Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Industrial animal farming has caused most new infectious diseases and risks more pandemics, experts warn

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know what's pathetic? Linking to random journalists, or random bozos on the internet with a blog called PlantBasedNews, or indeed anything except linking to scientific sources, and then expecting people to agree on the basis of your scientific "authority." No wonder you gravitate towards positions with authority, such as internet forum moderation. Though perhaps it's not so much pathetic as amusing.
I linked to a specific study. Here it is again: IPBES Guest Article: COVID-19 Stimulus Measures Must Save Lives, Protect Livelihoods, and Safeguard Nature to Reduce the Risk of Future Pandemics | IPBES

Can you provide any intelligent comment on that, or is throwing around a childish made up word and ranting about sites and journalists that haven't even been mentioned n this thread the best you can offer?
 
Do you think such animals are never exploited?
I guess that depends on your definition of exploited. Exploiting can be positive or negative. In the case of animals we raise for food, it's a positive thing, if you're a meat eater. It would be rather hypocritical of a meat eater to say we're exploiting them in the 'unfair' sense.
 
The organisms that humans make use of are overwhelmingly domesticated. If we stopped exploiting wild species then it would hardly make a dent. Also, I disagree with the "perfect storm" metaphor - so what was it in the days before industrial agriculture when diseases were even more rampant than today - an "even more perfect storm"?
That's your personal opinion. I'll go with the report author's phrase, thanks.
 
Meat production as central to agri-capitalism.

Meat eating is not a capitalist practice as such but capitalism reinforces consumption patterns that make profits. It is similar to oil. There is nothing wrong with oil itself but in the current conditions, all oil has to stay in the ground in order to stop climate change. Yet, the oil and fossil fuel industry continue to lobby to keep their industries expanding. Similar with meat. So much of the food industry is tied up with meat eating that it is desperate to keep it going. Global meat production has almost quadrupled from 84 million tons in 1965 to more than 330 million tons in 2017.Think of all the farmers, both large and small, involved directly or indirectly in meat production. Then the corporations and processing plants that take the bulk of the profits.


One of the main problem with meat production, apart from any ethical considerations, is the amount of land it takes up, either directly or indirectly. Livestock is the world’s largest user of land resources, with pasture and arable land dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80% of the total agricultural land. One-third of global arable land is used to grow feed, while 26% of the Earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface is used for grazing. In the US 41% of land is used to feed animals, either grassland or growing crops.

In the UK over 70% of land is used for agriculture. Of this 62.7% is made up of grass lands for animal agriculture, eg grazing cattle, sheep, and 21.8% is used to grow crops for animal feed. This leaves 15.5% of land growing crops directly for human consumption 85% Of Land Needed To Produce UK Food Supply Used For Animal Products.

Another animal that benefits from UK crops is the pheasant. 35 million birds are released into the wild every year for the purpose of providing enough to shoot. They do not just survive on food in the wild, though, especially as shooting estates want to keep the birds close to home so that they will be around when the shooting season starts. This means providing food. The recommendation of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust is “eight tons of feed per 1,000 birds released. This would normally be made up of about two tons of grower’s pellets to take the birds to 12 to 14 weeks of age, followed by about six tons of wheat” Winter feeding - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. With 35 million birds this is a lot of wheat!

The fact that so much land is used for livestock is directly linked to the emergence of zoonotic diseases. Deforestation and land grabbing are one of the major causes of encroachment on habitats previously discussed as one of the causes of an increase in zoonotic viruses. Soy beans is one of the fastest growing crops and is seen as a major driver of deforestation in the Amazon. 85% of this is used to feed animals, especially pigs and poultry Soybean Myths — Truth or Drought.


Land use for livestock also has an impact on global calories available. According to calculations of the UN Environment Programme, the calories that are lost by feeding cereals to animals could in theory feed an extra 3.5 billion people. However, livestock doesn’t need to cause problems if animals are grazed on land that is not suitable for growing food directly for human consumption. This livestock, often part of more traditional agriculture systems, can increase food supply, produce manure, contribute to soil cultivation, serve as draught and pack animals, recycle waste and stabilise the food security of their owners. Pigs and other small animals which are traditionally kept to make use of waste and other buy products can also complement food production.



