Environmental Factors

Pesticides and Chemical Residues

According to PETA and other sources (1) people who eat meat are exposed to residual agricultural chemicals as a result of livestock concentrating pesticides that are used on their feed. This exposure they further point out, is greater than the exposure from eating the feed-crops themselves. They assert that meat contains 14 times as much pesticide residue as plant foods; dairy products, more than five times as many. Ninety-five percent of human exposure to dioxin, a "probable" cause of cancer and other health risks, comes through meat, fish, and dairy consumption. From this argument, the proposition that reducing or eliminating meat would be a necessary and justified step in reducing pesticide intake in the diet.

Beef advocates (2) assert that the chemicals do not accumulate "up the food chain," in meat. The reason given that animals do not just consume and store the pesticides but also they also detoxify, metabolize, biodegrade and excrete the chemicals. They insist that only a small fraction of any chemical absorbed is even temporarily deposited in tissue, and further asserting that animals provide a useful function by biodegrading chemicals, whether natural or man-made. Since the chemicals are minimally store in the meat, and often degraded, meat should not be considered contaminated.

The federal government (3) however, has found that there is less to this issue than meets the eye; claiming that pesticides in both plants and animals are well below the safe tolerance levels. USDA's official report for 1989 on residue monitoring of meat showed no pesticide residues in beef that violated the tolerance levels. Other monitoring agencies also concur that any residues of crop chemicals are undetectable or are present at only a fraction of tolerance levels in food. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Total Diet Studies, which evaluated both vegetables and meats, showed that foods supply less than 1% [II.29 - 51] of allowable dietary intake for most pesticides. FDA samplings in1988, together with total allowable studies, continued to demonstrate that dietary intakes of pesticide residues are well below standards set by the Food and Agriculture/World Health Organization. The government concludes that there is no problem with pesticides in either plant-crops or livestock. "There has, in fact, been no evidence of a single serious health effect from residues (any residues) in meat or poultry in the last 20 years," said Dr. Richard Carnevale, FSIS assistant deputy administrator for Science and Technology.

Of course one may ask are the "safe tolerance levels" of agricultural pesticides reasonable? As C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General (4) notes: "More than 700 species of plants naturally produce 'pesticides' to help fight off parasites, insects, birds and animals. In addition, organisms living on plants, such as fungi, may produce toxins. Americans consume 45 micrograms of potentially carcinogenic man-made pesticides every day in food. But there are 500 micrograms of naturally occurring carcinogens in a cup of coffee, 185 micrograms in a slice of bread and 2,000 micrograms of carcinogens in a glass of Coca-Cola." So we conclude with the government that pesticide use in both crops and livestock is not a significant problem, and should not effect dietary decisions.

Food Resources and Beef

Ninety-two percent of U.S. grazing land is too high, too rough, too dry or too wet to grow cultivated crops (5). This land would be of no use as a food resource if it were not for grazing livestock. Only through ruminant (four-stomach), grazing animals can we harvest the 809 million acres of range, pasture land and cropland pasture in the U.S. (6). The availability of these lands for grazing more than doubles the U.S. land area that can be used to produce plants for food purposes (7). The U.S. Has more than enough cropland to grow both feed grains and food crops (8). In fact, because of grain surpluses, government crop programs involve removal of land from grain production.

Beef cattle spend all or most of their lives on pasture and range. Grazing provides 70% of the metabolizable energy used by cattle, and at least 83% of the nutrients consumed by cattle come from non-grain feedstuffs not edible by humans (9). These feedstuffs include grass, roughage and crop aftermath. Livestock also consume 18 billion pounds (25%) of the by-products generated by food processing (10). After all, less than half the dry matter produced by crops is edible by humans. Millions of tons of nutrients would be lost if it weren't for livestock making use of food processing by-products and crop residues like corn stalks. If we didn't feed these products to animals they would otherwise be wasted or hauled to landfills and dumps.

Why not just eat what we feed the cows? Domestic beef cattle consume only 11% of the total grain produced in the U.S. (11). If all the grain used to feed cattle in the U.S. could be used for human consumption, it would feed only a small portion of the world's population (12). But cattle produce 68 % of the protein, 35 % calories, 83 % of the calcium, 60 % of the phosphorus, 42 % of the iron, virtually all of the vitamin B-12 and large amounts of other essential nutrients (13). That's a pretty good deal.

An average of 4 .5 pounds of grain is used to produce a pound of beef (retail weight) (11). Of course if you traded all of your meat for its weight in grain, you would be eating enough grain to permanently condemn yourself to the bathroom, where most of the nutrional potential in your food would be 'wasted'. That's the point of eating meat. Cows process food so that we can have a high efficiency food tailored for our digestive track. Instead of flushing our system with ruffage, we can run it on high-octane meat.

Couldn't we trade our meat for grain and then give it to the poor? Total world food supplies have been far in excess of amounts needed to feed the hungry ever since World War II (15). Distribution and and local economic conditions prevent the hungry from having food, its not being eaten out from under them by cows, chickens or pigs. In fact using such animals to graze on grasslands would be a way for underproducing nations to harness more nutrition from their environment. Meat is part of the solution, not the problem.

