The Environmental Impacts Of The Meat Industry Will Have On It

Chicken, lamb, turkey, milk, pork, eggs, fish, etc., all contribute to the environmental problems facing the planet. The fossil-fuel energy consumption to protein output for these livestock are as follows: chicken has a 4:1 ration, lamb 50:1, turkey 13:1, milk protein 14:1, pork 17:1, and eggs at a 26:1 ratio. This averages out to almost eight-times more “fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein” (Pimentel). In addition, each animal has its own benefits and downfalls. Pigs propose a lower carbon footprint but if raised in ideal free-range environments they can pollute the soil with nitrogen (Goffman 5). Chickens pose the threat of spreading bacteria through rivers and streams and spurring algal growth which create “dead zones”,

Lab-grown meat, otherwise known as synthetic meat, or cultured meat is made “using muscle tissue from animal stem cells in a lab rather than harvesting from livestock” (Hultin). Consuming lab-grown meat will be healthier than traditional meats. Vitamins and minerals could be enhanced in lab-grown meats, the unhealthy components such as saturated fat could be decreased in lab-grown meats, and diseases and pathogens that come from animals could be eliminated in lab-grown meats (Hultin). By removing the unhealthy elements and keeping the beneficial nutrients of lab-grown meats will help to sustain Earth’s growing population if there was an issue with food security. Also, producing lab-grown meats will positively impact the environment. As stated by Ginger Hultin, a Spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and

Meat is one of the most basic building blocks of human life. We have relied on meat in one way or another virtually since the dawn of time. Humans as a whole have become almost dependent on the constant and readily available supply of meat, in some way or another. Yet, what our over consumption of animal meat has done to the meat market is unacceptable, to say the least. Industrialized meat has left such a stain on the environment, human health, and the overall well-being of the animals we consume. In the article, “Tenderloin’s a Steal, But At What Moral Price?” by John Kessler, the question of whether or not to buy the industrially raised tenderloin or spend a few extra bucks on the sustainably raised tenderloin comes up. To lessen the

When people think of the cow that their burger comes from, they think of a peaceful, fenced-in field with cows grazing lazily. In reality that beef comes from a cow who is forced to eat something it cannot digest, in a cramped, loud feedlot, covered in feces. Big business has worked hard to hide the reality of food origin. The American government should create legislation that would eliminate this problem. Research is being done with invitro meat, otherwise known as lab grown meat. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should approve invitro meat for human consumption. Animal cruelty caused by the farming industry and large companies is a huge problem that can be avoided with scientific advancements in lab grown meat.

Sooner or later there won’t be any meat left for consumption. No Cows, no Pigs, no Sheep. But what if we had a solution to replace real meat with artificial meat? Test Tube Meat is more beneficial than normal meat for people and animals because it is more eco-friendly. We can have a better environment if we switch to Test Tube Meat. Maybe even a better future for the world. We can change the world if we just do something different, something new.

The creation of cultured meat will reduce that environmental problems currently happening due to the traditional livestock industry; if the production of meat continues to be done in the traditional way in coming years, there will be no enough food or water for the population. As mention by Dickson D, Despommier, “as population increases this will soon cause that farmers to run out of land” (A farm on Every Floor, 2009).

For example by the time a feedlot steer in the United States is ready for slaughter, it has consumed 2,700 pounds of grain and weighs approximately 1,050 pounds. It takes much more grain, land and water to fatten an animal to produce a pound of meat than it does to grow the same number of calories in the form of grain that is eaten directly. A logical conclusion was made by Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who said “eat less meat; you’ll be healthier and so will the planet.” I feel this conclusion is very logical because if done people will live longer lives and be more healthy. Animals provide a third of the protein in people's diets and the business accounts for a third of global agricultural GDP. Make a change and lower your intake of meats. We need to try and save the animals suffering due to our large intake of

As the human population continues to grow exponentially, researchers like David Jenkins, are looking into other possible food production. Jenkins proposes that eating plants would not only be beneficial for the body, since it lowers cholesterol and blood pressure, but it would also be more sustainable than raising meat. Jenkins’ research highlights three dietary methods and he explains how these dietary methods (especially Simian) can help us feed 9 billion in 2050. With the exponential growth in human population, there must be an increase in livestock (meat) to support the rapid growth. Jenkins’ data show that already livestock feed processing and production heavily contributes in the emission of greenhouse gases. Jenkins’ proposal is that

The average American eats over 200 pounds of meat each year (Food, Inc. 2008). Meat consumption has not always been so excessive; however, this recently high demand has resulted in food companies scaling up and vastly transforming their methods of production for the sake of yielding the largest amount of meat at the lowest expense. In fact, as of now over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which are controlled by only a select few companies (Food, Inc. 2008).With this relatively new monopoly of intensive farming have come adverse side effects, which are outlaid on all U.S. communities as a whole. In order to cease this wayward progression in its tracks, we must advocate as a country for farming to reform in favor of its most logical, humane, and healthy standards. Pasture-raised farming should become the standard in American meat production because pasture-raised farming is in more ethical than the current industrial practices.