This traditional agriculture, in the Global South, in which livestock and crops are integrated into an effective system for feeding people in a locality is under threat by land grabbing and the onslaught of the big agribusiness corporations. If land is taken away from people by corporations and they are unable to grow their own food, then they will become dependent on buying food from factory farms or else going into a much reduced forest and eating endangered species which are also less safe to eat Meat and Animal Feed.


The growing demand for meat has led to the rapid expansion of big factory farms and deforestation on a massive scale to grow feed. Not wanting to address the arguments of whether we should move to a complete plant-based diet, which certainly has considerable merit, we can all agree that meat eating has to be drastically reduced for reasons of health, land use and also climate change. There may be a case for continuing some meat production along the lines of traditional agriculture, particularly in areas where livestock has formed a sustainable part of the culture. However, large-scale factory farming, dominated by large corporations is a menace to health and the environment, not to mention the immense cruelty to the animals themselves.
 
I guess that depends on your definition of exploited. Exploiting can be positive or negative. In the case of animals we raise for food, it's a positive thing, if you're a meat eater. It would be rather hypocritical of a meat eater to say we're exploiting them in the 'unfair' sense.
Is that a yes or a no? Do you think animals raised for food can be exploited - yes or no?
 
Factory Farming and Industrialised Agriculture

Every day there is a new confirmation of how destructive, inefficient, wasteful, cruel and unhealthy the industrial agriculture machine is. We need a total rethink of our food and farming systems before it’s too late.”

Philip Lymbery: Compassion in World Farming.



If we accept that some rearing of animals for food will continue, then we need to consider how this is to be done. Currently agriculture is the world’s largest business. This is not surprising considering that food is an essential of life. In Asia and Africa, millions of small-scale subsistence farms, pastoralists, fishermen and indigenous people produce most of the food consumed worldwide. But these small farmers do not control the majority of agricultural land. Farms of less than a hectare account for 72% of all farms but control only 8% of agricultural land. Only 1% of all farms are larger than 50 hectares but they control 65% of the land. This is because smaller farms are considered backward by international institutions and governments. And, these farms may feed people but they do not make a profit. It is only by making farming industrial, with larger and larger farms, high intensity of production, extensive use of pesticides, plant-breeding for high-yielding varieties and the latest technology can it become a source of riches for some. This is the kind of agriculture that capitalism demands- the more you can produce with fewer inputs the greater the profit. Making farms into factories has happened both under capitalism with the increase in farm size and dominant role played by large corporations and in the state capitalism of Russia and China where peasants were forcibly collectivised.


It is questionable whether all these growth in productivity has actually meant we can feed ourselves better. However, it certainly has had negative impacts on health. Here we focus on the industrial rearing of animals. In addition to the ecological and vegetarian objections, factory-farmed meat is unhealthy due to the overcrowded conditions of the animals, genetic engineering, and the antibiotics and hormones they are subjected to in the name of profit. Our demand for meat and other animal products means that huge numbers of animals such as cows, chickens and pigs are crammed together in crowded, faeces-ridden farms, transported in filthy lorries, and slaughtered on killing floors soaked with blood, urine, and other bodily fluids – the perfect breeding grounds for pathogens. According to Doctor Michael Greger, author of the book Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, factory farming is a “perfect storm environment” for infectious diseases.



Factory farming thus results in a new period of human-animal relations, one which we are now experiencing the disastrous effects. According to Greger:


“About half of the egg-laying hens on this planet are now confined in what are called battery cages,” he points out. “In these small barren wire enclosures extending down long rows and windowless sheds there can be up to a million birds on a single farm. About half of the pigs on the planet are crowded into these intensive confinement operations. These intensive systems represent the most profound alteration of the human-animal relationship in 10,000 years”. In words that seem prophetic now, he concludes by saying: “The next pandemic may be more of an unnatural disaster of our own making. A pandemic of even moderate impact may result in the single biggest human disaster ever [and] has the potential to redirect world history” How factory farming breeds deadly viruses and epidemics - LifeGate.


There are enough problems with the factory farming of the long-term domesticated animals such as poultry, pigs and cattle. The creation of wildlife farms has brought the danger of factory farms to new heights. The coronavirus came from a wild animal that had most likely been infected by a bat, also a wild animal. These animals are not shot in the wild and then eaten like with chimpanzees and Ebola, but are actually raised on intensive farms.


