vegetariantimes.com has a wonderful and compelling list that responds to the question, 'why go veg?'
all good reasons; you should read the
full list. but here are my main motivations:
- You’ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. “If all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year.
- You’ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans’ food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.
- You’ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting.
really it's about solidarity. and it's about not contributing to these systems. one happy veg at a time. : )
2 comments:
I'm on board, and then off board and then on board.
What I have some trouble with is the thought that the States exporting more grain is the answer. It digs the hole deeper. But good husbandry can be good for the land and work as part of an integrated farm system. If all nations, rich and poor, were able to reconnect to farming that was beneficial for the land and that integrated husbandry into the work of the farm, the land would be more healthy, people would be more healthy, and we would be living in a more connected way.
I think that these reasons are good intermediate steps. But they don't speak to the larger problem of industrial food production. Rather, they seem to encourage the U.S. to produce as much as it can for other nations rather than participating in the development of good agriculture worldwide. Of course, that might mean becoming smaller and giving up some global influence. Who would have thought that constant power-grabbing has led us to an unhealthy lifestyle and planet?
Jeff, I really hear what you're saying. And I agree with you. The 'grand solution' (notice my tone) surely isn't found in sending all of the grain from one country to another. But, I do believe in sharing, and I recognize the need for better connection to the land. Absolutely.
When I explain my pro-veggie stance verbally (probably nothing new to your ears), I hear myself saying time and time again, "I don't expect my participation in this meat-free lifestyle to necessarily solve any problems or overturn any systems. Yes, I want to see different farming/living practices integrated in the u.s. and around the world, but my stance is more about making sure that I am not contributing to the very systems that allow for only the wealthy to eat or systems that hoard all of the food supply. In addition, the idea of solidarity here recognizes that many brothers and sisters and friends cannot afford to buy meat... so this is an effort to stand with them -- to be mindful of how I 'consume' and how I can better share..."
Post a Comment