על מה אנחנו חושבים כשאנחנו מדברים על אופנה? על יופי, על אסתטיקה, על יצירתיות. בטח שלא על פגיעה בסביבה, נכון? בניגוד לתעשיות כבדות כמו תעשיית הרכב למשל, ייצור בגדים נדמה אולי נקי יותר ומזהם פחות. אבל מתברר שכמו תמיד כשמדובר באופנה, מראה עיניים בהחלט יכול להטעות. למעשה, מדובר בתעשייה שזוכה למקום השני והמאוד-לא-מכובד בדירוג התעשיות המזהמות ביותר בעולם: מניצול-יתר של מים ושאר משאבי טבע, הזרמת כימיקלים לנהרות ולימים, עלויות גבוהות של אנרגיה ופליטת פחמן דו-חמצני בזמן הייצור והשינוע של הבגדים, ועד להשפעות השליליות של הטמנת ושריפת פסולת (בגדים משומשים וכאלה שכלל לא נמכרו ללקוחות) – מסתבר שלאופנה יש מחיר סביבתי כבד.

עיקר האשמה מונח לרגליהן של רשתות האופנה המהירה (fast fashion), אלה שמוכרות בגדים בכמויות עתק, עם מבצעים והנחות שגורמים לכולנו לקנות עוד ועוד. אבל חילופי הטרנדים המהירים שמניעים את גלגלי הקולקציות של זארה או M&H לא מתחילים בחברות האלה, אלא קומה אופנתית אחת למעלה, אצל בתי האופנה הגדולים כמו גוצ'י, פנדי, שאנל ועוד רבים. אלה מובילים את התחום בכל הקשור לצבע או לגזרה הנכונים לעונה, אבל מתברר שבכל הקשור לנושא השמירה על הסביבה הם דווקא משתרכים מאחור.

מובילים בטרנדים, מפסידים בשמירה על הסביבה

"בתחום האופנה העלית, נושא האקולוגיה לא משחק תפקיד משמעותי", אומרת מיכל לוי ארבל, כתבת אופנה לשעבר שעוסקת בהעלאת המודעות לתחום האופנה המהירה. "כשצרכן שרוצה לקנות ז'קט שעולה 5,000 דולר, לרוב הוא לא בודק את הפרמטרים הסביבתיים שהושקעו בייצור שלו; לכן הנושא הסביבתי הוא לא גורם שבתי האופנה הגדולים משווקים או מבליטים. מצד שני, אנחנו חיים בעולם שבו יש התעוררות צרכנית אקטיביסטית, ודאי באירופה ובארצות הברית, ויש היום גופים שמציגים שאלות נוקבות גם לחברות האופנה העלית. בשנה שעברה, למשל, יוזמה בשם Fashion Revolution הפנתה למותגי העל שאלות לגבי שקיפות, דרכי ייצור והתחייבות למדדים סביבתיים. מבין החברות שהגיבו לשאלון, לדירוג הגבוה ביותר זכתה ליוויי׳ס, ולנמוך ביותר זכתה דווקא שאנל. ככה שאנחנו רואים שמצד אחד ציון נמוך במדדים סביבתיים לא השפיע לרעה על מידת היוקרה המיוחסת למותג, אבל מצד שני הלך הרוח הציבורי שמייחס לנושאים האלה חשיבות הגיע גם לשם.

"אגב, גם כשחברות כבר עשו מהלכים עם היבט אקולוגי, למשל כמו גוצ'י שיזמה שינוי בחומרים שמהם עשויים התיקים שלה, הן לא השתמשו בזה ככלי שיווקי״, מוסיפה לוי-ארבל. ״ההשערה שלי היא שזה עשוי להיות עבורן גול עצמי, כי אלו חברות שמשתמשות בהמון מוצרים מהחי, ולא נמנעות גם מפרוות, ולכן ניסיון לפרסם אקט סביבתי עלול להיות ממש הרמה להנחתה מבחינתן. הן עלולות לספוג כל כך הרבה ביקורת שאין בזה עבורן שום תועלת.

"ובכל זאת, חייבים לציין את היוצאת מן הכלל – נושאת הדגל של תחום האקולוגיה בקרב מעצבי העל: המעצבת סטלה מקרטני, שהפכה נושאים של סביבה וקיימות ממש לחלק מהדנ"א של המותג שלה,״ היא אומרת. ״היא גם הכריזה שלעולם לא תשתמש במוצרים מהחי. היא מצליחה להפוך את הנושא הרציני הזה לרלוונטי, עדכני ואופנתי, אבל כאמור היא לא רק חלוצה בתחום, אלא גם יחידה בו כרגע".

התפירה אירופאית, הבדים מהמזרח הרחוק

אחת הבעיות הגדולות והמוכרות שמזוהות עם תחום האופנה היא בעיית סדנאות היזע (sweat shops) – העובדה שהסניקרס החדשות והצבעוניות של ילדים מארצות המערב יוצרו על ידי בני גילם בארצות המזרח הרחוק בתנאים קשים ביותר. אבל העובדה שמעצבי העל ובתי האופנה הגדולים מייצרים פריטים בכמויות קטנות יותר ובמלאכת יד לא מנתקת אותם לגמרי משרשרת הייצור הבעייתית, כך מסביר לירוי שופן, עורך אתר האופנה The critical F. גם אם התפירה נעשית באיטליה או בצרפת, הוא אומר, הבדים והחומרים מיובאים במקרים רבים מהמזרח הרחוק, ובכל מקרה הפיקוח על שרשרת הייצור לוקה בחסר.

