Your Grass-Fed Beef is About to Get More Expensive
More people want to consume meat in a more humane or ethical way, and grass-fed beef has been a large part of that equation. The grass-fed beef market is on the verge of a crisis though, as the levels of protein in the grass for grazing have decreased by 20 percent over the last twenty-five years. Jonah Ventures of Boulder, CO analyzed 50,000 cow pies from Texas and found that the nutritional content of the grass is down, leading to smaller cattle. According to Joe Craine, the co-owner and a researcher at Jonah Ventures, “If we were still back at the forage quality that we would’ve had 25 years ago, no less 100 years ago, our animals would be gaining a lot more weight…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmKhFDYLDWw
Two Likely Reasons
Researchers haven’t pinpointed the exact reason for the declining nutritional content of grass, but there are two likely suspects. Grass-fed, grain-finished cattle are moved from the prairie to a feedlot for the last 90 to 160 days of their lives. This move takes away cow pies, the best means of returning valuable nutrients back to the soil.
Another reason for the decline of nutritious? The increasing amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is causing plants to grow larger, more quickly with the same nutrient content. According to Irakli Loladze, a mathematician studying the effect of CO2 on pants for 15 years, “Every leaf and every grass blade on earth makes more and more sugars as CO2 levels keep rising…We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”
It All Begins With Food
There aren’t many people talking about what happens when our food is no longer able to sustain us. As many beef farmers are now finding out, that time is fast approaching. It doesn’t really matter why the grass is no longer as nutritious. The most important thing here is that it’s happening to the cows, and it will happen to us.
Wal-Mart Deceived Buyers of Organic Eggs, U.S. Lawsuit Says
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and their egg supplier are currently facing a federal lawsuit for misleading consumers by selling organic eggs with packaging that claimed the birds had access to the outdoors. The lawsuit alleges that Cal-Maine Foods Inc., the megastores’ supplier and also the largest egg producer in the country, defined outdoor access as an enclosed structure with screens allowing outdoor air. Wal-Mart has not reviewed the allegations, but according to spokesman Randy Hargrove, “We hold our suppliers to high standards and are committed to providing our customers the quality products they expect.”
Animal Welfare Standards and Consumer Demands
It’s difficult to determine if this lawsuit will go anywhere, especially in light of the USDA’s recent rejection of more humane animal welfare standards. The Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, intended to allow natural behaviors and reduce stress, was permanently shuttered half a year before it could go into effect. Wal-Mart and Cal-Maine Foods Inc could argue that it has met organic standards as they currently are in an attempt to justify the higher price. The companies would likely win
Where is the consumer in all of this? Demands for verifiably organic, humane, and high-quality products are skyrocketing, making organic foods the largest growing food market. A business like Wal-mart would be crazy not to take advantage of that, but millennials value integrity and the allegations in this lawsuit make it clear that could be an issue for the retail giant. The lawsuit says “Consumers paying more for these eggs have been deceived…The theoretical ability to view the outdoors is not the same as having access to it.”
We Want to Know
As a consumer, how does this make you feel? Do you stop purchasing eggs from Wal-Mart? From Cal-Maine Foods Inc? Is that even possible? Cal-Maine Foods Inc, a company who markets its brands, Egg-Land’s Best, Land O’ Lakes, Farmhouse, and 4-Grain, to a quarter of the population through megastores Wal-Mart and Publix?
How do we eat healthy food in an ethical way within our current food system?
Trump’s USDA Ends Animal Welfare Laws for Organic Eggs
The Trump administration announced in late December plans to reject humane-treatment regulations of cage-free chickens that were proposed during the previous administration. This reversal doesn’t come as a huge surprise since the USDA repeatedly delayed the enforcement of those regulations.
In April 2016, the National Organic Program, under Obama’s administration, proposed a new rule called the “Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices” (OLPP) rule. The rule would require basic animal welfare for a food producer to receive the organic label. The OLPP rules state that animals need to have the ability to sit, walk, stretch out, and stand up without having to be in contact with another animal or the walls of the enclosure. The animals require year-round access to the outdoors, which has to include space with nature like plants and soil.
