Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
It takes immense inner strength to oppose the status quo. It takes courage to resist the pressure to accept what the influential people in your life consider morally and culturally reasonable, and perhaps even necessary. Yet, if people didn’t rise up against social injustice, slavery still would be legal, the poor would remain uneducated, and women wouldn’t be able to vote.
What does a vegan lifestyle have to do with social justice? Nothing—if animals are regarded as resources; everything—if animals are recognized as sentient beings. It’s possible that the greatest social injustice of our time doesn’t involve humans at all, but rather our fellow beings—nonhuman animals. Becoming vegan is about taking a stand against this injustice.
The seeds of vegan ethics were sown by philosophers and spiritual leaders in the East, where prevalent religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism, emphasized compassion toward animals and included vegetarianism as a part of their core doctrines. These seeds were nurtured and spread in the West by Pythagoras, a sixth-century BC Greek philosopher and mathematician. Pythagoras shunned the consumption of animal flesh and directed his followers to do the same.1
While many other notable thinkers followed suit, including Plato, Plutarch, Seneca, Ovid, and Socrates, it wasn’t until the mid-1800s that the moral roots of vegetarianism were firmly established in Western culture. The epicenter was England, and the driving forces were moral leaders of select Christian churches. Although the movement became well-grounded in the West, when contrasted with the practices and teachings of the East, its early influence was limited.
The ethics of consuming dairy products were hotly debated within the burgeoning British vegetarian movement, but it wasn’t until 1944 that a small, like-minded group of individuals decided to develop a new branch of vegetarianism, one whose practitioners consumed no animal products.
The father of the contemporary vegan movement, Donald Watson (1910–2005), and his compatriots recognized that the flesh-food industry and the egg and dairy-product industries were inextricably linked, because animals raised to produce eggs and milk were eventually slaughtered and eaten when they were no longer productive. These British vegans contended that the case against these industries rivaled the indictment of the meat industry, so the use of dairy products and eggs was no longer justifiable for ethical vegetarians. Their intent was to eliminate the exploitation of animals and to move closer to a truly humane society.
To do so, they founded the first Vegan Society in 1944; initially, it had only twenty-five members.2 In the 1950s, London physician Frey Ellis joined their ranks and significantly strengthened the scientific understanding of vegan health.
In 1948, Dr. Catherine Nimmo and Rubin Abramowitz established America’s first vegan society in Oceano, California. The group continued gathering members until 1960, when a national organization, the American Vegan Society (AVS), was founded by H. Jay Dinshah. As a strong vote of support, Nimmo became the first paying member and encouraged her former group to join AVS.3,4 Although Jay passed on in 2000, AVS remains vibrant under the guidance of his wife, Freya Dinshah, who has been with the organization since its inception.
AVS has consistently encouraged the active practice of ahimsa (a Sanskrit word meaning dynamic harmlessness) as a part of a vegan lifestyle. Members embrace ahimsa as an urgent worldwide necessity and advocate six pillars—one for each letter of ahimsa:5
Abstinence from animal products
Harmlessness with reverence for life
Integrity of thought, word, and deed
Mastery over oneself
Service to humanity, nature, and creation
Advancement of understanding and truth
However, it wasn’t until 1987 that the vegan movement entered mainstream America. John Robbins provided the catapult with the release of his groundbreaking book, Diet for a New America. This work included the first hard-hitting exposé of the consequences of factory farming for food animals, the environment, and human health. Today, vegan groups and societies are present in more than fifty nations worldwide. The Vegan World Network support members by providing contact information online along with news about events, forums, and health issues.6
Donald Watson coined the word vegan to describe a particular variant of vegetarianism that excluded the use and consumption of all animal products. A vegetarian for 81 years and vegan for 63, he successfully avoided any need for medication—conventional or herbal—and had hardly a day’s illness during his lifetime. His longevity had not been inherited; his father had passed on at the age of 63, and few other relatives survived beyond 70.7 As he aged, not only did he remain physically healthy but also mentally alert. Many of Watson’s most celebrated interviews were conducted after he turned 90, and he continued to grant interviews until shortly before his death at the age of 95.
How Is Vegan Pronounced?
The correct pronunciation is “vee-gan” or “vee-gen” with the stress on the first syllable. It’s not pronounced “vai-gan,” “vey-gn,” or “vee-jan.”
A vegan is an individual who embraces the philosophy of veganism and seeks to follow a vegan lifestyle.
Veganism is a philosophy that promotes reverence for life and compassion for all living beings and rejects the notion that animals are resources to be exploited.
A vegan lifestyle excludes, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of animal exploitation. Vegans avoid consumer products derived from animals, including foods of animal origin; clothing produced from fur, leather, wool, or silk; and animal-derived ingredients in personal-care and cleaning products. Instead, animal-free alternatives are promoted. Vegans also avoid activities that involve the mistreatment of animals, including animal research and animal-based entertainment.
A vegan diet excludes meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, eggs, gelatin, and other foods of animal origin (except human breast milk). Vegan diets include all foods of plant origin, including vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, nuts, and seeds.
A pure vegetarian is someone who follows only a vegan diet, not a vegan lifestyle. Sometimes pure vegetarians are referred to as “dietary vegans.” These individuals use nondietary animal products, such as leather. They also may support the use of animals in research and have no objection to the use of animals for entertainment. In such cases, their choice to consume a vegan diet is generally motivated by personal health concerns rather than by any ethical objections to eating animals. However, pure vegetarians may become vegan as they learn more about vegan philosophy.
Being vegan isn’t about personal purity or about moral superiority. It’s about making a conscious choice to widen your circle of compassion by avoiding animal exploitation, as far as is possible and practical. It’s about becoming more other-centered and less self-centered. If you strive to avoid animal products and activities that exploit animals, you already are vegan, even if you slip on occasion. There are no vegan police scrutinizing card-carrying vegans. If there were, our numbers would rapidly diminish.
The word “vegetarian” was coined by the founders of the British Vegetarian Society in 1842. The word comes from the Latin word vegetus, which means “lively, fresh, and vigorous.”8
There’s good evidence that the first people to call themselves vegetarians actually followed what is now referred to as a vegan diet. Historical records show that between April 1842 and September 1847, vegetarians consumed only plant foods.9
In today’s world, it’s virtually impossible to be 100 percent “cruelty-free.” For example, one might discover insect-derived natural red dye #4 in a piece of candy, or drink a glass of wine that had been clarified using isinglass from the membranes of fish bladders. Unfortunately, traces of animal products lurk in phones, match heads, sandpaper, color gels in theatrical lighting, photographic film, cars, bicycles, planes, computers, and more.
Efforts to live compassion-centered lives count far more than proficiency at avoiding the trace amounts of animal products that permeate marketplaces. Indeed, there are occasions during which the use of a decidedly nonvegan product results in a greater reduction in animal suffering than would avoiding its use. Think back to the predigital camera era. Had the use of film been avoided, thousands of individuals who were moved by graphic images of exploited animals would have unknowingly continued to contribute to their exploitation. A vegan lifestyle is a means to an end (which is to reduce animal suffering), not the end itself.
Technically, honey isn’t vegan, because it’s a product made by bees for bees. This is also true for other bee products, such as beeswax, bee pollen, honeycomb, propolis, and royal jelly. When we take bee products from bees, we’re taking what these beings have labored to produce and what they rely on for their survival. Vegans strive to avoid the exploitation of all living beings—including bees. Considering the numerous alternative sweeteners available, there seems little justification to use honey.
While it sounds like an open-and-shut case, the issue of whether to use honey is a contentious one within the vegan community. The debate isn’t so much about whether or not honey is an animal product—it is. The debate is more about whether having to avoid honey might deter potential vegans from a committed vegan lifestyle. To the average person, avoiding honey seems extreme, perhaps even a little crazy. After all, we’re talking about insects here, and plenty of insects are harmed in daily life, even in the harvesting of plants. So, the thought is that if vegans relaxed about the honey issue, people might be a little more open to the possibility of becoming vegan themselves.
