Talk:Environmental vegetarianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rice Crops: Incorrect Citation

The URL http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/FrankenRice070805.cfm is cited next to the statement "Crops like rice pose a significant threat to other crops, and to the human food chain [20]," but the article talks specifically about certain strains of genetically modified rice, not rice in general. The citation is therefore misleading and either the citation or the statement should be changed to bring them into agreement. Patrick Bradley 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

A cleanup on this page is needed as there are many sources for criticism I can not locate. We might want to take a look at some formatting and grammatical issues as well. If there is good reason for the other tags still, please let concerns be known. Nidara 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed partial paragraph in water till credible sources can be sited. It is as follows:

Overuse by humans is damaging to rivers and ecosystems and leads to salinity and desertification. It is claimed that a vegetarian diet uses considerably less water than a meat based diet. This is because to produce meat, water must be used in the production of feed for animals, which must be fed to the animals during their entire life. The loss of water (and energy) between trophic levels is very large. When the grains go directly to humans this inefficiency is avoided. Nidara 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been through and added some sources for the criticism section. Some of the stuff is pretty difficult to find, and I'll try and find sources for the WWC tommorow. I've removed the image as I don't think it particularly applies. It would be nice to have some images on the article however? Perhaps of practices vegans see as unsustainable... of course if we do that we'll need pictures of animals being used in sustainable ways too :) After we've collected all the sources and verified all the info, it would be good if we could improve the prose of the article and move the criticism out of a specific section and into the main body of the article, or we're just going to end up with a huge "for section" and a huge "anti section" that people will feel more keen on expanding. - FrancisTyers 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree.

I removed partial paragraph in water until credible sources can be sited. It is as follows:

Overuse by humans is damaging to rivers and ecosystems and leads to salinity and desertification. It is claimed that a vegetarian diet uses considerably less water than a meat based diet. This is because to produce meat, water must be used in the production of feed for animals, which must be fed to the animals during their entire life. The loss of water (and energy) between trophic levels is very large. When the grains go directly to humans this inefficiency is avoided. Nidara 01:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It should probably also be pointed out somewhere that a proportion of grain that is not suitable for human consumption can be fed to animals to turn into meat, thus improving efficiency. [1] and [2], - FrancisTyers 02:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentance till source is found. It is as follows:

Successful husbandry of cattle can mean a lower waste, and lower water uptake . Nidara 03:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentance till source is found. It is as follows:

Trawling if conducted only at low levels and well managed it can be a sustainable practice. Nidara 03:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Excellent work on the images by the way! :) I might try and find a more suitable one than that picture of the starving girl though. We're getting there :) - FrancisTyers 09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we're at a good enough place to take the tags off of this article. Nidara 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree about the monoculture. I think it was you who specified that the field was monoculture, I just made the presumption. I'd be happy to take the NPOV tag off now, in fact I'll do it now. I'd like to leave on the cleanup and globalize tags for the moment. For the cleanup: I'm not entirely happy with the way the criticism section is just lumped at the bottom of the article, I think its fairly bad style, the criticism should, where possible be integrated into the main article body. With the globalise tag I need to have another look through, although I think we have enough info from around the world to make it clear that environmental vegetarianism isn't about opposing meat production, but about intensive farming practices. - FrancisTyers 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe criticism should be peppered throughout the article as it would confuse the article itself. The criticism section should however be written with some fluidity. Lets be careful not to throw in POV statements such as Being meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us. This is suductivley simplistic in itself and I am personally offended that there is the assumption that I as a vegetarian have taken no other action to benefit the environment. Nidara 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is sourced, is part of the POV of a particular group and deserves to be included. I'm sorry that you find it offensive. It isn't seductively simplistic, it is an eloquent expression of a POV. It by no means suggests that all vegetarians take no other action to benefit the environment, but the fact is that many of them don't. - FrancisTyers 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting use of words there "peppered". Exactly how would it confuse the article? You presume that vegetarianism implies environmentalism. It certainly does not. This article lays out the arguments for and against the justifications of environmental vegetarians as to why they don't eat meat. I think it does a good job, but would do better with a more balanced view spread through the article. I have spoken to some other editors who believe the same thing. We can make a request for peer-review or RfC if you like? - FrancisTyers 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an article on the motivations of some vegetarians. As per your claim, that I assume vegetarianism equals environmentalism, you are wrong. Environmental vegetarians, as opposed to vegetarians with other motivations, do believe that even modest reduction in meat consumption through individual or collective action will have a profound effect on the environment. I do agree a balanced perspective is needed in this for vegetarians and non-vegetarians. That is why I wrote most of the Criticism section. Some of it can be intigrated, but other claims can not as there is not a good fit in much of the article. However there could be additional sections added to accomodate this. Pepper it as you see fit then and we'll work through it. Nidara 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I will integrate it as well as I can, I'll start on a section by section basis, moving it where I feel it can most well fit. Make a comment here if you disagree. Btw. I said presume not assume. - FrancisTyers 18:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I say tomato you say tomato. Ha Ha. Thanks for your contributions by the way. There are many facets of this issue we seem to be concerned with and we should start a collaboration on some of the fringe issues concerning them (small scale or alternative farming or sustainable development or even sustainable architecture such as earthships). You are an interesting bloke, coming from an American perspective.