"כשמדברים על הבעיות הסביבתיות שיוצרת תעשיית האופנה, אחד הפתרונות המוצעים הוא לקנות יקר", אומרת צפרא פרלמוטר, מנכ"לית Collective Collection. "ההנחה היא שלא רק שהבגד היקר יהיה באיכות טובה יותר וישרוד לאורך זמן, אלא שגם לצרכן שהשקיע בו סכום גדול יהיה אינטרס להשתמש בו פעמים רבות יותר. הבעיה היא שמדובר בהנחה בלבד, ולא במחקר של הנושא. לטעמי, בכלל לא בטוח שמי שקונה פריטים יקרים משתמש בהם יותר, ובכל מקרה תעשיית האופנה העלית מהווה רק חלק קטן מתעשיית האופנה, ולכן לא יכולה להציע את הפתרון לבעיה של התעשייה כולה".

"עיקר הפעולות הסביבתיות בתעשיית האופנה נעשות על ידי חברות האופנה המהירה", מאשרת לוי ארבל. "במקרה הזה מותגי העל לא מובילים אלא מובלים. באקלים הצרכני הנוכחי, חברות שעוסקות בייצור המוני חייבות להתייחס לנושא הסביבתי, גם אם ההתייחסות הזאת חלקית בלבד. הרי כמעט לכולם יש בבית נעליים של נייקי, אבל רק למעטים יש ז'קט של גוצ'י. לכן נייקי חייבים לפעול, ואילו לגוצ'י כנראה ייקח עוד כמה שנים להתעורר".

לכתבה באתר זוית

בעקבות הכתבה ב"זווית" הסיפור פורסם גם ב-וואלה!

“Sure, it might be healthy – but it’s unsustainable.”

“Well, you might be losing weight, but you’re wrecking the planet.”

“Paleo is selfish – it’s not sustainable to eat that much meat.”

Sound familiar? It’s not something anyone likes to hear, but it’s an important issue to take on, because if Paleo really is wrecking the planet, we need to do something about it. But as usual, it’s a little bit more nuanced than “meat is unsustainable.” As it turns out, it really depends on what you mean by “meat,” and specifically where you’re getting it from. When it comes to factory farming, the PETA people got it right: it’s a disaster. But PETA activists like to ignore the inconvenient fact that industrial crop production is almost as bad: if we’re looking at environmental villains, tofu should be getting the side-eye just as much as steak.

When you look at grass-fed and pasture-raised animals, the major reasons that meat is “unsustainable” disappear. If we want to stop destroying the planet, we don’t need to all go vegan; we need to ditch industrial ag from the ground up and find a different way of producing enough food.

Meat and Sustainability

Let’s tackle this one right off the bat. Factory-farmed meat is absolutely unsustainable – it is destroying the planet, and we’re fast approaching the day when we won’t be able to ignore it any more. But truly pasture-raised meat is not like factory-farmed meat.

Since beef is regularly at the top of the “meat is unsustainable” hit list, here’s a table comparing factory-farmed and grass-fed beef (most of it is applicable to other animals, too):

 The Methane Question

One more issue deserves a special mention: the question of methane.

Methane is a greenhouse gas, so environmentally-friendly food should produce as little methane as possible. It’s true that grass-fed cows produce more methane – it’s a by-product of fermenting the fiber in their diet, so the more fibrous plant material they eat, the more methane they’ll produce. If you just stop there, it looks almost like grass-fed meat is worse for the planet. But consider that…

• Grazing also sequesters carbon in the soil, reducing the net climate impact of grass-fed cows.
• Growing industrial feed and trucking it across the country produces much more greenhouse gas than the cows themselves. If we want to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of cattle farming, we can start by looking at cornfields and semi trucks, not the cows themselves.

Raising beef on pasture isn’t totally perfect, but overall, grass-fed cows still come out on top.

Meat is Not Unsustainable. Grains are Unsustainable.

If you look down all those reasons why factory-farmed meat is unsustainable, you’ll notice that a lot of them have at least something to do with:

• The grains grown to feed the cows.
• The living conditions in factory farms.

Neither one of these objections applies to meat raised on pasture.

Factory-farmed meat just magnifies the problems with industrially-grown grains. In the United States, livestock consumes about 7 times more grains than humans do. 1 pound of beef requires several pounds of grains to produce – and the pound of beef is ecological problem partly because those several pounds of grains are unsustainable. The root problem is the grains. Factory-farmed meat just magnifies all the problems of industrial grain and soy monoculture.

You could set up a slightly less unsustainable system by feeding those monoculture crops directly to humans – from the perspective of calorie production, it’s more efficient to eat grains directly than to feed them to cows and then eat the cows. But even without getting into the human health problems that would cause, from an environmental perspective it’s still only less-bad. To get anything close to “good,” we’d have to ditch the giant monoculture farms completely, and go for a radically different model of agriculture that looks a lot closer to the “grass-fed” side of the column.

That’s where the vegan argument breaks down. Sure, factory-farmed meat is environmentally indefensible. Nobody’s seriously arguing with that. But it’s indefensible partly because it requires growing mass quantities of corn and soy, not because there’s anything inherently unsustainable about raising animals for food.

