Farmbrarian

Author Simon Fairlie aggressively tackles the sensitive topic of eating animals in his new book Meat: A Benign Extravagance (out Feb. 8). His explicit purpose is to evaluate the sustainability of raising livestock–or the long-term ability to feed the human population while maintaining as much of the natural ecosystem as possible. Dietary health and morality, he rightly suggests, are topics for other books.

Meat examines the many facets of the debate at great length. For example, Fairlie examines the oft cited statistic that each kilogram of beef we eat required 100,000 liters of water. After consideration from every possible angle, he determines that this figure is “wildly inaccurate” for the majority of cattle around the world. Other topics covered include: land requirements for livestock versus plants, the natural place for animals in an ecosystem, vegan agriculture, the interesting alliance between the meat and vegetable oil industries, greenhouse gas contributions of eating animal products (very thorough), and permaculture.

Fairlie himself spent several years as a vegetarian, but now eats meat. He has considerable and varying farming experience and presents the arguments as objectively as can be expected (no one can be perfectly objective, which he acknowledges). In many cases he points out when pro-vegan or pro-meat writers make misleading statements, present statistics steeped in partial-truth, or repeat “facts” without proper groundwork. In the end he pushes for a “default livestock” agricultural system where animals fit into the picture without consuming considerable resources that could be directly consumed by humans. For example, grazing cattle on steep, natural grassland that can’t readily be farmed. Or feeding food scraps or excess harvest to pigs, which can be eaten in leaner times. In effect, a pig acts as a caloric savings account (piggy-bank?) that can be accessed later. The “default livestock” system represents a lower level of meat consumption than the current Western average, but specific types of meat eating is supported nonetheless.

Meat is written from an English perspective, even addressing the question of whether Britain could feed itself. This has no real bearing on the book, however, because many situations are evaluated, and his conclusions apply well around the world. To say the least, reading this book was an educational experience. Many other books have addressed this topic, but none so thoroughly as Fairlie’s work. This is a tremendous reference, albeit a thick one, that should be perused by all.

On Amazon or at your local library.

Thanks to Chelsea Green for providing a review copy of the book.

You might also like: The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith and Diet For a Hot Planet by Anna Lappe.

Click to find at a library near you!

“Ultimately, nearly every single major disease affecting modern human populations–whether bacterial, viral, parasitic, or noncommunicable–has its roots in the mismatch between our biology and the world we have created since the advent of agriculture.”

10,000 years ago, people began growing food instead of foraging. This method of feeding populations seems like an obvious way to improve food security. (Although evidence does not suggest that hunter-gatherers had trouble obtaining sufficient food.) But as Spencer Wells states in the quote above, the affects of our decision to begin controlling nature through agriculture have been far reaching (90). He discusses the idea at length in his new book Pandora’s Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization (2010).

Exploring all of the results of the onset of agriculture is a daunting task, indeed. By design, the book covers many topics ranging from chronic disease to global warming. Wells includes great lessons on human evolution and traces an understandable path from the days of hunter-gatherers to current times–where we face decreasing natural resources and increasing mental illness, among many other challenges.

In the final section of the book, Wells presents his solution to these problems. If the human race wants to halt its move down a path of destruction, “want less,” he says. Noble and necessary, to be sure, but lacking in detail nonetheless.

Given the breadth of the text, some segments lack thorough discussion. But readers who aren’t searching for detailed science, will find the anthropological discussion enjoyable and informative.

Click to find at a library near you!

Anna Lappé carries on the family tradition by examining the effects of modern agriculture on our planet in her new book Diet For A Hot Planet: The Climate Crisis At the End of Your Fork and What You Can Do About It. Lappé aims to answer three primary questions: What affect does our diet have on global warming? Why are people ignoring agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions? And finally, what should we do (or perhaps, eat)?

Lappé echoes her mother Frances Moore Lappé, author of Diet for a Small Planet (1971), by advocating for reduced consumption of meat and animal products. Included is a lengthy analysis of the greenhouse gas contributions of farm animals. Her arguments are persuasive, but ultimately I see a valid argument against animal factory farming—not animal foods in general.

Lappé looks at how the industrial food system affects climate change from start to finish. She first analyzes farming (including tilling, fertilizers, carbon sequestering, etc.); then moves on to transportation, storage, and processing; and finally discusses food waste (hint – landfills deserve real blame on this issue). All too often companies squirm their way out of culpability somewhere along the line. For example, as you’ll learn in the book, palm oil is in many processed food products; and major agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland have destroyed frightening amounts of rainforest (without anyone really knowing) to produce it.

In the interest of time, but to the detriment of her conclusions, Lappé often relies on limited supporting science, even when additional information exists. This is not to say her conclusions are wrong, but rather that nearly every topic covered could be examined in greater depth. For example, when countering a poorly supported claim that organic farming reduces yield, she relies on only two studies that assigned higher yields to organic farming when compared to conventional. Though I agree with her argument, more data would be useful for drawing significant conclusions.

Readers will walk away with an improved understanding of how food choices affect climate change, as well as with pre-formulated rebuttals to common arguments presented by doubters of wide scale organic, climate-friendly agriculture. Though it is no game changer, the book will certainly play a role as one piece of the puzzle in the movement towards sustainability in agriculture.