I do believe some cleanup, not much, is an order here in some of the fluidity, tone and section breakdown. I will make some upcoming edits on this soon. Otherwise, I am more interested in bulking up sections on sustainable development and small scale farming. Thanks again, Nidara 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I agree by the way. The article on intensive farming certainly could be improved :) - FrancisTyers 19:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to start work on Small-scale agriculture as it only contains a see also section. Numerous links can be added to other pages once it is done. I would really appreciate your input here. Nidara 20:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

np, I'll check it out. - FrancisTyers 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism sections that have been remerged

• World starvation is largely a political problem and may not be solved through flooding world markets with more grain. [3] Although, should the U.S. give this food, it would amount to dumping, undermining local markets and worsening the situation. This could lead also to a decrease in biodiversity [4] As many people point out the problem is not with a lack of food, but with the political situation. Food was then a political weapon. Food aid has now in addition become a commercial enterprise. Famine or no famine, the Shylocks of the grain trade must have their “pound of flesh”. - Devinder Sharma, author of Africa’s Tragedy; Famine as Commerce

• A more effective protest against intensive farming might be to continue eating meat, but source it only from well husbanded, sustainable farms. According to the Soil Association in the U.K. "With less meat and no factory farmed meat, then yes it's quite possible to feed the world in a sustainable way." As well "most of the land of value to wildlife is being converted to produce feed crops for intensive livestock. Some examples of this come from some of the European organic farms, where a balance has been better achieved. [5]

• Many countries in Asia and Africa, the feed for farm animals is seldom transported using internal combustion engines. In the case of sheep/goat as they graze on farmlands, it requires no fuel, while bales of hay for Bovines are still transported mainly using bullock carts or similar cheap contraptions. Furthermore little to no meat processing takes place in a vast majority of the developing world. They are often herded to the place of slaughter (with the exception of poultry) resulting in minimal use of fossil fuel. [6]7

• The more efficient use of animal waste may be a contributing factor in sustainability. For instance, the by-products of slaughtered animals can be used to provide an environmentally friendly bio-gas fuel. Trains running on this fuel are in operation in Sweden. [7]

• Sustainability may be attained through a mixture of alternative farming practices. The journal Environmental Health Perspectives has noted that "[s]ustainable agriculture is not merely a package of prescribed methods. More important, it is a change in mindset whereby agriculture acknowledges its dependence on a finite natural resource base--including the finite quality of fossil fuel energy that is now a critical component of conventional farming systems. It also recognizes that farm management problems (weeds, insects, etc.) cannot be dealt with in isolation but must be seen as part of a whole ecosystem whose balance must be maintained." [8]

• Rice poses a significant threat to other crops and to the human food chain [9]. In many countries where rice is the main cereal crop that is consumed, rice cultivation is often cited as the main reason behind the high water consumption and methane emissions. [10] Farmers in some of the arid regions try to cultivate rice using groundwater bored through pumps, thus increasing the chances of famine in the long run. Furthermore, a study by the World Water Council on the "Virtual Water" (VW) concept shows that rice ranks right under beef, pork, poultry, eggs, and soybeans. [11]

