Food Animals' GHGs

Meat Society: Number 6 in a series exploring issues related to curbing demand for animal products, an important climate change solution for individuals and nations alike, especially in Western states where meat and diary consumption dwarfs other regions.

Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages ISBN: 0692641157 http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC

The agriculture sector is responsible for at least 22 percent of total global manmade greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, 80 percent of which comes from livestock production.(60) Despite the oversized footprint, animal products account for only one-third of global human protein consumption.

Eating local food makes environmental sense when we buy seasonal fruit and vegetables from local farmers. But the tendency is to overemphasize food miles and underemphasize other impacts. There is no support for claims that local food is universally superior to non-local food in terms of its impact on the climate or the health of consumers.(61)

On average, transport accounts for just 11 percent of the GHG pollution caused by the food industry. So beans and pulses shipped from the other side of the world can cause far lower impacts than locally produced animal carcass, cow's milk, and chicken eggs. In the UK, GHG releases per item of food would probably be greater under self-sufficiency than under the current food system.

There are many factors that add up to making animal-based agribusiness one of the largest GHG emitter, and driver of deforestation and ocean acidification. In essence, the sector is a major component of all three major sources of GHGs – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both CH4 and N2O are especially dangerous because they are potent shorter-lived climate forcers that cause accelerated heating. These gases can push the climate to dangerous thresholds, or tipping points, for habitability.

The GHGs generated from a full life cycle of animal products adds up to an extraordinary volume of climate-altering gases. And, since livestock production is the main cause of deforestation, and thereby a reduction of earth's CO2 sequestration capacity, the sector's impact is far greater than its direct releases of GHGs.

This article argues that animal-based agribusiness is responsible for at least 30 percent of all GHGs. For example, in regards to CO2 releases, the food animal sector consumes most of the world’s grain and water, and produces the most waste, and is the main cause of the 26 percent that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2014 Emissions Gap Report attributed to agriculture (11 percent), forestry (11 percent) and waste (4 percent).(62)

In addition, the livestock sector adds some part of the 39 percent of CO2 that UNEP attributed to industry (18 percent), transport (13 percent), and buildings (8 percent). In addition, there are CO2 releases from respiration, pollution, illness, and other aspects of the lifecycle of animals and their by-products.

For methane (CH4) discharges, livestock waste and digestive process are a major part of UNEP's 2014 estimate of 16 percent of the total manmade GHGs attributed to this gas. Methane is released from livestock production and fracking by the fossil fuel industry. And, in regards to nitrous oxide (N2O), the fertilizer used for animal feed is the main source of UNEP's 2014 estimate of 6 percent attributable to this gas. 

Most of the food animal sector's CH4 and N2O outflows come from manure and fertilizers used to produce feed for the animals. In addition, CH4 is produced from enteric fermentation, a digestive process that causes animals to release methane by exhaling, belching, or excreting gas.

Animal products, both flesh and cow's milk, require extra resources and cause additional GHG pollution compared to plant-based alternatives. Animal production entails colossal energy losses since only 4 percent of crops grown for livestock turn into edible carcass.(63) And 1 kg (2.2 lb) of animal protein requires 6 Kg (13.2 lb) of plant protein.(64) In a comparison of GHGs, protein from cows generates 40 times the global warming of beans, and 10 times that of chickens.(65)

It takes, on average, 28 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of meat protein for human consumption. In comparison, it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain for human consumption.(66)

Nitrous oxide from fields and methane from livestock are projected to rise from 7.1 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in 2000 to 13 GTCO2e in 2070. This is greater than all human activities combined can safely produce without exceeding 2°C of planetary heating. And, land use modifications and the carbon footprint from animal-feed were not even incorporated in these calculations. So dietary transformations are crucial for meeting the 2°C target.(67)

Both CH4 and N2O are rising faster than CO2, and livestock is a main source for each potent GHG. Global agricultural non-CO2 releases will climb significantly until 2055 if food energy consumption and food preferences remain constant at the level of 1995. Non-CO2 GHGs will climb quicker with enhanced incomes, due to its link to greater food energy consumption and dietary preferences towards higher value foods, like animal flesh and cow's milk.(68)

Yet, if the demand for livestock products is reduced by 25 percent each decade from 2015 to 2055, this will lead to lower non-CO2 emissions even compared to 1995. Notably, reduced animal consumption was determined to be of greater effectiveness than technological mitigation options.