Summing it Up

Meat isn’t unsustainable; factory farming is unsustainable.

The typical critiques of meat just don’t apply  if you’re eating truly grass-fed meat from farms that don’t use the industrial-agriculture blueprint. As long as “vegan” means “I eat primarily wheat and soy products from giant industrial farms,” going vegan is not going to save the planet. What we really need is to get out of the industrial model completely, and find ways to raise animals and plants together, the way animals and plants naturally live in real ecosystems. This would eliminate the problems of growing mass quantities of feed crops, and also the ecological damage of the factory farms themselves (the manure runoff, for example). The poster child for this is Polyface Farms, but there are plenty of other small farmers out there working on a similar model.

You can argue whether or not it’s politically possible to get rid of corn and soy subsidies and replace all those amber waves of grain with real food, but the point stands that the knee-jerk environmentalist critique of meat just doesn’t apply well to a model outside the industrial system – and that includes Paleo. So if we’re talking Paleo and sustainability, it’s time to let go of arguments that aren’t relevant, and start focusing on the more useful questions: what kind of changes would it take to feed the world pasture-raised meat? What can we actually do about it? Those are the questions we need to be thinking about, and we’ll never get there if we’re all just stuck in the “meat is bad” rut.

About the Film

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret is a groundbreaking feature-length environmental documentary following intrepid filmmaker Kip Andersen as he uncovers the most destructive industry facing the planet today – and investigates why the world’s leading environmental organizations are too afraid to talk about it.

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water consumption and pollution, is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry, and is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones,” and virtually every other environmental ill. Yet it goes on, almost entirely unchallenged.

As Andersen approaches leaders in the environmental movement, he increasingly uncovers what appears to be an intentional refusal to discuss the issue of animal agriculture, while industry whistleblowers and watchdogs warn him of the risks to his freedom and even his life if he dares to persist.

As eye-opening as Blackfish and as inspiring as An Inconvenient Truth, this shocking yet humorous documentary reveals the absolutely devastating environmental impact large-scale factory farming has on our planet, and offers a path to global sustainability for a growing population.

Director’s Note:

The science and research done on the true impacts of animal agriculture is always growing. The statistics used in the film were based on the best information we had available while producing the film. We will continually update this list with further resources as they become available

- GREENHOUSE GASES -

Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.   [i]

Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.  [.i]

Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.

Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Emissions.”

Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19.

Animal Feed Science and Technology “comment to editor” Goodland, Anhang.

The Independent, article Nov. 2009.

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

(Please note the following PDF is very large and may take a while to load)

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.

“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.

Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html

Energy related emissions expected to increase 20% by 2040.

Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering

IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014

US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal.

EPA. "Overview of Greenhouse Gases."

Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day.   [xi]

Ross, Philip. “Cow farts have ‘larger greenhouse gas impact’ than previously thought; methane pushes climate change.” International Business Times. 2013.

250-500 liters per cow per day, x 1.5 billion cows globally is 99 - 198.1 billion gallons. Rough average of 150 billion gallons CH4 globally per day.

Converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars.

The Cost Of Going Green Globally

Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.

Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately.

U.N. Press Release, Climate Summit 2014.

- WATER -

Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) water use ranges from 70-140 billion gallons annually.

“Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.” EPA Office of Research and Development. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.

Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually.   [ii]  [xv]

Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural And Environmental Issues.” BioScience 54, no. 10 (2004): 909-18.

Barber, N.L., “Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098.”

Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption.   [xv]

“USDA ERS – Irrigation & Water Use.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2013.

Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US.   [xv]

Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

Californians use 1500 gallons of water per person per day. Close to Half is associated with meat and dairy products.

Pacific Institute, "California's Water Footprint"

2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef. 

(NOTE. The amount of water used to produce 1lb. of beef vary greatly from 442 - 8000 gallons. We choose to use in the film the widely cited conservative number of 2500 gallons per pound of US beef from Dr. George Borgstrom, Chairman of Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, "Impacts on Demand for and Quality of land and Water." ) 

Oxford Journals. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues"

The World's Water. "Water Content of Things" 

Journal of Animal Science. "Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States." 

Robbins, John. “2,500 Gallons, All Wet?” EarthSave

Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.

“Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print

477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs;  almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese.

“Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.

1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.

Water Footprint Network, "Product Water Footprints".

A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products, WFN.

5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture.   [xv]

Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today.  

1/5 of global water consumption:

27%-30%+ of global water consummation is for animal agriculture. 

1/3 of global fresh water consumed is for animal ag.

“Freshwater Abuse and Loss: Where Is It All Going?” Forks Over Knives.

- LAND -

Livestock or livestock feed occupies 1/3 of the earth’s ice-free land.

FAO. "Livestock a major threat to environment"

Livestock covers 45% of the earth’s total land.

Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen. “Livestock and Climate Change.” Livestock Exchange, no. 3 (2011).

IPCC AR5 WG# Chapter 11, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Us (AFOLU) 

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction.  [xix]  [iv]

Animal agriculture contributes to species extinction in many ways. In addition to the monumental habitat destruction caused by clearing forests and converting land to grow feed crops and for animal grazing, predators and "competition" species are frequently targeted and hunted because of a perceived threat to livestock profits. The widespread use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers used in the production of feed crops often interferes with the reproductive systems of animals and poison waterways. The overexploitation of wild species through commercial fishing, bushmeat trade as well as animal agriculture’s impact on climate change, all contribute to global depletion of species and resources. [XIX]

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Comfortably Unaware. Oppenlander.