Both sides have valid arguments. It’s virtually impossible to avoid killing insects in daily life, but it seems reasonable to avoid their purposeful exploitation. Then again, if a rigid stance on honey keeps people from taking meat and milk off their menus, it seems counterproductive. Instead, it makes sense to first focus public-education efforts on the issues surrounding the production of meat, eggs, and milk. It also makes sense to inform people who wish to minimize animal exploitation about the concerns surrounding other animal-derived commodities, such as honey, silk, and wool. In the end, we each need to do what we can in the quest for a more compassionate world.
Albert Einstein recognized that the separate existence we feel as individuals is in fact an illusion—that along with all beings, we’re a part of the universe at large. He explained, “A human being is part of a whole, called by us the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.”
This vision captures the very essence of “why vegan.” Becoming vegan is about making an ethical decision to become more aware of our connections to fellow creatures and to widen our circles of compassion to respect their right to exist and lead pain-free lives. It requires taking a stand against deeply rooted customs and traditions—customs and traditions that are often practiced by people we love, respect, and admire.
For most of us, considering this choice triggers a long, hard battle with our conscience. Fortunately, for most of us, our conscience prevails.
Coauthor Brenda Davis waged this battle as a young child, as do many people. She recalls:
“I’ll never forget the shock and devastation that engulfed me on a vacation with my family in Spain. My parents had decided to attend a bullfight featuring Spain’s most celebrated bullfighter. Ten thousand cheering fans erupted in thunderous applause when he entered the stadium. I suspected that this beautifully dressed man was going to fight a bull, and I found the thought quite distressing. But I could never have imagined that he was going to kill the bull. During this exhibition, I was stunned by the spectacle of this innocent animal being tortured and couldn’t believe that not a single soul came to his rescue. I found it confusing and horrifying at the same time.
“However, despite this natural compassion for animals, I somehow became desensitized to their plight as years passed. As I ate the flesh of animals, donned their skins, and enjoyed their circus performances, their suffering didn’t weigh as heavily on my mind as it did during that bullfight. In adulthood, however, I began to question the party line, and vegetarianism intrigued me. After graduating from university with a major in human nutrition, I became increasingly convinced that a plant-rich diet was optimal.
“Still, my battle with my conscience wasn’t fully reignited until a rather remarkable incident. A friend had asked if he could drop by for coffee on his way to hunt deer. After dispensing with the usual trivialities, I asked him how he could justify pulling the trigger on such a beautiful animal. I pointed out that it wasn’t fair—deer had no defense against his bullets. And I asked him if it made him feel like more of a man to shoot and kill another creature.
“His response stunned me—and changed the course of my life. He said, ‘You have no right to criticize me. Just because you don’t have the guts to pull the trigger doesn’t mean you’re not responsible for a trigger being pulled every time you buy a piece of meat camouflaged in cellophane in the grocery store. You’re simply paying someone to do the dirty work for you. At least the deer I eat have had a life. I doubt very much you can say the same for the animals sitting on your plate.’
“I was silenced, because he was absolutely right. In that instant, I vowed to take responsibility for the food I bought and to find out about the lives of the animals I ate. What I learned filled me with shame, guilt, and outrage, but more importantly, it reawakened my compassion for animals.
“When I think back, I realize I understood at an early age that animals have their own feelings and their own purposes. Still, it didn’t fully prepare me for the interaction I was to have with my son at the same tender age. One day, he asked me if we could buy a McDonald’s hamburger. I suspected that he pictured a lovely grove of hamburger trees behind every McDonald’s restaurant. I explained that while our burgers at home were made of plants, such as beans, the McDonald’s hamburgers were made of cows. He looked at me as though I had completely lost my mind and replied quite emphatically, ‘Mommy, people do not eat cows.’ He seemed shocked I’d say such a strange thing. When I explained that people do eat cows, he began to cry. Finally, in an exasperated voice, he asked, ‘Mommy, them have eyes. Don’t they know that cows are people too?’
“I understood. He could see that cows think, feel, smell, hear, eat, sleep, and love—just like people. He couldn’t see why that wasn’t enough for us to treat them like people.”
Many people believe that being vegan is only about eschewing hamburgers and ice cream. It’s not. Being vegan is about widening our circles of compassion to include those who are commonly excluded, whether they’re humans or nonhuman animals. It’s about understanding that our choices have consequences for ourselves, and beyond ourselves. It’s about recognizing that eating animals and animal products is both unnecessary and potentially harmful.
As we’ll see, the modern animal agriculture industry causes unspeakable suffering to animals, as well as potentially massive ecological devastation. Intensive animal agriculture reduces land for food production, contributes to global warming, and depletes natural resources. If everyone on the planet ate lower on the food chain, hunger could essentially be eradicated, many diet-related diseases could be avoided, environmental destruction could be reversed, and animal suffering would ease. Being vegan is about making choices that are a true reflection of our ethical and moral principles, and acknowledging that custom and tradition justify nothing.
The vision of a truly ethical universe is captured brilliantly by the words of Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and esteemed humanitarian: “. . . the time is coming when people will be amazed that the human race existed so long before it recognized that thoughtless injury to life is incompatible with real ethics. Ethics is in its unqualified form extended responsibility with regard to everything that has life.”
To begin to live ethically, the first critical step is to take the blinders off. Many exceptional books and documentaries explore the topic of animal rights and include exhaustive examinations of industries that exploit animals for retail products, entertainment, experimentation, and medical research. However, the industry most responsible for animal suffering is the food industry. More than 95 percent of all animals purposefully killed by people are killed to be eaten.
Some people view everything on this planet as a resource here for the taking. To them, animals exist for the express purpose of serving humans in some way. This logic is used to defend the exploitation of animals for fashion, entertainment, experimentation, research, and food. Some controversy exists about how animals should be treated, but the actual use of animals isn’t a point of contention for the vast majority of people in our society.
However, the standard rules of use vary, depending on the creature and the culture. For example, in America, kittens and puppies are beloved pets. In China, they might be dinner; in some restaurants, patrons can select an individual kitten or puppy. Without a second thought, the chef efficiently skins and boils the animal alive. While Americans may be disgusted by the treatment of cats and dogs in China, treating lobsters in a similar manner seems perfectly acceptable.
Some people would argue that dogs and cats are more intelligent than lobsters, so they deserve to be treated more kindly. That might seem like a logical argument, except that our treatment of pigs, which have been shown to be more intelligent than dogs, is arguably worse than our treatment of lobsters. Yet, these intelligent animals are seldom treated as pets. Instead, they’re treated like raw materials for the food industry’s meat machine.
People in the food industry didn’t deliberately set out on the path to cruel animal husbandry practices. But in the name of efficiency, that’s the direction in which the industry developed. Consider that in 1900, 41 percent of Americans lived on farms; one hundred years later, that number had dropped to 1.9 percent.10 Meanwhile, the population grew from 76,094,000 in 1900 to more than 281,422,000 in 2000, increasing demand for food. As a result, the consumption of animal products rose.
How is it possible to supply sufficient meat and milk to satisfy so many people with so few farmers? In a word, agribusiness. Unfortunately, the model developed by agribusiness transforms animals into production units, with the goal of generating the greatest amount of meat for the least amount of money. The most efficient way to accomplish this task is not to raise the animals in fields but in specialized facilities that allow the industry to minimize the time it takes to prepare them for slaughter. Called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) by the industry, agribusiness facilities that treat animals as production units are more commonly known as factory farms.
Every year in North America, approximately eleven billion land animals are slaughtered for food.11,12 Of these, 99.9 percent of chickens, 97 percent of laying hens, 99 percent of turkeys, 95 percent of pigs, and 78 percent of cattle are raised on CAFOs.13 Average consumers understand so little about these establishments that they easily forget that the meat at the grocery store is the flesh of an animal. Fattened on cheap feed, bred for rapid growth, treated with antibiotics to control disease and with hormones to stimulate appetite and maximize weight gain, and immobilized in small spaces that allow little movement during their short lives, these animals, so effectively hidden from view, endure unspeakable suffering.
