Knowledge for better food systems

FCRN Blogs

Has veganism become a dirty word?

October 1, 2019
Tara Garnett

Tara Garnett is a researcher at the University of Oxford where she runs the Food Climate Research Network and its sister site Foodsource.  Her work centres on the interactions among food, climate, health and broader sustainability issues.  She has particular interests in livestock as an area where many of these converge, and in how knowledge is communicated to and interpreted by policy makers, civil society and industry, and in their different approaches to food problems and solutions.

 

Tara is also part of the LEAP project at Oxford, a Wellcome Trust-funded initiative focused on gaining a greater understanding of the health, environmental, social and economic effects of livestock production and consumption.  In particular she works closely with Jamie Lorimer, Alex Sexton and Nathan Clay, on themes which explore the rise in alternatives to animal products, and transitions in the dairy sector. You can contact Tara on taragarnett@fcrn.org.uk.

The realisation struck me over a drink with a friend the other evening: when I mentioned I was trying to eat vegan-only food two days a week, this friend, a longstanding and committed environmental activist, made a sort of grimace.  She looked disquieted, uncomfortable.  That word, vegan.  Somehow, for some environmentalists, vegan has become difficult, almost a dirty word.

In fact, even the way I just phrased the first sentence – ‘trying to eat vegan-only food’ rather than ‘be vegan’ – implies a certain distancing on my part too, a fear of the word’s newly enveloping negativity.  As further demonstration (but also in the interests of full disclosure, since the particulars of one’s dietary habits seem now to need declaring – like a criminal record or a grant from Monsanto – I have neither) I should say that I’m not a vegan and never have been.  I’ve been a lacto-ovo-vegetarian since I was seventeen.  I don’t anticipate ‘becoming vegan’.  I’m just trying to cut back on animal products – reasons later – and a 5:2 type approach seems manageable.

Of course, it’s not as if veganism has ever been value-free.  From the time it became a dietary label – that is, since the Vegan Society’s foundation in the 1940s – people who choose to avoid using animal products have been variously portrayed as eccentric, extreme, effeminate, earnest, sexless, joyless, mirthless, militant, self-righteous ridiculous.  They’re the butt of jokes of the sandals and weird sprouted food variety.

People love a good prejudice, and maybe the v of veganism doesn’t help – words beginning with v tend to come pre-loaded with moral judgement.  Think virtuous, vicious, vibrant, violent, vivid, vehement, victorious, virulent, vigorous.  Vacuous, villainous.  Vegan.  But whatever the stereotypes, the vegan’s ethical credentials never used to be in doubt.  Recently though, something seems to have shifted; somehow veganism’s latest incarnation, as it were, appears troubling to a certain type of committed environmentalist.  Why?

The rise in veganism, or at least in the hype, is a product of its time – a time of acute anxiety about what we put into our mouths.  Of course, at one level this isn’t new at all.  We’ve always been anxious and judgmental about what we and others eat; afraid too, of the judgement of others.  But as we’ve learnt more about the links between food and the state of our planet, the old everyday religious, moral and cultural values and beliefs have been joined and heightened by new ones, both environmental and social, creating new dietary agonies, new goods and bads, new things, people and ideas to blame or extol.

And because knowledge and understanding rarely grow in an orderly fashion – they lurch one way and then another, senses of perspective are temporarily discarded, ideas cluster together, disintegrate and then reform in new configurations – during this process, knowledge and understanding can become simplified and skewed. 

This, I think, is what’s happened in discussions about meat and animal products.  There has been a lot of skewing and skewering of what and who’s to blame and what to eat or not eat, and this has led to some fairly simplistic messaging, which of course has changed over time.  In fact, if I were to summarise these changes over the last 25 years as expressed in their most caricatured form, by that messy composite of academic writing, NGO advocacy and media (mis) representation, it would go something like this:

1. The problem is ruthless, unprincipled industrialised globalisation: food miles are the arteries of globalisation.  The solutions?  Local, seasonal and grow your own.