For the past few years China’s leadership has pushed the idea that ‘wildlife domestication’ should be a key part of rural development, eco-tourism and poverty alleviation. A 2017 report by the Chinese Academy of Engineering on the development of the wildlife farming industry valued the wildlife-farming industry those operations at 520bn yuan, or £57bn. Just weeks before the coronavirus outbreak, China’s State Forestry and Grassland Administration (SFGA) was still actively encouraging citizens to get into farming wildlife such as civet cats – a species pinpointed as a carrier of Sars, a disease similar to Covid-19. Other animals include peacocks, pangolins and hedgehogs. There are even tiger and bear farms which are geared to traditional medicine or luxury products such as tiger bone wine and tiger skin rugs.



Just as in poultry farms and other industrial farms, the aim is to produce as much as possible using the smallest amount of space. In a country with limited supply of land, this will mean packing animals in as closely together as possible. With profit the main motive, there is no incentive to consider how the animals are treated or to check on what diseases they may have. Then when the animals are brought to market, the profit motive ensures that no effort into how the animals are treated as they are packed into cages, often different species mixing together. The wild life trade is meant to be regulated and animals should have health checks but these regulations would interfere with the money to be made and are not enforced. Coronavirus closures reveal vast scale of China’s secretive wildlife farm industry.


The conditions in which animals are raised and then brought to market, often live, has created the conditions for viruses to cross into humans.


‘Just as humans are more likely to succumb to disease when we’re stressed, weakened or wounded, these same factors also suppress the immune systems in animals, leaving them extremely vulnerable to catching new infections. As a result, the worldwide animal trade creates very sick animals and ideal conditions for pathogens to multiply and jump from animal to animal, and ultimately to humans. To prevent the next pandemic, we need to look beyond the wet markets or illegal trade in China.’


Aysha Akhtar, neurologist, public health specialist and author, US Public Health Service Commander and Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Fellow.



Given such warnings, it may come as a surprise that policymakers haven’t taken them seriously enough to enforce sufficient preventive measures. In fact, as an editorial in the American Public Health Association journal observes: “It’s curious, therefore, that changing the way humans treat animals – most basically, ceasing to eat them or, at the very least, radically limiting the quantity of them that are eaten – is largely off the radar as a significant preventive measure … Failure to think ahead can’t repeatedly be excused”.



How factory farming breeds deadly viruses and epidemics - LifeGate



For anarchist communists, this does not come as a surprise. Huge profits are bound up in agribusiness. Any attempts to change these practices would result in a loss of profit and therefore not on the cards, no matter what the consequences.
 
What journal was it published in and what is its impact factor?
You really are incapable of engaging with the topic, aren't you?

Oh and please point out where anyone claimed that it was published in journal, just so you don't appear to be dishonestly making stuff up. Thanks.
 
Is that a yes or a no? Do you think animals raised for food can be exploited - yes or no?
Like I said, that depends on your definition of the word. The fact that there's not a single piece of the animal wasted, means they're definitely exploited, to their full potential.
 
Antibiotics and health

Another health issue arising from factory farming is the increasing use of antibiotics. Antibiotics are drugs used to treat bacterial infections. They work by killing or stopping the growth of harmful bacteria. Since the 1940s, antibiotics have been given to farm animals like cows, pigs and poultry in order to treat infections or prevent an illness from spreading. However, they were soon used for other reasons By putting antibiotics in feed animals could survive better in the crowded conditions of the factory farm and helped them grow faster so they could be brought to market sooner- more profits! Though antibiotic use for non-medical issues is now being discouraged in the EU and USA, there are still loopholes so it is hard to know to what extent the practice is continuing. After two years of the ban in the US, sales of antibiotics for agriculture rose again in 2018 Antibiotic Sales for Animal Agriculture Increase Again After a Two-Year Decline. The UK and EU policies have been non-binding, hoping that farmers would follow the recommended practice. And, there is little regulation in many other factory farms around the world. China produces and consumes the most antibiotics of all countries. Antibiotic use has been measured by checking the water near factory farms in China as well as through animal faeces. It was calculated that 38.5 million kg (or 84.9 million lbs) of antibiotics were used in China's swine and poultry production in 2012. Other countries are also increasing their meat production using antibiotics. There is now evidence that farm animals are becoming increasingly resistant to common antimicrobial drugs in both China and India. Hotspots of drug resistance are also emerging in Kenya, Uruguay and Brazil, according to a study of antimicrobial resistance in livestock across Asia, Africa and South America. Meat production has risen sharply in these regions since 2000, fuelled by more intensive farming practices, including the use of antibiotics in animals to promote growth and prevent infections.


