Pullback Podcast

  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
  • Episodes
  • Back Catalogue
    • Solutions: Seasons 1, 2, 3, 4
    • Our First 101 Episodes
  • How To Listen
42.png

Episode 35 - Eating Insects

August 19, 2020 by Kristen Pue

Kristen is on vacation, so Kyla took the reigns on this look into the future of eating insects. This was a topic we had discussed when originally brainstorming for the show, and we’re excited to finally eat our cricket powder.

A lot of the information for this episode was taken from a 2013 paper by the FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It’s called Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security. Before this report came out, there was very little conversation happening on the subject, so this kick-started the discussion.

History of Eating Insects

The practice of eating insects is called entomophagy, and we’ve been doing it since prehistoric times. Shoutout to the wiki article on entomophagy which is extremely well written. I recommend checking it out as a starting point for those who want to learn more after the episode.

Around 2 billion people eat insects around the world, mostly in Central and South America, Africa, Asia, and even a bit in Australia and New Zealand, although it’s less common from my experience. It’s more taboo in western culture, but it shouldn’t be! It’s slowly becoming more acceptable in western cultures to eat insects, and in Seattle toasted grasshoppers are a big hit at Mariners baseball games.

There are about 2000 arthropods globally that are known to be safe for human consumption. Arthropods are invertebrate animals with an exoskeleton, segmented body, and paired jointed appendages. The category includes insects, arachnids, myriapods (centipedes, millipedes etc), and crustaceans. So if you’re eating crab and lobster, you’re already partway there. Crickets are so similar to shellfish they put allergy warnings on cricket powder saying people with shellfish allergies may react to cricket as well.

It’s kind of funny that we eat lobster, which used to be fed to servants and prison inmates until rules were passed to prevent something considered so cruel. Perhaps we’ll soon be there with bugs!

So why don’t we eat them in the west? A New York Times article suggests that because Europe spent so much of it’s history covered in ice, it only has about 2% of the world’s edible insects and they don’t get nearly as big as they do in warmer climates, so they were never worth hunting. We associate them with things that are dirty or decaying or carrying disease. Also the bible says not to do it (Leviticus 11:41 ‘And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten.’) so that’s that. Early explorers saw people eating insects in different countries and viewed it as animal-like. As Europeans took over large parts of the world, they took the idea of not eating insects with them, so we can thank colonialism for setting us way back on this one. Missionaries were especially influential in Africa and changed the way people viewed eating insects.

To be fair, it’s not like we’re super weird for not eating insects. Out of 800,000 arthropods, only 2000 are edible. But that same article says we can expect rapid growth in demand in the west for insects in the next few years, which is promising because there’s lots of great reasons to eat bugs!

Surprise, we already eat bugs!

Each year we eat 2lbs of insects! What?? They wind up in food like peanut butter, spices, or canned fruit and veg. The US FDA allows certain quantities to pass into the food Americans buy. “For every ¼ cup of cornmeal, the FDA allows an average of one or more whole insects, two or more rodent hairs and 50 or more insect fragments, or one or more fragments of rodent dung.” - CNN

Not to mention honey. A teaspoon of honey represents the lifetime regurgitation of 50 bees. So we’re already consuming hidden insects and the byproducts of insects. Pass the cricket powder! 

What insects do people eat?

The most popular are beetles, caterpillars, bees, wasps, ants, grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets.

I saw scorpions on sticks in Beijing, and bought mealworm and cricket powder here in Canada. In Australia, on a tour I did in Darwin, ants are picked right off of trees and eaten by brave tourists. They taste citrusy and are high in vitamin C.

In Kushihara Japan there’s an annual wasp festival where wasp-hunters sell snacks like wasp mochi, chocolate wasps, and full wasp nests. It’s all considered a delicacy.

There are loads of insects to eat! Dragonflies, grubs, termites, the list goes on.

Why Eat Bugs?

Everyone who eats insects say they’re tasty. 2 billion people aren’t eating bugs because they DON’T taste good. Apparently stinkbugs taste like apples. But just as important, they’re sustainable alternatives to the meat industry.