2. Food miles are stupid!  As life cycle assessment, and its spin-off, the carbon footprint, shows.  The problem’s not distance, but agriculture.

a. Specifically, livestock production.

3. Actually, the problem’s consumption – our diets – since we grow what we grow because we eat what we eat.

a. Specifically, the problem is meat eating because livestock generate loads of greenhouse emissions, meat clogs our arteries and animals suffer and die.

i. More specifically still, the problem is beef, because of all that methane and the rainforests and the saturated fat.

1. Even more specifically still, the problem is extensively reared beef because it produces more methane than animals in intensive, confined systems and they use more rainforest (Daily Mail-style mythbusting gotcha opportunity alert).

4. Since beef is the problem, we should switch to chicken: chicken and pork are better because they don’t produce methane, and they need less land and they’re healthier: ‘white’.

5. If the problem is beef because of the methane and the land then the problem is actually cattle, which means the problem is also dairy – so don’t eat dairy.

6. The problem is climate but not just climate; the problem is also biodiversity, the problem is land, the problem is animal suffering, the problem is heart attacks and obesity.  Farm animals of all kinds are the problem.  The solution is rewilding, the solution is veganism.

7. Actually, methane’s not the problem we thought it was; methane’s temporary, actually methane’s natural.  The real concerns are with soil quality and soil carbon, the real problem is Cerrado-raping intensive monocultural arable farming.  And mutilated tortured grain-eating chickens.

8. In fact, in thinking that methane’s the problem, you’re in denial about the devastation called by the fossil fuel industry, and global agribiz; you’re letting them off the hook, actually you’re in bed with the big bad guys.

9. If methane’s not the problem and it’s all about soil, then grassfed beef isn’t just not-bad, it can save the planet.

10. Grassfed beef is humans-as-part-of-the-rhythm-of-nature.  Grassfed is holistic, grassfed is rural, grassfed is high welfare and ‘good fats’, grassfed is the family farming good guy, grassfed is the underdog.  (Britain also does grass very well).  Grassfed is good. 

11. If methane’s not the problem and intensive arable production is the problem then actually the problems are meats whose production depends on intensive monoculture

a. Specifically the problems are chicken and pork and intensive beef (Daily Mail, gotcha back, eat your words!)

12. Actually wait, if the problems are soils and monocultures then the problems extend to all plant foods.

13. Vegans eat only plant foods.  Therefore veganism is the problem.

14. Veganism is the vacuous entitled daughter of Big Food and Agribiz.

15. Veganism endorses industrialisation, intensive monocultures; vegans eat avocados and almonds grown by tortured bees (v. ironic, hah!); vegans chop up worms – those proletarians of our mother soil – with their evil ploughs, vegans are physically and spiritual divorced from the Living Soil.  Vegans are actually The Problem.

Maybe I exaggerate.  A little. 

Image: Michael Gäbler, The combine Claas Lexion 584 in the wheat harvest, Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

Today’s veganism is new, it’s not quite like the old kind.  For a start it’s almost entirely about what you eat rather than a broader wrap-around commitment to avoiding any use, and thereby exploitation, of animals.  There isn’t much emphasis on, say, excluding leather, or silk or certain types of medication, because the motivation is less exclusively about animal rights and more about a bunch of other concerns and inclinations.  The bag labelled ‘Why I Do This’ is baggier now, and contains items like the environment and health, as well as an amorphous entity that doesn’t quite have a name or even a solid shape but which suggests qualities of goodness, newness, desirability, fashionableness.  Veganism new-style is having its moment in the sun – more specifically in the sun under an umbrella owned by a celebrity at a private beach resort somewhere very nice.  

In part, it’s because it’s aspirational and in fashion that certain environmentalists are worried, or at least cautious.  On the face of it this seems odd, because isn’t mainstreaming the goal?  For change to have an impact, change needs to be mainstream.  Niche-virtue won’t keep us within 1.5°C.