Antibiotic use in livestock - Wikipedia


Alarm as antimicrobial resistance surges among chickens, pigs and cattle


There is not normally be a risk of humans consuming antibiotics directly through eating food. The main risk to humans is still overuse of antibiotics to treat infections in humans which are making them less effective over time. Still, there is a health risk to humans as a result of giving antibiotics to animals. The health problems emerge because of the fact that the bacteria in animals may become resistant to the antibiotics and this resistant bacterial can spread to humans. These are called Antimicrobial Resistant bacteria (AMR). Examples of resistant bacteria include E. Colo and Salmonella. Tests have found evidence of this in chicken in the UK but at the moment it is not considered a major threat FSA surveys show level of antimicrobial resistant bacteria on UK chicken | Food Safety News.

However, it is something that is being monitored and will be an increased risk as producers get more and more desperate to make profits. A report produced for the UK government in 2015 by an independent research project found that the antimicrobial (antibiotics) usage is on the rise because of the rise in income and the increased demand for meat in the emerging economies. A review was done of the research on the link between AMR bacterial in animals and human health and 72% of the researchers found a link. The risks are that drug-resistant strains could be passed on through direct contact between humans and animals (particularly farmers) and also to humans when they prepare or eat the meat. They could also pass to the general environment, and then on to humans, when animals excrete Antibiotic use in farm animals 'threatens human health'.


As farming becomes even more intensified and farmers compete to survive in a ruthless market where increased production ends up leading to lower prices, the danger could become amplified. Because of cramped conditions, poor sanitation and antibiotic over use, disease-causing bacteria are more likely to be used in an industrial livestock setting than in smaller farms. These diseases can affect those working on the farm and from them to other members of the community. Manure is another way both antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria enter the environment, contaminate water and spread to residential areas. Industrial livestock operations produce a tremendous amount of animal waste – 369 million tons in 2012, almost 13 times more than that of the 312 million people living in the US – and while human waste is treated at municipal treatment plants or by other means, there are very few regulations for animal waste and disposal, and no specific requirements for treatment. Most waste from animal confinements is stored in ponds (called lagoons) and ultimately applied untreated as fertilizer to farm fields. Bacteria can survive in untreated and land-disposed farm animal waste for two to twelve months; it is estimated that animals do not digest approximately three-quarters of the actual antibiotics, which then also necessarily pass from the animals into the environment, where they speed the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria in soil and water. Manure lagoons can also overflow or burst during natural disasters, like they did during Hurricane Florence in 2018, which adds an additional threat to health and safety when clean water and medical access are already limited. With huge quantities of manure routinely sprayed onto fields surrounding CAFOs, both antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria can leach into surface and groundwater, contaminating drinking wells and endangering the health of people living close to large livestock facilities.


Bacteria are also present in the air, where they travel with dust particles and water droplets. CAFOs are dusty places, and numerous studies have found high levels of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in air samples downwind of feedlots in dry regions. These airborne bacteria can be very persistent in the environment – one study of E. coli in dust from industrial livestock barns found they can survive for more than 20 years. Flies and other insects that thrive around CAFOs can also carry disease off the farm and into communities. A Johns Hopkins University study, for example, found that many houseflies near broiler poultry operations carried antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains, demonstrating there are many ways for the bacteria from the farm to move into our homes and hospitals.


Antibiotics in Our Food: What You Should Know | FoodPrint



As mentioned previously, humans’ efforts to control nature and ‘make it better’, which means increasing production and making more profits, could backfire, leading to unintended consequences. We play around with animals’ natural growth, pack them into confined spaces where they get more diseases so they have to have more antibiotics which end up not being effective so we have to give them more. It is not difficult to see that this could end up with another serious health crisis for both animals and humans.
 
That's your personal opinion. I'll go with the report author's phrase, thanks.

It's not my opinion that most organisms exploited by humans are domesticated. It's not my opinion that disease was more rampant in the days before industrial agriculture. These are facts. Also:


The IPBES article is not a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal. It is the opinion of two scientists. Now I'll grant that such opinion has more weight than yours or mine, but I don't think they are saying what you seem to think that they are saying.
 