• A proportion of grain produced is not suitable for human consumption can be fed to animals to turn into meat, thus improving efficiency. [12] and [13]

When I read this article I was just interested in the criticism parts and thus jumped directly to them, missing some of the moved criticism. I personaly like having it seperated, but understand your view. Would be great if the rest of the stuff could be merged in... somehow. (then I would have to read the whole thing, and learn more, and waste more time ;) )

Removed

Environmental vegetarians' concerns about meat production include issues of emissions, use of resources, and elimination of natural habitat. All modern, intensive farming practices consume heavy amounts of fossil fuel and water resources and have lead to emissions of harmful gases and chemicals. Further, they are destroying far greater areas of habitat (throught the use of large industrial monoculture corn and soy fields, etc.) than is found in more sustainable farming or alternative farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rainfed agriculture.

Animals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops [14]. According to the USDA growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United State's water supply and 80% of it's agricultural land. In addition, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain. [15]. In tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. [16] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits.

When the debate is framed as being primarily against intensive farming as opposed to being explicitly against meat production, a more effective protest against might be to continue eating meat, but source it only from well husbanded, sustainable farms. According to a spokesman from the Soil Association in the U.K. "With less meat and no factory farmed meat, then yes it's quite possible to feed the world in a sustainable way.", and points out that "most of the land of value to wildlife is being converted to produce feed crops for intensive livestock." [17].

Alot of the stuff under "Other criticism" I don't see the point of having, for ex "It is worth noting also that adopting a vegetarian diet does not exclude other environmentally damaging practices, such as unneccessary or excessive air travel, driving fossil fuel using automobiles, and failing to recycle." and "Indeed, as some environmental activists point out, adopting a vegetarian diet may be a way of avoiding more radical changes in lifestyle and may merely be little more than a righteous gesture. Dave Riley, an Australian environmentalist, echoes the views of some non-vegetarian environmentalists when he states that "[b]eing meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us."". The first part has nothing to do with anything. It's like saying that me chewing a gum won't help people dying of cancer, no shit!? And the other part, well, I think it's pretty obvious that being vegetarian doesn't do any more than being vegetarian, your not active in any environmental group etc, pretty obvious as said. I think these should be removed. The last part could be changed so it doesn't sound like being a vegetarian doesn't do shit and we should just forget about it. It _does_ help, and people that wouldn't take their time anyways to get active in the environmental movement do help by being vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.183.148.211 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 March 2006

This is not the place for your vegetarian advocacy or environmental apologetics. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about that. I think the criticism should be about vegeterian environmentalism and NOT about vegetarians not caring enough about the environment to take over steps. If you want to critize vegetarians of being lazy and not caring enough about environmental issues despite they saying so by being veg then take that up on the vegetarian article, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.183.148.211 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 March 2006

Ok, I can understand your point of view, but this page is about people who are vegetarian for environmental reasons. No people who are environmental for vegetarian reasons :) The -ism is on the vegetarian not the environmental. - FrancisTyers 16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sure. I agree about the -ism, it was a mistake from my part not noticing. But I still think the first part I talked about should go, or be rewritten since it's not a critique about their reasons for being vegetarian on environmental grounds which this arcitle is about. If the article should criticise them of not doing enough, where do you draw the line? I think it should criticise purely on their grounds of why they are env.veg and not about not doing other things. The last part, source 43 and 44, are good since they cancel out their reasons of being veg on env. grounds.

Well, I've read over it again, and I think most of it needs to be mentioned, I have removed It is worth noting also that adopting a vegetarian diet does not exclude other environmentally damaging practices, such as unneccessary or excessive air travel, driving fossil fuel using automobiles, and failing to recycle. Indeed, as s per your request as I can see your point regarding that. Feel free to offer rewrites below, seeing as the subject is quite controversial it would be good to discuss first then change rather than vice versa. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do it later. I think that the sentence you removed could stay but only if it's rewritten so that it just a complementary environmental concern that people could take care of, but then maybe it shouldn't be in this article at all. The same logic goes to Critics note, greenhouse gas emissions are not limited to animal husbandry. In many countries where rice is the main cereal crop, rice cultivation is responsible for most methane emissions. [9] for ex, but i still think it should be there, but be rewritten so that it's just another concern and not a critique about env.veg since it's not, it's a critique of rice. If we could make some connection of less meat (all animals) equals more rice, then fine. I have to check the whole article later, a bit busy. :)