Maybe this is just a kind of grumpiness.  Environmentalists quite like their underdog status.  There’s a certain moral credibility that goes with pissing in the wind and when it starts to blow in your favour, well, that irks.  Besides, some manifestations of the new veganism are just irritating: #greenconsciousness millennials who eco-emote while leaving all the lights on in the house and bouncing off to their weekends in Prague; zillion-ingredient Insta-Buddha-bowls, posted by smug #strongnotskinnybutstillquitestupid yoga bunnies on wellness retreats in Cambodia; vegan billionaires hopping from high level conference to high level conference to enthuse about the green light they’ve seen from the windows of their private jets. 

Image: Mumumío, Receta de buddha bowl, Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

But there’s more to it than this.  There’s a concern about motive.  To a slight extent, this is about the motives of the vegan food-eaters themselves.  Back in the day when being vegan was difficult and boring, there was no elevator to the top of this particular summit of virtue; you had to walk.  And so you had to really know why you were willing to put yourself through a lifetime of lentils, dehydrated soya chunks and mockery.  Since it’s in fashion now, and the food industry has enthusiastically stepped up to the plate, it’s pretty easy, convenient and socially acceptable to eat ok-tasting, sometimes delicious, vegan food.  What with vegan sausage rolls and all, you don’t actually need to care quite so much to be vegan today.  

Maybe this shouldn’t matter because, well, should we really be trying to unzip people and peer into their chests to check they’re sufficiently pure of soul?  Didn’t the Catholic Church try that?  Which of us – including old school vegans – always, or even ever, does entirely and only the right thing for entirely and only the right reasons?  Motives are murky.  Besides, who cares, if the results – fewer animals born to die, less land being used, fewer greenhouse gases – are the same?

Of course, one answer is that if there’s no real connection between motive and action then things can backfire.  If veganism is in fashion and if fashion is, by definition, transient, then what goes up comes down.  It’s a risky strategy to pin one’s planetary hopes on the flimsy hemline of the latest catwalk offering.

But the larger concern, the real concern for some environmentalists, isn’t so much about the people who eat vegan food, but the people who sell it to us, and their motives.  The shelves are now bursting with vegan offerings, to be sure, but the production systems, the power structures, the delivery mechanisms look pretty similar to the foods they sit next to.  They’re there to fulfil consumer demand, and in so doing “to grow the business” which in almost all cases goes hand in hand with “to grow the environmental crisis”.  The goal is still to think in terms of ‘demand’ as a thing-to-be-fulfilled, fostered actually, rather than challenged.  How, one might ask, is a chilled single-serve almond café latte – with its reliance on pesticides and irrigation water for the almonds, its mixed materials Tetra Pak packaging, its energy-using refrigeration dependence, its long supply chains dedicated to carrying more-or-less water around, its presence on the shelf a tiny death-blow to any skills you might once have had because, actually, you could’ve made this yourself at home – how is this vapidly virtuous drink really going to do the job, existentially speaking? 

The new veganism, from the perspective of those who don’t buy into the techno-optimist eco-modernist agenda, looks pretty much identical to the Old Greenwash.  Nothing much has changed.  And it’s not just that the vegan lattes and vegan sausage rolls aren’t necessarily better for the environment, it’s worse than that, the worse being, that the problem is still defined as one whose solution lies in shopping.  Salvation by consumption. 

So, the concern is with motive, and with the dumping of the task of saving the planet into your supermarket trolley, and mine.  There’s a third concern too, this one with substance, with, quite literally, the matter from which these new products are composed.  The new veganism is all about simulacra – mylk, sheeze, not-dogs, facon – which slot conveniently into current dietary norms.  These are replications made of multiple and unfamiliar ingredients (methylcellulose…?) extracted from the commodity crops that environmentalists abhor; manufactured using technically sophisticated industrial processes; and fortified with minerals and vitamins in order to match the nutritional profiles of their animal-prototypes. 

Image: Veganbaking.net, Vegan cheese review, Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

All this, in the eyes of many environmentalists, is just unnatural, wrong.  These are fake foods, their only authenticity to found in the fact that they materially embody the problem at the heart of our problems – humanity’s alienation from nature.  The solution is actually the problem.

