By now most of us have read articles suggesting we “eat less red meat and save the planet”.
Some may also have heard statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that people should have “one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change”.
As with most issues associated with climate change, concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are muddied by many strong opinions and few facts. Meanwhile, the average person is just trying to work out the truth and determine what they can realistically do to make a meaningful contribution.
How much does livestock contribute?
In sorting the myths from the truth, it’s worth considering what the livestock sector in Australia contributes to climate change and comparing this with other sectors.
According to the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the livestock industries contribute around 11% of national greenhouse gas emissions, mainly as methane and, to a lesser extent, nitrous oxide.
Total livestock emissions have declined by 2.4% since 1990. In comparison, transport emissions in Australia have risen by 34.6% over the same period, and are now around 15% of national emissions.
It is also important to bear in mind what exactly is included in livestock emissions. Some controversy was created by the book Livestock’s Long Shadow, where land clearing and transport emissions were allocated to livestock’s greenhouse gas footprint.
In Australia net emissions from land clearing, nominally associated with agriculture, were estimated to be around 7% of national emissions in 2009, a decline of 68.6% since 1990.
This “forced” reduction by the livestock sector, made through bans on land clearing, is the only reason Australia was finally able to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
As emissions from stationary energy (coal fired power stations) and transport have increased by more than 30% since 1990, the land-based sector (mainly through livestock farmers) has been critical to Australia meeting its Kyoto commitment of limiting emissions to 108% of 1990 levels.
What’s the alternative?
In this debate, it is important to compare apples with apples. Thus in order to make an equitable comparison, when attributing land clearing to livestock, we also need to weigh up the alternatives.
For the energy and transport sectors, alternatives are emerging. We are now able to make choices to reduce our footprint, through:
- buying green power
- buying lower emissions cars
- taking public transport or cycling to work.
In comparison, there are no alternatives to food. But some foods clearly “produce” more emissions than others, with grain crops producing less than 1% of the emissions of red meat per kilogram of product.
In terms of both energy and emissions, it is more efficient to grow crops to feed humans directly than to feed crops to livestock that will in turn be consumed by humans.
We can’t live on grass alone
Of course, humans cannot live on grass and ruminant livestock remain the most efficient means of converting grasslands into food for human consumption. It must also be remembered that most of the land devoted to livestock is not viable for crop production.
Continual cropping, especially in monoculture, can also lead to reductions in soil carbon, with rotations into perennial pasture one of the only ways to restore soil carbon in the longer term.
Likewise, many cropping systems have stubble and residues which can be utilised by incorporating livestock in a mixed farming system. This provides these systems with improvements in biodiversity, resource efficiency and resilience to climate challenges.
What will our dietary choices mean on a global scale?
Given the large amount of emissions produced by livestock, reducing personal red meat consumption will reduce an individual’s greenhouse gas footprint. This is an entirely valid and personal choice. However, we need to be realistic about how much difference these choices may make to global livestock emissions.
In reality, the proportion of the world’s population that has the privilege of choosing a vegetarian lifestyle is limited to a minority of the developed world – a demographic that is predicted to grow by less than 7% by 2050.
The majority of the world’s population (and consequent food demand) will be in the developing world, which is predicted to grow by 54% by 2050.
According to the United Nations, by 2050 Africa will be the largest population centre, while India and China will see the largest increases in population. In each of these regions, cultural factors come into play and bear consideration.
In Africa, cattle are a symbol of wealth (in essence, the banking system), while also being used for transport, energy and religious ceremonies. Allocation of livestock emissions to the human food chain alone is therefore clearly not correct and is unlikely to drive practice-change into the future.
In India, cattle are considered sacred and thus a reduction in livestock numbers is not likely to happen readily.
In China, red meat consumption is a luxury for the wealthy only, with most of the population consuming either a non-meat diet or white-meat products such as fish, poultry and pigs.
In South America, cultural norms dictate that red-meat consumption is high and this tradition is highly unlikely to change in the short-term.
Realistically, this then leaves a privileged few in the world who have the choice of reducing their red-meat consumption. Coincidently, people in this minority are having fewer children, meaning that the “privileged few” will become an even smaller percentage of global population.
As a result, changes to meat consumption here will have little bearing on global emissions.