Removing globalize and cleanup tags

I've made some requests on user talk pages from both sides of the argument to come and look at our work. I think we've done a good job and would just like to get some final input before we remove the tags. Any complaints or comments guys, make them below: - FrancisTyers 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to tenatively remove it. Any complaints, please make them here before making large edits. - FrancisTyers 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Page marked as inuse

I've marked the page as inuse until I can resolve an edit conflict in which my changes cut out a bunch of FrancisTyers'. I should have the tag removed within the next half hour. As you can see from the current version, I've done some major rewording in order to copyedit. delldot | talk 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

FrancisTyers and I, Nidara, have been thoughtfully working on this article to reach a middle ground. This is better attained through a gradual shaping that we are going back and forth on. Please discuss this with both Fancis and I before drastic changes are made here. Nidara 20:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you are in fact conversing with Francis, nevermind. Nidara 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

All sorted :) - FrancisTyers 23:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

Hey, I commented out your photo for a feedlot, it was kind of low res - although I note on their site you can request a larger version? I think this one looks better. I found three, all pretty much equally disgusting to my eyes, but feel free to swap them around in case you find one that fits in better...

Some of these are, to some, too unpalatable to be considered viable for natural protest. Any publicity is good publicity right? Think about that in both directions. Nidara 06:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My complaint isn't with the subject matter of the photographs, it is with the composition and aesthetic quality. I realise that this is a very personal and subjective matter, but I just think the ones I found look better in the context of the other photos in the article I would be willing to have a third fourth or fifth view on this... Please feel free to suggest others. - FrancisTyers 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• File:Feedlot Cattle color.jpg
• 
• 
• File:Feedlot2.jpg
• 

- FrancisTyers 23:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The rape seed could do with some more explaining... What is the significance to the article? - FrancisTyers 14:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to find an image to replace the photo of the Earth, but rapeseed (see the article) is used to make biodiesel; makes up 13% of cropped land in India; is the third leading source of vegetable oil in the world after soybean and oil palm; and cultivated for animal feed in Europe; also appears to protect soil as a winter-cover crop. See also the end of the article: the heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. Perhaps rapeseed could help alleviate that burden? --Viriditas 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I was just wondering :) Can you make some of that in the image text? Like I have done for Livestock and ploughing? If not np, I'll do it later. - FrancisTyers 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Redux

Hi, perhaps we could get some third party opinion as to which images to include if this is going to be a contentious issue... - FrancisTyers 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversial tag

I've added the tag not because of any problems with the text but to show anyone coming to the page that they should probably read the talk page before making contributions. I hope you agree :) If you disagree, remove it but I think it might be helpful. - FrancisTyers 02:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All citations, grammer, and spelling have been corrected. I am removing the cleanup tag. Nidara 19:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the article is still actively undergoing cleanup. There are at least five sections that have not been cleaned. --Viriditas 22:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you haven't done any "clean up" in 5 days Viriditas. Why are you maintaining this tag? Is it perhaps because you think it will give the page less credibility? Why? Give your analysis in a very clear fashion please. Nidara 04:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas is apparently on a Wikiholiday. I've reviewed the article once more, and I see no reason for the tag. That makes two of us, so I'm removing it. If Viriditas wants to argue that it should be here, then he can do it when he gets back. Canaen 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

I've begun Archiving the page (yes, I like Archives). I've only moved what I know to be irrelevant, so if any section that you've been involved with is now irrelevant, go ahead and toss it onto Archive 01. Canaen 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheep and Wilderness

Hi All, Just found this page. Not sure if its relavant here, but here goes.