In some ways, an animal’s intelligence and awareness makes its treatment at CAFOs even more horrifying. Pigs have been shown to be more intelligent than dogs or three-year-old children.14 For example, Professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State University discovered that pigs have remarkably long memories and are highly skilled at video games, which they play with a joystick designed for them. He added that pigs learn to play simple games every bit as quickly as primates.15
In addition, the traditional view that pigs are just filthy animals may be quite far from the truth. When in their natural environment, pigs are surprisingly clean. They’re very particular and have discrete sites for eating, sleeping, grooming, and elimination. Although pigs do roll in mud, this behavior is necessary to regulate their body temperature, because they lack sweat glands and are prone to heat stress. The mud also protects them from insects and sunburn.
But most of today’s pigs can’t roll in mud or explore their talent at video games. Instead, in the United States, an estimated 110 million pigs were slaughtered for food in 2010.16 In China, hog production is estimated at five times that of the United States.17 According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), each year, 1.3 billion of these intelligent animals end up on people’s plates.18 Although the natural life span of a pig is ten to fifteen years, pigs raised for food in America live approximately six months—and in an environment that can in no way be called “natural.”
Breeder sows, which continually produce litters, live until their productivity wanes, generally about three to four years. Most of this time is spent in gestation or farrowing crates, which provide insufficient room for the sows to turn around while they’re pregnant or after they’ve given birth. In their natural setting, piglets wean at about 15 weeks. But on a CAFO, after only two to four weeks of nursing, the piglets are removed to be fattened more quickly, and the sow is reimpregnated.
Weanlings spend the next six weeks in “nurseries,” or wire cages stacked one on top of the other. Piglets that don’t grow fast enough (the runts of the litter) are generally euthanized by 3 weeks of age. Although workers employ a variety of methods to kill the runts, among the more common are blunt trauma to the head and “thumping”; piglets are picked up by their hind legs and slammed onto a concrete floor until they die.
Healthy piglets don’t fare much better. Most undergo a variety of mutilations, including ear-notching, tail-docking, teeth-clipping, and, for males, castration. Done primarily to reduce stress-related behaviors, these procedures are performed without the use of anesthetics, causing needless and agonizing pain. During their time in the cages, piglets also receive medication to prevent the diarrhea that results from eating solid foods they’re too young to properly digest.
The piglets destined for meat production are then transferred to cramped pens and fed until they reach a slaughter weight of 240 to 300 pounds. The pigs are crammed in together, in single stalls or groups, with no room for rooting, exploring, nesting, or other standard social behaviors. The floors commonly are metal grid systems, which allow urine, feces, and vomit to fall into a huge pit below. As a result, the air inside these facilities is permeated with ammonia fumes and other noxious gases from which the pigs have no escape. The cramped conditions also prevent regular cleaning, so dust and dander also riddle the air.
Not surprisingly, respiratory diseases are endemic under such conditions. Pig factories are fertile breeding grounds for communicable diseases, such as swine influenza, enzootic pneumonia, infectious atrophic rhinitis, and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. To ensure that the pigs survive until it’s time for slaughter, antibiotics, hormones, and other pharmaceuticals are routinely added to their feed.
The pigs that do survive must endure more suffering. In America alone, an estimated one million pigs die en route to slaughter each year, from crushing, freezing, dehydration, or disease. When they reach the slaughterhouse, if they’re frightened and resist loading, unloading, or moving forward in the facility’s chutes, they’re prodded with electric rods set to a painfully high voltage. In some cases, the pigs are beaten with metal pipes or kicked by frustrated handlers.
The slaughtering process is hardly more humane. The first step is to render the pigs unconscious by stunning them using electricity or suffocating them with carbon dioxide (CO2). The pigs are then dragged upside down using chains or ropes wound around their back feet. Unfortunately, electrical stunning isn’t always effective, and reports of conscious pigs squealing and kicking wildly while hanging are not uncommon. Next comes the “sticker,” or the person who slits the pig’s throat to bleed her out. If the sticker is unsuccessful, the still-living—and possibly conscious—pig continues along the disassembly line to the scalding tank, where she is boiled alive for hair removal.13,19–24
Every time consumers buy a pound of bacon or a few slices of ham from a grocery store, they provide a financial incentive to the pig industry to continue these kinds of activities and, however unknowingly, give these actions an implied seal of approval.
Of course, pigs aren’t the only animals processed in such a fashion. The treatment of chickens and other poultry, while not exactly the same, also needs to be examined more closely by consumers who may be unaware of industry practices.
The poultry industry includes chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pheasants, quail, and other fowl. More than nine billion of these animals are slaughtered in North America every year for food; chickens comprise the vast majority.11 They’re raised either for meat (broilers) or eggs (layers)—and more than 95 percent are raised in total confinement from birth to death. (For “free-range” conditions, see page 19.) But this treatment is contrary to the way chickens live in a more natural setting.
Chickens are social animals that live communally in flocks. Each flock has a well-established pecking order in which dominant individuals are given priority when it comes to food and nesting areas. Each individual knows his or her place in the flock and remembers the faces and ranks of up to ninety other birds.25 Chickens have unique personalities; some are timid and fearful, while others are bold and gregarious. Hens prefer to lay eggs in the same location and often share their nesting site with one or more other hens.
Chickens are far more intelligent than most of us realize. Research suggests that they’re better at math, logical reasoning, and self-control than toddlers.26 Chickens learn by observation, can anticipate events, and can predict outcomes. They have a sense of object permanence (the ability to understand that if an object is moved out of sight, it still exists), and can use sounds and gestures to communicate with one another.27 When we begin to understand chickens’ complex nature, the cruelty of their short and brutal existence in a CAFO becomes even more evident.
Broiler chickens are generally raised on open floors in huge metal sheds that often house 20,000 or more birds per shed and 150,000 to 300,000 birds per operation. The average space allotted per animal is less than 1 square foot. The overcrowding causes the chickens extreme stress, escalating their risk of injury and disease. Some starve to death because they can’t access food or water; some die of heart attacks or organ failure.
Because of the popularity of white breast meat, these birds are selectively bred for bigger breasts. As a result, they’re almost twice as heavy at slaughter as their relatives from the 1950s. However, selective breeding of this type causes muscle growth to surpass bone growth, resulting in deformities, fractures, tears, and ruptures. Many birds are literally crippled by their own weight.
At only 6 or 7 weeks of age, the birds have reached market weight and are gathered to be transported for slaughter. At the slaughterhouse, chickens are dumped onto conveyor belts and hung upside down on a movable rack. There’s no requirement for them to be stunned before slaughter, because chickens are exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act that applies to cattle, sheep, and pigs. Instead, they’re subjected to an electric water bath that paralyzes them but doesn’t always render them unconscious. Before they’re plunged into scalding water to loosen their feathers, their throats are slit so they can bleed out and die. In some cases, the process is unsuccessful, and these unfortunate birds drown in the near-boiling water.28–30
Although they live longer, hens raised to lay eggs may be worse off than broilers. They live their lives in wire battery cages that restrict their movement while still allowing them to lay eggs. The entire system, from feeding and watering to egg collection, is typically fully automated. The cage floors slope forward so that eggs roll onto a conveyor belt, which transports the eggs directly from the layers to the cleaning stations.
These egg-laying hens are packed into the wire cages so tightly that they’re given less than half the space of broilers, or approximately 67 square inches per bird (slightly more than half the size of a standard sheet of paper). This degree of overcrowding makes it impossible for the birds to carry out any natural behaviors. For perspective, a hen needs about 72 square inches of space to be able to stand up straight, 178 square inches to preen, and 291 square inches to flap her wings.
The inability to perform any of these activities causes the chickens to behave abnormally. To prevent the birds from pecking one another to death, workers use a heated blade to sear off about one-third to one-half of a chicken’s beak. This amputation is conducted without an anesthetic and causes severe nerve injury, as well as acute and even chronic pain.
Most egg factories also subject their birds to the practice of forced molting in an effort to induce another egg-laying cycle. During this time, food is either completely withheld (starvation regimen) or restricted (low-nutrient diet) for ten to fourteen days, causing weight losses of up to 35 percent of body weight.