Over the past 50 years, the global food system has become heavily dependent on cheap water and energy, nitrate fertilizers, chemical herbicides, pharmaceutical drugs, and so on. At the same time, production, trade, and processing are progressively being controlled by a smaller handful of transnational food corporations (TFCs).

In a global corporate-controlled food system, governments and regulations are co-opted, and profits come before people and planet. The industry is the recipient of massive state subsidies and support and has vast influence over media, national and international agencies.

From local to global, livestock is one of the top contributors of serious environmental problems.(69) Despite this, there are few cases of the industry being held responsible for any of the problems it creates. Case in point, the USDA estimates that 89 percent of US cow carcass ground into patties contains traces of the deadly E. coli strain.(70) Yet, the animal-based agribusinesses are not held accountable for illness or treatment for the life-threatening diseases they cause.

Alarmingly, many of the world’s recent pollution problems and health pandemics have stemmed from corporate-controlled factory farms. As a ramification of livestock production, there have been decades of deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss and extinction, rural conflict and displacement, herbicide and waste pollution, water shortage, air pollution, dead zones, chronic diseases, global warming, and so on.

In spite of its multiple hazards, uncertainties over GHGs from animal-based agribusiness relates to the fact that while most of fossil fuel emissions are measured and accounted for, this is not the case with the livestock sector. And while eating tofu dogs will not correct everything that is wrong with the atmosphere and planet, ignoring livestock's GHG pollution and effects will make a monstrous problem much worse.

from Chapter 2: MEAT THE FUTURE, pages 18-19

Food's Footprint

Meat Society: Number 5 in a series exploring issues related to curbing demand for animal products, an important climate change solution for individuals and nations alike, especially in Western states where meat and diary consumption dwarfs other regions.

Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages ISBN: 0692641157)http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC

Animal agriculture has an enormous greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint, and is the second main source of climate-altering gases. In the EU, for instance, 29 percent of all consumption-derived GHG emissions are food related. This almost 1/3 figure does not include discharges from goods produced within the EU and exported.(50)

There is overwhelming evidence that animal-based diets cause greater planetary heating than plant-based foods, but there are differences in GHG production. The environmental costs per calorie of dairy, chickens, pigs, and eggs are strikingly lower than the impacts of cows - the production of which requires 28, 11, 5, and 6 times the sum of land, irrigation water, GHG, and nitrogen, respectively, than the other livestock categories. On top of that, plant foods use two to six-fold lower land, GHG, and nitrogen than even those of the non-cow animal-derived calories.(51)

Greater trade liberalization, like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), will lead to higher economic benefits for some, and come at the expense of the poor, the environment and the climate if no other regulations and safeguards are put in place. In addition, mounting demand for agricultural goods will intensify the pressure on global water resources over the coming decades.(52)

Deforestation, mainly in Latin America, leads to remarkable amounts of additional carbon pollution due to trade liberalization. In the future, non-CO2 outflows will mostly shift to China due to comparative advantages in livestock production and rising demand for animal products in the region.(53)

Eliminating all CO2 pollution from the energy and transportation sectors is not enough to stop global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that agriculture, land use, land-use modification, and forestry total around 23 percent of total manmade GHGs. This means that powerful GHGs from food and agriculture - mainly nitrous oxide (N2O) from agricultural soils, and methane (CH4) from livestock - will continue to cause planetary heating.(54) 

Excessive nutrient flows cause eutrophication, worsens biodiversity loss, and exacerbates transformation of the climate. Eutrophication is the ecosystem's response to the addition of inorganic plant nutrients, especially phosphates and nitrates, through detergents, fertilizers, or sewage. One example, is the "bloom", or great increase, of phytoplankton in a water body. Negative environmental effects include hypoxia, the depletion of oxygen in the water, which may cause death to aquatic animals. 

Nitrous oxide is the third biggest contributor to manmade climate warming, and although there is far less in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it is a salient greenhouse gas for three reasons. First, it is very efficient at absorbing energy; second, it stays in the atmosphere for a long time; and third, it is the most significant ozone-depleting substance in the atmosphere. Once emitted, nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for about 120 years. Nitrous oxide (N2O) lasts a long time, and for over 100 years, each molecule has a warming impact almost 300 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2), and around 9 times greater than methane (CH4). And, N2O outflows could double by 2050.(55)

A 2013 Worldwatch Institute report estimated that global greenhouse gas pollution from the agricultural sector totaled 4.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) in 2010, up 13 percent over 1990.(56) A 2006 report from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) showed that the global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector.

