College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Should you give up meat for mankind?

By Frank Male

Print this article

Published: Friday, October 30, 2009

Updated: Friday, October 30, 2009

oped

Illustration by Erin Logan

I like meat. Steak, for example, is savory and goes very well with red wine. Some people out there are not the biggest fans of meat, however, and I'm fine with that.

To each his own, I say. Choosing what to eat and what not to eat is a personal decision, between a man and his local food store.

Now, when someone decides to force others to that decision, I have a problem. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, it appears, is planning to do just that.

The Times of London recently interviewed Lord Stern of Brentford about climate change, and he offered some interesting insights. During the interview, he said, "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

According to the article, Lord Stern expects people to eventually reach the point where eating meat is no longer acceptable. Of course, rather than allowing society to reach that point – assuming it does, Lord Stern would like to see the Copenhagen Conference force people to avoid meat.

"A successful deal ... would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases," said the Times article.

Well, for me, that would not be such a successful deal. Neither would it be for the K-State graduates who go into meat industries or the animal sciences and industry majors.

What can the Copenhagen Conference do to increase meat prices, and what does that mean for farmers and consumers?

Nothing good. Tariffs and quotas on exported and imported meat means meat will cost more for consumers. Producers won't be better off, either. In 2008, beef exports totaled nearly $3 billion for the U.S. Nothing to sneeze at. Imagine Copenhagen making that money disappear in our trying economic times. Not pretty, is it?

Sin taxes are popular for the government, right? Picture a tax for eating meat ... not only do producers get to sell less because of the artificially high price, consumers get to eat less meat at higher prices. Everyone loses!

Not even vegetarians win in this scenario. If people are going to eat less meat because taxes have pushed it out of their price range, then they will be buying more vegetables and fruit to replace their lost meat. More consumption means higher prices. Vegetarians and vegans get to pay more for their food, as well.

In the Middle Ages, meat was a specialty food, reserved for royalty. If you could afford to eat meat every day, then you were a member of the upper class. When meat became a food the masses could enjoy, it broke down that class distinction and gave everyone the chance to have healthy, balanced diets that are necessary for doing well in academics and athletics.

Could legendary cornerback and K-State graduate Terence Newman have become as fast and strong as he is today if he had been denied meat as a child? I doubt it.

Taxing meat strongly to prevent people from eating it will not stop all people from eating it, only the poor. Removing that choice from the poor sends our society back to that highly stratified structure from the Middle Ages.

Those harbingers of doom, the prophets of climate change, act like the royalty of old. Lord Stern even has the pedigree of royalty. They are sure they know what is best for us and decide to force us into that choice against our wishes.    

These people don't care about the poor, about farmers, about agricultural schools like K-State or about any of those "lesser concerns" because they're saving the world, by golly.

Give up meat in your diet, turn your backs on the poor and drive all of the cattlemen in the world out of business. It is for your own good.

- Frank Male is a senior in physics and political science. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu

Comments

17 comments
AgainstBethM
Thu Nov 12 2009 11:35
Frank Male: thanks for an interesting article, one that is not laced and tainted with bias. Please teach Beth Mendenhall how to write properly.
Karry: The point here is that once you start letting the govt control what you are allowed to eat, all hell will break loose. If you want to live in a socialistic economy, one where the govt gives you a certain amount of coupons & things of that nature, telling you what to consume, watch and even think, think about communist Russia and Germany under Hitler. Sound appealing? Ever read 1984?
I have no problem eating meat, and I don't have a problem with vegans either. Don't force me to be a vegan, and I won't shove a steak down your throat.
Sick
Wed Nov 11 2009 10:57
Then again, as we have learned, farming isn't very good for the environment either.

Why, KG, do you believe this? I haven't learned this; where did you learn it?

Food production has become increasingly efficient, while using less resources, to feed an exponentially-increasing world population. It's cool now to bang on groups from the comfort of your priviledged life, spewing false theories about environmental destruction and the like that do not have sound science to back them up.

Leave it to the populus of a country with the cheapest and most plentiful food supply in the world to complain about how its made. It would do everyone good to do without for awhile and then see what tune they're singing.

ag
Wed Nov 4 2009 14:16
Cattle production and slavery? Seriously?