These birds are productive for twelve to twenty-four months. After that, egg production drops below the level that would provide an economic return. Because laying hens typically are genetically selected for efficient egg production and have low meat yields, they have little value to meat processors. Traditionally, such spent hens were used for soup and school lunch programs, but with the large supply of broilers available, there’s little demand for these smaller birds. Today, it’s not uncommon for producers to dispose of the birds on-site by gassing them. Then, they’re either incinerated, or ground up and incorporated into animal feed given to other animals—including future generations of chickens.
To keep the industry going, these layers must be constantly replaced. So, at 1 day old, chicks are sexed to determine their fate. Female chicks go on to become egg layers. But because they can’t lay eggs and are poor meat producers, the 260 million male chicks born each year in the United States have no economic value to the industry and are immediately disposed of. The most common disposal methods are maceration (chicks are ground up alive), gassing (CO2, argon, or both), suffocation (chicks are thrown into garbage cans, bags, or dumpsters), and electrocution (chicks are sucked through pipes onto a kill-plate).27,31,32
Humans domesticated cattle about eight thousand years ago. Today, domestic cattle provide humans with about half of their red meat, about 80 percent of their leather, and 95 percent of their animal milk.
Although beef cattle are branded and dehorned (and males are castrated)—all without anesthetic or pain relief—their lives seem rather enviable when contrasted with those of pigs or chickens. Beef cattle are among the few food animals that spend their lives outdoors. Conventionally raised cattle are pastured during their first seven to nine months of life, and when they reach about 650 pounds, they’re taken to a feedlot for “finishing.” Although most of these facilities house more than 1,000 head of cattle, larger facilities can accommodate 30,000 to 150,000 animals at any one time. At the feedlot, they receive a high-energy, grain-based diet designed to pack about 400 pounds on to their frames in three to four months.
Of course, adding about 100 pounds per month on an unnatural diet has consequences for an animal’s health. Cattle evolved on a forage-based diet, which is extremely high in fiber and low in starch. When cattle eat a grain-based diet, microflora in their rumen (first stomach) produce organic acids, driving down the rumen pH. This causes a variety of health problems and, in severe cases, can lead to bloat, acidosis, and liver abscesses. As a result, the feed is routinely laced with antibiotics not only to reduce the risk of diseases induced by these intensive feeding systems but also to help promote rapid growth.11,33,34
In fact, about 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are given to livestock. This overuse of antibiotics contributes to the increasing problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.35 In 2011, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases analyzed 136 samples of meat and poultry taken from twenty-six grocery stores in five US cities. Of those, 77 percent of the turkey samples, 42 percent of the chicken samples, and 37 percent of the beef samples (almost half the total samples taken) tested positive for the disease-causing bacteria Staphylococcus aureus. Ninety-six percent of these staph bacteria were resistant to at least one antimicrobial agent. Even worse, 52 percent were multidrug-resistant, demonstrating resistance to three or more classes of antimicrobial agents.36
People who eat beef consume more than just these antibiotics. In the United States, growth hormones have been given to beef cattle since the 1950s. According to a Congressional Research Service report, approximately two-thirds of all US cattle—and about 90 percent of feedlot cattle—receive growth hormones. In large commercial feedlots, they are given to close to 100 percent of the animals. The report adds: “Cattle producers use hormones because they allow animals to grow larger and more quickly on less feed and fewer other inputs, thus reducing production costs, but also because they produce a leaner carcass more in line with consumer preferences for diets with reduced fat and cholesterol.”37
Hormone pellets are implanted under the ear skin when cattle arrive at feedlots and again about halfway through the fattening period. In people who eat feedlot-fattened beef, hormone residues that remain in the beef may act as endocrine disruptors, interfering with the actions of natural hormones in the body. Some experts suggest that these compounds may affect fertility, the age of the onset of puberty, and the risk of certain cancers in humans eating the meat. Hormones also wind up in feedlot waste, eventually making it into waterways. To avoid these problems, the European Union banned hormone-treated beef in 1989, which initiated a long-standing trade dispute with the United States.37,38
The final journey for cattle is to the slaughterhouse, where they file one by one up a ramp to be stunned, hoisted into the air, have their throats slit, and be sent down the disassembly line.
Slaughterhouses pose hazards for humans, as well. Many large slaughterhouse operations process more than three hundred head of cattle per hour.39 Over the years, line speeds have escalated and accidents have multiplied. Because meatpacking plants receive fines for high injury rates, plant managers and owners have an incentive to falsify safety records. Some have been caught keeping records that misrepresent the actual occurrence of injury and illness by as much as 1,000 percent.40 In addition, most plants are nonunionized, the pay is low, and workers are largely immigrants. Not surprisingly, slaughterhouses are among the most dangerous workplaces in North America.
Many people become vegetarians to express their compassion for animals. Yet, some believe that drinking milk and eating eggs are reasonable choices because the animals don’t have to die for us to take their milk or eggs. While this is true, in practice they’re virtually always slaughtered once they become unproductive. Current intensive methods of milk and egg production occasion no less suffering and death than meat production (and in the case of egg production, probably more).
In the 1950s, most farm families had at least two dairy cows to ensure year-round dairy products for the family. Typical dairy farms had about a dozen cows, and the very largest farms boasted 50 to 100 cows. Today, standard dairy farms exceed 100 cows, with many large facilities housing 700 to 1,000 animals and the largest facilities accommodating 40,000 animals.41
Along with the increase in farm size came an increase in milk production. In the early 1900s, the average cow produced about 3,000 pounds of milk in a year. By 1950, milk production had almost doubled to more than 5,000 pounds annually, and today, each animal produces more than 17,000 pounds of milk per year. This is a biological miracle of sorts—a sixfold increase in milk production in about 100 years. Unfortunately, this “miracle” has been achieved at a high cost for cows and their offspring.
Dairy cows begin their cycle of milk production by being impregnated (generally by artificial insemination) at about 13 to 16 months of age. They give birth to a calf after a nine-month gestation period and continue to be impregnated once a year to ensure steady production of milk. In most cases, calves are separated from their mothers within a day of birth. While the separation is extremely traumatic for both mother and calf, it seems that allowing more time together serves only to strengthen their bond and heighten the stress of the eventual separation.
Female offspring are raised to replace the spent cows. Male calves are of no value to the dairy industry, except for a few that are used for breeding. These fortunate breeder calves are funneled into the beef industry; the rest are used to produce veal. In the United States, this generally means “special-fed veal” (also called white veal or milk-fed veal). The calves’ flesh color is very light because they’re exclusively fed an iron-deficient milk replacement; their flesh is very tender because most veal calves are tethered at the neck in small stalls so they can’t turn around and develop their muscles. These animals are slaughtered at the age of 16 to 18 weeks. About 15 percent of US veal is called “bob veal” and comes from newborn calves ranging from 2 to 3 days to 2 to 3 weeks of age.42,43
Every aspect of dairy farming—whether breeding, feeding, impregnating, medicating, or milking—is designed to maximize production and profit. More than 80 percent of US dairy cows are confined in indoor systems, although some have access to outdoor strawyards. Less than 10 percent of US dairy cows are raised on pasture. Some cows are reared in stalls where they’re tethered at the neck, while others are in freestalls and are able to roam within the barn.
These methods of rearing trigger two conditions: lameness and mastitis. Lameness, the leading cause of cow deaths, occurs in an estimated 14 to 25 percent of cows and is caused primarily by hoof lesions associated with concrete flooring and insufficient physical activity. Mastitis, or painful swelling of the mammary glands, is triggered by the demands of extremely high milk production and bacterial infections due to poor sanitation. It’s the most common medical condition reported in US dairy cows and the second leading cause of death.
One factor strongly associated with both lameness and mastitis is the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST or bovine growth hormone). Bovine growth hormone, a genetically engineered hormone designed to increase milk yields, is injected into cows at many of the larger US dairies. Although the tremendous increase in milk production over the years is mostly due to successful breeding for this trait, the use of rBST further increases milk yields by 10 to 15 percent, giving milk producers an incentive for its use despite the consequences for the cows.