The world’s livestock population is expected to increase 76 percent by 2050, with a 65 percent surge in demand for cow's milk. And, remarkably, 80 percent of growth in the sector comes from industrial production systems. Currently, mirroring their fossil fuel releases, the world’s largest food animal consumers are China, EU, US and Brazil.(57)

The FAO's 2013 follow-up livestock report reiterated that livestock is the fastest growing agricultural sub-sector. The food agency's newer assessment was limited to direct farm discharges, but it still estimated that the animal food industry produce 14.5 percent of total anthropogenic climate-altering gases, which is in excess of all forms of transportation.(58)

The FAO figure still places the animal food industry at second place, after energy production, in terms of global manmade GHG pollution. A 2010 UNEP report likewise showed that animal products caused greater damage than producing construction minerals, such as sand or cement, plastics or metals.

In 2009, one of the World Bank's most distinguished environmental assessment experts, Dr. Robert Goodland, wrote a thought-provoking research paper estimating that the lifecycle and supply chain of animal-based meats, egg products, and dairy products accounted for at least 51 percent of manmade global GHGs.(59) One of the main reasons for the difference between the FAO and Goodland's GHG figures is that the FAO's 15 percent estimate is a partial assessment that only takes into account GHG discharges from the farming part of animal-based agriculture.

In fact, all of the lower 11 to 18 percent GHG estimates do not represent a full life-cycle GHG analysis of the animal food industry. These lower assessments end at the farm-gate and, therefore, exclude downstream GHGs from transportation, food processing, packaging, and sale of food animal products. Goodland's 51 percent estimate encompass these post-farm emissions, which are critical to assessing the total contributions of the animal food industry to global warming.

While the pathways between anthropogenic climate-altering gases and planetary heating are complex, and emissions are not equivalent to warming, there is still a strong correlation between livestock GHG releases and planetary heating. After energy production, animal-based agribusiness is the second, and possibly the main source of manmade climate warming pollution. The evidence for this is presented in Parts II and III of the book, Meat Climate Change.

In contrast, if we limit human activity and livestock production in the tropical forests of the world, this could play a valuable role in helping to curb the rise in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Preventing further losses of carbon from our tropical forests must remain a high priority.

From Chapter 2: MEAT THE FUTURE, pages 16-17

'Race' and 'Whiteness' in Academia

As I write this article at the end of August 2020, socially defined “minority” communities across the country are protesting yet another police shooting of an African American, that of 29-year old Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Earlier in the year, there were weeks of activism over the strangulation of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man in Minneapolis, Minnesota; the shooting of Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African American female emergency medical technician in Louisville, Kentucky; the killing of Rayshard Brooks, a 27-year-old African American man in Atlanta, Georgia; the strangulation of Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old African American massage therapist in Aurora, Colorado; and the death of many others at the hands of the police.

Although it is not readily apparent, discrimination against “minorities” is relevant to critical animal studies, and there are many ways in which “race” and “whiteness” intersect in the field. I saw this first-hand one summer when I attended a protest at a factory farm in Los Angeles. A deep racial division was evident at the demonstration, as most of the animal advocates outside the gates were middle-class European Americans, while the majority of workers inside the slaughterhouse were disadvantaged Latinas/os, African Americans, and Asians. Horrified by the stench of the place, I became even more aghast when the European American activists started calling workers “murderers.” And, when I queried the protesters outside if their pets were plant-based, some grew defensive, arguing that dogs and cats are natural carnivores and have to eat flesh. Ironically, cognitive dissonance allowed European American vegans to scream “murderer” at marginalized meat plant workers while continuing to support factory farms by buying animal flesh for their own pets.

Interestingly, the COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to bridge this divide between activists and workers. Since the pandemic began, tens of thousands of “minority” and immigrant meat plant employees have become infected with the virus while working on animal slaughtering and disassembly lines. Deemed as “essential workers,” over a hundred meat plant employees have died from COVID-19. As a result, marginalized workers, their families and unions are calling for the closure of meat plants, along with doctors and health advocates. Animal advocates can help by campaigning alongside factory farm workers in resisting the livestock industry. The intersection of “race,” workers in meat plants, and the pandemic, is an important one for critical animal scholars to explore. 