From an article by Samuel Imathiu from the University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya

“The current research evidence shows that edible insects can play a significant role in addressing food and nutrition insecurities and this should be encouraged. Scientific evidence shows that edible insects’ nutritional quality is equivalent and sometimes exceeds that of animal-based foods. This and the fact that edible insects have a faster growth rate, high food conversion efficiency and requires less resources to rear compared to livestock should make them a more attractive quality food source especially to the rural poor in the developing countries.”

Environmental Benefits

We’ve talked a lot already in previous episodes about how animal agriculture is a big culprit in climate change, but as a refresher, livestock account for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and use about 70% of the world’s agricultural land. And production is expected to ramp up as global demand continues to increase. As countries become wealthier, and more urbanized, they’re meat consumption grows. So, fighting climate change means overhauling our current food system. Eating insects can help in a few ways.

1) Insects can be fed on food industry by-products, which helps reduce waste and environmental contamination. This would be more for the insects being raised as feed for other animals. For people, we want to feed bugs food grade food. Or if the waste they’re eating is food waste like apple cores and melon rinds, stuff like that, then it would probably be alright for us. But this needs more study, and most of the farms I looked into feed them a grain meal. Here is a little more information than we went into on the episode.

2) Less food waste, since the whole cricket is being used. In addition, Entomo Farms (where I got my cricket powder) says their crickets’ manure and sheddings, called frass, are sold to farmers and gardeners as high quality fertilizer.

3) Insects emit fewer greenhouse gases and less ammonia than cattle or pigs. Methane, one of the worst greenhouse gases, is produced by only a few insect groups, such as termites and cockroaches. Overall, bugs produce one tenth as much methane as conventional livestock. When compared to chickens, which are greener than bigger livestock, crickets emit half as much C02 and use 25 percent less water. From the FAO paper:

4) They need less land, water, and food, and you don’t have to clear cut spaces to raise them. “Because they are cold-blooded, insects are very efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for example, need 12 times less feed than cattle, four times less feed than sheep, and half as much feed as pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein)”.

As an email from Entomo Farms put it “less feed means less land, water, fertilizers, and transportation”. However, this is a little contested. When fed certain organic waste diets they’ve been found to have the same feed conversion as chickens. The feed the big farms use do make them more efficient, but everyone is still trying to figure out the best stuff to feed them.

By 2025, nearly 2 billion people are expected to be living with water scarcity, and more than half of our freshwater is being used in agriculture. 1kg of animal protein requires 5-20 times more water than 1kg of grain protein, or 100 times if you include the water required for forage and grain production to feed the animals. 1kg of beef requires 22000-43000 litres of fresh water. Cricket needs less, although the numbers are all over the place when I look it up. The highest estimates were 100-250l, but one source said 10l and another said 1l. Regardless, at the highest estimate it’s still a huge drop from the water requirements of cows.

For land, you need about 200 square metres to grow 1lb of beef, but you only need 15 square metres to grow 1lb of cricket. They could be good for vertical farming if they’re being kept in crates. One farm said 10’x3’ crates are used, but they can be kept in smaller boxes for small scale operations.

5) Insects are ready to eat way faster than other animals. They transform from larva to adults within weeks. There are loads of species of crickets, but most of them die of old age after 10 weeks, and none live more than a year.

As a bonus, all of the ways bugs are more environmentally friendly than livestock also makes them cheaper. While it’s still a little pricey to get insects here in Canada, it will become more cost effective for the consumer when everyone is eating them.

Eating insects isn’t just for people. They can be used to feed pets and livestock! We’ll probably have to start using them as our food’s food. The FAO figures worldwide production of animal feed will have to increase by as much as 70 percent to be able to feed the world by 2050, when we’ll have around 9 billion people on the planet. Switching from meat meal, fish meal, and soybean meal would help mitigate the production problems that come with those industries. We’ve talked about these problems in our milk, vegetarian, and seafood episodes in a bit more detail.

Health Benefits

Insects contain loads of protein, vitamins, minerals, and amino acids. They’re loaded with omega 3 fats, iron, magnesium, calcium, zinc, and fibre. The exoskeleton of insects actually makes their fibre content pretty high. This obviously varies widely based on the insects being eaten. There are nearly 2000 remember! But for the most part they’re hella good for you.