Much of me sympathises with this way of thinking.  It comes ‘naturally’ to me, so to speak.  But there’s a lot of confusion and inconsistency bound up in all this, which makes it difficult to know what everyone is actually talking about or arguing for – and it makes for combative, unconstructive debate.  

Perhaps the most obvious, and simplest of the confusions, is the false equation here between all the above, and veganism.  While many of the concerns that environmentalists express intersect with the way that vegan products are being produced and pushed today, they’re not actually synonymous with veganism itself.  You can still get your pressure cooker out and boil some chickpeas; that’s veganism too.  And it would be wrong to suggest that the old ‘ethical’ animal rights motivated veganism has died; on the contrary, it has evolved further, making connections with broader concerns around power, oppression and injustice beyond the boundaries of human-nonhuman relations.  

And it’s also important to look past the hype and get all this into perspective.  Most people in Britain today are not vegan, not even close.  Cheese, ham and chicken remain top of the Great British Sandwich list.  Meat consumption in this country is not just high but remains fairly constant; globally, all the signs are that people will be eating more meat, with the Food and Agriculture Organisation forecasting a 15% growth between now and 2027 alone.  Reports of the death of the death of animals are, as they say, greatly exaggerated.

This needs remembering.  Because whatever your concerns, they shouldn’t obscure the fact that there are many reasons to be eating fewer animal products – planet-sized reasons.  We cannot meet our climate commitments, and we cannot halt the steady annihilation of other life forms if we carry on eating animals in the quantities that current trends suggest.  This stands true whatever animal type or whatever production system you propose.  For sure, some animals or systems are better in some or most respects than others; but any one of them scaled up to the level of current or future projected consumption levels will be devastating.  There isn’t a single environmental problem that I can think of that wouldn’t be improved by there being fewer farmed animals overall. 

Of course current systems of crop production generate their own very major problems – which need to be tackled.  There’s no such thing as a free lunch, environmentally speaking, especially the all you can eat kind that continues to push more over better.  And if you want to farm without chemical inputs then veganism certainly presents challenges; in organic systems, animals – in the form of manure, blood and bone meal – are the go-to providers of soil fertility.  That said, there are vegan organic growers out there innovating and experimenting ingeniously if penuriously, and of course the point is also often made that organic farming isn’t necessarily the goal, but at the moment it’s not clear what a scaled up sustainable vegan agriculture looks like.  The research (and the funding for the research) isn’t there.  Besides, it’s not clear what a sustainable agriculture that includes animals at today’s levels look like, let alone tomorrow’s.  To argue for fewer animals doesn’t (unless one is an abolitionist) mean none at all, criticism doesn’t mean rejection, and I can’t imagine that any ‘solution’ will be simple or single.

I think the biggest threat we face is binary thinking, the unhelpful black-white polarisation of current debates around food, the throwing out of babies, however they’ve been fed, with the bathwater.  Vegan versus omnivore.  Chicken versus beef.  Organic versus industrial.  Pasture-fed versus ultraprocessed fake-burger.  Arable versus grass.  Cain versus Abel.  If you’re not for me, you’re against me.  Four legs good, two legs bad; four legs bad, no legs better. 

I don’t know what the alternative to capitalism, or consumerism is; which is not the same as saying ‘there is no alternative’, nor that our taken-for-granteds shouldn’t be interrogated.  As for the naturalness, well, I’m not sure what that is.  And I’m not sure that we really do want naturalness, at least not in its entirety.  Most of us want to keep bits of fake, if we can.  Fake sex, for example, i.e. the kind that doesn’t do what it ought naturally to do, and produce babies: the kind mediated by modern contraception.  Fake life, the kind that’s propped up by modern medicine.