An opportunity for Australia to lead the way
Like everything else in the greenhouse gas emissions debate, the answers rest in adequately funded research. In this case, research will deliver solutions to reducing methane emissions from livestock.
This will enable greater efficiency in food production and allow us to export this technology to developing countries so they, in turn, can reduce their greenhouse gas footprint.
Australia has a moral responsibility to contribute these mitigation technologies to the developing world, to assist them in feeding themselves more efficiently while, at the same time, keeping emissions at an acceptable level.
The task is onerous – we need to feed a growing world population, with fewer emissions than before, and without clearing any more land to do so. One answer is cropping; another is livestock production in areas of the world that are not suitable for cropping.
Fortunately, technologies are emerging that can significantly reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock production.
Either way, it’s clear that livestock products will continue to make their contribution to a growing world food production target into the future.
The Conversation
Comments (61)
Comments on this article are now closed.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
I'm getting a bit concerned that The Conversation seems to be more about pushing barrows than quality work and critical thinking... This article seems to walk a strange line of being very upfront that meat products are responsible for for higher levels of emissions than non-meat products, that they are responsible for high levels of emissions overall both in Australia and globally (11% is a big contribution, there is no way of fudging that and the author does not try), but then comes up with a range…
show full comment
Susan Lawler
(Head of Department, Department of Environmental Management & Ecology at La Trobe University)
I would have thought that Australia's opportunity to lead the way would be more significant than exporting "mitigation technologies" to the developed world. As a developed nation with abundant food, we are in a priveleged minority: we can make better choices about what we eat and how we use our land.
If we want to spend money on research that makes our society more sustainable, I do not think that reducing the impact of cattle flatus is the best place to start.
Our opportunity to lead the way would be to reduce our reliance on red meat, lower our rates of strokes and heart attacks, and set an example for the hungry people in developing nations by eating meat ethically and sustainably.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Beautifully put Susan.
Brett Twentythree
Typer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
Richard Eckard seems to have borrowed Tony Abbott's mantra for his conclusion: let's do nothing because whatever we do won't make a difference anyway, so why bother?
Is it just me, or does this read like a propaganda piece for the meat and livestock industry?
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Not just you.
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Yes indeed Brett Twentythree. All over the planet there are "little" groups of people saying "my bit won't make any difference".
But RE is correct we need facts and not vague generalisations like "... most of the land devoted to livestock is not viable to crop production". ... can you quantify this?
"Solutions for a cultivated planet" Foley et al in Nature calculate that 35% of crops are fed to livestock ... so ALL of that land is devoted to livestock and clearly
suitable for cropping. In Australia…
show full comment
Tim Scanlon
(logged in via Facebook)
You need to read the original red meat cancer study. It is a correlation study that reads mroe like "if you are sedentry, overweight, eat too much, drink too much, are more likely to smoke, eat meat and not a lot of vegetables you are more likley to get cancer." Not exactly an amazing condemnation of red meat.
Red meat produces some cancer causing agents in the body, but a large proportion of our food does that as well. It is more about the balance of the diet. Diets that are meat heavy are generally associated with a lack of balance. Compare a healthy meat eater with a healthy vegetarian and generally there are few differences, aside from a greater likelyhood for nutrient and amino acid deficiencies in the vegetarian. Both are perfectly healthy (I won't comment on vegans as their diet needs fortifying e.g. B12).
Carol Chenco
Research Officer (logged in via email @latrobe.edu.au)
The meat industry has taken a bit of a battering lately - following the debacle over live cattle export. I suspect a few people have cut down on their meat consumption considerably, me included. I guess it's not surprising that the sector is getting a bit jittery and trying to restore confidence again. Apart from anything else factory farming causes large scale suffering for animals and reducing our reliance on eating animals even if it doesn't significantly reduce emissions, will reduce the suffering inflicted on farm animals. According to the documentary 'Meat the Truth' by the first member of Parliament for the Party for the Animals in Holland, global emissions from meat production account for more than the transport sector - not something to trivialise.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
There is some chance that that has been an overestimate, but the reality is certainly not trivial.
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I know this is a blog and not a journal but basic fact checking would still be a good idea:
RE: "In South America, cultural norms dictate that red-meat consumption is high and this tradition is highly unlikely to change in the short-term."
According to the FAO database, South Americans average 31.2 kg per year of ruminant meat (pig meat is red meat). Australians eat 58 kg. Does that make South American intake "high"? Hardly.