Entomo Farms talk about the nutrients in cricket powder on their site and use what I think is a misleading metric, which is comparing the nutrients to beef, pound for pound. My cricket powder was really expensive, and I won’t be able to eat a whole pound of cricket the same way I could eat a cheese burger. Or at least I can’t yet, I demand a cricket cheeseburger!
Although, 2tbsp have 400% of my B12 intake. So maybe I don’t need a cricket burger. But if I do want one, I just have to wait; as production ramps up, price will go down.

“Compared with mammals and birds, insects may also pose less risk of transmitting zoonotic infections to humans, livestock and wildlife, although this topic requires further research.” So mad cow and H1N1 and salmonella for example appear to be less likely to be transmitted. But because we’re not farming insects on large scale right now, more research should be done.

Pest Harvesting and Lifting People out of Poverty

From the wiki article on Entomophagy: Some researchers have proposed entomophagy as a solution to policy incoherence created by traditional agriculture, by which conditions are created which favor a few insect species, which then multiply and are termed "pests". In parts of Mexico, the grasshopper Sphenarium purpurascens is controlled by its capture and use as food. Such strategies allow decreased use of pesticide and create a source of income for farmers totaling nearly US$3000 per family. Environmental impact aside, some argue that pesticide use is inefficient economically due to its destruction of insects which may contain up to 75 percent animal protein in order to save crops containing no more than 14 percent protein.

“In the past two decades, villagers in impoverished north-eastern Thailand have started housing crickets in concrete pens in their backyards. As demand for the insects has risen, so have profits: One farmer reportedly went from selling 10 kilograms to more than two tons a day. Now around 20,000 such farms have been established, collectively earning more than $3 million a year.” - New York Times

Is It Cruel?

As Kristen has said before on the show, it’s a little tricky when you look at how one cow can feed a number of people, while a number of crickets are needed to feed one person. So is it ethical to do that?

There hasn’t been much research done on insect welfare and laws are suuuuper loose about how to raise and protect insects. The farm I bought my powder from puts the cricket welfare in their advertising, but I don’t think we should rely on the kindness of cricket farmers entirely.

It’s most likely that insects do not feel pain, but we’re not sure. So, the safest thing to do is to regulate the treatment of insects in farming. Kristen was a little skeptical of the “they probably don’t feel pain?” argument I offered, so here’s all the reading I did on it to land on that unhelpful statement.

It’s pretty easy to kill insects humanely and unlike mammals, they like living in high density situations. It’s important to regulate the slaughter methods, because there are humane ways to do it, such as lowering the temperature until they go into hibernation and then eventually die (24hrs to be safe), and inhumane, like boiling, frying, steaming, roasting, etc. There are some that are served and eaten still alive, which ranks pretty low on my humane scale.

Entomo says they treat the crickets ethically. They live at least 80% of their natural life cycle in large open rooms instead of crates. They roam freely and have constant access to food and water. I guess that’s better?

For farms that do use crates, they’re reasoning is that crates can be stacked to use space more efficiently and they’re usually given nooks and crannies and objects to climb on and hide in, for they’re comfort.

Brian Tomasik, who writes about reducing animal suffering, argues that eating insects isn’t ethical, and one of his best points was: is it ethical to bring more insects into existence in farming operations, if their lives are worse off than in their natural habitat? Even if large farms do a good job, amateur farms are likely to cause harm by neglect or making mistakes, like forgetting to feed and water them.

What do you think?

Downsides of Eating Insects

We have to be careful of over-doing it. Most insects are still harvested from the wild rather than farmed, so it’s possible to accidentally destroy the local insect population. From what I could find this is pretty rare, but still something to consider.

Wild caught insects are also more likely to have pesticides if they’ve been hanging around crops, which is a bad thing for us to be eating.

Because production isn’t mainstream, there needs to be more studies done on concentrations of heavy metals, pesticides, and allergens. Also, infrastructure and machinery for mainstream harvesting is still new and it’s loosely regulated or not regulated at all in most countries. It’s hard to know how safe the production process is for turning out food. If insects are being raised on farms with poor quality or straight up rotten feed, then humans are getting that nasty bacteria.

We have to be careful about introducing insects into environments where they might cause harm. It’s difficult to bring live insects into Australia, for example, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. While farms might remain mostly closed, it’s gotta be pretty hard to contain them fully.