We have to decide which bits of naturalness – and of today in general – we want and which bits we don’t and the difficulty here is that it’s different for different people.  One person’s nirvana might be something that looks pretty much like today, but catch-free: a carbon-free, calorie-free, animal-free all-you-can-eat buffet in the world’s shiniest shopping mall.  Maybe that’s possible – humans have a knack of pulling techno-rabbits out of hats – but if it is, for many environmentalists, me included, that’s a description of hell.  The arguments aren’t really about carbon, or water, or biodiversity, or bodily health; they’re about my idea of fun versus yours.  The fear of many environmentalists isn’t really that we can’t have it all, environmentally and materially speaking; but that we can.  Perhaps this is what we should be talking about.

So.  I am sticking to my 5:2 veganism, in full knowledge that this is a totally inadequate response to a poorly defined problem, acknowledging my biases, extremely confused, but hoping for a bit more balance and honesty in our discussions about food. 

 

We're keen to hear your thoughts and comments. To join the conversation, either send a message to the FCRN's Google Group (join here) or use the comments form below.

Comments

JoJo Head's picture
Submitted by JoJo Head (not verified) on

Such a fantastic blog Tara, you perfectly encapsulate the daily struggle of living in a world surrounded by choices that are not black and white, and finding a need to justify all this greyness in my decision making - to an audience of people who revel in the black and white! It can be exhausting, but is ultimately worth it! I'm based in Oxford now at Earthwatch and working on Sustainable Agriculture so hope our paths might cross again in the near future.

Dick Morris's picture
Submitted by Dick Morris (not verified) on

Really excellent blog; lays bare a whole range of issues that need exposing.  As a one-time agricultural scientist working on grass and grazing animals, my prejudices were mercilessly exposed.  The key difficulty seems to be the persistence of binary choices - meat versus no meat etc., but maybe that is an inherent part of human nature.  Every individual seems to want a simple, binary yes-no answer, and worryingly, there seems to be an increasing desire to impose that answer on everyone else, as witness the fiasco of the Brexit referendum.  The analysis in the blog is excellent, but maybe where it fails is that is points to reasonable compromise as being necessary, and somehow, that seems to be completely unfashionable.  Maybe we just have to wait for fashion to swing (back?) to a more collaborative society.  Assuming humanity has the time to wait.

Greg Hart's picture
Submitted by Greg Hart (not verified) on

Great article, Thank you for your honesty and openness, it is refreshing. I am a sheep and beef farmer in New Zealand and use nature as my guide to caring for the land and growing food for people. Nature is diverse and our food supply should be too. Nature is not the same everywhere so our food systems will not be the same all over the world. We now can measure and monitor the effects of our food production systems. It must be energy efficient (fueled by the sun ideally), It must sequester carbon into the soil. Our farms must be increasing biodiversity, trees, birds, insects and soil micro organisms. Clean water running off our land is a result of a healthy eco system. Here's a short film to show what this looks like at Mangarara in New Zealand "Restoring Paradise"

Annie Leymarie's picture
Submitted by Annie Leymarie (not verified) on

Tara is making the conscious and informed decision to eat dairy (and eggs) five days a week but no meat ever. I would love to know her reasons to ditch meat but keep dairy. She writes that this is "manageable". On what ground: taste? convenience? social acceptance? health? cost? The "manageable" implies a compromise so I'd love to know her environmental thinking behind her decision. There is one very articulate (mostly heath) expert whose opinions I also value and he too explains he's not a vegan, but writes: "Argue against veganism if you choose, but concede it is because you like - or are selling - cheese, or meat. Other arguments are mostly just so much baloney" (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vegan-argument-david-l-katz-md-mph-facpm-facp-faclm). He also writes elsewhere: "Taste buds are adaptable little fellas. When they can't be with foods they love, they learn to love the foods they're with" - showing that dietary habits are not really per se a genuine obstacle to any change (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/10/28/the-case-for-taste-bud-rehab).  Yes the issues are messy and complex but the more we understand what motivates people who have the most information, the better we can make our own decisions. 

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Actually, methane’s not the problem we thought it was; methane’s temporary, actually methane’s natural.

This seems to be the view  of Myles Allen and Richard Millar (https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031) of your Oxford Martin School?