NOAA, "what is a dead zone".

Scientific America, "What Causes Ocean "Dead Zones"?".

“What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency.

“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.

The Encyclopedia of Earth, "The Causes of Extinction". 

Annenberg Learner, Unit 9: Biodiversity Decline // Section 7: Habitat Loss: Causes and Consequences

WWF, "Losing their homes because of the growing needs of humans."

Center for Biological Diversity, "How Eating Meat Hurts Wildlife and the Planet".

Science Direct “Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption”

FAO, "Livestock impacts on the environment".

“Fire Up the Grill for a Mouthwatering Red, White, and Green July 4th.” Worldwatch Institute.

Oppenlander, Richard A. “Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification.” Comfortably Unaware. 2012

“Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.

 Livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen flooded deadzones around the world in our oceans.

PRESS RELEASE, LOUISIANA UNIVERSITIES MARINE CONSORTIUM August 4, 2014

NOAA News, 2014.

Largest mass extinction in 65 million years.

Niles Eldredge, "The Sixth Extinction". 

Mass extinction of species has begun.

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction

2-5 acres of land are used per cow.

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73:  study by USDA - Economic Research Service ( for acres/cow- pages 12 and 13)

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. 

Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Nearly half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture. 

The US lower 48 states represents 1.9 billion acres. Of that 1.9 billion acres: 778 million acres of private land are used for livestock grazing (forest grazing, pasture grazing, and crop grazing), 345 million acres for feed crops, 230 million acres of public land are used for grazing livestock. 

U.S. extrapolated data from EPA, Land Uses.

Versterby, Marlow; Krupa, Kenneth. “Major uses of land in the United States.” Updated 2012. USDA Economic Research Service.

USDA, Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997.

“Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns.” UN News Centre, 2006.

1/3 of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading driver.   [xviii]

“UN launches international year of deserts and desertification.” UN news centre, 2006.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

UWC, “Desertification".

The Encyclopedia of Earth, "Overgrazing".

UN, "Desertification, Drought Affect One Third of Planet, World’s Poorest People, Second Committee Told as It Continues Debate on Sustainable Development".

An article that explains desertification and livestock’s role:

- WASTE -

Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.

This doesn’t include the animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US.   [v]

“What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency.

“How To Manage Manure.” Healthy Landscapes.

335 million tons of “dry matter” is produced annually by livestock in the US.“FY-2005 Annual Report Manure and Byproduct Utilization National Program 206.” USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2008.

A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. [vi]

“Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.

130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced per person in the US.   [xii]

Animal agriculture: waste management practices. United States General Accounting Office.

  In the U.S. livestock produce 116,000 lbs of waste per second: 

-Dairy Cows, 120lbs of waste per day x 9 million cows.

-Cattle, 63lbs of waste per day, x 90 million cattle.

-Pigs, 14lbs. of waste per day, x 67 million pigs.

-Sheep/Goats. 5lbs of waste per day, x 9 million sheep/goats.

-Poultry, .25-1lbs of waste per day, x 9 billion birds.  

Dairy cows and cattle-1.08 billion pounds per day (from 9 million dairy cows, 120 pounds waste per cow per day) + 5.67 billion pounds per day (90 million cattle, 63 pounds waste per one cattle per day) = 6.75 billion pounds per day wasteor 2.464 trillion pounds waste per year (manure+urine)

** 3.745 trillion pounds waste per year(this is the equivalent of over 7 million pounds of excrement per MINUTE produced by animals raised for food in the U.S. excluding those animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction, backyards, and billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the U.S.) 

 Animals produce Enough waste to cover SF, NYC, Tokyo, etc,

based off 1lb of waste per 1sqft at 1.4 billion tons. 

US Livestock produce 335 million tons of “dry matter” per year.

- OCEANS -

3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted.

“Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity.” UN News Center.

“General Situation of World Fish Stocks.” United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

We could see fishless oceans by 2048.

Science, "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services".

National Geographic, article Nov. 2006

90-100 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year.   [vii]

“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012. (pg 6, 20)

Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic.

As many as 2.7 trillion animals are pulled from the ocean each year.

A Mood and P Brooke, July 2010, "Estimating the Number of Fish Caught in Global Fishing Each Year".

Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic.

For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill.   [viii]

“Discards and Bycatch in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO).

As many as 40% (63 billion pounds) of fish caught globally every year are discarded.

Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries

Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named.” The Guardian.

Scientists estimate as many as 650,000 whales, dolphins and seals are killed every year by fishing vessels.

Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries

Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named.” The Guardian.

Fish catch peaks at 85 million tons.

“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012.

40-50 million sharks killed in fishing lines and nets.

Shark Savers, "Shark Fin Trade Myths and Truths: BYCATCH”. Bonfil, R. 2000. The problem of incidental catches of sharks and rays, its likely consequences and some possible solutions. Sharks 2000 Conference, Hawaii, 21-24 February

Animal Welfare Institute

- RAINFOREST -

Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.

World Bank. "Causes of Deforestation of theBrazilian Amazon”

Margulis, Sergio. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforest. Washington: World Bank Publications, 2003.

WORLD BANK WORKING PAPER NO. 22

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second.