One more for the deniers:
"Exploitation of wildlife, which has caused once abundant wildlife to decline in numbers, through hunting and trading in wildlife, have endangered species survival and also put humans at risk of emerging infectious disease," she said.

A wide range of organisations are calling for curbs on wild animal trade to reduce risks to human health. Dr Johnson said wild animals sold in busy markets where animals and people mix present an opportunity for diseases to jump between species that would normally never come together in the natural world.

"Disease emergence that occurs anywhere can affect us all and we need to all understand the impact we are having when we interact with wildlife, realise that disease emergence is an environmental issue, and find more sustainable ways to co-exist."

The research is published in the journal Royal Society Proceedings B.
 
The IPBES article is not a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal. It is the opinion of two scientists. Now I'll grant that such opinion has more weight than yours or mine, but I don't think they are saying what you seem to think that they are saying.
Again, did anyone make that claim? Nope, so you're making up false arguments again.

But what are your specific criticisms of the report?
 
Use of fertilizers and pesticides in farming


Pesticides and fertilizers are a key part of factory farming. Pesticides are used to kill harmful insects and fertilizers are used to make crops go quicker. These are of course worthy objectives but the question is how to achieve these goals. Driven by the need to increase productivity at all costs, the choice of how to protect crops and promote growth does not take into account negative consequences for the environment and human health; as with other aspects of capitalist production, these externalities are considered irrelevant- only profit matters. Chemical and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are the most cost-effective and therefore they are the ones adopted. Their use has been credited with huge increases in food production.





Since the Green Revolution, which had at its core the use chemical pesticides and fertilizers, those directly involved in farming as well as scientists have been investigating the negative consequences.

  1. Pesticides

The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that over 350,000 people die every year from acute pesticide poisoning. Moreover, this figure does not include deaths from cancer or other chronic diseases caused by pesticide exposure. In addition, the WHO estimates that long-term exposure may result in upwards of 750,000 people suffering from specific chronic defects and cancers each year. This number refers to developing countries alone. Additionally, the Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention (CPSP) states that 15-20% of all suicides is by pesticide self-poisoning Key Issues - Pesticide Action Network UK.


“The data for the last two decades regarding pesticide exposure and human health revealed that several pesticides cause neuronal disorder and degenerative diseases, some effect fetal growth and cause congenital anomalies and other are carcinogenic for human (Asghar et al. 2016). Over the past three decades, the indiscriminate use and improper handling of pesticides in agriculture have caused serious human health problems in many developing countries (Dasgupta et al. 2007)” http://ndpublisher.in/admin/issues/IJAEBv10n6f.pdf.


3. Chemical Fertilizer




“When fertilizers and pesticides are used in farmlands, they are transmitted directly or indirectly into the corns and vegetable that affects the human health. Moreover, as pesticides are applied over the vegetable which are directly entered into human or livestock bodies. Excessive use of fertilizers may pollute the underground water with nitrate and it is so much hazardous to humans or livestock. Nitrate concentrated water can immobilize some of hemoglobin in blood. Organophosphate pesticides have increased in application, because they are both less persistent and harmful for environment than organochlorin pesticides. But, they are associated with acute health problems, such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems. There have been many studies intending to establish cancer – pesticides association. Organophosphate pesticides used in the vegetables gradually get deposit into human body and has a link with cancer (Miah et al. 2014)” http://ndpublisher.in/admin/issues/IJAEBv10n6f.pdf.





“At the very least, food crops produced using chemical fertilizers may not be as nutritious as they should be. This is because chemical fertilizers trade fast growth for health in plants, resulting in crops that have less nutritional value. Plants will grow on little more than NPK, but they will be missing or developing less of essential nutrients such as calcium, zinc, and iron. This can have a small but cumulative effect on the health of people that consume them.


At worst, chemical fertilizers may increase the risks of developing cancer in adults and children and adversely affecting fetal brain development. This is not news to scientists. A 1994 study by the University of Wisconsin suggest show that typical concentrations of nitrate (a common fertilizer) and a pesticide in the groundwater may compromise the nervous, endocrine, and immune system of young children and developing fetuses. A study in 1973 associates high levels of sodium nitrate in groundwater with the prevalence of gastric cancer, and another one in 1996 with that of testicular cancer.