I'm involved with a charity called Plants for a Future which has veganism in it aims and objectives. For the last ten years we've kept domisticated grazing animals off our 84 acre site and allowed natural regeneration to happen. The contrast in terms of wildlife is dramatic. We have a rich mosaic of habitats which can be seen at [18] and provides a stark contrast to the close cropped grass monoculture in the sheep and cattle grazed fields next door. --Salix alba (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Ethics of eating meat article (request for peer review)

I have recently done a major rewrite of the Ethics of eating meat article. I have tried to balance it's POV as well as perform a major reformatting. Since there are few editors on that article I have not gotten any feedback. I was wondering if people here could look at what I have done and comment on it. I have opened a Request for peer review for this article, please post comments there as I will not be watching this talk page. HighInBC 14:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Critics

This page appears to have been hijacked by its critics. I'm all for criticism but it should be well cited and not the focus of the page. For example, it seems that many of the pictures used on this page are criticisms of the sections that they appear in. The leading picture shows rapeseed being grown for, among other things, animal feed. That is exactly counter to the arguments presented by environmental vegetarians. I just made a small edit to the Petroleum and Fossil Fuels section, which has a picture of a farmer using an ox (?) to plow a field in Indonesia and the caption "Animals can provide a useful source of draught power to farmers in the developing world". I think that if a picture is meant to represent a section of the article, it should represent the main argument presented in each section and not the criticisms.

Aside from the images, it seems that much of the page is taken up with criticism often presented without sources and often using weasel words. Some examples: "The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits, though this might not be largely true for animal husbandry in the developing world where factory farming is almost non existent making animal based food much more sustainable." It might not? Again: "Such a switch might cause less plant-based food production as well as reduced factory farming, since much of worldwide grain used in livestock production are fit, outside of genetically modified organism (GMO) laws, for human consumption." What about "Some go even as far as to characterise food aid, in particular grain, as a commercial enterprise interested more in supporting farmers in the developed world than alleviating famine in the developing world." Who are "some"? These smell like Original Research. Mprovost 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input, this page has been through a lot of editing between pro- and anti- vegetarians. The current version is pretty NPOV -- and well sourced, in my opinion. You can see above and read through the archives. To address your points... I've removed your recent addition regarding "red meat == SUV", in my opinion it doesn't really add anything to the page, and is US-centric. I wouldn't mind discussing this. I've added a source for the "Some go even as far..." part. "The result is..." there are plenty of small, sustainable farms producing free range organic meat in the developed world -- or at least in the UK. I've added a {{fact}} tag to the other one as I'm not sure quite what it is getting at. Regarding the photos and captions, I would encourage you to suggest alternate wordings. I think that if a picture is meant to represent a section of the article, it should represent the main argument presented in each section and not the criticisms. There is criticism throughout the article, making it NPOV. The photos are a part of that. - FrancisTyers 08:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ok, I was going to replace the Time magazine article in the Petroleum and fossil fuels section with the ABC one, but I decided it would be less intrusive to just add it and leave the Time one. Guess not. The Time one doesn't mention petroleum nor fossil fuels, while the ABC article was about a study that "examined the amount of fossil-fuel energy — and thus the level of production of greenhouse gases — required for five different diets." That seems pretty appropriate for that section, certainly more than the Time article. I also don't understand your US-centric comment, does that refer to the SUV? Mprovost 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A researcher at the University of Chicago characterizes the difference between a red meat and a vegetarian diet as being "comparable to the difference between driving an SUV and driving a reasonable sedan." [19]

This is US-centric because a lot of English speaking people could not tell you what a sedan (and what is a reasonable one?) is, let alone an SUV.

Something along the lines of:

Gidon Eshel, a vegetarian, and researcher at the University of Chicago, characterises the difference between a diet based on red meat and a diet based on vegetables in the United States as being, "comparable to the difference between driving an SUV and driving a reasonable sedan.", but admit that their findings can't be considered exact [20].

Might be better. I think the article, and probably ABC News in general kind of sucks though. Do you have the original paper? I mean come on "Your personal impact on global warming may be influenced as much by what you eat as by what you drive. That surprising conclusion..." Who the hell thinks that is surprising? :P - FrancisTyers 12:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think linking the word sedan to that entry would be sufficient. Interestingly, saloon on wikipedia is a disambiguation page that points to sedan for the car style. In the paper they actually go to some lengths to calculate what an average car's fuel economy is. They use the word 'average' in the paper which is probably safer than 'reasonable' which implies a value judgement.