The are other ways in which “race” and “whiteness” intersect with critical animal studies. Educational institutions are not insulated from the effects of structural racism and the power of “whiteness” operating within the larger society. Universities and academic discourses reflect Eurocentrism and fortify structural racism, and scholars should examine how these larger social forces shape our disciplines. Despite claims of scientific objectivity and unbiased inquiry, there are several critical questions that remain largely unexplored in sociology and other disciplines.

For instance, why is there a lack of ethnic diversity in academia, generally, and more particularly, in our field? How does the lack of ethnic diversity in departments, in the academic literature, and in the use of citations, serve to reinforce Eurocentrism in our discipline? What are the consequences for a field of inquiry that is dominated by people with European heritage? Whose voices are included in the standard curriculum and knowledge base, which ones are excluded, and who decides? How do European ethnicity and cultural capital become entrenched as part of the discipline? And, how do European heritage and privilege bear upon the framing of research, the issues that are explored, the inclusion and exclusion of various voices, factors, social contexts, and so on?

There are other theoretical and material issues around “race” and “whiteness” that lack elaboration in critical animal studies. For instance, how does higher consumption of animal-based protein intersect with claims of Eurocentric supremacy and countries with majority European populations? How are over-consumption behaviors, and massive carbon footprints among a small middle-class in the Global North, subsidized by the impoverished masses in the Global South? How does the Western framing of individual “rights” for nonhuman animals conflict and contradict Indigenous notions of the “interconnectedness” of species? How are issues of representation, consent and objectification in the graphic imagery of animals and nature from the Global South, negotiated or ignored in animal studies and by nonhuman animal advocates and environmental organizations in the Global North? How do “conservation” campaigns in the Global North lead to corruption and dispossession in the Global South? And how does the promotion of ecotourism in the Global South for Westerners lead to trafficking, male violence and other problems for local women?

Although important first steps, the deconstruction of “race” and “whiteness” in our field will have limited outcomes if they are not accompanied by a decentering of Eurocentric theory and theorists, along with a centering of the work of socially defined “non-whites” — Indigenous, African American, Latina/o, Asian, and other. It is the responsibility of departments and academic fields to decenter Eurocentrism and increase ethnic diversity among scholars, scholarship, and the curriculum. Objectivity and transparency also oblige individual scholars to acknowledge ethnic privileges and to discuss how racial advantages may have influenced their career and research choices. 

It is equally important for Western scholars to examine how their theoretical framing reflects perspectives in the Global North, and how these may differ from those of “minority” scholars and theories emanating from the Global South. Addressing the social influence of “race” and “whiteness” in our personal lives and careers is an important part of the process of deconstructing and decentering “whiteness” in our own scholarship, and in transforming the discipline in which we operate. The racist violence against Jacob Blake, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, Elijah McClain, and the deaths of hundreds of “minority” meat plant workers from COVID-19, should inspire academics and their departments to do more in the cause of social justice for human and nonhuman animals alike.

Reprinted from:

Seenarine, Moses. 2020. "Intersection of 'Race' and 'Whiteness' in Academia," American Sociological Association (ASA), The Animals & Society Section Newsletter, Fall, pages 7-8.

About The Author

Dr. Moses Seenarine is the father of Jad and longterm ethical vegan. Seenarine immigrated with his family from South America to the USA in the late 1970s, and he is among the first generation to be college educated. His books include Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming (2016); and Cyborgs Versus the Earth Goddess: Men’s Domestication of Women and Animals, and Female Resistance (2017). Seenarine has written dozens of articles on women, race, caste, migration, the environment, animals, and climate change. His work has been cited by the FAO, UNESCO, Human Rights Watch, Anti-Slavery International, the Institute for the Study of Labor, World Council of Churches, and many others.

Male Domestic Violence

(Bulgarian DV Poster)

Excerpt from Cyborgs Versus the Earth Goddess: Men's Domestication of Women and Animals and Female Resistance by m seenarine (2017). Xpyr Press, 358 pages ISBN: 0692966005 ) http://amzn.to/2xyTkmh

Understanding statistics regarding phallic violence is complex. A lot of it is hidden, under-reported, under-counted, or simply not recorded.¹ Nonetheless, close to 90 percent of violent crime and sexual violence are perpetuated by self-entitled cyborgs.