It floors me that you and Karry believe that eating meat is "thoughtless". Please explain. Why wouldn't it be thoughtful? Where else on this planet can you receive the level of B-vitamins, protein, zinc, iron, and many other healthy nutrients that you can find in one serving of meat? Isn't that what you want for yourself, your children (if and when), your family and your friends? The best nutrition possible? I believe that is one of the more noble things one can do. Karry posted earlier that the "only reason human animals eat flesh is because they are selfish and thoughtless...worth the death of a sentient being." Is that what you think of a malnourished child in a third-world country? Do you think they are being selfish and thoughtless because they are eating animal flesh to survive?

I would agree, however, there have been a few instances where animal cruelty has been caught on tape by PETA and HSUS's people and splattered everywhere on the internet, making Harry and Harriet Housepeople believe this is the norm. It is not. Those gulity of the charge should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, the rest of the industry that is doing it right, legally, up to standards set forth by the USDA, EPA, and many other government offices, should be commended and thanked for the life-giving nutrition that they help produce.

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Genesis 9:3

And I'll steal this from another poster, I'm sure he/she won't mind...

"Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country." William Jennings Bryan

Please support your local meat counter and your local farmer. God knows he supports you and your family.

Anonymous
Wed Nov 4 2009 11:44
I'll stop eating meat when all the carnivores on the planet go vegetarian.
Marty
Mon Nov 2 2009 23:09
I think Karry has made the best point - eating animal flesh is "thoughtless." For years, especially in the US, we didn't have to think about it. There were plenty of resources, and for a big portion of the population, meat was cheap. But, now things are changing. Energy is getting more expensive, more people (on a global scale) want to enjoy meat, and there's this pesky issue of global warming, which may or may not be a total scam. To get enough cheap meat, producers have to resort to confined "factory farming" techniques, which raise a host of health and moral issues. Lord Stern isn't trying to grab that McNugget out of your hand, but he is trying to warn us that things are changing and will continue to change. As I read Franks' article and the comments against Lord Stern's recommendation, I can't help but think of these same arguments applied to the issue of slavery, e.g, we need slaves in order to have productive farms, abolishing slavery will put slave traders out of business, etc. Sure, these arguments sound ridiculous now, but it wasn't that long ago that half the country believed in slavery strong engough to fight and die to try to maintain it. Sure, the questions of slavery and meat involve much different issues, but they're remarkably similar in how people try to hang on to their old ways.
D. Sanders
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:34
I'll stop eating meat when the animals that provide it to me will speak up and say that they want to live a free life in the wild......and seeing as cows, chickens, and pigs aren't going to start speaking a language i understand anytime soon, I will enjoy meat for every meal!!!!!!!
KG
Sat Oct 31 2009 21:55
You're arguing against vegetarianism because it would hurt the meat industry. Do you defend cutting down the rain forest because you are concerned about the logging industry? Protecting big business and enjoying the privilege of meat are not good reasons to continue killing animals and polluting the atmosphere. Then again, as we have learned, farming isn't very good for the environment either. Luckily the agricultural industry can change, and so can humans - they just aren't willing to because they want to keep eating burgers and killing animals. The environment would be improved without the pollution of the meat industry, and the lives of animals would be improved without the meat industry. It's true. Isn't it wrong not to do what's right? We'll always need food. The food industry will always survive. Change isn't bad.
Jonte
Sat Oct 31 2009 01:13
The author states that we should all have a choice in what we eat. We shouldn't be 'forced' to eat a certain way. However, my question is this - Does he afford the animals he eats the same right? That is, do they get a choice in how they live their lives? Do they get a choice in what they eat, where they live, and how they spend their rime? The answer is a big fat NO. Obviously, animals would prefer to be out in nature doing what they do. For humans to force them into cages, force a man-made diet down their throats, force antibiotics in their systems, and then have the nerve to say "We should have the freedom to choose"..... is totally immoral. It takes a real con-artist to say otherwise, or someone who is extremely self-deluded.
Your name
Fri Oct 30 2009 19:52
Lord Snot makes it clear to me why my ancestors shot his on Lexington Green.
Cave Man
Fri Oct 30 2009 18:24
If meat eating is for Neanderthals, pass me a club and a cave!
Kerri
Fri Oct 30 2009 16:36
So are dogs, bears, tigers, and the like Neanderthals? Should we do away with all animail kind besides humans, because their waste products produce green house gasses?