Currently, in-vitro meat is still in the making. The first in vitro meat hamburger was made in 2013 in London. Physiologist Mark Post was the first to create the in-vitro hamburger. The two-year process of creating the burger cost about $325,000. The unveiling of the first in-vitro meat burger was a huge accomplishment. There were various taste testers there to try the meat and there seemed to be a reoccurring theme: it tasted like real meat! Although there is still some testing and remodeling to be done on how to make it better because there is a lack of fat that does not give it the natural juiciness like a regular hamburger, the first in-vitro meat hamburger proved to be a success. It proved that the “impossible” can and will be done. However, the lingering problem right now is the high consumer costs. Since in-vitro meat is not as prevalent and high grossing like real grass fed meat, the cost to buy and produce it is very high. People have been trying to make predictions of when in-vitro meat will become available to the public as a reasonably affordable option, but there is no true answer. Realistically, most experts hope that cultured meat will be on the market in the next 10-20 years. Several people think this next phase

Man’s mass animal farming habits are also responsible for 18% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (Anderson and Kuhn). The primary contributor to these emissions is methane— one of the most harmful toxic human-caused gases that absorbs infrared radiation and becomes trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere causing a rise in temperature (EPA). The Environmental Protection Agency states that, “Domestic livestock . . . produce large amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals ' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, methane is produced . . . Globally, the agriculture sector is the primary source of methane emissions” (EPA). On a smaller scale, animal waste actually produces a very small amount of methane on its own. However, the one billion animals that are raised in confinement on diets of abnormally high protein from corn and soybeans produce mass amounts of toxic waste every year that poison the Earth’s atmosphere. Andersen and Kuhn’s recent study shows that, “Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the U.S.” This is 130 times the amount of waste that is created by humans annually. (Andersen and Kuhn). CAFOs in the U.S. alone produce about 500 million tons of waste every year (Koneswaran and Nierenberg 579). Results from a Steinfeld study in 2006 state that:

Every five years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updates the American government’s dietary guidelines. These guidelines advise Americans about what is healthy for humans to eat, but in 2015, for the first time, these guidelines named “The Sustainable Power Plate” also reflect what is healthy for the global environment as well by suggesting eating meat in moderation, if at all. The evidence of rapid climate change: rising and warming oceans, global temperature rise, shrinking ice sheets and glacial retreat suggest that the current warming trend is evolving at an unheard of rate, faster than it’s been in about 1300 years.[8] Human activity is likely responsible for the Earth’s change, and within that, livestock production. The livestock industry is a major contributor to the degradation of the environment, as well as being an industry that demands many natural resources, forcing humans to compete with farm animals for food.

The scientist in that illustration is making something called in vitro meat, or meat from grown from cultures of animal stem cells. Though the idea sounds straight from science fiction, multiple breakthroughs have already been made with man-made meat, including the world’s first synthetic all beef burger. It is right on time too, because research projects that by 2050, there will need to be a 235% increase in the production for meat (FAO, 2009). In order to supply that amount of meat, current livestock numbers would have to more than double. In vitro meat will be an accessible and affordable substitute to meat from livestock. It will be tastier and healthier for consumers and will be more sustainable and environmentally friendly. In vitro meat is the meat of the future.

Consumption of meat by humans creates several problems. First and foremost, raising animals for food compromises the environment. For example, it takes a large amount of natural resources to sustain the meat industry. The use of water, land, and food to raise animals for human consumption is not an efficient use of our limited resources. In contrast, it is more efficient to feed humans directly than to use land, food, and water to feed animals to be used as food. There are shortages of fertile land, clean water, and food in several third world countries. Many of these countries’ resources are allocated to produce feed for animals in developed countries around the world. As a result, the citizens of these countries are stricken with water and food shortages, while their crops are feeding cattle from across the globe. However, this problem can be solved by adopting a vegan diet. The vegan diet will allow a more efficient use of resources that in turn can be used to feed starving men, women, and children throughout the world. Consequently, more people in the world could be fed if the land used to grow feed for animals was used to grow food for humans.

Yesterday I was checking the news feed in my Facebook and suddenly stopped at the tragedy picture, the image which poor pigs were heading to a slaughterhouse. Many comments claimed that it would be great if we can consume meat without slaughtering those animals. Now, this imagination is on the way. In 1932, Sir Winston Churchill, the orator and the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, once envisioned that in 50 years from now on we would be growing edible animal parts with a suitable method to “escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken”. During that time, populace thought that his vision is such an airy-fairy perspective until now. Notwithstanding Churchill’s prediction is 30 years late, but on 6th August 2013, it was upon us. On that day, the first fresh cooked lab-grown beef burger was served by Professor Mark Post of Maastricht University. The procedure is that he uses a stem cell from a muscle tissue of the cow and plants it in a petri dish, coupled with trots a growth serum regularly. Till recently, the artificial meat project has grown step by step, but still couldn’t hit it big because apart from a side that supports this idea, the majorities assume that it is not the right solution. According to EU survey of the public, 54% of participants said no to the lab-grown meat while 6% said they would approve. In the meantime, this innovation ranked 21st out of 22 schemes in order of popularity for ‘the future applications of science'. Furthermore, some