“Avoiding Unsustainable Rainforest Wood.” Rainforest Relief.

Facts about the rainforest.

Rainforest facts.

World Resources Institute, "Keeping Options Alive".

The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops.

“Livestock impacts on the environment.” Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (fao). 2006.

Up to137 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction.

“Rainforest statistics and facts.” Save the amazon.

RAN, Fact Page.

Tropical Rain Forest Information Center, NASA Earth Science Information Partner

Monga Bay, "What is Deforestation?".

150-200 species per day are lost per day, The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

26 million rainforest acres (10.8m hectares) have been cleared for palm oil production.   [ix]

“Indonesia: palm oil expansion unaffected by forest moratorium.” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2013.

136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.

“AMAZON DESTRUCTION.” MONGA BAY.

214,000 square miles occupied by cattle (136 million acres):

1,100 Land activists have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years.   [x]

Batty, David. “Brazilian faces retrial over murder of environmental activist nun in Amazon.” The Guardian. 2009.

20 years ago the Amazon lost its strongest advocate.

Further reading on Sister Dorothy Stang.

http://www.sndohio.org/sister-dorothy/

- Wildlife -

USDA predator killing of wild animals to protect livestock.

http://www.predatordefense.org/USDA.htm

Washington state killed the wedge pack of wolves.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/09/22/wedge-wolf-pack-will-be-killed-because-of-increasing-beef-consumption/ 

More wild horses and burros in government holding facilities than are free on the range.

BLM holding population: 49,021

BLM on the range population: 33,780

Ten thousand years ago, 99% of biomass (i.e. zoomass) was wild animals. Today, humans and the animals that we raise as food make up 98% of the zoomass.

Vaclav Smil, Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613-36, December 2011. The proportions are of mass measures in dry weight.  

Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact,Vaclav Smil

New York Times Jul 2013

- HUMANITY -

414 billion dollars in externalized cost from animal ag.   [xvi]

Simon, David Robinson. "Meatonomics" Conari Press (September 1, 2013)

Huffington Post, Sept 2013.

Why A Big Mac Should Cost $200

Global Environmental costs of Animal Agriculture estimated at $170 billion

80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock.

Center For A Livable Future, "New FDA Numbers Reveal Food Animals Consume Lion’s Share of Antibiotics”.

FDA 2009, "Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals".

World population in 1812: 1 billion; 1912: 1.5 billion; 2012: 7 billion.

“Human numbers through time.” Nova science programming.

Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact,Vaclav Smil

70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.

A well-fed world. factory farms.

Compassion In World Farming. Strategic Plan 2013-2017

ADAPTT. "The Animal Kill Counter"

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Throughout the world, humans drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day.

Based on rough averages of 0.75 gallons of water and 3 lbs of food per day. water - 1/2 - 1 gallon

food - 3lbs globally per capita per day

US Americans consume 5.3lbs of food per day

Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.

Based on rough average of 30 gallons of water and 90 lbs of feed per day for 1.5 billion cows.

We are currently growing enough food to feed 10 billion people.

Common Dreams, "We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People… and Still Can’t End Hunger".

Cornell Chronicle, "U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists".

IOP Science, Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare

Worldwide, at least 50% of grain is fed to livestock. 

FAO, "Livestock - a driving force for food security and sustainable development".

Global Issues, "BEEF".

Wisconsin Soybean Association, "U.S. and Wisconsin Soybean Facts". 

82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries.

http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/the-world-hunger-food-choice-connection-a-summary/

80% of the worlds starving children live in 14 countries. (figure 5)

Livestock production country list

Livestock global mapping

15x more protein on any given area of land with plants, rather than animals.

“Soy Benefits”. National Soybean Research Laboratory. Retrieved 2010-04-18.

The average American consumes 209 pounds of meat per year.

Note: created from averages of 4 different studies. Center For a Livable Future, "How much meat do we eat, anyway?"

Haney, Shaun. “How much do we eat?” Real agriculture. 2012. (276 lbs)

“US meat, poultry production & consumption” American Meat Institute. 2009. (233.9 lbs)

Bernard, Neal. “Do we eat too much?” Huffington Post. (200 lbs)

Dairy consumption may leads to breast lumps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10868428/Give-up-dairy-products-to-beat-cancer.html

Dairy may “give guys man-boobs”

http://chestsculpting.com/milk-and-dairy-for-guys-with-man-boobs/

World Population grows 228,000+ people everyday.

 https://www.populationinstitute.org/programs/gpso/gpso/

World Population Data Sheet

Land required to feed 1 person for 1 year:

Vegan: 1/6th acre

Vegetarian: 3x as much as a vegan

Meat Eater: 18x as much as a vegan   [xvii]

Robbins, John. Diet for a New America, StillPoint Publishing, 1987, p. 352

“Our food our future.” Earthsave.

PNAS. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States

“Soy Benefits”. National Soybean Research Laboratory. Retrieved 2010-04-18.

Direct Seeded Vegetable Crops, Johnny Seeds.

1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.

1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of meat.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Direct Seeded Vegetable Crops, Johnny Seeds.

USDA NASS, "One Acre of Washington's farmers land"

Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2012.

A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-lover for their food.   [xx]

CO2:  "The Carbon Footprint of 5 Diets Compared." Shrink The Footprint.

“Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climactic change, 2014.

Oil, water: “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003.