Most Holstein cows in the United States average about 729 days of milk production (enduring two to three pregnancies to achieve this) before their production wanes and they’re no longer of use to the industry. Nearly all dairy cows go to slaughter at 4 years of age. In contrast, their natural lifespan would be more than 20 years.42,43
As a food, fish is widely viewed as the best of protein sources and the only significant source of important long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. As a result, fish and fishing have been put on a pedestal of sorts. For example, national and international health authorities recommend that people consume at least two servings of fish per week to reduce their risk of heart disease. In addition, people in developing countries are being advised to multiply their fish intake by two to three times.
Globally, an estimated one trillion fish are caught each year, excluding illegal catches and bycatch.44 Where do all these fish come from? The commercial fishing industry is divided into two sectors—capture fisheries (commercial fishing fleets that target wild fish and seafood) and aquaculture (“farms” that raise fish and aquatic animals in confined areas). Today, the total weight of fish and other aquatic animals consumed by humans is provided relatively equally by these two sectors.45
But concerns about exploitation of these creatures are growing by the year. Despite the expansion of aquaculture, more than 90 percent of the global predatory fish population has been wiped out.46 Of all the remaining monitored fish stocks in the wild, more than half are now fully exploited, meaning that the stock cannot sustain further expansion of fishing. Another quarter is overexploited, depleted, or slowly recovering.45
Overfishing is rapidly devastating marine ecosystems. Each decade since the 1950s, the number of collapsed fish stocks has increased exponentially. Experts predict that if current trends in fishing continue, by 2048 there will be a total global collapse of all stocks currently fished.47 Yet, despite this looming ecological crisis, consumers are urged to eat more fish, encouraging the industry to continue its destructive practices.
Capture fisheries employ a wide range of catching techniques. Potassium cyanide and other poisons are routinely applied to coral reefs to paralyze or stun reef fish for aquariums or to capture exotic species for live-fish restaurants, killing the reefs in the process. Other methods include the highly malicious, such as dynamiting coral reefs, and the excessively—and cruelly—efficient, such as bottom-trawling, long-lining, gill-netting, and purse-seining.
Bottom-trawling is one of the most ecologically devastating activities in which humans engage. The ocean depths are among the most pristine ecosystems that remain on planet earth and are the home of many yet-unnamed species that may well become extinct before they’ve even been discovered. Because it involves dragging huge nets—equipped with metal plates at each end and metal wheels along the bottom edges—along the ocean floor, bottom-trawling has been deemed the underwater equivalent of clear-cutting forests. The comparison may be overly generous to bottom-trawlers, because they’re more like giant underwater bulldozers that demolish bottom-dwelling communities. In 2006, the United Nations (UN) Secretary General reported that 95 percent of damage to seamount ecosystems is the result of deep-sea bottom-trawling.48
Bottom-trawling is also wasteful. Among the worst offenders are shrimp trawlers, which unintentionally kill up to 20 pounds of nontarget marine life for every pound of shrimp plucked from the trawling net.49 The creatures trapped inside these nets are dragged upward, along with rocks, coral, and other fragments of ocean habitat. On ascent, they experience rapid decompression, causing vital organs to rupture. This bycatch, which includes sea turtles, dolphins, sharks, and numerous other aquatic species, is commonly tossed overboard.
Although less destructive to the ocean floor than bottom-trawling, the long-line industry is notorious for the collateral mortality of millions of marine animals, including birds, dolphins, sharks, and turtles. Fish and other animals captured by long lines can be dragged behind a boat for hours or even days. Long-lining uses one or more main lines from which dangle short branch lines with hooks at the ends. Lines can be as long as 75 miles and hold hundreds or thousands of baited hooks. They’re set at varying depths in the water, depending on the target species, but this tactic doesn’t prevent other animals from being hooked.
In contrast, gill-netting uses huge floating nets to snare target fish. The nets, measuring from hundreds of feet to more than a mile wide, have weighted foot ropes at the bottom and buoyant floats at the top. By adjusting the balance of weights to floats, fishers can set the nets to any desired depth. The nets’ mesh is sized precisely to snare the target species. Targeted fish attempt to swim through the openings, but their gills become trapped and they can’t escape. Nontarget species are small enough to swim through or large enough that their gills aren’t caught. Still, gill nets are often left unmonitored for long periods, so trapped fish can slowly suffocate.
Purse-seining also employs a large net. It’s called a “purse” seine because the rope that passes through a series of rings that run along the bottom of the net can be pulled to completely close the net, like a giant drawstring bag. The catch is then hauled to the surface. Purse-seining is the preferred method for capturing fish that congregate in schools near the water’s surface. However, a primary concern is that dolphins are commonly trapped in purse seines and can drown. In addition, fish are often still alive when they’re pulled on deck and are conscious when their gills are slit and they’re gutted.
Less environmentally destructive systems, such as hand lines and traps, are also commonly used in the capture industry but often are no less cruel. Sharks, for example, are individually caught using hooks, but they’re not humanely killed. Because shark fins—a delicacy in Asian cuisine—fetch a premium price, only their fins are cut off. The still-living animals are then returned to the ocean where they slowly suffocate, unable to use their fins to swim or gills to breathe (for sharks to breathe, water must be moving over their gills).
Do Fish Suffer?
Until recently, the sentience of fish wasn’t given much consideration by animal scientists. Few believed that fish had much capacity to think, and even fewer believed that they had the capacity to feel. Since the 1990s, however, a steady stream of studies has forced us to rethink these beliefs.
Using multiple approaches to investigate behavior and stress responses, scientists confirm that fish demonstrate myriad complex behaviors and skills. Fish form relationships, recognize other individuals, pass on knowledge and skills, have long-term memories, solve problems, collaborate in hunting, use tools, strategize, feel fear and distress, and avoid situations that past experience suggests are risky. Fish also have the neurotransmitters and pain receptors necessary to feel pain, and they demonstrate physiological and behavioral responses to painful stimuli. While the issue is still one that is hotly debated among scientists, most experts contend that fish do feel pain, but because it’s expressed differently, comparing the extent of their suffering to that of mammals is difficult.50–53
The killing of wild fish and other sea life has become so efficient that it now exceeds these populations’ ability to replenish themselves at replacement rates. The imminent global collapse of wild fish stocks has been driving a massive shift from capture fisheries to culture fisheries, otherwise known as aquaculture or aquafarming. Aquaculture is the fastest-growing animal-based food sector in the world. In 1980, aquaculture provided an estimated 9 percent of global fish stocks (by weight); by 2008, the figure was about 46 percent.54,55
Culture fisheries raise fish and other aquatic animals in controlled facilities known as fish farms. Some are land based and raise fish in ponds, pools, tanks, or raceways; others are near ocean shorelines, where fish are held in nets, pens, or cages. All are intensive operations, similar to CAFOs for land animals.
The goal of fish farming is no different than that of intensive chicken, pig, or cattle farming—to generate the greatest amount of meat for the least amount of money. As a result, fish farms maintain a density of animals never seen in the wild. Growth accelerators are used to speed weight gain, and antibiotics are used to contain the spread of disease. The consequences of these intensive operations are widespread and severe:
• Fish welfare. Poor conditions in aquaculture operations (e.g., crowding, inappropriate physical environment, polluted water, disease outbreaks) can cause stress, fear, discomfort, and pain in these animals.
• Environmental damage. Ecologically sensitive areas, such as mangroves, coastal estuaries, and salmon migration routes, can be seriously threatened by fish-farm outputs, including nitrogenous waste (mainly from fish feces), food pellets, and drug residues. Released into the ocean, this untreated waste affects water quality and other sea life and also fuels harmful algal blooms, a proliferation of toxin-producing algae that can cause massive die-offs of fish, shellfish, marine mammals, seabirds, and animals further up the food chain who consume them.