The agribusiness industry is generally opposed to OLPP because the proposed rules would have forced chicken factories to make expensive changes. Not surprisingly, animal welfare groups are furious,
The Obama administration’s rules for animal welfare under the National Organic Program set basic, common sense standards that not only alleviated the most egregious suffering of animals, but also aligned the actual standards in the $30 billion organics industry with consumer expectations of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated.” – Vandhana Bala, general counsel for Mercy for Animals
Governments are brainstorming for ways to combat the devastating environmental effects of factory farming, and several countries in Europe are calling for a tax on meat. No other industry involves the most pressing environmental and health issues of today, like GMOs, increased greenhouse gases, the destruction of natural habitats, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, quite like factory farming. Even worse, the meat and the corn and soy that feed them are on the receiving end of a massive amount government subsidies. Our government pays nearly 38 billion dollars a year to hasten the death of our eco-system and ourselves.
Yet meat is still powerfully entrenched in cultures worldwide, and the likelihood of a completely vegan or even vegetarian world is not high. 84% of vegetarians and 70% of vegans return to eating meat at some point in their lives. Our current carnivorous habits are not sustainable. Is a meat tax the way to fix it?
The Danish Ethics Council started with a call for a tax on beef. That measure was passed by the council and is now scheduled for government consideration. While beef causes 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, more than chicken and pork, the council has plans to extend the proposed tax to other red meats.
The United Kingdom
Several studies in the United Kingdom have resulted in a national conversation likely to result in meat taxes within the next 10 years. Analysis from Glasglow University and Chatham House, an international thinktank, indicate that public would see government intervention in this issue as a positive. According to Laura Wellesley from Chatham House, lead author of the research,
Governments are ignoring what should be a hugely appealing, win-win policy…The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.”
The survey analysis also found that many were surprised to learn of government subsidies for meat production, particularly in the large amounts given by the U.S. government.
Germany already has a tax of 7 percent on animal products. The German federal environment agency has expressed a desire to raise that number to 19 percent, in order to keep with the Paris climate accords. Consumers would be the ones to pay this fine, although the agency has suggested that the estimated 5.2 billion euro tax revenue would lower consumption taxes on other food items.
My Opinion: We Pay to Produce It, Now We Pay to Eat It…?
America is much more attached to its meat products than Europe. The average American eats 200 pounds of meat a year, and for that American to be eating healthy (as it pertains to cancer and heart disease) levels of meat, those 200 pounds need to be reduced by two-thirds. But would Americans be so gung-ho about meat if they knew they’re actually paying an extra 8 dollars in hidden costs (healthcare, subsidies, and environmental degradation) for each Big Mac?
Here’s an idea…rather than tax consumers and charge them twice, slowly pull subsidies away from corporations running businesses contributing to climate change. This likely won’t happen, as the U.S. government cares about businesses, not people. Maybe if businesses weren’t so short-sighted, they would realize that people with more money buy more products.
In our current iteration, a meat tax in the United States is more likely to leave poor people without the funds or the knowledge for proper nutrition. Replacing everything meat with a version of tofurky isn’t sustainable or healthy either. In our school systems, we need real health and real food education that includes gardening.
On the other hand, if the tax happens, and it does promote awareness and reduced meat consumption, we’re not going to be too angry.
Farms Reduce Livestock Antibiotic Usage For First Time, Report Shows
The yearly Food and Drug Administration report on the sale of “medically important” antibiotics for food-producing animals has been released, and it’s good news. For the first time since the FDA started tracking these sales in 2009, sales of medically important antibiotics have gone down. They decreased by 14 percent in 2016, and a new FDA policy makes it likely that the trend will continue.
Why Have Sales Dropped?
There has been a concentrated effort from the scientific and medical communities to bring awareness to the issue of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In 2017, the FDA asked manufacturers to stop selling medically important antibiotics for the use of animal farming. Though this policy request occurred past the deadline for the 2016 yearly report, it does coincide with Canadian and European pushes for livestock raised with fewer antibiotics. With the United States government beginning to take this issue seriously, the sale and use of medically important antibiotics will likely continue to decrease.
There are still quite a few questions though. Without a massive overhaul of the factory farming system, farmers need something to replace these antibiotics. Non-antibiotic treatments are in the work, but data on how that could potentially affect humans hasn’t surfaced.
Another concern is the language continually being used – medically important antibiotics. One of the most important reported cases of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is the development of a colistin-resistant bacteria. Colistin was not considered a medically important antibiotic because of the kidney damage it causes, and the product only became medically important when other antibiotics were failing. According to the World Health Organization, there are not enough antibiotics being developed to deal with superbugs. What is the likelihood that one of the medically non-important antibiotics becomes medically necessary?