Because farming insects is not a well understood industry, scaling it up to meet the demands of a population pushing 8 billion people will probably bring surprise issues that are difficult to see now but obvious in hindsight.

They look nasty as fuck. I read an article by Angela Skujins who tried to eat insects in every meal for a week, and it was a huge failure, she lost 4 pounds and thought she’d die of starvation.

Crickets still need to eat food. So they’ll still require crops and energy from heating their facilities (although because they like darkness, a bit of energy is saved by keeping the lights out).

Overall, if you’re looking for the most ethical diet, it’s still vegan.

So Are We All Going To Be Eating Insects?

The industry is slowly growing. In 2018 Sainsbury’s in the UK started carrying Crunchy Roasted Crickets. Whole Foods and Loblaw here in Canada also apparently stock it, although I’ve never noticed and I’ll have to watch out for it now. More than 100 companies currently exist that produce their own branded foods made from insects.

The industry was worth less than a billion dollars in 2019, but is projected to be worth as much as 8 billion dollars by 2030.

Aspire Food Group, a farm in Texas, is ramping up the size of it’s operation because demand for cricket powder is so high.

So will people eat bugs? Yeah probably someday. Sushi was very stigmatized when it was first introduced in the west but grew popular because restaurants put it on their menus and patrons trusted the chefs to present something edible. We might just be one popular restaurant chain and an influencer munching on a cricket burger away from cricket chips in every cupboard.


Further Info

Fun Fact of the episode: when crickets are ready to mate, they make their chirping noise. If a whole bunch of them are ready to go at once, it gets hella loud in the big farms and farmers have to wear headphones.

Here is a great short video on eating insects!

And another!

And a podcast episode from Wall Street Journal’s Future of Everything

August 19, 2020 /Kristen Pue
entopreneurship, insects, animal welfare, vegetarianism, sustainability, climate change, emissions, entomophagy, crickets, cricket powder, mealworms, ethical consumption, food, food and drink, food security, seafood, Environment, agriculture, animal agriculture
Comment
23.png

Episode 19 - Personal Behaviour Changes and the Climate Crisis

April 20, 2020 by Kristen Pue

This episode we were joined by Robert Miller, a progressive activist and organizer based out of Edmonton, Alberta. One of the groups he works with is Extinction Rebellion. Since this was an interview episode, a research note is a bit tricky to do. So, what I’ve done here is just include the prep notes that I did, to give a sense of themes.

Belief and the Climate Crisis 

Johnathan Safran Foer in We Are the Weather writes about the psychological difficulty that humans experience in truly believing climate science. What he means by that is that many of us know the climate science, but we don’t really believe it – not enough to really change the way that we live in the ways that the climate crisis demands.

One of the threads throughout the book is this question that he raises around his grandmother’s decision to leave her village when the Holocaust was beginning. And the decision of family members who stayed. All of them had access to the same knowledge, but there is something different going on when it comes to really believing it and acting on that belief.

And we see this a lot with the climate crisis, I think: this idea that we are in the middle of the greatest crisis that humankind has ever faced, that we know we have a decade to take radical leaps to prevent runaway climate change.

And yet my life goes on more or less as normal. And I think that’s the way it is for a lot of people. So, I guess my question is: how can we get people to really believe in climate change, in the deep-seated way that we needed to?

Climate Anxiety and Climate Grief

One idea is that we can’t really conceptualize the climate crisis until we acknowledge its ability to kill us. That’s a pretty heavy thing to accept.

Do you experience climate anxiety? How do you deal with it?

Of course, the other side of climate anxiety is climate grief – coping with what we’ve already lost and what we cannot save. I think for me at least, climate grief is harder to cope with than climate anxiety.

What would you say to people that are just starting to confront climate grief, or to even realize that climate grief is a thing?

Which Personal Behaviour Changes Are Best?

Nearly two-thirds of global emissions are linked to direct and indirect forms of human consumption. So, in theory at least, there’s a lot that we can personally do to address the climate crisis.

What, in your view, is the single most important personal behaviour change people can make to address the climate crisis?