• Pressure on wild fish stocks. The strongest argument used to justify fish farming is the protection of wild fish. Paradoxically, by raising these carnivorous animals, fish farming endangers wild fish. It actually takes 2.5 to 5 pounds of wild fish used as feed to yield 1 pound of farmed carnivorous fish.56,57 In addition, cultured fish that escape fish farms can transfer serious diseases, sea lice, and other parasites to wild fish stocks. When nonnative or exotic species escape into nearby waters, they can devastate native fish populations. For example, when cultured Atlantic salmon reproduce in Pacific waters, they spread disease to native stocks and compete for limited resources, such as food and habitat.
• Genetic engineering. While not yet approved for sale, genetically altered salmon, prawns, and abalone are currently being cultured. For example, growth-hormone genes from Chinook salmon have been added to Atlantic salmon, allowing for year-round growth. These transgenic salmon reach market size in half the time it takes conventional salmon. There’s concern that these genetically modified animals could escape into the wild (as many fish farmed in open systems do), posing a significant threat to native species.58,59
Vegans are often challenged by people who consume products derived from “humanely treated” animals and who wonder what could possibly be wrong with eating them.
However, there’s an important distinction in ethical perspectives between vegans and conscientious meat consumers about what’s “humane.” Vegans are ethically opposed to any exploitation of animals. Vegans don’t view animals as humanity’s to use and reject the notion that if they’re treated “humanely” before being slaughtered, people are justified in killing and eating them.
Slavery provides a good analogy. Most people would agree that it’s preferable to treat slaves kindly than to subject them to all manner of cruelty. However, for those who oppose slavery as ethically and morally wrong, simply treating slaves well can’t justify the practice of slavery itself.
In addition, although the majority of people agree that animals raised for food should be treated humanely, only a small percentage seems to be willing to pay more for meat, milk, and eggs produced under such conditions. Consumers who profess to prefer humane products also can be easily swayed back to regular products if the humane products are unavailable or too costly, or when eating out.
Still, even consumers who commit to humane products, regardless of price or convenience, can be misled. While some obtain humanely raised products directly from small local farmers, most shop at grocery stores. In stores, consumers must rely on food labels to determine whether or not products come from animals treated in an acceptable manner. Catchphrases that suggest these animals were treated well include “free-range,” “free-roaming,” “cage-free,” “pasture-raised,” “grass-fed,” “organic,” “humanely raised,” “certified humane,” and “animal-compassionate.”
However, most farms that purport to meet these standards aren’t independently inspected to verify that their practices meet consumer expectations. On many “humane” farms, animals are still generally bred by the thousands, kept in crowded conditions, and removed from their mothers shortly after birth. Chickens are still debeaked and male offspring still disposed of. Even in facilities that offer access to the outdoors, the access may only be a small opening to an outdoor enclosure that’s inaccessible to many of the animals crowded into the facility.
Of course, in the end, all animals raised for meat, milk, or eggs—regardless of how they’re treated—meet the same fate. While a few are slaughtered on small farms, most “humanely raised” animals are transported to and slaughtered in the same facilities that process animals raised on factory farms.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of “humane” meat is its cost. Higher price tags on meat could eventually tame the taste buds of meat eaters, ultimately reducing the number of animals slaughtered for food. Again, it’s certainly preferable that farm animals suffer less than more. But the fact that they may have suffered less than most other farm animals still doesn’t justify their exploitation in the first place.
We’ve just scratched the surface of the animal-rights argument; search the Internet for excellent websites and books on this topic. Also see Resources on pages 450 to 452.
There’s no question that intensive animal agriculture is among the most notorious polluters of air, water, and soil and the greatest contributor to deforestation, desertification, and species extinction. While a shift toward a vegan diet may well be the most powerful step an individual can take toward the preservation of this planet, it also may be an ecological imperative.
The human species is consuming the earth’s resources more rapidly than its reserves can be replenished, and food choices may be the greatest contributor to this depletion. By 2050, there will be an estimated 9.3 billion people on the planet, and if we continue on our current trajectory, we’ll have insufficient food to sustain this population. Leading authorities have examined the diets of different nations, and the results show that if every person ate the same foods as the average American, we’d need 3.74 Earths to sustain the world’s population in 2050.60 Even if every individual consumed a plant-rich diet similar to the diet of today’s average Malaysian, we’d still need 2.48 planets.61
The ecological crisis we face is a reflection of sheer numbers. The global population is growing by a staggering 250,000 people per day,62 or 166 per second. Our fragile planet is ill-equipped to handle an exponentially escalating population of human beings. Humanity’s annual demand on the earth’s natural resources has been exceeding the planet’s renewal capability since the 1970s. In 2008, experts estimated that it would take 1.5 years for the earth to regenerate the renewable resources that people used—and to absorb the CO2 waste they produced—in that year. This 50 percent deficit means that our current manner of living isn’t sustainable for future generations.61
People are slowly coming to realize that the laws of nature aren’t up for grabs. All life on this planet, regardless of its position in the web of existence, depends on these laws for survival. Within this web lies a complex food matrix. The lowest level of the food matrix sustains plants, which in turn sustain animals, all of which constantly recycle nutrients back into the soil. Humans have altered the food matrix to such an extent that other levels must adapt or perish.63 The problem is that eventually the toll of these alterations will become so great, the entire system will collapse. While some believe that we’re already beyond the point of no return, we must do what we can within the laws of Mother Nature.
In 2010, to determine the relative ecological impact of human activities, the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) examined all available scientific data on the topic. The panel concluded that two activities have a disproportionately large effect on the planet’s life-support systems: animal agriculture, especially the raising of livestock for meat and dairy products, and the use of fossil fuels.64 They suggested a global shift toward a vegan diet to protect the world from hunger, poverty, and the worst impacts of climate change.65
Global warming is accelerating at a rate that has exceeded most predictions. The consequences are most obvious in the Far North, where the ice is melting and polar bears are losing essential habitat. Although its effects are less obvious in other parts of the world, global warming has been linked to an increase in extreme weather conditions, such as tropical storms, floods, droughts, and heat waves.67–69
The culpability of intensive animal agriculture in contributing to global warming is no longer a matter of debate among environmentalists. In a groundbreaking United Nations FAO report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” livestock were found to be responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions—more than all forms of transportation combined.70 In 2008, people raised close to 68 billion land animals for consumption, according to the FAO.71 Experts estimate that this figure will double by 2050. Inherently tied to greenhouse-gas emissions—the fundamental cause of global warming—this number is important.72
According to the Kyoto Protocol, the main greenhouse gases are CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and three groups of fluorinated gases.73 Efforts to curb global warming, both nationally and internationally, have concentrated largely on reducing or capping CO2 emissions. Advocates have advised consumers to use alternative energy sources, select fuel-efficient appliances, and drive low-emission vehicles.
Resolving Human Hunger
Ethical arguments for a vegan diet often focus on issues related to animal rights. However, persuasive arguments can also be made regarding human rights. All people have the right to food, which means being free from hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition. Sadly, when land is used to grow crops to feed “livestock,” the very poorest people often go hungry.
The 1983–1985 Ethiopian famine provides a rather poignant example. During this period, while hundreds of thousands of people starved to death, Ethiopia continued to export grains to feed livestock in developed nations—to service the interest on its debt. Tragically, the vast majority of the world’s starving children live in nations that routinely export grains for animal feed.
In addition, many of these nations are actively trying to expand their own meat and dairy supplies in an effort to provide animal protein for their people. But, by reducing food available to starving people, this practice only widens the gap between rich and poor.
A global shift toward a vegan diet could provide a viable solution to human hunger. According to UNEP’s International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth and increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”64
Currently, 60 percent of the food supply is grown for human consumption. Switching to all-plant diets would increase the global calorie supply by an estimated 50 percent, which could effectively wipe out human hunger.66 Even if only one in ten people stopped eating animals, sufficient food would be available to sustain the one billion people who currently suffer from hunger.
But when compared to CO2, the global-warming effects of methane are 23 times greater and those of nitrous oxide are 296 times greater.70 Emissions related to methane and nitrous oxide are most strongly linked to the red meat and dairy industries. Surprisingly, few experts have thought to suggest eating veggie burgers instead of hamburgers to combat these emissions.