Grain feeding has made possible a larger, more economical supply of livestock and poultry products in the U.S. The amount of grain consumed by beef cattle is about the same as that consumed by hogs and somewhat less than consumed by poultry. Most of the grain fed to cattle is feed grain, not food grain like rice and wheat. The U.S. continues to produce more grain than can readily be sold. For most of the last three decades, U.S. grain surpluses have increased, even with an expanding animal agriculture. That is a major reason why 68 million acres of cropland are idle. Large amounts of cropland have been removed from production under government grain programs (16).

Grazing Effects on Environment

Production of grains and harvested forages for all beef cattle accounts for only 5.8 % of soil erosion from non-federal rural land.(17) Managed grazing results in better grass conditions than would exist if there were no grazing. Grazing improves vegetation health and diversity (it's similar to mowing a lawn). The National Wildflower Research Center says that grazing is necessary for the maintenance of grassland systems. "Grazing may be, if correctly used, the best management tool we have to stimulate historic conditions and maintain biological diversity in grassland systems," a spokesperson said (18). Livestock grazing also has proved to be an effective tool in controlling weeds without pesticides and in maintaining wildlife habitats, and opening land for recreational purposes (19).

Conclusion

We have the natural resources to produce both human crops and meat. We can either raise the meat, or waste our potential. The sun will keep shining, the rain will keep raining and grass will grow, but if we don't raise cattle, we will gain no nutrition from it. Grazing is compatible with our environment (will be shown). To avoid producing such a bounty of food, with all the hunger present in the world, that would be a truly irresponsible waste.

Refrences

1. McCarthy, Colman, "Dioxin Burgers," The Washington Post, Sept. 24, 1994
   John Robbins, Diet for a New America (Walpole, N.H.: Stillpoint Publishing, 1987). Available from PETA or from the EarthSave Foundation, P.O. Box 94 9, Felton, CA 95018-0999.
2. Chemicals in the Meat Supply -- A Review, F.M. Boyers, Texas A&M University, 1990.
   Food/Meat/Beef Safety, G.C. Smith, Texas A&M University, 1989
   Poverty Won't Save the Planet, Dennis T. Avery, Hudson Briefing Paper, Vol. 1-2, July 1992.
   Environmental Perspectives of Beef Production: Issues and Implications, Foods and Feeds-Resources and Safety, The La Costa Conference of Cattle on t he Land: Environmental Implications of Beef Production, proceedings, 1990.
3. Food and Drug Administration Pesticide Program, 1982.
   Food/Meat/Beef Safety, G.C. Smith, Texas A&M University, 1989.
   Food News for Consumers, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Winter 1990.
   Report of Regulatory Program for Drug and Pesticide Residues in Meat and Poultry, 1989, Richard L. Carnevale, Food and Safety Inspection Service, 19 90.
4. The Beef Research Board, of the National Cattleman's Beef Association: Cattle and Beef Handbook, Sixth Printing, July 1999
5. Agricultural and Nonagricultural Uses of Land, USDA, 1987
6. Designing Foods, National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, 1988.
7. Land Use -- Food for Man Versus Feed for Cattle, Murray Milford, Texas A&M University, 1990.
8. Major Uses of Land in the U.S., USDA, 1987.
9. Feed Resources and Beef Production, G.T. Schelling,University of Idaho, proceedings, The LaCosta Conference on Cattle on the Land: Environmental Implications of Beef Production, 1990.
10. Utilization of Non-Competitive Nutrient Sources by Cattle for Food Production, J.R. Carlson, Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash., 1992
11. Agricultural Statistics 1990, USDA, 1990. World Hunger: Grain Versus Meat, H.O. Kunkel, Texas A & M University, 1990.
12. Feed Resources Utilization, H.O. Kunkel, proceedings, The LaCosta Conference on Cattle on the Land: Environmental Implications of Beef Production, 1990.
13. World Hunger: Grain Versus Meat, H.O. Kunkel, Texas A&M University, 1990.
14. Crap Which Mike Left Out 2000.
15. Feed Resource Utilization, Paul Thompson, et al,proceedings,The La Costa Conference on Cattle on the Land: Environmental Implications of Beef Production, 1990.
16. The Changing Nature of World Agriculture, Gary Vocke, National Food Review, USDA, April-June 1990.
17. Grazing as a Management Tool, National Wildflower Research Center, Wildflower, Vol. 4, No. 1.
18. "Grazing for Weed Control, " W.C. Kreuger, Weed Control for Forest Production in the Interior West, Washington Cooperative Extension, Washington State University, 1986.
19. Land Use/Soil Erosion, Murray H. Milford, Texas A&M University,1990.
    Livestock Grazing Improves Rangelands, Society for Range Management, 1990.
    Livestock Grazing Successes on Public Range, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Public Lands Council, 1989.