A relatively recent study, however, shows that chemical fertilizers may play a significant role in the development of methemoglobinemia, otherwise known as Blue Baby syndrome. Researchers believe the condition results from feeding the infants with baby formula using well water contaminated with nitrates. The baby literally turns blue and may eventually lead to coma or death” The Hidden Dangers of Chemical Fertilizers -- Environmental Protection.





These are just a few of the findings of research. The concern over the use of chemicals in agriculture has led to many choosing to eat organic food. However, these are often more costly than the alternatives. The only way that we can ensure that the safest production methods are used, like with any other product, is to create an agriculture system that is not based on the need to compete in the market economy and in which human need and health is the main priority.
 
Again, did anyone make that claim?

You claimed it was a study here:

I linked to a specific study. Here it is again: IPBES Guest Article: COVID-19 Stimulus Measures Must Save Lives, Protect Livelihoods, and Safeguard Nature to Reduce the Risk of Future Pandemics | IPBES

Can you provide any intelligent comment on that, or is throwing around a childish made up word and ranting about sites and journalists that haven't even been mentioned n this thread the best you can offer?

Nope, so you're making up false arguments again.

You called it a study. I quoted you on that.

But what are your specific criticisms of the report?

It's not a report either. Even the original website calls it a "guest article". If you want to hang your hat on the opinions of two particular scientists as opposed to consensus in the field, I won't stop you, although I will point it out.
 
Food consumption, class and health



Production and consumption are closely related. The capitalist food system is based on supply and demand. Producers would argue that the reason they produce what they do is because consumers want their products. However, it is not so simple. What appears to be consumer choice is usually the result of class inequalities and marketing. People can only buy what they can afford. With widely unequal incomes, most people do not get much choice at all. Marketing and advertising are also used to create and manipulate eating habits, often cleverly using the local culture and tradition. Production decisions are based on what will make the most profit. If it costs more to produce healthy food or if entrenched industries will lose out, then then agri-capitalism will continue to produce food that not only does not enhance human health but actively causes ill-health and even death. The end result is people end up making very unhealthy ‘choices’.



Meat Eating and Health


Clearly, if the world’s population didn’t eat meat, apart from those who have no other alternatives due to climate and geography, many of the zoonoses, including avian flu and coronaviruses, would not exist. However, though many more people are becoming vegetarian or vegan and many cultures still have a largely vegetarian diet, eg Hindus in South India, there are obstacles to giving up meat and many would argue that we don’t need to. However, the problems created by meat, both for health and ecological reasons, mean that cutting down drastically on meat consumption is imperative.





Meat eating has massively expanded over the past 50 years. On average, every person on Earth currently consumes 43.5 kilograms of meat per year. In 2013 (the most recent year data is available), US citizens consumed 115 kilograms of meat and people in the UK 81 kilograms, while citizens in India only ate 3.7 kilos. In general, men eat more meat than women. In the EU, including the UK, though meat consumption has stagnated recently, with a growing number of people switching to vegetarian and vegan diets, it is still a main part of most people’s diet, with pork and chicken rising in popularity compared to beef.



Marketing has created a culture in which meat-eating is a status symbol for many, copying the USA cowboy culture where meat-eating is a symbol of wealth and virility. The average American man eats more than his own weight in meat every year (even as that weight has increased by 30 pounds since 1960). Americans eat meat in quantities that are double the global average The Actual Reason Meat Is Not Healthy.


The US’s obsession with meat could be seen during the coronavirus pandemic. Trump declared meat processing plants to be an essential part of the infrastructure and attempted to intervene to stop closures when there were many coronavirus cases (The real reason Tyson is shutting down its largest pork plant).



Meat eating is closely linked to the Americanisation of global culture. The spread of fast food joints, with meat (burgers and fried chicken) the main products on sale, is testament to the cult of the USA. Though there are now more vegetarian and vegan alternatives at the fast food outlets in many countries, it is still he meat options that dominate.


In the UK, the BBC Good Food Nation Survey (2016) found that most people ate fast food on average two days per week. But in the 16 to 20-year-old category, one in six ate fast food at least twice a day, with one in eight among 21 to 34-year-olds eating as frequently. The study of more than 5,000 people found that half of them thought "a meal isn't a meal without meat". However, the same proportion were unaware of how much meat is a recommended daily amount, considerably overestimating the amount needed. The survey found that a fifth of men (21%), and 32% of 16 to 21-year-old men and women, ate meat at least three times a day. The typical adult now eats meat at least twice a day and has only six meat-free days a month Some teens eat fast food 'twice a day'.