Those who do recognize intensive animal agriculture as a factor in global warming often blame cow flatulence for increasing methane levels, but livestock leave their mark in many other ways. People increase CO2 emissions when they run farm machinery, bring in feed, transport animals, or clear forests to make room for food animals. Fertilizers generate nitrous oxide, and manure releases more methane. The UN estimates that one-fifth of human-generated greenhouse-gas emissions—9 percent of the CO2, 37 percent of the methane, and 65 percent of the nitrous oxide—comes from livestock production.70
It may come as a surprise to learn that the majority of these household greenhouse-gas emissions are due to food production rather than food miles, as is commonly believed. When people think about going green with their diet, most often they focus on sourcing food locally. The idea is that the fewer miles food travels in transport trucks, the less fossil fuel is used, thus reducing the food’s carbon footprint. However, local animals are typically fattened on transported fodder, trucked to slaughter, processed, and shipped to retail outlets.
Still, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University discovered that food delivery accounts for only 4 percent of food-related greenhouse-gas emissions, and transportation, as a whole (including food delivery), for just 11 percent. Food wholesaling and retailing were found to account for another 5 percent. Ultimately, the researchers found that average consumers could reduce their carbon footprint more effectively by eating 100 percent vegan one day a week than by eating 100 percent local seven days a week.74
Meanwhile, at 83 percent, food production accounted for the vast majority of emissions within the food industry. Within this category, 44 percent was due to CO2 emissions, 23 percent to methane, 32 percent to nitrous oxide, and 1 percent to hydroflourocarbons and other industrial gases. Thus, the impact of food production on climate change is due mainly to the more-destructive, non-CO2 greenhouse gases.
The word is spreading. In September 2008, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggested that people should aim for one meat-free day a week, then continue to decrease the amount of meat they eat.75 Dr. Pachauri estimated that if everyone in the United Kingdom (about 50 million people) followed this advice, the reduction in CO2 emissions would be greater than it would be if five million cars were taken off the road. In the United States—assuming the entire 2013 population of 315 million ate a meat-free diet one day a week—the equivalent reduction in CO2 emissions would exceed that delivered by eliminating 31.5 million cars.76
In addition, if land use were reappraised and plant foods were raised for direct consumption, the global face of malnutrition could be transformed. Currently, approximately 80 percent of the world’s soybeans and more than 50 percent of the corn is fed to livestock.72 However, it takes about 15 pounds of feed to yield 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds for 1 pound of pork, and 5 pounds for 1 pound of chicken.77 The bottom line is that raising livestock consumes far more food than it yields.
The food supply—indeed, the entire ecosystem—depends on fresh water. The increase in freshwater demand parallels human population growth, but water availability is shrinking. For example, approximately 45 percent of fresh water in the United States has been deemed unfit for drinking or recreational use because of contamination by dangerous microorganisms, pesticides, and fertilizers.78 Water shortages now impact more than one billion people worldwide, and water pollution affects many more by boosting rates of infectious disease.
Besides threatening drinking water and human food supplies, water shortages and water pollution severely reduce biodiversity.79 In the Living Planet Report 2010, the state of the earth’s biodiversity was assessed and assigned a Living Planet Index (LPI). This index provides a solid measurement of the effect of humanity’s demands on the earth’s resources over time. The assessment of water systems tracked changes in 2,750 animal populations, including 714 species of fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals found in temperate and tropical freshwater ecosystems. The report indicates that the global freshwater LPI declined by 35 percent between 1970 and 2007, and the tropical freshwater LPI declined by almost 70 percent.61
What caused this drastic decline? Mostly, it’s animal agriculture, which is recognized as one of the leading threats to water systems. It’s estimated that agricultural production consumes 70 percent of global fresh water.79 According to David Pimental, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, it takes about 43 times more water to produce 1 pound of beef than to produce 1 pound of cereal grain when the water used to produce the animal feed is factored in—about 43,000 liters of water per kilogram of beef versus 1,000 liters of water per kilogram of cereal grains.79
In addition, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns that the agricultural industry is “the leading contributor to identified water quality impairments in the nation’s rivers and streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs.”80 Although human waste released into water systems must first be treated, no such requirements exist for animal waste. This can have devastating consequences.
In the United States, confined food animals produce approximately 500 million tons of raw waste every year, or about triple that of the human population.80 In fact, a farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces about the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.81 On factory farms, manure is stored in open-air pits or huge holding tanks, presenting a potential hazard. Manure from animals raised on CAFOs contains pathogenic organisms; pharmaceuticals, such as hormones and antibiotics; chemical contaminants, such as heavy metals and nitrates; and excessive nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen—all of which can threaten water quality. Concrete manure pits can crack, and if laid in sand or gravel, manure can leak out and work its way into groundwater; holding tanks can overflow and pollute nearby surface water.
If leaks are avoided, after a holding period of about six months, the manure is spread on farm fields as fertilizer.82 If it’s applied in an amount greater than the soil and crops can absorb and utilize, the excess can contaminate waterways and release toxic gases into the environment.83 It’s also estimated that crops absorb only one-third to one-half of the nitrogen in the manure applied.
Runoffs, polluted by the nitrogen and phosphorus in manure, can cause “dead zones” in water systems by nourishing algal blooms that deplete oxygen and choke out aquatic life.84 According to the US Department of Agriculture, poultry operations bear the brunt of the responsibility for the pollution in these runoffs, contributing 64 percent of excess nitrogen and 52 percent of excess phosphorus.85
In addition, pathogenic bacteria can end up in nearby rivers and streams that may, in turn, be used to irrigate vegetable crops. In fact, most outbreaks of vegetable-related food-borne illness can be traced back to animal farming operations, which can contaminate plant foods grown nearby.
According to the EPA, as much as 80 percent of the antibiotics routinely administered orally to livestock ends up in their manure—unchanged.82 This is a significant concern for human health. Routine subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals can lead to antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria—and the reduced effectiveness of antibiotics for people who become infected with these organisms.83,86
There are also serious concerns about the health consequences of administering hormones to livestock. In 2010, a panel of experts led by Samuel Epstein, MD, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, filed a US Food and Drug Administration petition seeking an immediate ban on the use of hormones in meat production. According to Dr. Epstein, their use is directly linked to increased rates of hormonal cancers, specifically breast, prostate, and testicular cancers.87 Unfortunately, both antibiotics and hormones (natural and synthetic) end up in surface water and groundwater when released in manure.81
Water isn’t the only resource affected negatively by animal agriculture. According to the FAO, “Livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.”70 Livestock production has a massive impact on both the quality and quantity of available soil, by damaging and depleting reserves.
Although soil is commonly thought of as little more than dirt, it’s actually a complex system dependent on living and organic materials, such as decaying plants, worms, bacteria, algae, and other microorganisms. Unfortunately, intensive farming and monocrop agriculture cause nutrient depletion and soil erosion, while overapplication of fertilizers and pesticides causes serious contamination. Soil forms only at a rate of about 1 centimeter every 150 to 500 years (or 1 inch every 381 to 1,270 years), so if it’s rapidly depleted, soil regeneration will not occur for many generations. Experts believe that the planet can sustain losses of 1 ton of soil per hectare per year. However, every year, approximately 90 percent of US cropland loses soil at a rate thirteen times higher; ranges and pastures lose soil at a rate six times higher.
Livestock production is a primary culprit in desertification, or the deterioration of useable semiarid land into nonproductive deserts. Overgrazing strips the land of plants that anchor topsoil, leading to irreversible soil loss, reduction in biodiversity, and the invasion of alien species.88 Overgrazing is also a factor in climate change; it drives up CO2 emissions by reducing the carbon sink provided by desert plants and increases methane generated by livestock. An estimated 60 percent of American pastureland is overgrazed.89
These are grim statistics. In a 2006 report to the US Senate, the Nutrition Security Institute estimated that if soil loss continues at present rates, the planet has only enough topsoil to last for 48 more years.90 In other words, if some dramatic changes to the current food production system aren’t made, by 2054, the earth’s farmable topsoil will be gone, as will the primary method of providing food to the 9 billion people expected to occupy this planet by then. If we don’t change the current trajectory, we’ll end up where we’re heading.