 

As I understand it, their picture is this:

Emissions of methane heat the Earth's surface for a decade or so before decaying. The rise in the Earth's temperature causes net heat emissions to space. The long term effect on temperature is small. If keeping Earth's temperature below a certain threshold is a target, then unless the target is likely in the next decade or so the temporary rise in surface temperature is not important.

There are others that disagree. For example, Xu and Ramanathan
(https://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10315) and Collins et al (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aab89c). Again, as I understand, they believe would be wise to reduce immediate warming by cutting methane emissions (as well as other actions to cut longer lived gases especially carbon dioxide).

This would lessen the chances of short-term heating setting off feedback mechanisms, some of which may be difficult to shut down. In the short term, only a proportion of the extra heat is radiated to space. Some heats the deeper oceans and some melts ice on land and sea. These effects do not raise surface temperature but have longer term climatic effects.

Do Millar and Allen concentrate too heavily on the predictions of average surface temperature rise from computer models that have serious missing feedbacks?  (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/carbon-footprints-wildfires/)

The average temperature of the Earth is not the only worrying parameter of Earth's climate. Ocean heat content, the remaining volume of ice, the waviness of the jet stream and the distribution of temperature rise are others. (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/cheating-with-temperature/)

As an amateur, I lean towards Xu, Ramanathan and Collins but I wish I didn't have to look up and try to understand academic papers to tell my friends and others that beef and dairy is very bad for the climate because of the methane that cattle (and sheep) emit.

Can something be done to make this debate more understandable?

Geoff Beacon's picture
Submitted by Geoff Beacon (not verified) on

I mistankenly posted the lastt comment anonymously. But to possibly hellp in the methane debate I have found two videos.

The first a presentation by Myles Allen (https://youtu.be/01DbCn2JVQg). Methane is discussed 29 minutes in.

The second is by Peter Cox (https://youtu.be/xizCz1cjCuc)

I hope this helps.

Alex Heffron's picture
Submitted by Alex Heffron (not verified) on

Thanks for writing this piece Tara. I happen to be a dairy and beef farmer of the pasture-fed and keeping calves with cows variety, so I'm perhaps not a natural 'ally' in this 'battle,' but I really apprciate these words and there is much I agree with in this piece, inc its overall sentiment. I'm tired of the virtue-signalling, consumer-can-save-the-planet, demonising, polarising, binary thinking that comes out of both camps. It seem we all need a PhD in how to avoid 'gaslighting' these days... I find it so worrying how entrenched everyone wants to be with their views these days - if only the food debate was the only example. For sure, personal responsibility is an important aspect in the whole debate and is part of the response (solution feels like the wrong word to me, it's too much of the techno-optimist, eco-modernist sort), but it's more complex than that alone. Tbh, I'm embarassed by some of the stuff that is said by people 'in my camp' about vegans and veganism, and climate and carbon in general. The demonising of the other has never led to a healthy society... 

Annie Leymarie's picture
Submitted by Annie Leymarie (not verified) on

Geoff may be "an amateur" but he has certainly a lot more understanding than I do. Still, the debates and new data on methane are fascinating and I share with Geoff a hunger for "more understandable" information. I note that Myles Allen and colleagues have recently revised their GWP* theory. They write: "We show that this approach, while an improvement on the conventional usage, slightly underestimates the impact of recent increases in short-lived climate pollutants [thus methane] emissions on current rates of warming because the climate does not respond instantaneously to radiative forcing. We resolve this with a modification of the GWP* definition (...)" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-019-0086-4.