Physical aggression occurs in 1 in 3 teen dating relationships.² A UNICEF report found 120 million girls worldwide, slightly more than 1 in 10, experienced forced intercourse or other coerced sexual acts by a male at some point in their lives.³ In the US, one in five high school girls report being physically or sexually violated by a dating partner.⁴

In a study of eighth and ninth graders, 25 percent indicated that they had been victims of dating hostility. And, eight percent disclosed being sexually abused.⁵ Around 32 percent of girls who had been mistreated reported overeating and purging, compared to 12 percent of girls who had not been violated.⁶

Among acts of sexual aggression committed against females over the age of 18, 100 percent of rapes, 92 percent of physical assaults, and 97 percent of stalking acts were committed by sperm-producers. Sexual attacks on boys and men is likewise primarily phallic violence with 70 percent of rapes, 86 percent of physical assaults, and 65 percent of stalking perpetrated by other men.⁷

According to the US Surgeon General, domestic hostility by sperm-producers is the leading cause of injury to women. While the World's Health Organization (WHO) finds that 35 to 70 percent of women globally said they had experienced physical violence in their lifetime, mostly by an intimate partner.⁸ And, the US Department of Justice estimates around 85 percent of the victims of domestic violence are women. Lamentably, all categories of egg-producers suffer from men's domestic aggression, regardless of income, age, race, education, or belief system.⁹

As part of their subjugation of females, phallic partners with false privilege assault three million women and girls in the US each year. A woman in America is more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than by any other type of assailant. Moreover, victimization by domestic violence is usually not a single event. If a woman is battered once, her risk of further maltreatment is high. And over time, a victim's abuse usually becomes not only more frequent, but more severe.

Similarly, there is an overlap between child beatings and female battering. Over 65 percent of men in the US who attack their partner also physically and sexually abuse the children. Child ill-treatment occurs in 30 to 60 percent of family violence cases that involve families with children. Exposure to fathers' abusing and domesticating their mother is the strongest risk factor for transmitting aggressive behavior from one generation to the next.¹⁰

In households with pets, women are more often the primary caretaker of the pet, which increases the human-animal bond. There is a strong link between men's mistreatment of animals and their abuse of human egg-producers. In the US, over 70 percent of female survivors own pets who were likewise beaten. Many victims do not leave a harmful situation because they worry their pets are also in danger.¹¹

Battered women are more likely to remain in an abusive home or return to such an environment if they do not have a safe place for their pets. Between 18 and 48 percent of assaulted women have delayed their decision to leave their batterer or have returned to their abuser out of fear for the welfare of their pets or livestock.¹²

Phallic domesticating violence is a leading contributing factor to other problems including child neglect, drug and alcohol abuse, emotional problems, job loss, homelessness, and attempted suicide. The social and economic costs on women and society are enormous, but generally go uncounted and unrecognized.¹³

According to the US DOJ, between 1998 and 2002, of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 50 percent were crimes against spouses.¹⁴ A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the US by a man, and 35 percent of all emergency room calls are a result of domestic aggression. Each day, four women and three children die as a result of phallic abuse in the US alone.

Men's violence against females worldwide “persists at alarmingly high levels.” This conclusion was reached by a UN report that the Secretary General presented to the General Assembly, one day after International Women's Day on March 9, 2015.¹⁵

Although 125 countries criminalize domestic violence, the laws are not reliably enforced, and the economic impact alone is astronomical. One study found that cyborgs' domestic violence costs the global economy $4 trillion. The report states, "the costs of violence are high; the welfare cost of collective, interpersonal violence, harsh child discipline, intimate partner violence and sexual abuse are equivalent to around 11 percent of global GDP.”¹⁶

The report continues, “The cost of homicides are much larger than the cost of civil conflict. However, violence perpetrated in the home appears to be the most prevalent form of violence. Domestic abuse of women and children should no longer be regarded as a private matter but a public health concern.”

1Donna Chung. 2013. "Understanding the Statistics about Male Violence Against Women." Australia: White Ribbon, Research Series – Paper No. 5.

2Sarah Avery-Leaf & Michele Cascardi. 2002. "Dating Violence Education," in Pa Schewe ed., Preventing Violence in Relationships. American Psychological Association (APA)

3UNICEF. 2014. “Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children.”

4JS Silverman et al. 2001. "Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls & Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, & Suicidality." J. Am. Med. Ass'n 286: 572-9

5Vangie Foshee et al. 1996. "The Safe Date Project." Am. J. of Preventive Med. 12: 39.

