Track Meat

Recently the NY Times published a terrific piece that illustrates and calculates such figures and leaves the reader with a single, untenable conclusion: We must curtail our consumption of meat if we truly want to make an impact on the health of our this globe.

In "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler" Mark Bittman cites both the environmental impact of meat-processing facilities and of the animals themselves, not to mention that of their food sources, with staggering statistics. To wit:

• An estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production.
• If Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius
• 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
• Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens
• Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago.
• U.S. livestock produces about 3 tons of manure for each American.

Sobering statistics all – enough to give one pause and make them wonder how important a meat-packed diet really is to them.

Is vegetarianism the answer? To some. We are, however, omnivores at tooth, if not at heart, and as such need not feel guilt about the occasional meat craving. Yet it wouldn't hurt us or our planet to reevaluate our dietary habits and modify according to a larger sense of what's right and wrong for both our bodies and Earth.

Tofu, anyone?