In any case, the original article is here [21]. The abstract says "It is demonstrated that the greenhouse gas emissions of various diets vary by as much as the difference between owning an average sedan versus a sport-utility vehicle under typical driving conditions." The conclusion puts that in a specific number: "We conclude that a person consuming a mixed diet with the mean American caloric content and composition causes the emissions of 1485 kg CO2-equivalent above the emissions associated with consuming the same number of calories, but from plant sources." I'd be happy with either quote. I don't see where the inexactness comes into it - good science always admits that it is inexact; they detail all that in the research, but we aren't in the business of critiqueing journal articles here either. Mprovost 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Much better! "We conclude that a person consuming a mixed diet with the mean American caloric content and composition causes the emissions of 1485 kg CO2-equivalent above the emissions associated with consuming the same number of calories, but from plant sources." I think quoting that would be good. It is a lot more precise and specific than the ABC article. Although it should be mentioned over what timescale, I presume a year? I added the inexact because it was explicitly mentioned in the news article... to be honest I think ABC has a pro-meat agenda. - FrancisTyers 11:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Far from trivial, nationally this difference amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions" That part should be included too. Where the hell is the other 94% coming from ;) - FrancisTyers 11:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I added the quotes that we've discussed. I think it's looking good, feel free to tweak the wording etc. Mprovost 12:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The third sentence of the article, "According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), "Most of the world's population today subsists on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets for reasons that are economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or ecological." [1]" seems to me to be largely irrelevant. While it may have a good reason to be in some section of the article, it seems far from concise and relevant enough to deserve the third most attention of any sentence in the article. It seems to me that the article would do fine with a simple deletion. Any comments before I slash (or if someone agrees, feel free to take the initiative)? --TimTL 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hearing none, I've done some work on the introduction. I cut more than one sentence because I found many ideas redundant, and I corrected at least one grammatical error. I think the introduction could use even more trimming down; as it stands a reader has to get through 3 good sized paragraphs before they even reach the contents of the article. I hope everyone agrees this is an improvement, but I'm happy to discuss changes (of course)! --TimTL 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Energy use

Its a shame the comparision of enery input:output ratios has been deleted, for a page about vegatarinism it seem important to sohow a comparison between vegatables and meat products. However I guess the source is not the best for the veg (although the site Agro Media is Canada Industy and the Qubec farmers association, so I doumbt theres much vegie spin on it.

Anyway I went looking for some other sources and found Energy Use in the U.S. Food System: a summary of existing research and analysis which makes some quite shocking reading it take 18,948 kcal to produce 1kg of instant coffee, compared to 575 kcal for 1kg of tinned fruit. Breakfast cereals are also madly high at 15,675 kcals/kg. Als it did not have the required statistic but worth a read. --Salix alba (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and intuitive too, the more processing and the more travel, the more energy expended. I'd be interested to see the output ratios put back in, but with more context, e.g. perhaps giving ratios for different countries, continents, farming practices? - FrancisTyers · 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Food miles aren't mentioned at all in the article yet. It's interesting to read the criticism on the food miles page, which says that New Zealand is a lot more efficient in producing food than the UK, for example. What the critic doesn't take into account is that all this sustainable development movement doesn't thrive to feed people on an industrial level. Overpopulation might make it seem like NZ is indeed a lot more efficient than the UK, but for many products (eg, potatoes) it doesn't make any difference. Besides, people have lived in the UK off their own produce for thousands of years before globalisation came along. The key to figuring out what should be bought locally lies with comparing the energy expended for fertilizer to that used to transport goods from NZ to the UK (again, just an example). Not as easy as it seems to be. In general, civilisation needs to wean off its oil addiction though, be it for fertilisers or for transport. Merctio 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be mentioned. But it should be globally relevant. - Francis Tyers · 11:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if the output ratios were broken down into more detailed numbers such as fuel use, fertilizer use, human digestible feedstock(corn), non-human digestible feedstock(hay), etc. From these numbers one could build a more detailed carbon footprint profile of themselves, families, even the entire world. I have yet to find any sources on it, anyone else have ideas?Christgg 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Header image