6Cathy Schoen et al. 1997. "The Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls.

7Tjaden & Thoennes. 1998. ibid

8WHO. 2013. "Global & regional estimates of violence against women.” World Health Organization.

9Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. "Intimate Partner Violence." DC: US DOJ.

10APA. 1996. "American Psychological Assoc. Presidential Task Force on Violence the Family."

11J Burns. 2015. "The link between animal abuse and domestic violence." CBS News. May 14.

12S Stevens. 2013. "The Link Between Domestic Violence & Animal Abuse." Feminist Wire. 10/23

13DOJ. 2001. "Special Report Intimate Partner Violence & Age of Victim 1993-9." DOJ Statistics Oct

14MR Durose et al. 2005. "Family Violence Statistics." US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

15Sengupta 2015. ibid

16Fearon, J & Hoeffler, Anke. 2014. "Benefits and Costs of the Conflict and Violence Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda Post-2015 Consensus.” Copenhagen Consensus Center.

US Animal Production

Meat Society: Number 4 in a series exploring issues related to curbing demand for animal products, an important climate change solution for individuals and nations alike, especially in Western states where meat and diary consumption dwarfs other regions.

Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages ISBN: 0692641157 http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC

The US consumes the most livestock products globally, with each American eating an average 125 kg (275 lb) of animal flesh a year – equivalent to over 400 sirloin steaks from cows.(537) Flesh intake is 75 pounds higher than a century ago. Even if the average American eats 20 percent less carcass in 2050 than in 2000, the total US animal consumption will still be 5 million tons greater in 2050, due to population growth.(538)

In addition to animal flesh, Americans ingests 33 pounds of cheese and nearly 60 pounds of added fats and oils. Animal products account for over half of the value of US agricultural products, often exceeding $100 billion per year. Consumption of cheese has spiraled upward and added oils have escalated, too. 

The US has the largest fed-cattle industry in the world and is one of the world's largest producer of cow carcass, primarily grain-fed cows for domestic and export use. In 2013, 25,720 million pounds of cow flesh was produced, compared to 23,048 million pounds in 1993, and 22,986 million pounds in 1983. On top of this, the US is a net importer of cow carcass, purchasing lower-value, grass-fed cows for processing.(539)

In the US, the value of cow's milk production is second only to cow flesh among livestock industries, and is equal to the corn industry. In 2013, 201 billion pounds of milk were produced from cows, compared to 151 billion pounds in 1993, and 138 billion pounds in 1983. Since 1970, milk production has risen by almost half, even as milk cow numbers have declined by a fourth, from 12 million in 1970, to 9 million in 2007. This was possible because milk production per cow has nearly doubled, from 9,700 pounds in 1970 to 19,000 pounds in 2007.

Remarkably, the number of cow's milk operations in the US declined from 650,000 in 1970, to 90,000 in the early 2000s. Over the same period, the average herd size multiplied five-fold, from 20 cows to 100 cows. This shows the industry is becoming over intensive and concentrated.

The US is the world's largest producer and second-largest exporter of bird carcass. It is a major chicken egg producer as well. US consumption of poultry, from chicken and turkey, is considerably higher than cow carcass or pig flesh, but less than total red meat consumption. In 2013, 37.8 billion pounds of broiler chicken flesh and 8 billion dozen chicken eggs were produced. This is considerably higher that the 22.1 billion pounds of chicken carcass and 5.9 billion dozen eggs produced in 1993, and the 12.3 billion pounds of carcass and 5.6 billion dozen eggs produced in 1983. Additionally, in 2013, 5.8 billion pounds of turkey carcass was produced, compared to 4.8 billion pounds in 1993, and 2.5 billion pounds in 1983. Around 18% of US chicken production was exported.

The US is the world's third-largest producer and consumer of pigs and pig products. On top of that, the US is the world's largest exporter of pigs and pig products, with exports averaging over 20 percent. In 2013, around 23.1 billion pounds of flesh was produced from pigs, compared to 16.9 billion pounds in 1993, and 15.1 billion pounds in 1983. During the last two decades, the value of US aquaculture production rose to nearly $1 billion, but it still remains a small part of global production. The vast majority of animal production from this sector comes from Asia and Latin America. 