One Green Planet, "Meat The Truth".

Robbins, John. "Food Revolution". Conari Press, 2001

Land [xvii]: “Our food our future.” Earthsave.

Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life.   [xiv]

“Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.

“Measuring the daily destruction of the world’s rainforests.” Scientific American, 2009.

“Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climactic change, 2014.

“Meat eater’s guide to climate change and health.” The Environmental Working Group.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Further reading on US food disparagement law

https://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm

Further reading on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act-(aeta)

The problem with the Allan Savory's grazing approach.

Dr. Richard Oppenlander.

Professor James McWilliams.

George Wuerthner.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

[i] NOTE: In 2013 the UN-FAO lowered livestock’s GHG emissions to 14.5%.

There are many other factors to consider in terms of level of concern we should have regarding the role of food choice in climate change, global depletion in general, and certain applicable time lines as represented (or misrepresented) by the United Nations or any other governing or research institution. In particular:

    1    does not represent the entire life cycle analysis (LCA) or supply chain of livestock products, notably omitting carbon dioxide production in respiration (on average 4.8 tons CO2 e/year/cow, 2.3 CO2 e/year/pig, etc.), provides no consideration for increased indirect radiative effects of methane on atmospheric aerosols and particulate capture related to smog (Shindell et al. 2009), and manages land use changes (LUC) with admitted “uncertainty” and under-counting/reporting

    2    ultimately defers to a separate category for reporting of greenhouse gas emissions related to “deforestation” (20% of global GHG emissions per UN-REDD), of which livestock and feed crops play a significant role, needing to be added to direct emissions (80% of Amazonian rainforest deforestation and degradation, and destruction of Cerrado savanna since 1970 has been due to expansion for cattle, with another 10% loss due to planting crops to feed them and other livestock)

    3    the global warming potential (GWP) for methane used in this report was from IPCC 2007, which was 21 at 100 years. However, the GWP of methane is actually 86 GWP at 20 years

    4    the report gave no consideration to carbon sequestration potential lost on land now used for livestock and feed production, which should have been considered as emissions (45% of the land mass on Earth now used by livestock and crops to feed them–International Livestock Research Institute)

    5    Consideration should be given to the fact that the lead authors have potential bias in this report; Pierre Gerber is the Livestock Policy Officer of the FAO and Henning Steinfeld is Chief, Livestock Information of the Livestock Sector Policy Branch of the FAO. There is little doubt why obvious omissions were therefore seen in their conclusions presented: “The global livestock sector is faced with a three-fold challenge: increasing production to meet demand, adapting to a changing and increasingly variable economic and natural environment and, lastly, improving its environmental performance.“

This FAO report failed to represent urgency in regard to climate change and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, performed no analysis of alternatives, and failed to present risks versus benefits of raising livestock on a global scale.

    1    there was no consideration of the effects of raising livestock on continued warming, acidification, deoxygenation and therefore diminished climate regulatory mechanisms of our oceans or time lines related to potential detrimental effects on the oxygen-nitrogen-carbon dioxide cycling capacities.

    2    the report gave no account for anthropogenic greenhouse gases generated by agricultural systems related to extraction or raising and eating fish–fuel, refrigeration, packaging, processing, transportation, etc. for both wild caught operations as well as those pertaining to aquaculture/aquaponics/aeroponics, which would thereby provide a more accurate and complete agricultural portrait related to our food choices making it easier for policy makers and consumers to interpret the data and findings

    3    there is no discussion, in an overview sense, to provide clarity regarding the component this happens to represent in livestock’s role, or food choice for that matter, in our current state of un-sustainability and the interrelated issues we face–freshwater scarcity, collapse of sea life oceanic ecosystems, unprecedented extinctions and loss of biodiversity, food security and agricultural land use inefficiencies, implications in human health and disease, rising health care costs and loss of productivity, economic risk factors, questions of social justice and implications regarding future generations, etc. (many of these issues are irreversible in our lifetime)–all part of the task of basic but thorough environmental scientific assessment, perhaps beyond the scope of livestock researchers/proponents for this one report, but the critical connection and relevance are vital should have been mentioned, nevertheless.It is quite clear by this report, which presents a filtered and quite limited view of the role of livestock in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and global depletion, that our team should focus our attention on whythere is suppression of information, lack of clarity, or elucidation of facts by our leaders related to the overarching problem of animal based agriculture as a component of food choice–and then how to swiftly correct this. Global governmental institutions such as the United Nations and its FAO should examine all the facts and present them accordingly as they interrelate. Then, they should be able to call for the frank elimination (or comprehensive “replacement”) of imminent threats to our survival such as food choices and agricultural systems that are disease promoting, ecologically unsustainable, and which condone massive unnecessary slaughtering–rather than calling for their perpetuation.

[.i] Some have challenged that the 18% of GHG emissions from animal ag cannot be compared to the 13% of GHG for transportation emissions because it does not take into consideration the full lifecycle analysis of the transportation industry. We have made it clear in the film that 13% of GHG emissions only accounts for the exhaust from the worlds vehicles. 

[ii] Although there are Cornell studies citing the water consumption of the US livestock industry at over 66 trillion gallons every year, we decided to go with a much more conservative figure of 34 trillion gallons based off the 2005 USGS figures putting the US total consumptive water use at 76 trillion gallons annually (non-consumptive is for thermoelectric and hydroelectric use that is typically returned directly back to its source immediately). The USDA says that agriculture is responsible for 80-90 percent of US water consumption and growing the feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of that water, bringing the total water consumption of the livestock industry to 34 trillion gallons.