In addition to tracking sales, this is the first year that the FDA broke down the sale of antibiotics by animal type, giving a clearer picture of the relationship between food-producing animals and our medication. Restaurants and supermarkets have focused on delivering antibiotic-free chicken, and that’s reflected in the numbers. Poultry accounts for only 15 percent of medically important antibiotic sales, while swine and cattle account for 37 and 43 percent, respectively. It’s not clear that changes in restaurant policy have changed those figures, but it’s silly to think that the company that sells the 37 million nuggets a day doesn’t change the way that chicken is produced.
This report is a good sign for a couple of reasons. First, we have a more detailed breakdown of which animals are receiving more antibiotics. Secondly, all of the consumer pressure placed on corporations and governments for healthier options can actually have an effect. The free flow of information can bring about change, but we’re running out of time for that. Continued progress is a must.
Slaughter of 90,000 Wild Horses May Proceed Despite 80% Objection From Public
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal calls for saving $10 million next year by selling wild horses. Horses captured throughout the West will likely be sold for slaughter, which current regulations do not allow. Wild horse advocates say the change would gut nearly a half-century of protection for wild horses — an icon of the American West — and could send thousands of free-roaming mustangs to foreign slaughterhouses for processing as food.
Rep. Stewart is leading the charge to slaughter America’s wild horses and burros over the opposition of 80 percent of Americans,” said Suzanne Roy, AWHC Executive Director. “Putting his deputy at the helm of the agency charged with protecting these national icons is like putting the wolf in charge of the chicken coop.”
In 1971, Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, ending the practice of rounding up equines on America’s ranges and killing them for meat. But today, some members of Congress want to return to the era of mass killing.
Polls show the majority of Americans do not favor killing horses, wild or domestic. But lobbyists for the cattle industry and hunting groups do because horses compete with livestock and game species such as antelope for pasture and water. The Trump Administration’s 2018 budget included a proposal that opens the door for the Bureau of Land Managment (BLM) to save money by selling wild horses for slaughter. The congressional budget proposal would instead allow the BLM to cull young, healthy wild horses. Representatives say the horses would be “euthanized,” the way homeless pets sometimes are.
The American Wild Horse Campaign on Thursday harshly criticized Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke‘s appointment of Brian Steed, the former chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), as the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as dangerous and out of step with the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.
“Rep. Stewart is leading the charge to slaughter America’s wild horses and burros over the opposition of 80 percent of Americans,” said Suzanne Roy, AWHC Executive Director. “Putting his deputy at the helm of the agency charged with protecting these national icons is like putting the wolf in charge of the chicken coop.”
“Americans don’t want the government to be in the horse slaughter business, and Interior Secretary Zinke should appoint someone to lead the Bureau of Land Management who is committed to protecting, not destroying, America’s historic mustangs,” Roy concluded.
Roy added that the long-term leadership for this agency, which manages 245 million acres of public land in the West, should be determined through a full and transparent confirmation process, not a late-in-the-day political appointment by the secretary.
The Key to Happiness is Going Vegan, Affirms World Happiness Expert
Matthieu Ricard is a former French genetic scientist, Tibetan monk, and author of Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill. His designation as the world’s happiest man is the result of a scientific research done on him and other advanced meditation practitioners in 2012, where during a meditation on compassion, 256 sensors on his skull measured levels of gamma rays in his brain never before reported in the history of neuroscience. Even though Matthieu is widely known and respected, the wise monk shows no sign of ego, as he kindly shares with the world the secret to finding true happiness.
Why We Cannot be Happy Eating Animals
On a video Matthieu participated in for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), he demonstrates how the act of buying and eating animals creates a domino effect of negativity in all aspects of our life.
First of all, the animals, with 60 billion land animals and a trillion sea animals killed each year. Next, the environment, since the whole chain of factory farming involved in meat production today is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases nowadays, after homes and before transportation. Poverty in the world: 800 million tons of grains that could feed 1 billion people are sent from developing countries towards rich countries for meat production.
“So the first victims are, of course, animals, but everyone else loses too! Even human health! The WHO (World Health Organization) published a report showing that the regular consumption of meat was bad for health.”
So let’s be logical. If we ask the people of every nation whether they would like to live in a world filled with beauty, safety, prosperity, joy, kindness, love, peace, laughter, justice… most are likely to say yes. But to truly create such reality we must produce more of these acts (beauty, peace, love, justice and etc.) individually, so that this may turn into a ripple effect, creating this new collective reality. But how will we achieve such life when we are taking away innocent beings from their families and societies, forgetting that they are capable of feeling the same emotions we do, such as trust, love, joy, and fear and then serving them on our plates?