Eating a plant-based diet

We’ve talked on the podcast before about the environmental benefits of eating a plant-based diet – whether that means going fully vegan or becoming a ‘flexitarian’ or ‘reducetarian’. By one suggestion, a climate-sensitive flexitarian diet would mean eating about 1.5oz of meat daily (or, about three hamburgers worth per week). And just a reminder from our previous episodes that the world is an animal farm – about 30% of the earth’s land mass is used for animal agriculture or animal feed. Emissions from food production could surge by 87% by 2050.

Robert, you’ve been vegan for a while. Was it the climate crisis that motivated you to become vegan, or something else? What advice would you give to someone who cares about the climate, but who is intimidated about the prospect of going vegetarian or vegan?

I just want to quickly highlight some of the other personal behaviour changes that are often recommended:

Reducing your food waste

GHG emissions associated with food loss and waste is as much as 8-10% of all global emissions.

Composting

By the time this episode comes out, we’ll have already released the zero-waste episode. In that episode we talked about how organic waste is the majority of garbage people throw away. Composting can help us fight climate change because landfilled organic materials produce methane, a super potent GHG.

In an episode on biogas, we talk about the potential for turning food waste into energy!

Driving less, cycling, walking, and taking public transit more

In 2010, the transport sector was responsible for over 25% of global energy demand.

Having kids?

There is one last lifestyle change that I want us to reflect on a bit, and that is having children. A lot of people worry about bringing children into a world that is quite likely going to look a lot worse in a generation than it does today. Others have concerns that producing more humans contributes to the increases in consumption that are causing the climate crisis. What are your thoughts on becoming a parent in the climate change era?

What’s wrong with fighting the climate crisis with personal behaviour changes?

Some articles say that lifestyle changes are the only answer to the climate crisis, while others say that we can’t address climate change through personal behaviour. So, who’s right?

Themes within this: inefficiency (there’s so much we cannot personally control); personal behaviour changes are way easier for some than others; and climate justice, environmental racism.

Do We Need Mandatory Rationing?

A lot of people have used wartime rationing as an example for how personal behaviour can address the climate crisis. For instance, Bill McKibben has said, “it’s not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. And we are losing.” The suggestions along this line usually include stuff like marshaling extraordinary public investment to build solar panels, wind farms, electrified public transit, tree-planting et cetera. It could also include meat rations and, more controversially, retreat and re-wilding.

What are some of the benefits and drawbacks of taking a wartime approach to the climate?

As we get closer to 2030, are we running out of other options?

The Green New Deal

One thing that I’ve started to hear a lot in climate discussions is how we need to focus on the opportunities of decarbonization as well as the costs. We often hear this in the context of the Green New Deal.

What is the Green New Deal, in a nutshell? What are some of the benefits that we could achieve from acting collectively on the climate crisis, aside from averting catastrophe?

Learn more about the Green New Deal for Canada.

How to Promote Collective Action Changes

Political scientists love to talk about climate change as a collective action problem. Basically what that means is that the benefits of addressing climate change are diffuse (and mostly in the future), while the costs are specific (and mostly in the present). So, there are huge incentives to free ride, which makes collective action difficult. Or, to put it in the slightly flashier language of journalist Oliver Burkeman: “If a cabal of evil psychologists had gathered in a secret undersea base to concoct a crisis humanity would be hopelessly ill-equipped to address, they couldn’t have done better than climate change”.

We hear this narrative a lot in Canada from climate delayers: that Canada is a small part of the world’s global emissions and we can’t take on climate change, so why bother. What would you say to that?And what about the idea that the world still needs oil, so someone has to supply it? What does collective action on climate look like, from your perspective?

How Can You Support Collective Action?

Vote!

Vote for the candidate that has the best climate stance. If you live in America, the Sunrise Movement identifies Green New Deal champions. What should someone do if they don’t see sufficient climate policies reflected in any of their major parties or candidates?

Sign petitions, write your MP, your MPP, your councillor

Petitions are helpful for advocacy groups, because it helps them talk to politicians. When an advocacy group meets with an MP, it’s a lot easier to get his attention when you can show that people in the constituency care about that issue. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby has good tools for talking about the climate crisis.

Go to climate rallies

Protests make issues visible, and crowd-size matters. Activists often talk about the idea that non-violent revolutions have, historically, usually been successful when they mobilize 3.5% of the population. (From Erica Chenoweth’s research). In September 2019, roughly that percentage of Canadians participated in the climate strike. Do you think anything has changed as a result of recent climate strikes? And if not, why not?