But average intake isn't important anyway ... why?
Think about it…
show full comment
Bianca Sfiligoj
Ecology PhD student (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
One aspect I noticed that was left out of this article was a discussion on the percentage of land we could regain for growing crops for human consumption if we weren't growing crops for livestock feed. I agree that livestock occupy a percentage of land that is unsuitable for crop agriculture, however, reclaiming the land used for growing their feed as well as returning this "unsuitable" land to nature would further reduce the impact of livestock farming on greehouse gas emissions.
Susan Lawler
(Head of Department, Department of Environmental Management & Ecology at La Trobe University)
Boverty. That is bloody beautiful. An excellent term for the impact of a bovine food industry in many parts of the world.
What would be the opposite? The wise use of whole plant foods in a way that leaves root systems intact, protects the soil, sequesters carbon, improves animal welfare, reduces human obesity and lowers our collective cholesterol. The combination would produce more wealth and better health for the whole planet.
Let's put our research dollars into that.
Bianca Sfiligoj
Ecology PhD student (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Here here!
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Indonesia did not manage to breed 237 million humans on a red meat diet therefore the claim that humans must source their iron from red meat appears to be a load of old cobblers. The iron in seafood, poultry, legumes, vegetables or grains will do nicely, thank you very much Sam Neill.
While there are no black-plague carts being hauled through the streets piled high with dead bodies, threats from old and new pathogens continue to emerge, fuelled by changes in the environment and/or intensive…
show full comment
Jane Daly
(Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures at University of Technology, Sydney)
Yes the average person is trying to work out the truth and determine what they can do to make a difference, and diet is one way to do this. Aside from the health benefits of plant based diets, of which there are many, for someone heavily reliant on a car say for their work, or living in an area unserviced by reliable public transport, unable to afford green power or solar PV, it could be a relief that a considerable reduction in their personal carbon footprint could be made by adopting a more plant…
show full comment
Adele Wessell
(Senior Lecturer at Southern Cross University)
The figures for the consumption of meat by people in developed countries needs to be considered here. To suggest that reducing our meat consumption would make minimal difference is misleading since meat consumption in the countries identified is significantly lower. Yes cows are sacred in India, but they don't eat them, they use their labour and their manure. And it would also be interesting to look at the transport costs of the livestock industry. I am sure the dairy industry and MLA would be able to provide the figures.
Tim Scanlon
(logged in via Facebook)
Thanks for this article.
I have been rather annoyed at the presumptive stance vegans and vegetarian campaigns have waged against meat in the name of saving the planet. I'm glad someone has pointed out that the meat emmissions are not what they seem and that they are minor at best.
If you examine the figures closely we have much better chances of energy efficiency (could be done now, within a year), energy system change-over and transportation changes. These are far bigger contributors and much…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Did you read the comments Tim? I think not. RE made an assertion but forgot about forgone sequestration and conveniently shifted deforestation emissions away from their cause ... it was cattle farmers who knocked down the Brigalow.
and ... how do you propose to restructure the energy system in a year?
For 9 billion people we have a sustainable per capita emission level of about 1 tonne CO2eq per person per annum ("Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050", PNAS). Can you find an energy system that can deliver a reasonable level of energy for what's left after the methane from your red meat is factored in? It certainly can't be done on Aussie levels of red meat. But if you are vegan, then almost all of that tonne is available for your energy production ... certainly nuclear can deliver, but I don't know of anything else. Certainly Germany has demonstrated Solar PV is a non-starter.
Tim Scanlon
(logged in via Facebook)
Geoff I think you are wrong, mainly due to a lack of grass roots knowledge.
Current emmissions levels could be dramatically reduced. Australian energy infrustructure is woefully out of date. Here in WA we are running power stations that are two generations old and inefficient. The grids we run on are inefficient. Just upgrading, according to my engineering friends, would reduce power use by 15-30% (dependent upon area and the like). This change could be done in a year. As could a revamp of our transportation…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Tim, one of the advantages I have in not being a bona-fide academic expert in anything is that I check facts before putting pen to paper. Academics who are world class experts in one thing tend to think this gives them infallibility in everything. Oh well.
Lets look at that caloric density stuff. Did you check? Did you run any numbers at all?