According to Matthieu,
…When you see the intensive conditions in which dairy cows are raised, for instance, it’s absolutely unimaginable. They are confined to stalls during their short lives, unable to see the sky, and when they become less productive, they are eliminated. When you know that 10 to 15 percent of them, sometimes more, are cut up into pieces while they were still conscious because they were improperly stunned, they die little by little, it’s unimaginable. But this is the reality of their lives, every day, all year long.”
So we must urgently ask ourselves, can any kind of death bring true happiness? Is it ethical and just? Will this act bring more fulfillment into our individual lives or consequently to our collective experience?
That’s right, the answer is no.
The Key to Happiness
Matthieu reveals the key to happiness and it´s simpler than we thought.
He says: “True happiness can be attained when we avoid causing pain to others…”
Matthieu’s wise words become even more interesting when we take a look at the results from the 2010 happiness survey done on Harvard´s class of 1980. It turns out that the number one item listed as one of utmost importance to achieve happiness is doing good for others.
This strongly correlates to what Matthieu has shared with us. Happiness is to think of others (people and animals) and keep from bringing them suffering, it is to think of the world and the future generations, the environment and ourselves (our health) doing what is morally correct.
How Meat Consumption is Hurting our Health and Planet
“The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future—deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.” Says the World Watch Institute.
But how much in numbers are we truly talking?
The millennium ecosystem assessment shows that meat and dairy products are responsible for:
70% of global freshwater consumption
It takes around 147 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of corn. A single beef steer or a heifer can eat 1,000 or more pounds of feed over a few months (since they are often fed corn and soy feed to achieve a speedier growth), consuming large amounts of water that could be preserved instead.
38% of total land use
In various nations of the world, you see lands being taken over, Amazonian forests cut down for soy production for cattle, banks of wild streams muddied and trampled by grazers in New Zealand, countries like Greece that were rich in woodlands are now dry and taken over by goats.
19% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions
Because cows chew on grass, and their digestive system works differently than ours, they end up releasing a lot of methane into the air and atmosphere. So, the more meat-eating humans, the more cows, the more methane, the more greenhouse gasses, and the worse it will be for the planet.
A scientific study that was done also indicates that the long-term consumption of red meat, and specially processed meat, is associated with an increased risk of mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer in both women and men.
But this isn’t the only source to share such information.
Dr. Marco Springmann from the Oxford Martin School, says: “Imbalanced diets, such as diets low in fruits and vegetables, and high in red and processed meat, are responsible for the greatest health burden globally…”
All of the above data show us that this lifestyle is extremely harmful to our health and for the planet, as it’s not sustainable. As the world population increases, the tendency is for the demand of meat production to increase, which could mean that we are looking at an unavoidable worldwide point of no return.
Watch this video for a quick 3-minute summary.
How a Vegan Lifestyle can Change the World
According to the recent 2016 Oxford study, a vegan diet could bring various benefits, such as:
Save 8 million lives by 2050 – The study concludes that almost half of the avoided deaths would be due to the reduction of the consumption of red meat as the other half would be a result of an increased fruit and vegetable intake as well as calorie reduction causing fewer people to be obese or overweight.
Save money on healthcare – About 700 to 1.000 billion US dollars.
Avoid climate-related damages – Which would have otherwise cost 1.5 trillion dollars.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2/3 – By adopting vegan dietary guidelines we could cut out 70% of these emissions which would bring an economic benefit of as much as 570 billion US dollars.
To summarize on the greenhouse gases matter, Nick Hewitt, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in the Department of Environmental Science at Lancaster University says “The biggest lifestyle choice you could make to reduce greenhouse gasses is to stop eating meat. It’s hard to think of another single lifestyle change we could make that would have the same effect.”
Bringing Happiness to the World
We have enough scientific evidence supporting the numerous problems within the animal-based product industries, as well as we are aware of how it negatively affects our health, our environment and the animals themselves. For those of you who comprehend this and are asking yourselves what you can do now, the answer is simple — Take action! Be the example, and exclude meat products from your plates, choose vegetarian and vegan options, bring awareness to your friends, family, and colleagues. Your actions will bring about a ripple effect, that will turn our collective reality into one free of suffering, full of environmental restoration, better human and animal health, which inevitably brings about greater feelings of joy, purpose, and love. Happiness takes courage and effort, so the Tibetan monk and former scientist, a true master of happiness and compassion, humbly makes a plea— he asks that we become vegan like him.