Though the increase in vegetarianism and veganism is now on the rise among many young people, the amount of burger and chicken takeaways is evidence that meat eating is still very much the norm in the UK and elsewhere.


China, Brazil and India have all massively increased their meat consumption as more of the population becomes well-off and aspires to an American lifestyle of steaks, burgers and fried chicken. China is also the biggest consumer of pork. Since 1965, per capita meat consumption in China has increased six-fold. Since the population almost doubled to 1.4 billion people over the same period, global demand for meat and animal feed has exploded.





China is also one of the main sources of the trade in wildlife for consumption. Consuming wild meat had once been the preserve of the nobility but now it is a status symbol for the rising middle classes- culinary adventure seekers. It is the demand from these well-off consumers, largely based in the Guangdong province in southern China just north of Hong Kong, that is behind the existence of the wild life farms and trade, out of which emerged the corona virus. The demand for meat is bolstered by (totally unscientific) folk beliefs in the medicinal power of dead animals such as bats – another probable coronavirus source - which reputedly restore eyesight, civets ‘cure’ insomnia. This market is fuelled by the spending power of the world’s fastest growing middle class.





It is hard to say which came first- the increase in supply of cheap factory farmed meat which then had to find a market, or the increase in demand based on cultural and social factors, that led to the intensification of animal farming. It is likely a combination of the two. Whatever the cause, the increase in meat eating has led to the kind of health issues we have been facing in terms of zoonotic diseases. However, meat eating, along with other consumption habits has led to a number of other health problems.





Non-communicable Diseases and other health issues linked to diet





These health issues relate to issues of consumption rather than production and have nothing to do with the amount of food produced. Instead, they arise because production is not geared to provide the type of food people need to have a healthy diet and because distribution is so incredible unequal.





According to WHO estimates, 1.9 billion people age 18 or above were overweight in 2016. Of this number more than 650 million people were obese, plus 41 million children under the age of 5. Meanwhile, 821 million people go hungry (undernutrition) and 2 billion suffer from one or several micronutrient deficiencies Fact sheets - Malnutrition.





Hunger is a complex problem that will be discussed in another pamphlet in this series. Here we will explore the causes of obesity which is a key problem in the UK and other western countries, but increasingly a problem in the Global South as well. Obesity may normally be associated with being well-off but not always. It can be the result of eating the wrong foods so poor people can also be obese. Obesity is a major factor in non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, strokes, diabetes and some cancer. It was also cited as one of the factors that might make coronavirus symptoms more serious. We will first look at what kinds of food lead to obesity and then consider the socio-economic factors which cause people to eat unhealthily.





Meat Eating Again





Excess meat consumption is a contributory factor to a number of health issues.


Processed Food





Globally there are huge profits made from processed food, such as crisps, sausages, biscuits, by multinational companies such as Unilever. Chemicals are added for a variety of reasons, all prioritising profit over health. Salt and sugar are added to virtually every foodstuff: salt as a preservative, but also to make food hard to resist. The most ‘addictive’ foods combine salt, sugar and fat (ideally fried) – yes, its Mcdonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Burger King. Big food companies have diverted people’s attention from the deadly effects of sugar (heart disease, diabetes ) by getting them to focus on unhealthy fat instead. They systematically smashed the reputation and career of a leading food scientist in the 1960s who was highlighted the harm done by sugar.


Health and Inequality


Though being rich does not guarantee that you will eat healthily, it at least gives you the choice. Being poor means that you end up eating food that is unhealthy because it is often cheaper. A healthy diet is meant to be balanced, with plenty of fresh fruit and veg. Poor people may also want to eat meat because other alternatives are more expensive. Factory-farmed chicken is produced in such awful conditions that it can be sold cheaply either to have at home or as a takeaway. Working class and poor people often cannot afford healthy food, including fresh fruit and vegetables. Food is the biggest driver of NHS spending as a result of obesity, diabetes and heart disease; despite this it is only allocated £2.5 billion of the £130 billion annual NHS budget.


Poor and working class people often cannot afford healthy food such as fresh fruit and vegetables; many do not have physical access sources of decent food due to them being too far away, and transport poverty (e.g. lack cars, no/poor public transport).
 