Here's a few from the FAO Food Balance Sheets 2007 and the ABARE Feedgrains report 2007 ... this is the latest FBS available.
Australians eat 1.8 million…
show full comment
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Tim, it's veering off topic but with respect,your confidence in the speed and depth of decarbonisation that can be achieved through upgrades, wind, and most particularly solar and geothermal is substantially out of step with reality, and you need to be more critical. The BZE report to which you refer is deeply, deeply flawed.
Perhaps more on topic though, any suggestion that we have the luxury of doing one (energy) or the other (land use/ agriculture), is patently false. That is not a decision anyone should propose, we need to do the lot.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Tim I find that comment as unbalanced as those you are criticising. The emissions may well have been over attributed, for example I do not think they are larger than transport based on my reading, but they are large, very large, in both the Australian and global setting. Certainly the research your friends are undertaking, which I support, would be rather pointless otherwise. FYI I have eaten predominantly vegan for all of the last two months of my 33 years and I don't knock back meat when I am a…
show full comment
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Doug's irritating persistence in remaining off topic reminds me of the duck who asked the barman if he had any bread to which the barman replied: "No we don't sell bread here." The duck persisted time and again with the same question until the barman said: "If you ask me that question again, I'll nail your beak to the bar." The duck then asked: "Have you got any nails?"
Oops now I'm off topic. Back in a tick.
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Speaking of the transport sector, how could one trivialise the transportation of livestock in Australia where cattle, sheep and goat trucks rumble between stations and farms, saleyards, feedlots, abattoirs and live export ports across the country, 365 days a year.
The million critters trucked from west to east last year had 40 and 50 B-trains doing continual round-the-clock trips across the Nullarbor for months with single round-trip journeys exceeding 6,000 kilometres.
Then there’s the…
show full comment
Rebecca Gowen
(logged in via LinkedIn)
Finally we are having some decent debate on this issue. I think what RE has said is right, clearly the livestock industry has some issues which they are working on but it is not the monster that some have made it out to be. Couple of points though...
Geoff - can you explain to me what you mean by 'foregone sequestration'? If the Brigalow had not been cleared (landholders had to clear initially as it was requirement of purchasing a block) it would have died, regrown etc with no real change in net…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Rebecca, for the sake of brevity, I'll not include all references, but let me know if you want a source for anything I say.
Okay, Australia has cleared about 100 million hectares since white arrival. We crop 25, we live on 2 we use 2 for plantations. In round numbers, we have cleared 70 million to run sheep and cattle ... which currently run on about 400 million hectares but many of those hectares produce bugger all and we really only run cattle on them to show our utter disrespect for wildlife…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Geoff,
It is certainly useful, in fact necessary to acknowledge the figures you have quoted in order to provide for discussion on this topic of clearring. I think one must of course add to that the type of country which has been cleared as well as what growth has been used to replace the earlier trees or shrubs. In the case of the inland areas, very little of which required clearing either for grazing or farming,the native trees which grow there have a lifetime usually from about 10 to forty…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Geoff,
It is certainly useful, in fact necessary to acknowledge the figures you have quoted in order to provide for discussion on this topic of clearring. I think one must of course add to that the type of country which has been cleared as well as what growth has been used to replace the earlier trees or shrubs. In the case of the inland areas, very little of which required clearing either for grazing or farming,the native trees which grow there have a lifetime usually from about 10 to forty…
show full comment
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Rebecca - Researchers from the Centre for Water and Waste Technology, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, U of New South Wales found commercial feedlots for beef cattle finishing are potential sources of a range of trace chemicals which have human health or environmental significance.
Important classes of trace chemicals identified in manure and animal wastes at feedlots included “steroidal hormones, antibiotics, ectoparasiticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals and dioxins.”
Researchers…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Shirley, can you provide a link for this study or studies? Any teaspoon of soil has hundreds or thousands of bacteria and viruses, some of which may be nasty. What matters is the quantities. Just finding stuff in "unnatural" stuff in soil doesn't make it dangerous.
On the other hand, all red meat, no matter how free of added chemicals, causes cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund's 2007 report was clear about this. It isn't just a correlation, it is causation as defined precisely in the report.
http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/
I think the days of feedlots routinely adding ad-hoc drug cocktails to feed are long gone but I'd certainly welcome being proven wrong :).