[iii] 1 burger = 2 months showering: based on taking a 4-minute daily shower with a 2.5 gpm shower head.

[iv] “A typical five-acre hog waste lagoon releases 15-30 tons of ammonia into the air annually. Approximately half of the ammonia rises as a gas and generally falls to forests, fields, or open water within 50 miles, either in rain or fog. The rest is transformed into dry particles that travel up to 250 miles.

Ammonia is the most potent form of nitrogen that triggers algae blooms and causes fish kills in coastal waters. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality estimates that hog factories constitute the largest source of airborne ammonia in North Carolina, more than cattle, chickens, and turkeys combined. In 1995, Hans Paerl, a marine ecologist from the University of North Carolina, reported that airborne ammonia had risen 25% each year since 1991 in Morehead City, 90 miles downwind of the hog belt.”

[v] -Dairy Cows, 120lbs of waste per day,x 9 million cows.

-Cattle, 63lbs of waste per day, x 90 million cattle.

-Pigs, 14lbs. of waste per day, x 67 million pigs.

-Sheep/Goats. 5lbs of waste per day, x 9 million sheep/goats.

-Poultry, .25lbs of waste per day, x 10 billion birds.

Dairy cows and cattle-1.08 billion pounds per day (from 9 million dairy cows, 120 pounds waste per cow per day) + 5.67 billion pounds per day (90 million cattle, 63 pounds waste per one cattle per day) = 6.75 billion pounds per day waste or 2.464 trillion pounds waste per year (manure+urine)

** 3.745 trillion pounds waste per year

[vi] Enough waste to cover, etc: based on 1 pound of waste per 1 square foot of land

“Animal farms produce as much manure as small and medium sized cities. A farm with 2500 dairy cattle is similar in waste load to a city of 411,000 people.”

On a 1000-pound live weight basis, each of these animals produces more waste than a human. A CAFO with 1000 animal units of turkeys produces a waste load comparable to a city of 87,700 people. A dairy CAFO with 1000 animal units is equivalent to a city of 164,500 people. The important difference lies in the fact that human waste is treated before discharge into the environment, but animal waste is either not treated at all or minimally treated by virtue of the storage methods used before disposal.” http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt

[vii] Additionally – Oppenlander says 1-2 trillion fish extracted (inc. “bycatch,”) from our oceans each year (“by fishing methods such as trawling, purse seine, long lines, explosives, and other techniques that are damaging ecosystems”) http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/biodiversity-and-food-choice-a-clarification/

[viii] The figures for by-kill rates can be as high as 20lbs of untargeted species trapped for every pound of targeted animals killed.

[ix] “The USDA currently forecasts 2013/14 palm oil production…total area devoted to oil palm plantings is estimated at a record 10.8 million hectares.” [26.7 million acres]

[x] “[Dorothy Stang’s] death prompted Amazon activists – more than 1,000 of whom have been murdered in the last 20 years – to demand Brazil’s government crack down on the illegal seizure and clearance of the rainforest to graze cattle, raise soy crops, and harvest timber.”

“More than 1,100 activists, small farmers, judges, priests and other rural workers have been killed in land disputes in the last two decades.”

[xi] A single cow can produce between 66-132 gallons of methane a day. The average US vehicle gas tank can hold about 16 gallons of gas.

[xii] “The US meat industry produced some 1.4 billion tons of waste in 1997— five tons of animal waste for every US citizen. (USDA)”http://www.worldwatch.org/fire-grill-mouthwatering-red-white-and-green-july-4th

[xiv] The average person in the U.S. uses 405,000 gallons of freshwater per year (combination of the subfractions which comprise 206 pounds of meat per year– divided between 46 pounds of pig, 58 pounds of cow, 102 pounds of chicken and turkey in addition to 248 eggs and 616 pounds of dairy products), which equates to saving 1,100 gallons of water each day.

– 45lbs of grain saved per day: Grain: multiply ounces of each meat consumed daily per person by the feed conversion factor for each animal.

– It is estimated that 80,000 acres of rainforest are cleared each day with an additional 80,000 degraded, with 70-91% of that degradation for the livestock industry.

– CO2 based of feed conversion ratios and the average US meat consumption of 209lbs per year, per person.

Beef is at 22-27 kg CO2 Eq per kg produced/consumed X 2.5 ounces/day=1.75 kgor 3.85 pounds

Cheese/milk is 13.5 kg per kg product X 2 pounds/day=12.15 kg or 12.5 pounds

Pork is 12 kg per kg product X 2 ounces/day=.68 kg or 1.5 pounds

Combination chicken and turkey is 7 kg per kg product X 4.48 ounces/day= .89 kg or 1.96 pounds minimally (using only chicken)

{turkey, for instance, is 11 kg per kg product}

Eggs are at 5 kg per kg product X 2/3 egg per day= (50 g/egg) .55 pounds

— which equals 20.36 pounds of CO2 Eq saved per day.

[xv] An important distinction must be made between water "use" and "consumption". Hydroelectric power is one of the largest "users" of water in the US, but actually consumes very little water. The water is used to power turbines or for cooling and is almost always returned to the source immediately. Agriculture is the largest "consumer" of water because it pulls water from the source and locks it up in products, not returning it to the source immediately, if ever.