What is the argument for replacing the header image? I must admit that I'm a little baffled by what it is trying to show, but I don't see the "earth" image as an improvement. - FrancisTyers · 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See conversation below:

The rape seed could do with some more explaining... What is the significance to the article? - FrancisTyers 14:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to find an image to replace the photo of the Earth, but rapeseed (see the article) is used to make biodiesel; makes up 13% of cropped land in India; is the third leading source of vegetable oil in the world after soybean and oil palm; and cultivated for animal feed in Europe; also appears to protect soil as a winter-cover crop. See also the end of the article: the heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. Perhaps rapeseed could help alleviate that burden? --Viriditas 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

- FrancisTyers · 16:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What do rape seed fields have to do with the price of tea in China in concern to this article other than aesthetics? There is no real use for any image here in that case. What image has more to do with ecological concerns here? This article is a mess as far as grammar, POV, and improper formatting. I suggest if you are so concerned, please clean it up. It is so much easier to destroy than to build. I also have to remind you, many environmentalists take numerous steps other than vegetarianism to reduce environmental impact such as reuse of clothes, organics, hemp clothes, recycling, buying local foods, using renewable energy, energy conservation, long lasting bulbs, bicycling, walking, public transportation, driving a hybrid vehicles, flying as little as possible or not at all, choosing not living in the industrialized world, living in an earthship or other sustainable architecture, growing main supply of food on site, etc, etc, etc. This article should not be an "us against them" article. This needs to be in the intro perhaps.

I agree that it might be better if the image was removed. Can you suggest other specific changes you would like to see made to the article. - FrancisTyers · 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You could put any image of earths landscape here, including rape seed fields, corn fields, the rainforest, the Himalayan Mountains, dead carcasses in the Ganges river, earthships in Ireland, Rainbow people in the forest, children sick from fecal contaminated agricultural run-off. The question here is; what image is most relevant earth’s protection? The image of earth seems to make sense on many of the other ecological and environmental pages; as it indicates concern with the entirety of earth. I am sure we all know that dietary choice is not a magic bullet in the environmental fight, but relevant none the less. Not to say that a vegetarian diet is the least impacting. We could go on the Ted Kaczynski diet or even the Jeffrey Dahmer diet. This would be an interesting view to argue in the criticism section perhaps.

The diet of least impact will not be had with dogmatic rules, but rather by a wholescale re-evaluation of where our food comes from, and how we would like to see our food produced. I've heard it said that we should "eat the rich", it doesn't seem like a particularly appetising suggestion though. I think for the title image we should have something directly related to "Environmental vegetarianism". I'll try and think of something appropriate, and would welcome further input. - FrancisTyers · 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow Francis, it seems you are the perpetual non-veg gatekeeper on this page. Why don't you do something constructive rather than rely on your own personal dogma (linguistics). How could you possibly refute what scientists have been saying for decades, eat lower on the food chain and there is lower impact? Oh and I see you have abandon the aesthetics which were once so close to your heart with the header image. Why don’t you just get rid of all of the images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.245.134 (talk • contribs)

What makes you think that linguistics is my "own personal dogma" ? - Francis Tyers · 07:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Eco-bads?

---

Regarding this paragraph:

A study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, who are assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, have found that our consumption of meat may be as detrimental for our environment as it is for our health [1]. Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other serious eco-bads, as well as various health issues such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, obesity, diabetes, and others [2].

I was unaware that "serious eco-bad" was an accepted term for environmentally damaging practices (or that eco-bads could come in different degrees of severity; i.e. serious, semi-serious, moderately unfunny, etc...). Nor am I quite clear on who is being referred to in regards to "... our consumption of meat for our environment..." given that some don't eat meat and the environment is not private property.

Nitpicks aside, good article and thanks to those few who have obviously put a lot of personal time and thought into it. If it ain't changed next time I come through, I'll do it.