Besides the factories that produce pop, chips, and evey other conveninece food we eat produce a lot more green house gasses than the livestock that is raised for meat.

healthy as a horse
Fri Oct 30 2009 12:07
America's "health problems are not caused by over-consumption of meat. It's caused by the loads of crap we consume that we don't need in our diets, and the fact that Americans are lazy.

Want to be healthier?
Quit drinking soda.
Don't eat out at every meal.
Cut out sweets and sugar and junk food.
Go to the grocery store, ask the person at the meat counter for a pound of lean meat, take it home and cook it to your liking.
To the meal, add vegetables, fruit and whole grain bread
Drink a glass of water or two (the stuff that comes from the tap)
Exercise four times a week.
Repeat the rest of your life.

Your name
Fri Oct 30 2009 11:51
Honestly, while I get the fact that everyone has a choice and the right to say no to meat, I must say that the idea of cutting out all meat, forcefully, from the human diet is wrong. If we, by design or evolution, were meant to be solely plant eating, our teeth would all be molars. The incisors are meant to be used to tear into meat. I can think of no simpler evidence against those who state that vegetarianism is better.

The reason why vegetarians are considered to be healthier is because must focus on the nutritional value of their food. Most people now days do not do so, eating when the switch in the brain tells them they are hungry. Vegetarians must be aware of how much protein they are getting and what foods complement each other. Anyone can take the time to do this and include meat, its just that we are never taught to think like this, just keep purchasing foods processed and including tons of unneeded sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

If we want to cut down global warming, efforts should be made on scrubbing carbon dioxide from the air. One way we could do this would be to start to replace the rainforests that we have cut down as a civilization. Methane has been shown to only be a minor component of the atmosphere despite the high albido it has. Despite this, vaporized dihydrogen monoxide is far more prevalent in the atmosphere, and is more effective to keeping the planet warm than anything else. Are we going to tell everyone to hold their breath so they don't release this into the air? (btw if you haven't figured it out, I'm talking about water vapor)

One last thing you didn't cover (but I do applaud this article still). One of the things in the Coppenhagen treaty is a proposal to tax owning a dog. The thought behind this is that the CO2 impact of a dog is equal to a human (I might be lowballing that, been a while since I heard this). Could you imagine having to pay that tax?

Thank you for your time.

alum
Fri Oct 30 2009 11:51
Karry- Are your parents Neanderthals? What about your grandparents? Siblings? Or have they been vegetarians their whole lives too, and never touched anything from that side of the food chain? Those animals are not harvested without thought. On the contrary, much thought goes into that animal for the overall health and well-being of humanity. Rest assured, they do not die in vain. Human animals eat flesh for nourishment, not because we don't care for the animals. We care very much for them. So much, in fact, we want them to stay healthy and happy until the end. They don't have pain, they don't suffer.

"Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country." William Jennings Bryan

Your name
Fri Oct 30 2009 11:23
humans have to eat meat to stay healthy. the problem is we are eating more then we should be eating. the fact that it hurts a individuals free will to choose is cause for concern but when a individual's actions effect another individual physically, I consider it no longer a individual issue but a group issue and actions should be taken accordingly.

This is what Lord Stern is doing; trying to make large consumption of meat socially unexceptionable, so we can cut methane output, and make us more prone to eat healthy with a BALANCED diet of meat and veggies which will help cut down on our health problems to which may free up more than enough money to purchase the higher price meat.
ranchers: hurt yes
survival: only the ones that can run a business well
Price increase on veggies: yes but short term

Honesty
Fri Oct 30 2009 06:36
Give up meat for the animals. Bugger mankind.
Karry
Fri Oct 30 2009 06:35
Meat eating is for Neanderthals who care not for the pain and suffering of the poor creatures slaughtered without thought.

The only reason human animals eat flesh is because they are selfish and thoughtless and consider a second on the tongue is worth the death of a sentient being.