Chapter 14, DIET OR POPULATION? pages 140-141

Global Carnism

(Meat Atlast 2014)

Meat Society: Number 3 in a series exploring issues related to curbing demand for animal products, an important climate change solution for individuals and nations alike, especially in Western states where meat and diary consumption dwarfs other regions.

Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages ISBN: 0692641157 http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC

Intake of food animals is high in the global North, but the global South is catching up and this confluence spells disaster. While the international food trade complicates using national figures, a country-specific analysis of carnism is still instructive. China is the biggest consumer of both animal carcass and cow's milk products, with the US, the EU, and Brazil in the top five.(529)

In 2011, Americans ate 38 million tonnes (mt) (83 billion lb) of pig, chicken, cow, sheep, and goat carcass, and 40 mt (88 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs. In the same year, Brazilians ingested 19 mt (41 billion lb) of carcass and 30 mt (66 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs. Meanwhile, Russians consumed 10 mt (22 billion lb) of animal flesh and 20 mt (44 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs.

In 2011, Mexicans ingested 8 mt (17.6 billion lb) pig, chicken, cow, sheep, and goat carcass, and 10 mt (22 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs in 2011. As well, Indians ate 5 mt (11 billion lb) of flesh and 64 mt (141 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs. While, the Japanese had 6 mt (13 billion lb) of carcass and 8 mt (17 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs, the Vietnamese ate 5mt (11 billion lb) of animal flesh, and Argentines consumed 4 mt (8.8 billion lb). In addition, people in Europe (EU27) consumed 40 mt (88 billion lb) of carcass and 43 mt (94 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs. 

Per capita, carcass consumption in China has multiplied six-fold over the past 40 years, from an average of 20 kg (44 pounds) per capita in 1980, to 52 kg (114 pounds) in 2007. In 2011, the Chinese consumed 75 mt (165 billion lb) of pig, chicken, cow, sheep, and goat carcass, and 64 mt (141 billion lb) of cow's milk and eggs. Pig carcass has been the main component of total flesh consumption, and constituted 54% of total animal flesh intake, 80% of red carcass intake, and 99% of fatty red meat intake in 2011.(530)

In 2011, the proportion of Chinese adults who consumed red meat surged from 65% in 1991 to 86%, while chicken consumption soared up from 7 to 21%, and seafood from 27 to 38%. In 2011, the average intake of red meat was 86 g (3 oz) a day; for chicken it was 71 g (2.5 oz) day; and seafood was 70g (2.5 oz) a day. In India, animal consumption has grown by 40% in the last 15 years, though it is still 40 times less than average consumption in the UK.(531)

Every week, the average person in the UK eats 1.6 kg (3.5 lbs) of animal carcass and 4.2 liters (1.1 gal) of cow's milk. This is equivalent to 6 pig sausages, or 450g (16 oz); 2 chicken breasts, or 350g (12 oz); 4 ham sandwiches from pig, or 100g (3.5 oz); 8 slices of bacon from pig, or 250g (9 oz); 3 burgers from cow, or 450g (16 oz); 3 liters (0.8 gal) of cow's milk; 100g (3.5 oz) of cheese; and a portion of cream.(532) For the entire year of 2011, each UK resident ate an average of 82 kilograms (180.7 pounds) of carcass, equivalent to 1,400 pig sausages, or nearly 4 a day. What’s more, chicken consumption in the UK has doubled from 1987 to 2007.(533)

The average UK carnist eats in excess of 11,000 animals in their lifetime - 1 goose, 1 rabbit, 4 cattle, 18 pigs, 23 sheep and lambs, 28 ducks, 39 turkeys, 1,158 chickens, 3,593 shellfish and 6,182 fish. The diet of each British carnivore requires a vast quantity of land, fuel and water to raise and process the animals that reach their plate.(534)

By way of illustration, the soybean equivalent required to produce a UK citizen’s average annual intake of animal flesh and cow's milk products is 54.4 kg (120 lbs). This total equates to 22.2 kg (49 lbs) of soy for chicken, and 12.5 kg (27.5 lbs) for pig flesh. In addition, 6.7 kg (14.7 lbs) of soy are required for chicken eggs, another 3.8 kg (8.3) for cow carcass and veal, and 1.9 kg (4.1 lbs) for milk. On top of this, 1.7 kg (3.7 lbs) of soy are needed for cheese, and 5.6 kg (12.3 lbs) for other products.(535)