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Geoff – The Elsevier website is down at the moment but you can view the document you requested on the following link:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/chemical-contaminants-feedlot-wastes-concentrations-effects-attenuation/
“Just finding stuff in "unnatural" stuff in soil doesn't make it dangerous.”
I beg to differ Geoff. Heavy metals are forever and are a long-term health hazard. The lead poisoning of Esperance, soil contamination and the slaughter of 9,500 native birds by Magellan Metals…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Risks from chemicals of all kinds is too complex for quick blog comments. But there are many things which look dangerous but for which there is no body count. This is a problem for all kinds of risk analysis. e.g., is GM canola dangerous? No one has detected a signal in disease rates anywhere despite a quite reasonable narrative about why it could be dangerous.
But I'll follow the link and do more reading. Thanks.
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
“But there are many things which look dangerous but for which there is no body count.”
Oh yes there is Geoff at least in the hazards to which I alluded. And there's plenty of literature on the health hazards of exposure to metals and dioxins to support that assertion including the carcinogenic impacts, blindness, neurological disorders, genetic mutations, mental retardation, cleft palates, missing hands and limbs (or too many) kidney disease, grotesquely deformed foetuses, etc. etc.
Manufacturers of Agent Orange, Monsanto, Dow et al should, may, probably won't advise you on the shocking legacy of their product Agent Orange, "tainted" with dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD or their other transboundary, organo-chlorinated pesticides that have contaminated the planet in perpetuity.
Myall Tarran
(logged in via Facebook)
I would like to point the author towards a paper produced by the Food And Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in 2006, "Livestocks Long Shadow" - Wether or not the effects on climate change are all that serious, which I think most reasonable scientists agree they are, there are a plethora of other environmental issues in regard to unsustainable animal agriculture.
I agree with Geoff above. I have been in love with The Conversation since I stumbled across it, and usually thoroughly enjoy it's content. This article is very poorly researched, and obviously biased. If I could post a counter-article, I would. However, I'm nought but a humble science student.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM <-- Livestocks Long Shadow, worth a read.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
I have to say, this has been disappointing overall. As a climate change professional, I am keenly interested to know whether the attributions of impacts to livestock and related industries is accurate or over blown. I am interested to understand the potentially positive role of livestock in a more balanced food system. there was an interesting article by Monbiot not long ago that highlighted the positive role of pigs in mopping up any surplus and making protein (in a very different pig growing system…
show full comment
Sue Morrison
Environmental management student, UNE (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
I applaud Richard's attempts to get some "facts" into the debate about food production and greenhouse gases, but his article certainly reads like an ad for the meat industry. I'd suggest reading Julian Cribb's 'The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It' for a more objective assessment of the topic "Could your diet save the planet?"
After ranging over the topics of peak oil, water, nutrients & land as well as the urgency of dealing with climate change, Cribb concludes…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
When it comes to the environmental concerns as distinct from ethical concerns, then whether or not you advocate 100% vegetarian or just some level of reduced animal products depends on how you formulate the problem: 1) If you want to optimise the food available from a given area of land, then there will be some meat in the resulting solution diet. This is because there generally is some land you can't crop and some wildlife that is edible at sustainable levels. But I'm more interested in a different…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Generally, Professor Eckard presents a fairly balanced comment in describing the matter of concerns regarding the beef and lamb industries, but misses an important additional point relating to one side of agriculture.
If we were all to drive cars, which ran on biofuels, fuels which were also produced using machinery totally powered by similar fuels - biofuels being obtained through the fermentation of grain or other matter, grown a few years earlier from sunlight, rain and atmospheric carbon…
show full comment
rob alan
IT Tech (logged in via email @bigpond.com)
Prefer fresh fish myself and that was before working in an abattoirs, both rural and industrial. In my mind every one whom eats meat should experience killing said food. Can be deeply thought provoking experience.
Thing is, the less meat we eat the more corporate farming makes profit elsewhere. How does that help the environment I ask myself?
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Indeed the proponents of climate change action in the face of reality are merely engaging in a second rate vaudeville where the perpetrators pelt the actors with rotten tomatoes.
While there appears to be a global consensus on the ramifications to human health and the climate from the livestock industry, MLA boasts:
“Australia is also the world's largest exporter of red meat and livestock, exporting to more than 100 countries.