[xvi]  $414 billion of externalized costs breaks down to: $314 billion in health-care costs, $38 billion in subsides, $37 billion in environmental costs, $21 billion in cruelty costs, $4 billion in fishing-related costs. Learn more by reading Meatonomics, by David Robinson Simon.

[xvii]  On average, one acre of land of any level of fertility will be able to produce 15 to 18 times more protein from plant based sources than from animal products. Additionally, using any agricultural database regionally, nationally, or internationally, one can calculate that on average between 10 times and 100 times (in weight) more plant foods (vegetables, fruit, grain/nuts) on one acre of land than from animal products raised on that same acre of land, regardless of the level of fertility of that particular acre of land, presuming it is the same acre used for either product, animal or plant based.

[xviii] Many organizations are studying humanity’s effect on soil degradation, erosion, and eventual desertification but not willing to emphasize the final connection of dots to animal agriculture. According to the UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), nearly 20 million acres of arable land is lost each year due to desertification and the primary reasons are:

1. deforestation due to cultivation of crops and pasture

2. overgrazing from livestock (“eating away grasses and eroding topsoil with hooves”)

3. intensive farming stripping away nutrients in soil

http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml

Overgrazing by livestock is the principal land problem related to desertification as indicated in the article: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-186/002-186.html And, according to the UNDDD: “Nearly 20% of the degrading land (globally) is cropland, and 20-25%, rangeland.” Understanding that over 70% of the global arable land used for agriculture is planted for crops grown for livestock, there is be ample support for the statement that “animal agriculture is the leading driver for approximately 1/3 of the land lost on earth due to desertification.” http://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml

[xix]   Few prominent scientists will openly proclaim the connection of their research findings with the need to eliminate animal agriculture or promotion of fully plant based nutrition. This is an observation that spans all aspects of global depletion related to food choice, including the topic of loss of biodiversity and extinction of species. 

The statement that animal agriculture is the primary driver of biodiversity loss and extinction of species is supported by many discussions and interviews with leading authors and scientists working for the Convention of Biodiversity and IUCN as well as publications regarding current biodiversity assessments as presented by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IUCN Red List, and the Global Environmental and Biodiversity Outlook.

Most organizations that associate their work with species and ecosystem/biodiversity concerns as well as the scientific community as a whole believe that the six main threats to our oceans are climate change, overfishing, predator loss, pollution, destruction of habitat, and bycatch, (“bykill”).

(For instance: The Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union and the Convention on Biological Diversity).

As of August 2012, the 2004 Global Species Assessment was the most recent empirical data on global extinction rates, based on birds, mammals, and amphibians. According to an interview conducted by Dr. Oppenlander with Simon Stuart, PhD, chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission:

“Habitat loss from grazing livestock and feed crops is far and away the most pervasive threat to terrestrial animal species, impacting 86 percent of all mammals, 88 percent of amphibians, and 86 percent of all birds. One in every eight birds, one in every three amphibians, and one in every four mammals is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the near future. Overexploitation of wild animals for consumption remains a second major factor for extinction, such as can be seen in bushmeat trade in Africa and Southeast Asia and all hunting endeavors on land, globally.” 

The Alliance for Global Conservation estimates 36 percent of all species on our planet are in danger of extinction.

Scientists have divided our planet into 825 terrestrial “ecoregions” (as well as 450 freshwater and a number of oceanic ecoregions), each defined by its own distinct set of animal and plant species, as well as climate. Of all these land ecoregions, almost half are reported by lead scientists (interviews/discussions) to have livestock as a current threat. The World Conservation Union reported in 2010 that “most of the world’s endangered or threatened species” on their Red List (which lists the species that are most endangered) are suffering habitat loss due to livestock—not due to agriculture but to livestock.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010 agreed that none of their goals from 2002 for lessening the rate of biodiversity loss were met. The attendees confirmed that the main pressures for the rapid loss of species—habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive species, and climate change—were all increasing in intensity.

Current biodiversity assessments (as presented by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IUCN Red List, and the Global Environmental and Biodiversity Outlook) now generally agree that land use change, modification of river flow, freshwater pollution, and exploitation of marine environments are the most significant drivers of biodiversity change and loss of species. Because more than 50% of the land use changes on Earth are related to livestock (ILRI), 70 to 90% of freshwater pollution in western countries (particularly the U.S. and China) can be traced back to animal agriculture, minimally 14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions/climate change, and 100% of “exploitation of marine environments” is related to the global commercial fishing industry, it can be safely and confidently demonstrated that “the primary driver of global species’ extinctions and loss of biodiversity is animal agriculture.” 

[xx] The amount of water, land and fuel used for differing diets varies greatly from the types of foods consumed, amount consumed and the geographical region where the food was raised. Taking into consideration that 1lb of beef requires upwards of 2500 gallons of water to produce compared to only 25 gallons for 1lb of wheat, the water footprint of a person consuming a high meat diet could be 100x greater than that of a person consuming only plant foods. The same applies for land and oil use. Many arid areas of the world can not support 1 cow per 2 acres and require 50+ acre per cow, compared to a crops such as potatoes that can produce 50,000lbs+ per acre. The energy/fuel inputs are similar. 1 calorie of beef can take 27x more energy to produce than soybeans.