain per pound is very high. But if we include all of the products created such as leather then the amount of grain per pound decreases. Either way, it does take a lot of grain to produce a pound of meat. Is this grain that people could consume and could it be used more effectively?

If Safron Foer's Eating Animals isn't convincing enough nor are the statistics about amounts of grain and water used to create meat, then watch the videos below. Follow that up with Food, Inc. and you may find yourself questioning the reasons for continuing to eat meat.

If we lose our compassion, we lose hope.



"We can't plead ignorance, only indifference. Those alive today are the generations that came to know better. We have the burden and the opportunity of living in the moment when the critique of factory farming broke into the popular consciousness. We are the ones of whom it will be fairly asked, 'What did you do when you learned the truth about eating animals?'"

Links of interest:

NPR's A Nation of Meat Eaters: See how it all Adds up

Ms. Portman's a vegetarian, how about you?

Review of Eating Animals

Is it ethical to eat meat?

Interview with JSF

Meat-Free Meals

Cases in Point: Arguments for Foregoing Meat
The Crisis of Water
Consumption today

Fluoride in Milwaukee’s Water Unsafe, Unnecessary and Unhealthy: Alderman Jim Bohl proposes legislation to stop Milwaukee’s Fluoridation Program

Statement from Alderman Jim Bohl

May 22, 2012

New research shows that ingesting fluoride delivers health risks without benefit of less tooth decay which makes water fluoridation obsolete, unhealthy and a waste of money, and that is why I introduced legislation today calling for the end of Milwaukee's water fluoridation program.

Fluoride chemicals have been added to Milwaukee’s water supply since 1953 when it was believed that ingested fluoride incorporated into children’s developing teeth would resist cavities. But science disproved that theory.

There is little convincing scientific evidence that swallowing fluoride actually reduces tooth decay. According to World Health Organization figures there is virtually no difference in tooth decay in 12-year-olds whether they have grown up in fluoridated or non-fluoridated countries. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says that fluoride hardens teeth from topical application and swallowing fluoride can lead to fluoride overdose symptoms such as dental fluorosis (yellowing, brown, white spotting or pitted teeth). Fluorosis rates increased from 22% of teens in 1986 to an alarming 41% in 2010, according to CDC statistics. If fluoride works topically why are we forcing people to swallow it, especially those who after doing their own research on the issue have emphatically stated that they do not wish to drink fluoridated water? If any one wants fluoride in Milwaukee they can buy fluoridated toothpaste and brush it onto their teeth and spit it out. Milwaukee shouldn't be playing either doctor or dentist to our citizens. We are not qualified to do this and those who urge us to continue accept no legal responsibility for any harm it may be causing.

It’s accepted that fluoride can also damage bones, but no studies have researched the bone damage caused to children with fluoride-induced tooth damage. The condition of teeth and bones may be the least of our worries, however. There have now been 26 published studies that indicate an association between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. Promoters tell us that the level we add to water is very small (1.1 milligram per liter or 1.1 ppm) but that is actually greater than 250 times the level of fluoride that occurs in mothers' milk (0.004 ppm, National Research Council, 2006, p.40).

Further, the prestigious National Research Council’s (NRC) 2006 fluoride report revealed that fluoride, even in low doses, can harm the thyroid gland, kidney patients, babies and high water drinkers. They also report studies linking fluoride to osteosarcoma (bone cancer). A study conducted at Harvard in 2001 and published in 2006 showed that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th to 8th years had a 5-7 fold increased risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20. Despite promises that this study would be refuted, no published study has done so.

As a result of the aforementioned NRC report, government, health and dental organizations now advise against routinely mixing fluoridated water into infant formula to avoid dental fluorosis.
The National Kidney Foundation is among a growing list of organizations that has withdrawn its support of water fluoridation saying, “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” The American Dental Association itself now admits fluoride is a concern to all kidney patients, not just those on dialysis.

Fluoride is not a nutrient or essential for healthy teeth. Fluoride is regulated as a drug in toothpaste by the FDA. Fluoride supplements have never been FDA safety tested and it classifies fluoride as an “unapproved drug.” The EPA regards the type of fluoride used to supplement water supplies as a contaminant. Even the CDC reports on its website saying, “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.” If it is not the CDC's task, and the FDA refuses to do it, then whose task is it? Is the Milwaukee Common Council expected to do this?

While the less toxic calcium fluoride does appear in some waters naturally (.17 ppm in Lake Michigan water), Milwaukee adds hydrofluosilicic acid, a waste product of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing captured in its smokestacks, trucked as hazardous waste then injected unpurified into the water supply. These industrial grade fluoridation chemicals contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, and other toxins. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level. By using these fluoridating chemicals we are knowingly increasing the cancer risk for our citizens. Why should we take these risks to reduce a negligible amount of tooth decay? Such a policy is reckless to say the least.

The ADA continues to actively promote the expansion of water fluoridation programs at the same time the CDC admits growing numbers of kids are fluoride-overdosed. National statistics show that tooth decay has grown in numbers and severity in toddlers more recently, and untreated tooth decay has grown in many age groups. The Pew Foundation reports “preventable dental conditions were the primary reason for 830,590 ER visits by Americans in 2009—a 16 percent increase from 2006.”

Americans are fluoride-overdosed and dentist-deficient. The lack of accessible, affordable dental care to many Milwaukee and Wisconsin residents has been widely reported. With no evidence, some claim that fluoridation helps the poor the most. Actually, the poor and malnourished are the most harmed by fluoride. They also are least in a position to afford expensive filtration systems required to remove fluoride from water, making this an environmental justice situation. According to civil rights leader and former mayor of Atlanta, Andrew Young, “I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count?”

We have served as guinea pigs in this ongoing and failed experiment for far too long. In my position as Alderman, it is my duty to promote the health, safety and welfare of all our residents. Adding fluoride chemicals into our public water supply runs counter to this and therefore needs to end.