“MLA aims to grow demand in the region (SE Asia and Greater China…
show full comment
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
1) "Investigation of nutrient pollution in the Murray-Darling River System" (Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, January 1992.
Excerpt:
“The total nutrient loads in feedlot wastes from 180,000 cattle (number in the Murray-Darling Basin) was calculated to be about 1620 tonnes/year of phosphorus and 7200 of total nitrogen. Fish farms in NSW and Victoria contribute roughly 120 tonnes/year of total nitrogen and 17 tonnes/year of phosphorus.
"The 180,000 cattle and more than 1 million pigs reared under…
show full comment
Myall Tarran
Undergrad, BSc (Evolutionary Biology) (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Wether or not our Geoff Russell is the Geoff Russell i'm thinking of, (though I have a sneaking suspicion that it is, haha.) There is a book titled "CSIRO Perfidy" By one Geoff Russell published only a year or two ago on that very subject, Ben!
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Nah... couldn't be... :)
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Can anyone enlighten me on this apparent contradiction from the Cancer Council?
"The consumption of red meat and processed meat appears to be convincingly associated with a modest increased risk of colorectal cancer...Cancer Council recommends people consume moderate amounts of unprocessed lean red meat" . http://www.cancer.org.au/policy/positionstatements/nutritionandphysicalactivity/Meatandcancer.htm
WTF??? Surely, surely, surely, if there is a convincing association with a modest increased risk of a particularly deadly form of cancer, the advice from the Cancer Council should be... avoid it? And maybe, "Here are some suggestions for getting the "dietary iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and protein" you need WITHOUT the increased risk of cancer???"
Seriously, I don't get it. That just seems like a logical contortion from the people who are supposed to help us not get cancer.
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Let me know if you find an answer Ben. I've asked the Cancer Council the same question. My guess, in the absence of any response, is that they don't want to lose their BBQ fund raisers.
I can't let John's comment pass. About a third of bowel cancer patients get no symptoms
until they get rushed to hospital with a blocked or perforated bowel. About 20% of these will be dead within a month (NHMRC Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal Cancer). Given that nobody tells people that a favourite Australian food causes about half off all bowel cancer, why would anybody bother getting checked?
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Geoff,
I can't find anything in what I said about bowel cancer which attempts to contradict what you have quoted from NHMRC so am not sure how your response is relevant. Nor is the fact that half of bowel cancer is caused by eating red meat contradicted by what I said. You perhaps missed the bit where I pointed out that many other cancers have alternative sources and that most of what we eat contains some form of nasties from which we are also genetically programmed to be only partly immune, with many people suffering more than others in exactly the same way as bowel cancer - to which not all people are susceptible either.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Yes, Ben it is very confusing, but I guess one has to eat sometning and most other foods contain small quantities - even large quantities - which cause other forms of cancer and many other unwanted side effects. Bowel Cancer is in fact one of the least dangerous of cancers if proper checks are made, so the Cancer Council is probably taking a reasonable approach.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
John, as an oncologist I make a pretty fine ballet dancer, but your remarks above downplaying the risk of colorectal cancer are so egregiously false that I have to seriously wonder who is paying you. Anyone reading this thread should have by now twigged that a little fact checking goes a long way, and I did mine before posting the comment above.
The WHO singles out this form of cancer as the fifth most severe in impact, at around 600,000 deaths per year. When I was losing a friend to it a couple…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Ben,
I would like to see that - ballet dancing! However, while the study described in the link below urges caution, I accept the fact that meat eaters may be more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than vegetarians and I don't believe I have ever questioned that in my comments. See (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk) from which "Today's findings were based on a study of 61,566 people who scientists followed over 12 years. During this time, it was found…
show full comment
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
This will be my last posting, I really must get back to core business.
John, the reference is appreciated on the cancer study. Cancer causation, like climate change is a complex business. That is precisely why when meta-literature reviews from peak bodies are actually prepared to draw firm conclusions of causation, we should all take notice. You've rolled with my previous comment, but not retreating from that really inappropriate and unsupported downplaying of colorectal cancer is poor form, and…
show full comment
Mark Carter
(logged in via Facebook)
Hoorah! A reasoned and evidence-based article on this issue which isn't full of the usual vegan red herrings! I have been increasingly distressed at how the animal rights lobby is tactically making claims of environmental sainthood to try and annex the green movement. They are giving action on climate change a bad name- to the average Australian they are advocating something bizarre, extreme and cultish as the silver bullet for climate change. Total rubbish.
