Veganism is all about causing the least amount of harm possible. But according to a recent
article, due to the process of harvesting crops, vegan and vegetarian diets may actually
carry a higher body count and environmental cost than their omnivorous counterparts. So
is it time for us vegans to get on the grass-fed-beef-bandwagon? Let’s find out.
Hi it’s Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome to another vegan nugget. Before I jump into
this behemoth of a topic, I want to note that all of the studies I’ll be referencing plus
additional resources are available in the blog post for this video, which is linked
here and in the video description. Please reference it for more in-depth analysis. Now
the article that I mentioned, by Professor Mike Archer, “Ordering the Vegetarian Meal?
There’s More Blood On Your Hands,” was originally published in 2011 but recently
went viral across Facebook when re-posted by I Fucking Love Science. It was quickly
shared over 100,000 times, most likely posted to the walls of vegans with furious gusto
in an enthusiastic “gotcha” moment, the most inspired retort to the vegan argument
since, “bacon!” But this is not a new argument, just a repackaged one. And despite
my cavalier demeanor, I do believe that this is an important issue to address. Vegans should
be aware of the harm that we inflict. We are not above the human condition of harming other
beings and we should acknowledge this and do our best to reduce our impact. I recently
spoke with vegan activist Gary Yourofsky about whether it’s even possible to be 100% vegan
and you can check out that discussion here. But today we’re going to look at whether
a vegan diet it truly the best ethical choice.
The academic cornerstone of this argument was laid in a 2001 paper by Steven L. Davis,
in which Davis wrote a critique on the “Least Harm” principle proposed by animal rights
philosopher Tom Regan. When asked what the difference was between killing a field mouse
while cultivating crops and killing a pig for human consumption, Regan said that we
must choose the food products that, overall, caused the least harm to the least number
of animals. Davis responded to Regan’s assertion that a vegan diet fulfilled this principle
with his paper entitled “The Least Harm Principle May Require That Humans Consume
A Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not A Vegan Diet,” in which he asserted just that.
This conclusion was echoed ten year later in the recently-made-viral article of Mike
Archer.
It’s important to note that Archer’s and Davis’ arguments hinge on the comparison
of pasture fed cattle to field animal deaths, particularly from grain harvests in Archer's
case. They are comparing the most ideal practice of raising cattle to the least ideal practice
of harvesting crops. Of course, if we instead to compare deaths of factory farm animals,
which are the vast majority of our food animals, the difference would be laughable. With our
modern farming methods, it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.
Therefore, non-vegans consume, whether directly or indirectly, more than 10 times the amount
of plant matter of vegans, thus compounding the deaths of the meat-animals with field
animals. This is why Archer and Davis advocate the consumption of range fed cattle for the
reduction of both animal deaths and environmental destruction.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that the overwhelming majority of meat produced in
the world is grain-fed, 97% in the United States and ever-growing internationally, including
Archer's Australia, a fact which completely invalidates this entire argument of omnivores
causing less harm, let’s look at the viability of grass fed cattle as a primary source of
protein. Pasture-raised livestock is not the idyllic picture of environmental sustainability
so often painted by its advocates. While there are some advantageous to grass-fed cattle,
and it is, in many ways, far preferable to feedlots, the rangeland required is incredibly
vast. This means habitat destruction on an epic scale coupled with the fact that there
simply isn’t enough land to raise sufficient grass-fed cattle to meet current consumption
demands. Brazil is a perfect case study of large-scale grass-fed cattle production, a
practice which has led to what Greenpeace termed in their 2009 report, “Slaughtering
the Amazon.” The report showed that Amazonian cattle are now the largest single cause of
deforestation, and responsible for 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. In his
article “The Truth About Grassfed Beef," John Robbins states that “Amazonian cattle
are free-range, grass-fed, and possibly organic, but they are still a plague on the planet
and a driving force behind global warming.”
Regardless of these statistics and the viability of grass-fed cattle, the fact remains that
the majority of meat consumed by non-vegans is feedlot meat. Additionally, non-vegans
aren’t excluded from consuming grains directly. In his refutation of Archer’s article, Patrick
Moriarty points out the obvious, that, “a hamburger has one layer of meat, but two layers
of bun.” And I’d add that not all vegans base their diets on grain products and some
vegans don’t consume grains at all.
Now returning to the issue of field animal deaths, if we take a closer look at Davis’
calculations from the original article, we’ll find his figures circumspect. Gaverick Matheny
did just this in his 2003 article on the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
Matheny pointed out that Davis based his figures on land area rather than per consumer and,
like Archer, had confined his analysis to grass-fed ruminants.
Davis also neglected to factor in the weight of suffering and cruelty inflicted about farm
animals, which are spared animals of the field. Matheny concludes that, “When we correct
these errors, Davis’s argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a
vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals, involves better treatment of animals,
and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist.” With
Davis' mathematical errors corrected, this graph from animalvisuals.org makes evident
the true nature of animal deaths per calorie of food. It should be noted that archer's
more recent article bases calculations on deaths per gram of protein, further falsely
skewing the results in favor of meat. Furthermore, professor Andy Lamey, in his
article in the Journal of Social Philosophy, criticized the studies that Davis utilized
to derive his statistics in the first place. One study included deaths from natural predation,
and the other examined the production of sugarcane, a rather nonstandard crop, which, Lamey wrote,
has little relevance to deaths associated with typical crop production. Both Lamey and
Matheny also argued that accidental deaths are ethically distinct from intentional ones.
Now does this exempt vegans from owning the deaths that we do cause? Absolutely not. This
issue should give animal advocates pause. We need to be aware of the harm we do cause
animals, whether intentional or not. And I’ll be the first vegan to admit that I most certainly
do inadvertently cause animal suffering. It’s inevitable. But that does not invalidate the
vegan stance and the continual striving for the reduction of harm. And neither do studies
with flawed and skewed data. So, let’s summarize: 2001- Davis says, “a vegan diet kills more
animals than a select omnivorous one.” 2003- Matheny says “umm….no it doesn’t.”
With: Science! 2008 Lamey says “yeah!” Also with: Science! 2011- Archer says, “a
vegan diet kills more animals than a select omnivorous one.” 2012- Moriarty says “umm….no
it doesn’t.” With: Science! 2014- I Fucking Love Science re-posts Archer and the internet
goes wild. With: Conjecture!
So now I need your help! Let's make this video go just as viral as the article it refutes.
Share it everywhere. Post and repost. Tweet it out to I Fucking Love Science. And let
me know what you think about this subject. If you liked the video, be sure to give it
a thumbs up. And if you’re new, hit that big red subscribe button down there for more
awesome vegan content every Monday and Wednesday and some Fridays. To support messages like
this and for the best discussion and behind-the-scenes action, join us in the Nugget Army on Patreon.
For the true environmental impact of animal products, check out that top video over there.
And for a primer on the moral and ethical foundation of veganism, be sure to check out
that bottom video. Now go live vegan and I’ll see you soon!
Subtitles by the Amara.org community