Donate to or volunteer with a climate group of a climate champion candidate

There is a lot you can do with your time as a climate action volunteer: door-knocking, calling, pamphleting, flyering, postering, et cetera. Let’s say a listener is interested in helping out, but showing up at protests isn’t something they’re comfortable with. What would you say to them? What are some helpful ways they could get involved?

Become a citizen climate scientist

If science is your jam, there are ways to get involved as a citizen scientist.

Bring up climate change in your social circles, even if it’s awkward

This is where I think personal behaviour can spur social change, too. Any tips on how to raise the climate crisis with climate agnostics in a way that won’t alienate them.

Personal Behaviour Changes ARE Collective Action Changes

That is why acting matters, even if it is small. Because “the most contagious standards are the ones that we model” (JSF). So be the person at the protest, even if there are only a few hundred people there – even if there are only a dozen people there. Try to reduce your carbon footprint. Go flexitarian, or reducetarian, or vegetarian, or vegan. The people who love you will notice. And when they change, even just a little, it matters.

Also mentioned in the episode:

Wet’suwet’en Solidarity
350.org
Fridays For Future Climate Strikes

April 20, 2020 /Kristen Pue
Environment, environment, climate change, climate crisis, Earth Day, Earth Day 2020, protest, racism, climate justice, climate action, veganism, reducitarian, flexitarian, vegetarianism
Comment
7.png

Episodes 07 and 08 - Vegetarianism

January 13, 2020 by Kristen Pue

Types of Vegetarian

 There are a few different variants of vegetarianism. Generally speaking, these variants can be put into three categories: the vegetarian-inclined, vegetarians, and vegans.

 Vegetarian-inclined people can be flexitarian or semi-vegitarian. These are people that sometimes eat meat. Then there are pollotarians, who eat poultry and fowl but not other meats. Pescatarians eat fish, but not other meats.

 There are also some different kinds of vegetarians. First, ovolactarians (lacto-ovo-vegetarians) eat dairy products and eggs. Lactarians (lacto-vegetarians) eat dairy but not eggs. Ovo-vegetarians eat eggs but not dairy.

 Then there are vegans! Vegans do not eat animal products at all. However, a variant of veganism called beeganism describes people who do eat honey, but not other animal products.

 If you are interested in moving toward a plant-based diet for environmental reasons, Food is the Solution is a helpful starter. It has good recipes for people who are new to plant-based eating.

 History of Vegetarianism

 Vegetarianism has a long history.

Proto-vegetarianism

 Humans have been vegetarian since before recorded history. Anthropologists believe that early humans would have eaten a predominantly plant-based diet, out of ease. Ancient Egyptians relied mostly on wheat and barley for their diets. They refrained from eating meat, except during festivals and special occasions, for religious reasons (source).

 Pythagoreans were some of the first self-proclaimed vegetarians. This refers to the followers of Pythagoras, an ancient Greek philosopher. They were vegetarian for religious and ethical reasons. Pythagoras considered it wrong to treat any animal differently than one would treat a human (source), as he believed all living beings had a soul. For many years following, a meatless diet was referred to at the Pythagorean diet .  Following a Pythagorean diet was linked to piety and asceticism, since meat was a symbol of wealth and power.

 During the Renaissance, being a Pythagorean was viewed as heresy. But during that same time, influential figures like Leonardo da Vinci and Montaigne began to speak out against animal cruelty (source). Leonardo da Vinci followed a Pythagorean diet and, apparently, was known to set free any caged birds that he found in the marketplace (source). Moral arguments against meat consumption gained speed after the Renaissance, but was still a fringe movement that faced ridicule from society (source)

 The early vegetarian movement

 The term ‘vegetarian’ was first listed in the OED in 1839 (source). The Vegetarian Society of England, the first vegetarian society, formed in England in 1847 in Ramsgate (source). The American Vegetarian Society formed in NYC in 1850. Notable early vegetarians include: Leo Tolstoy, George Bernard Shaw, Mahatma Gandhi (practice of Ahimsa, non-injury), and Susan B. Anthony. Vegetarianism in the 19th and early 20th century was often associated with temperance and abstinence. There is also an uncomfortable association between some early vegetarians and the eugenics movement (e.g., John Kellogg, inventor of corn flakes, was vegetarian and a huge eugenics promoter).