Mass veganism would be a wholesale disaster…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Nigeria feeds 147 million people with 92m hectares ... she is almost food self sufficient (imports about 10%) and has a food supply of about 2740 Calories per person per day.
Victoria feeds about 1/27th the population with 1/4 the land. Why the astonishing lack
of food productivity in Victoria? Simple, only about 3.5% of Nigeria's Calories are from
animal products, whereas Victoria is probably similar to the Australian average and
consuming about 1/3 of its Calories from animal products. I could go on, but I suggest you read my previous comments.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
I believe it is necessary to consider the real issues here. I know a lot of comments above are in favour of a carbon tax for political and philosophocal reasons and I respect that. For similar reasons people feel we should reduce our red meat intake, and I also respect your ideas on this matter as well. However, it is difficult to understand why we should be required to do this. To put things in perspective, the use of biofuels is an acepted method of fuelling a car - renewable, portable,and…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Sorry John, but you keep saying stuff without checking if it's true or not ... probably because you think its too obvious.
E.g., "The population of cattle sheep etc has not changed significantly for 120 years at least" ... This is absolute rubbish. According to the FAO statistical database, the world was producing 70 million tonnes of meat annually in 1961 and 270 million tonnes in 2007. Clearly there was a massive increase in livestock numbers.
Have a look at this where I plot estimates of animals…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Geoff, I read your earlier comments, but the estimations are incorrect (but I would not use the word "rubbish" regarding beef to Indonesia. In regard to my comments on cattle numbers I am referring to Australia, not to the world. Also, beef production is not a very good proxy for livestock numbers since the efficiency of producing beef, from a certain number of catle has increased enormously even in Australia and America in the past 40 years and one could imagine in other countries the increase…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
John. I'm happy to debate politely with most people, but not those who defend the live export of cattle to Indonesia. I cut some of those involved in the industry a little slack because MLA has been deliberately and artfully constructing and disseminating lies about the state of Indonesian stock handling and slaughter practices. But no more. People who support this Industry clearly have such pico-concern for animal suffering that its rather difficult for me to believe they care about human suffering either. Bye.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Geoff, I understand that you have two levels at which you prefer to respond and I will respect that., On the other hand, I was brought up with the philosophy that one should always be politeto everyone, whether or not you disagree with them. I am also unable to find any reference in my comments regarding cruelty to animals in Indonesian abbatoirs, and like you, I am appalled at the quite brainless behaviour portrayed in the four corners programme. However, it was quite obvious to anyone who has…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Unbelievable. Who "revealed" that the camera operator paid for a beating? I know the woman who took the footage ... there is no-one on the planet LESS likely to pay for an animal to be beaten for her footage. You claimed to be polite with people but are happy to repeat a vicious and insulting rumour without producing a shred of
evidence. That's about the rudest and most abusive comment I've ever seen on a blog. I will be making a complaint and request you be banned.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Geoff,
Go ahead and have me removed from this discussion if you wish.
However, you shoulkd note that I did not make any direct reference to the lady who did the filming but if she choses to be offended then I am sorry, but so be it. If you can repeat the words I used which show that I made any inference that the person doing the filming was in any way involved, then I will totally withdraw my comment.
The information came from a vet in WA and the alleged bribing was by an unnamed person, and…
show full comment
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
The implication that the person doing the filming did the bribing is clear ... who else would have a motive? Defamation law isn't deterred by careful wording chosen to make an implication without saying it explicitly ... Andrew Bolt has recently learned this.
MLA filmed its own lies in a self made documentary part of which was
shown on 4 Corners.
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Well Geoff you would need to present your allegations about MLA to the industry's dancing boy DAFF who assures all compassionate Australians that:
"Australia leads the world in animal welfare practices. The Australian Government does not tolerate cruelty towards animals and will not compromise on animal welfare standards."
Perhaps the author and the self-regulated MLA would like to ponder the footage on Pages 12 and 13 in the following link and then supply a valid reason why, in this "first" world country, these animals were dispatched from a farm, passed inspection (fit for transport) and potentially ended their miserable lives on some hapless consumers' dinner plate?:
http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/files/2011/05/Submission-37-Animals-Angels.pdf