On September 11th, Glenn Peters ("Research Director at @CICERO_klima on past, current, and future trends in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions") posted a twitter thread on methane. This included: "Almost a quarter of current warming is due to livestock alone (including N₂O & land-use change), which gives an idea of the potential leverage mitigation (behavioural & technological) can have on near-term current warming levels.".  He then cited this study on the contribution of livestock emissions to global warming: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.13975. The Cicero Centre published in March an article stating that "New research estimates that over the next ten years the heating effect from CH4 emissions, will exceed that from CO2 emissions. Increasing CH4 emissions – if sustained – could derail progress made towards reductions targets laid out under the 2015 UNFCCC Paris Agreement." https://www.cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/klima/methane-a-climate-blind-spot

Other climate scientists confirm that "optimizing methane mitigation is crucial in reaching low climate targets." - adding that "enteric fermentation in ruminants is by far the largest bottleneck by the end of the century. In a 2 °C case in 2100, emissions are estimated at 87 Mt/year (range, 31–137 Mt) or 57% (20– 91%) of total emissions. It seems unlikely that these residual emissions can be avoided without a global change in human diets towards monogastric meat or an increasingly plant-based diet". https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02437-2 

Other teams have stated that "early mitigation of CH4 emissions would significantly increase the feasibility of stabilising global warming below 1.5 °C, alongside having co-benefits for human and ecosystem health." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aab89c, and that "Aggressive and sustained reductions in both long- and short-lived climate pollutants are now required". sci-hub.tw/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030154 

Annie Leymarie's picture
Submitted by Annie Leymarie (not verified) on

I meant to add this last quote, perhaps in response to Geoff's quest for "understandability". It's from Andy Reisinger (Vice-Chair of IPCC Working Group III), who tweeted it on June 8th:  "The science is simple and unambiguous. The lower methane emissions, the better for the climate. How low we're prepared to go is not a question of science but of how much warming we're willing to cause/avoid, at what cost. Which means it comes down to judgements about economics, social and environmental values, and ethics".

Beatrice 's picture
Submitted by Beatrice (not verified) on

Thank you Tara for sharing your opinion, thoughts and fears brilliantly and with humor! I fully share all your questioning, especially being professionally involved in the agribizzzz.....  

David Finlay's picture
Submitted by David Finlay (not verified) on

Thank you Tara for that refreshingly frank and thoughtful piece. In some ways it is reassuring that someone of your scientific stature is still so compromised and (it seems to me) struggling to see through the seemingly conflicting scientific 'evidence' to a certain way forward out of the path of the perfect storm approaching our species. 

As you point out, it is our hard-wired need to consume, fed and nurtured by our business and political 'leaders' (who parasitise that frailty) that has lead us to this pass. Technologies introduced with the promise of being some kind of solution almost invariably are twisted, corrupted and abused to the point of becoming part of the problem.   

The interconnected complexity of our food system and its impact on our lives only demonstrates the short-comings of our scientific approach - a peripheral examination of a veritable blancmange. A bit like those blind-folded people trying to describe an elephant, but this time it's a whole zoo!

Having come from an industrial farming, consultancy and practical, background and now 20 years of (often challenging!) ecological regenerative farming, I never cease to be amazed at how natural systems, once we come to begin to understand and work with them, are capable of delivering the social, environmenta and welfare  outcomes that we seek. Profitably. And all this without the need for those toxic technologies that are poisoning us and our world - soluble fertilisers, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, anti-biotics and such.

When we approach the scientific comunity with a request for studies to examine these systems and their impacts there is a large degree of scepticism and a claim that 'there is no money'. When we approach the research funders our applications are refused on the grounds (yes, 7 times) that there is no scalability, jobs and growth. What is your IP? Your widget? Er, 'helping save our world?' doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

My rant (no apology) is born out of frustration and exasperation that our frantic search for a solution in the ether, is in fact beneath our feet.

My invitation to visit is always open.

Clive Mitchell's picture
Submitted by Clive Mitchell (not verified) on

Tara - great post - many thanks for sharing.  One word you didn't use but come tantalising close to, is 'identity'.  I wonder if that was by accident or design?  It seems to me that 'identity' goes a long way to explaining the positions and polarisations that characterise so much of public discourse today.

As you say, in reality each position occupies a range of views and values, but 'identity' (whether veganism or carnivore) is taken to mean a single thing, and associated with other things - so that veganism is stereotyped as one thing, and carnivores as another and so on. The debates are then about these stereotypes, which of course are meaningless - but reinforced through the echo chambers we occupy (especially through social media).