One large-scale survey in the UK looked at the average greenhouse gas (GHG) discharges associated with a standard 2,000 kcal diet in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day (kgCO2e/day). It was 7.19 for high meat-eaters (defined as in excess of 100 g or 3.5 oz per day), 5.63 for medium meat-eaters, 4.67 for low meat-eaters, 3.9 for fish-eaters, 3.81 for vegetarians and 2.89 for vegans. Dietary GHG outflows in meat-eaters were twice as high as those in vegans.(536)

Chapter 14, DIET OR POPULATION? pages 139-140

Trends in Animal Production

(Meat Atlast 2014)

Meat Society: Number 2 in a series exploring issues related to curbing demand for animal products, an important climate change solution for individuals and nations alike, especially in Western states where meat and diary consumption dwarfs other regions.

Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages ISBN: 0692641157 http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC

Agriculture generates over a quarter of the world's greenhouse pollution, overwhelmingly from livestock production. There are billions of farm animals worldwide, far surpassing human populations. In 2013, the cattle population reached 1.4 billion animals, up 54% from 1963. The number of chickens ballooned from 4.1 billion to 21.7 billion between 1963 and 2013. During the same period, the pig population soared upwards 114% to reach 977 million.(520)

Animal numbers will proliferate along with greenhouse gases (GHGs). Pork and poultry will grow at faster rates than cows. According to one study, there will be "a net increases in GHGs from the agricultural and livestock sectors but a diminishing trend in the emissions intensities across commodities (GHGs per unit of product)."(521)

'Red meat' refers to cow, pig, sheep, and goat carcass, and their flesh contained in processed foods. 'Processed meat' refers to nonhuman animal flesh preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives, and flesh contained in processed foods. Both are set to expand sharply by 2050. Global animal carcass production has quadrupled from 78 million tonnes (mt) (171 billion lb) in 1963, to 308 mt (678 billion lb) in 2012. For 2014, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) forecasts a further expansion to 311.6 mt (686.9 billion lb). Annually, the world produces 124 mt (273 billion lb) of chicken and 59 mt (130 billion lb) of cow carcass.(522)

In 2014, according to Eurostat data, Germany, Spain, France, and UK had the highest number of livestock. The largest number of pigs was in Germany and Spain (28.3 and 26.6 million heads respectively), the most cows in France (19.3 million heads) and sheep (23.0 million heads) in the UK.

Animal intake will rise 75% by 2050, and cow's milk by 65%, compared with 40% for cereals. By 2020, Chinese will consume an extra 20 million tonnes (mt) or 44 billion pounds of animal carcass and cow's milk a year.(523) From 1997 to 1999, global average consumption of animal carcass and cow's milk products was 36 kg (79.3 lb) per year. The average was 88 kg (194 lb) per year in industrialized countries and in South Asia, it was 5 kg (11 lb) per person per year.(524)

By 2012, on average, every person on Earth consumed 42.9 kg (94.4 lb) of animal flesh alone. In industrialized countries, average animal carcass consumption reached 76.2 kg (168 lb) per year. And in developing countries, the annual average animal flesh consumption was 33.4 kg (73.6 lb). People living in developed countries such as Australia eat roughly their own weight in animal carcass every year, consuming in excess of 80 kg (176 lb) each, or about 224 grams (8 oz) a day. That is the equivalent of almost two quarter-pound burgers every day. In Asia, the animal sector is expected to see an 80% growth by 2022.(525) 

And climate-altering gases from food production will go up 80% if animal flesh and cow's milk consumption continue to climb at its current rate.(526) From 1970 to 2000, chicken egg consumption has doubled worldwide, with a bigger increase in developing countries compared to industrial countries. During this same period, there was little variation in butter and cheese intake at the global level.(527)

Global animal carcass production is projected to double from 229 mt (504.8 billion lb) in 1999/2001, to 465 mt (1.024 trillion lb) in 2050. Almost half the additional carcass consumed will come from chicken carcass by 2022. Cow's milk output is projected to swell from 580 mt (1.278 trillion lb) to 1,043 mt (2.298 trillion lb) in the same period. The daily average in developing countries is 47 grams (1.6 oz). Based on this huge difference in consumption, one team of medical experts argue that "for the world's higher-income populations, greenhouse-gas emissions from meat eating warrants the same scrutiny as do those from driving and flying."(528)

Chapter 14, DIET OR POPULATION? pg. 139-140