 Vegetarianism goes mainstream

 Vegetarianism grew in the 1970s after the publication of a bestselling book called Diet for a Small Planet, written by Francis Moore Lappe (1971). The book is on the environmental impact of eating meat. Around the same time, Peter Singer (1975) published Animal Liberation.

 1990s-today

 From the 1990s onward, it has become increasingly popular to eat a plant-based diet. As of 2018, 3 million Canadians identify as vegetarian or vegan (almost 10% of the population). This is according to research done by Sylvain Charlebois at Dalhousie University. About 8% of Americans are vegetarian or vegan, and that figure has been relatively flat since the late 1990s, according to Gallup polling data. Flexitarianism is also gaining in popularity – between 2014 and 2018, sales of meat substitutes doubled in the US (from $702M to $1.44B)

 Animal Welfare

 The animal welfare justification for vegetarianism is rooted in two questions. First, is it wrong to raise/kill animals for human consumption, even if it is done humanely? Second, is it wrong to raise/kill animals for human consumption in the way that we are doing it via industrial agriculture? Vegans would extend that question to ask whether it can ever be right to use animals for our consumption purposes (but we’ll go into that in the upcoming veganism episode).

 Animal Rights versus Suffering

 There is a debate on whether to apply a framework of rights to animal welfare concerns. The animal rights (or non-human person rights) movement argues for applying rights to non-human animals. The argument for animal rights typically relies on taking aim at the difference between animal and humans. Animal rights activists argue that humans and animals are not so different on things like consciousness and having distinct preferences. Others argue that animals don’t have rights on grounds that animals and humans are different.

 The non-human animal rights movement has often focused efforts on ‘higher’ animals like primates. In 2016, an Argentine court ordered that a chimp named Cecilia should be released from a zoo. The argument of animal rights lawyers was essentially that Cecilia’s confinement without companionship had a detrimental impact on her health.

 Peter Singer has famously rejected the use of a rights-based frame to justify vegetarianism. Instead, he uses suffering as the metric. This approach is rooted in utilitarianism. Singer essentially says that speciesism is wrong: that we shouldn’t discriminate on the grounds that a being belongs to a species. So, Singer argues that we should take into account whether we are causing harm to another being irrespective of the species. Taking that frame, Singer argues that the key metric is capacity to feel pain. It’s for this reason that he thinks it’s okay to eat bivalves (oysters, mussels, clams) because they probably don’t feel pain.

 So, even if you don’t think that animal rights, you can think that animals have interests that are violated (e.g., to live in decent conditions, to make free choices, to be free from fear/pain, to live healthy lives, to enjoy the normal social/family/community life of its species).

 Factory Farming

 You know this already: factory farming is a nightmare-scape. Factory farms are operations with more than: 500 beef or dairy cattle; 1,000 hogs; 100,000 egg-laying chickens; or 500,000 broiler chickens (sold annually). In America, the vast majority of meat is factory-farmed: upwards of 95% for most animal protein.

 Animals in factory farms have very little space. Breeding sows kept in ‘gestation crates’ that keep them completely immobilized. Most chickens are kept in ‘battery cages’, which hold 5-10 birds. Each bird may have an amount of floor space equivalent to less than a sheet of letter-sized paper. Stress from overcrowding and boredom causes aggression, which is why most pigs have their tails cut off to prevent tail-biting. For the same reason, chickens, turkeys, and ducks are often de-beaked (and a significant portion die during the ordeal). Cows are dehorned and castrated, usually without pain management.

 The overcrowding also means that animals get sick a lot, which is why factory-farmed meat is so pumped with antibiotics.

 Factory farming prioritizes productivity over the well-being of the animals. Egg-laying chickens are put through something called ‘force molting’ where they are denied food for up to two weeks, in order to shock their bodies into another egg-laying cycle. Calves in feed lots are fattened for slaughter on an unnatural diet in order to reach “market weight” of 1,200 pounds within six months. Once they reach this weight they’re killed.

 There are ways to eat non-factory farmed meat, which maybe we’ll cover in a future episode.