As Dieter Helm would say 'it's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong'.  Adopting stereotypical identities and associated us vs them politics isn't going to get us anywhere

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Hi All

There are other issues also with veganism. I am about to present on this at ANZOS, Sydney from a Human Evolutionary Ecology point of view. 

One of the greatest problems with our nutrition is the separation of the myriads of types and volumes of nutrients (phytonutrients, minerals) that should be coming with our macronutrients. These are required to run a warm-blooded metabolism that is also expected to run a body with the demanding brain, and then this process for decades?!

We need to do better than regenerative farming - we need restorative farming and work with the original, local ecologies where we can. 

Thanks for the 'Restoring Paradise' video - in a country whose ecology only managed a couple of reclusive bat species of the Mammmalian superclass. We (Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia) have a hard ask - and do have to do better that regenerative farming - we need restorative farming, for high nutrient, healthy food sources. So grains - with annual farming for a few centuries in a few cultures, however farmed now - will never work (see Lorain Cordain).

We need far more variety - as nomadic mammals - always needing plenty of the above mentioned. Such food only comes from ecologies that can maintain some form of ecological sustainability. Animals are always a part. 

And note some basics, roving HERBIvours eat far more than grass, and of course naturally never "wasted" methane gas. Like us, from organic mixed leafy greens, we take in spores of methane eating microbes, hidden in non-grain vegetable/fruit fibre. Only our sick high productivity ruminants fed grains (NOT their natural herbs, and the grain/grass plant leaves, etc but also small amounts of tiny grain seeds, dirt and some invertebrates) waste such energy sources...

Let's get rid of the industrial refined highly bred for energy grain flour and sugars, hydrogenated seed oils etc, and get on with restorative eco-agricology, learning from the original ecologies.

Were there that there were no annual highly bred, addictive grain/tuber CHO crops, other oil (sunflower etc) and protein (soya) crops, grown/refined with xenobiotic chemicals (100-200K man-made pollutants) poisoning the environment, but only mixed, eco farming.

Metabolic syndrome markers of domestic animals' and humans' dysmetabolism would disappear. These include all of the inter-related following:- obesity, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, infection/infestation susceptibility, allergy/ autoimmune/ neoplastic (cancer) diseases, in utero developmental (metabolic and neural) and degenerative diseases are all part of our woefully disastrous ‘ultra processed’ foodstuff diets. These illnesses would leave the planet shortly after we had to eat real food.

And human evolutionary morphology AND behavior in our societies  , especially since our technologies have allowed such damage – societal organisation needs review to understand better, at the same time as well...

Cheers


​Dr Anne-Thea McGill PhD. BSc. MBChB. FRA&NZCGP.   Mob (Aus) +61 452 378 875 
Clinical Position:  Specialist GP ; Email; 
anne.thea.mcgill@gmail.com                                                  Moving soon back to Aotearoa/New Zealand,  Working at Queenstown Medical Centre and opening links with University of Otago, of which I am an Alumna

Currently Morningside Family Medical Centre,  Corner Wynnum & Junction Rds, Morningside, 
QLD 4170, Brisbane, Australia, 
Tel +61 7 3395 8577
Academic : Adjunct​ Professor,​  Email:  anne-thea.mcgill@scu.edu.au ​ 
​School of Health & Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Lismore Campus, Military Road, East Lismore,  NSW 2480; Australia
CAUTION: This email message & data may contain confidential information  &/or subject to legal privilege 

 

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah (not verified) on
Thank you for this very genuine and complex reflection far from the usually simplistic views. The problems are complex and this needs to be acknowledged and accepted.

Vegan and Proud's picture
Submitted by Vegan and Proud (not verified) on

Thank you for admitting two days a week is not enough.  Your "uncomfortable" friend needs to not be so sensative.  Push for three days and keep going.  You can do it! 

na's picture
Submitted by na (not verified) on

"Clean Meat" makes about as much since to me as "clean coal".  It's a pipe dream, and a dangerous distraction when we already have alternatives.  

Add new comment

Member input

Plain text

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.