Soil depletion isn’t the only worry. Raising livestock is among the leading causes of deforestation globally, particularly in rain forests, such as those in the Amazon.61,70 The Amazon has been described as a valuable carbon sink because of the amount of carbon that its plants assimilate from atmospheric CO2 during the process of photosynthesis.91 However, when people burn forests to clear land for livestock, carbon stored in the trees and plants is immediately released as CO2. It’s estimated that deforestation contributes about 15 percent of annual global CO2 emissions.92,93
After centuries of habitation by humans with minimal impact, the Amazon rain forest has been mercilessly exploited; in just a few decades, approximately 17 percent has been cleared.94 Since 1970, an area about the size of Texas—almost 725,000 square kilometers—has been lost.95 An estimated 91 percent of these deforested areas is used for livestock production, with the resulting increase in methane, as well.70,96 Brazil’s thriving soybean industry, dedicated largely to animal feed, is also encroaching on rain forests.97 If people continue to destroy rain forests, the planet could eventually reach a tipping point where the entire ecosystem collapses.
Global deforestation also threatens the existence of millions of plant and animal species, causing the global loss of an estimated 50,000 species each year, or 137 plant species a day.93,98 The Amazon rain forest alone is a region of unparalleled biodiversity, housing more than 10 percent of all the species on earth, including numerous endemic and endangered species. Many of these species are likely not yet identified; in a single decade (1999 to 2009), more than 1,200 new plants and vertebrates were discovered in the Amazon alone—that’s one new species every three days.94 Many undiscovered species may be beneficial to humans, but if they’re extinguished before they’re discovered, we’ll never know what we lost. While the human race can recover within a few generations from economic hardships, natural disasters, and even wars, species extinction is permanent. As the rate of extinction accelerates, the safety net for our own species disintegrates.
Although we must be concerned about the future, livestock production creates health hazards for humans today. Factory farms stink—both figuratively and literally. While their horrific stench has long been viewed as an inconvenience in the eyes of the industry and the courts, evidence suggests that the impact is far more insidious. Researchers have established that odors from factory farms are associated with nausea, vomiting, headache, shallow breathing, coughing, sleep disorders, upset stomach, appetite depression, irritated eyes, nose and throat irritation, and mood disturbances (including agitation, annoyance, and depression) in both farm workers and residents of nearby communities.
Whether animal waste is stored or spread on fields, it undergoes decomposition, releasing noxious fumes. More-severe respiratory symptoms, including bronchitis, occupational asthma, mucous membrane irritation, organic dust toxic syndrome, and long-term lung damage, are frequently reported in farm workers.99 Nearly 70 percent of workers employed at swine CAFOs report at least one respiratory symptom, while 58 percent experience chronic bronchitis.82 Manure pits are especially problematic, posing confined-space hazards due to CO2 levels that lead to oxygen deficiency, and toxic gases, including methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. For their own safety, farm workers are advised to never enter a manure pit without wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus.100
Each passing day brings us a little closer to the realization of a Native North American saying: “When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.”
A typical fast-food burger costs about $2. Because of the deleterious effects of current livestock production, experts suggest that the real cost is closer to $200.101 If we want to stand a fighting chance, we must stop subsidizing the livestock industry and deflating the price of animal products. If we subsidize anything, it should be vegetables.
Until the early to mid-1980s, the word vegan conjured up images of hippies wasting away on diets of roots and shoots. The only place “vegan” ever appeared on a product label was in a health food store. If you happened to mention your vegan diet to a doctor or dietitian, they would try to “educate” you about the risks of eliminating two of what were considered to be essential food groups: meat and dairy. University textbooks warned soon-to-be doctors and dietitians that vegan diets were downright dangerous.
Fortunately, the tables have turned. In 2010, Businessweek featured an article called “Power Vegan.” The first paragraph obliterated the old vegan stereotype:102
“It used to be easy for moguls to flaunt their power. All they had to do was renovate the chalet in St. Moritz, buy the latest Gulfstream jet, lay off 5,000 employees, or marry a much younger Asian woman. By now, though, they’ve used up all the easy ways to distinguish themselves from the rest of us—which may be why a growing number of America’s most powerful bosses have become vegan. Steve Wynn, Mort Zuckerman, Russell Simmons, and Bill Clinton are now using tempeh to assert their superiority. As are Ford Executive Chairman of the Board Bill Ford, Twitter cofounder Biz Stone, venture capitalist Joi Ito, Whole Foods Market Chief Executive Officer John Mackey, and Mike Tyson. Yes, Mike Tyson, a man who once chewed on a human ear, is now vegan.”
There’s no denying it—the vegan lifestyle is now on mainstream America’s radar. By winning international titles, vegan bodybuilders have blown away the image of “skinny weakling” vegans. Elite endurance athletes are gaining a competitive edge by fueling their bodies with plants. (For more on vegan athletes, see chapter 13.) Executive chefs are dazzling judges with extraordinarily colorful and creative vegan masterpieces. Models, musicians, and movie stars are strutting their vegan stuff. Peer-reviewed articles that examine the therapeutic value of vegan diets are making headlines. Even doctors and dietitians are now endorsing plant-based diets as ideal for the prevention and treatment of lifestyle-induced chronic diseases.
As a result, increasing numbers of average Americans are exploring meat-free diets. For example, 56 percent of the more than 1,800 chefs polled in a National Restaurant Association survey cited vegan entrées as a hot trend.103 USA Today listed becoming flexitarian (a person who occasionally includes meat or fish in a predominantly vegetarian diet) as one of the top ten consumer food trends. In fact, close to half the American population is trying to reduce overall meat consumption.104
Poll numbers back this up. In 2012, the Vegetarian Resource Group commissioned Harris Interactive to survey Americans who followed vegetarian or vegan diets, or who regularly ate vegetarian meals. The poll showed an estimated 4 percent of Americans follow a vegetarian diet (never consume meat, poultry, or fish), and 1 percent (two million Americans) follow a vegan diet (never consume meat, poultry, fish, dairy, or eggs). In addition, about 15 percent of Americans avoid meat, poultry, and fish at many of their meals (but less than half the time), and 14 percent avoid these foods at more than half their meals. This would suggest that about a third of Americans choose vegetarian meals on a regular basis.105
Although three decades ago many consumers associated the word vegan with risky fad diets, today it’s linked with conscious personal, ethical, and ecological choices. A burgeoning movement is demanding food produced responsibly and sustainably. Consumers are drawn to eating styles that provide a solution to the crushing escalation in obesity, diet-induced diseases, and health care costs.
Not surprisingly, the market is responding. Vegan restaurants are popping up everywhere, and products featured in mainstream grocery stores are using the word vegan on labels as a marketing tool. Vegan lifestyles are topics of conversation on wildly popular talk shows. Vegan books, shoes, cosmetics, and specialty products are exploding into the marketplace. The shift in the perception of the masses is palpable—and the future hopeful.
Yes, challenges remain. They boil down to a rather cynical version of the Golden Rule: “Them that got the gold make the rules.” Businesses that earn hefty profits from animal exploitation wield a great deal of power. These industries have tremendous influence on government policy and are key recipients of agricultural subsidies. Consumers also are constantly bombarded with commercial advertising that makes leather, suede, silk, steak, and lobster seem attractive, sexy, sophisticated, and highly desirable.
Fortunately, we have a choice. We can allow ourselves to fall into a hypnotic consumer trance, or we can honor our inner moral compasses and withhold the gold. Better still, we might consider embracing the original Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” In this older, wiser form, the Golden Rule serves as a core principle for every major world religion and as a foundation for humanity.
Humankind is beginning to entertain the idea of expanding its definition of “others” to include our nonhuman brethren. The first steps have been taken. Scientists are now submitting declarations to protect the rights of animals that exhibit the traits of a “person,” such as self-awareness, creativity, communication, and intentionality. Perhaps the day will come when simply being a sentient being—able to think, feel, and suffer—is enough.