 Environment

 Approximately 70 billion animals are raised annually for human consumption. From an environmental perspective, animal agriculture is less efficient than plant-based agriculture, simply because we also need to feed animals when we raise them.

 Shout out to this cool study by Clark, Springmann, Hill and Tilman 2019 on the multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. They look at five health metrics: mortality, coronary heart disease, colorectal cancer, diabetes, and stroke. Clark et al. compare this against five environmental metrics: acidification potential, eutrophication potential, GHG emissions, land use, and scarcity-weighted water use. The study finds that unprocessed and processed red meat is worse on both; animal products like chicken, fish, and dairy are healthier but bad for the environment; and plant-based foods like nuts, legumes, vegetables, and grains are healthier and better for the environment. There are some really cool charts in this study for the nerds out there, so I would definitely recommend taking a look.

 Land Use

 Animal agriculture uses up a lot of land: approximately 26% of Earth’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing. And beyond that, 33% of croplands are used for livestock feed production. So, the land footprint of animal agriculture is huge. 

 We have talked about land use on the podcast before. Essentially, you want land use to be as efficient as possible because we have a finite amount of space. The more space we put toward animal agriculture, the less we have available for carbon sinks like forests and wetlands. Climate Nexus estimates that replacing beef with plants in your diet reduces the land footprint of that food by 90%. This report has cool maps on land use change in the American heartland.

 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 Animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change: it is responsible for an estimated 18% of human caused emissions are from animal agriculture. Animal agriculture is also responsible for 44% of methane emissions and 44% of nitrous oxide emissions, two particularly bad greenhouse gases (GHGs). A total of 26% of emissions are from food more broadly (58% of which is from animal products, and 50% of which is from just beef and lamb).

 Why are emissions higher for animal agriculture? GHG emissions in animal agriculture result from the methane that is released from the digestive processes of animals, as well as animal manure. When land is converted to animal agriculture, this results in a loss of stored carbon. And we also have to include the fossil fuels used to produce mineral fertilizers for feed production. Climate Nexus estimates that replacing beef with plants in your diet reduces the GHG emissions of that food by 96%.

 Water Footprint

 We’ve talked about this before on the podcast: most of our water footprint comes from the indirect water usage that it takes to make our food. And generally speaking, meat is a lot more water-intensive to produce than plant-based food. Per calorie, beef is 10x more water-intensive than vegetables, and 3x as water-intensive at nuts. Nuts are the most water intensive category of plant-based food. Chicken is actually slightly less water-intensive to produce than nuts (per calorie), but the difference is fairly minor.

 Air Pollution

 Animal agriculture is also really bad for the air, and that is making us sick. In addition to the release of GHGs, animal agriculture produces particulate matter.

 Ambient air pollution is responsible for about 8% of all deaths annually, according to the WHO. Particulate matter is harmful to human health – it affects lung function and can aggravate other conditions (such as heart and lung disease), even leading to death. In many places like the US and Europe, the biggest source of fine-particulate air pollution isn’t cars; it’s agriculture. That fine particulate pollution comes from dry manure, feathers, bits of feed, and animal dander. When those break down, they’re released into the air.

 Eutrophication

 Animal agriculture also pollutes our waterways, leading to eutrophication. Climate Nexus estimates that replacing beef with plants in your diet reduces nitrogen fertilizer use by 94%.

Sources of eutrophication in animal agriculture include: nitrogen fertilizer run-off and leaching; manure run-off and leaching; and aquaculture. Aquaculture farms generate concentrated amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous from excrement, uneaten food, and organic waste (dead fishies).

 In addition to polluting our freshwater, this is creating something called “ocean dead-zones”. Basically, run-off of nitrogen and phosphorous creates low-oxygen areas that affect fish reproduction or even kill fish. There are more than 400 ocean dead-zones worldwide. The size of ocean dead zones has quadrupled since 1950. And most of that increase has been in coastal areas proximate to agricultural production. Coastal eutrophication from animal agriculture also contributes to ocean acidification.

Kyla’s Notes

Cheese rennet makes her sad.

January 13, 2020 /Kristen Pue
vegetarianism, environment, food and drink, food, animal welfare, land use, water footprint, climate change, utilitarianism, wine
Comment

Powered by Squarespace