Criticism

I think this paragraph sort of misses the point, which is that vegetarian and especially vegan diets, reduce environmental problems. The following quote is sourced but the source is mere conjecture. "Some environmental activists point out, adopting a vegetarian diet may be a way of avoiding more radical changes in lifestyle and may merely be little more than a righteous gesture. Dave Riley, an Australian environmentalist, echoes the views of some non-vegetarian environmentalists when he states that "[b]eing meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us." [46]." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

No, actually it gets the point. - Francis Tyers · 07:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it takes a personal opinion-driven statement and tries to make look like the truth. DeABREU 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

UN report on livestock & environment

This report from the UN might be of interest here, as well as at Environmental vegetarianism. It's about the UN's conclusions on the environmental impact of livestock. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good report, although inexplicibly biased in some places. - Francis Tyers · 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Canæn, it's so prominent it ought to appear in the references. Jens Nielsen 14:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ineffiency of Meat Production

This probably needs to become a separate section do to its appearance in almost every other section in a very unclear way. Several studies findings should be directly compared and it should be made clear every time you discuss the difference between what a pound of meat requires vs. a pound of grain that you're talking about different amounts of energy. Plus the byproducts of meat production are actually often useful or reusable. For example, 20-30 of the mass of a cow is bone, fat, and skin, which are all utilized for purposes beneficial to humans (most US animal lard is exported to China for use in lamps). Then there are essential chemicals produced in glands and other items. Plus in terms of water usage, its not like animals release no water back into the universe. Also, discussions of the actual amount of food available in the world vs. demand should also be detailed. Otherwise these remain seriously lopsided discussions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thechosenone021 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Edits

I've reverted my changes from June 12. Let's not undo other people's work just because we, well, I'm not even sure why. The paragraph in aquatic environments is sound science, although not cited YET. The term "ecosystem services" is the correct name of "services provided by nature." Otherwise, I'm just undoing blanket statements about "the developing world" and the supposedly environmentalism of meat production there. I love in Brazil, the world's most biodiverse country, and a developing country. Here, cattle ranching is listed abong the three most important causes of rainforest destruction. And Brazil's leading meat packaging company just bought Swift (America's largest) to become the world's largest. So it's not exactly accurate to say that the developing world doesn't have much industrialized meat packing. We are all free to edit, but undoing my work without any justification is counter to the point of wikipedia. 200.207.7.241Envirocorrector

Brazil is not really a developing country, it is a newly industrialised country. - Francis Tyers · 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz Francis, you are very well informed. Thanks for setting me straight on that. I fixed my edits, again. Please don't make me call arbitration to keep you from screwing up valid changes to an article you are clearly unwilling to allow people to contribute to. ~~ Envirocorrector

Please try and be civil, and why not just give some sources for the chunks of text you are adding. - Francis Tyers · 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility would involve not undoing other people's work arbitrarily. In any case, my "chunk" of text regarding riparian ecosystems is now properly cited. You can get either article in full text via google scholars. Hopefully this will take care of your need to prevent me from participating. Anyway, if you want some tit-for-tat, I'm done trying to change anything you may have written elsewhere. In short, leave my paragraph alone, as I'm well within the bounds of wikipedia behaviour here. ~~Envirocorrector

Thanks for the references. The text now makes a good addition. I've made a couple of minor changes, I hope they are ok. - Francis Tyers · 10:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. I like the changes, thanks. Sorry about my tone earlier. 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Envirocorrector

No problem, I shouldn't have been so short :) - Francis Tyers · 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

External Link - Letters to the New Internationalist

I would like to remove the external link - Letters to the New Internationalist. It's just a letter to the editor - no citations, no credetials, no research, no nothing. If it were posted originally into the article, it would have been promptly removed in the name of creating a verifiable, neutral article. So, please take a look and weigh in if you care. For those editors out there who are interested in not letting this article become a blind celebration of the veggie way of life (I'm not even a vegetarian myself, for the record), I'm sure all the points made in the letter (like, animals are made out of protein, which we can all agree is true) could be referenced from somewhere real. ~~Envirocorrector

The external link is there to give balance. I will try and find a better example of principled opposition to the environmental arguments put forward by vegetarians, but I think that one is quite good. On the other hand, I would be happy to remove all external links. - Francis Tyers · 11:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear you on the balance. It just looks to me like the pro-vegetarian side has links to useful (I think) tools and such, but the letter to the editor is just sort of commenting. Ultimately, not a big deal. 12:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Envirocorrector