The organisms that humans make use of are overwhelmingly domesticated. If we stopped exploiting wild species then it would hardly make a dent. Also, I disagree with the "perfect storm" metaphor - so what was it in the days before industrial agriculture when diseases were even more rampant than today - an "even more perfect storm"?
Not sure what you mean by hardly a dent, south China has been so denuded of some native species like pangolin by the trade I translated articles about the cross border smuggling from Vietnam fifteen years ago. It's devastated a whole swathe of populations. Of course, still minor part of overall meat trade and habitat loss is main factor, but it's played major role in wrecking ecosystems. Includes hunting practices too like electrocuting fish.
 
You really are incapable of engaging with the topic, aren't you?

Oh and please point out where anyone claimed that it was published in journal, just so you don't appear to be dishonestly making stuff up. Thanks.

The point is that you said "study". If you had said "article", or "opinion piece by industry experts", I think the comment would have been different.
 
Two scientists have stated that man-made climate change isn't real:
NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

What should we do now, editor? Look for journalists and random bozos on the internet to take it on "authority" that these two scientists are wrong, or actually point out the error in their paper ourselves? You say you don't like childish stuff, so go ahead, do science stuff instead and point out the error in this particular paper. Don't worry, it's not difficult, it's a simplistic error in statistical reasoning.
 
The point is that you said "study". If you had said "article", or "opinion piece by industry experts", I think the comment would have been different.

There's not a single citation in the article, so it's not as if the authors were even trying to pretend that they were writing a study. But it got called one anyway.

Not sure what you mean by hardly a dent, south China has been so denuded of some native species like pangolin by the trade I translated articles about the cross border smuggling from Vietnam fifteen years ago. It's devastated a whole swathe of populations. Of course, still minor part of overall meat trade and habitat loss is main factor, but it's played major role in wrecking ecosystems. Includes hunting practices too like electrocuting fish.

That sounds more like environmental damage than exploitation. Of course the two often overlap, but I believe that was the point that the authors were trying to make; that such an overlap is something that should change.
 
The point is that you said "study". If you had said "article", or "opinion piece by industry experts", I think the comment would have been different.

The point is that it was brought up in response to, and a purported refutation of, my statement of "anything except linking to scientific sources". What he wants to call it doesn't matter, it's not a scientific source.
 
one of the main reasons for cutting down the forest is to grow soybeans and other crops to feed livestock
I do wish people would stop using that argument, because it's one of those 'facts' that aren't actually facts. Soybeans are grown for their oil. The byproduct is fed to animals. We're not going to stop using soybean oil, it's in everything. If we stopped feeding the byproduct to animals, all that would happen is we'd have mountains of rotting husks and mash, pushing up the price of soybean oil, and forcing farmers to find a different source of feed for their animals, which would, in turn, push up the price of meat.
 
...
That sounds more like environmental damage than exploitation. Of course the two often overlap, but I believe that was the point that the authors were trying to make; that such an overlap is something that should change.
Exploitation in the classic sense same as a coal seam surely? Blind unregulated exploitation of a species until it's locally extinct. The environment damage mostly comes from other human activity at the same time but habitat suffers from species loss and as I mentioned there are practices that damage too. Dynamiting is another fishing technique.
 
Seems to me that people are the reason the coronavirus has spread so widely and so rapidly. Factory farming people in big cities. Millions of them, cramped into tiny spaces. Is it any wonder the virus spread so readily.

Then again, environmentally speaking, it is better to have the bulk of people concentrated in relatively smaller areas. This is obviously going to come with pros and cons.
 
One more for the deniers:

What does this have to do with domesticated animals?
Close contact with wild animals through hunting, trade or habitat loss puts the world at increased risk of outbreaks of new diseases, say scientists.
They're talking about wild animals, not domesticated cattle.
 
Then again, environmentally speaking, it is better to have the bulk of people concentrated in relatively smaller areas. This is obviously going to come with pros and cons.
This comes back to that development argument I mentioned. Hinton wanted the communes to be a network of low density communities based around farming but with appropriate industry too, developing based on need and sustainability. Ship has sailed but there was a point it seemed possible.
 
Did we not have lots of deadly diseases and pandemics long before factory farming?

Yes, I named a few. Ironically intensive pig and poultry is better positioned to contain them due to the biosecurity that exists within them (certainly here in the UK) than extensive farming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom