HESO 449: Ecohealth SDS

Thanks for the find Megan; I think you brought up an interesting question about why vegetarians or vegans commit to that diet. The first thought that crossed my mind was that perhaps such groups are not aware of the impact that locally-raised or organically raised animals have on swaying the system. Maybe they think that doing so will really not have much of an effect. There could be geographic or economical limitations to pursuing such alternatives. Many may have more “pro-life” sentiments than rather than just wanting to avoid growth hormones or such. I found the author quite convincing though when she stated that “plant-based diets avoid consuming animals, but it isn’t getting cows out of feedlots”, and that it is only when consumers act proactively (in consuming meat from alternative sources) rather than passively (not eating meat at all) that the biggest difference is made.

I thought a bit about some of the health reasons that people may choose to eat organic meat, other than just consuming antibiotics and growth hormones. From a scientific perspective, I remember from some previous readings that organic animals are ‘genetically more diverse’ (since they aren’t mass produced). Some of my biology & genetics classes have highlighted that genetic diversity contributes to the strength in the ability of an organism to fight off disease, making them have naturally healthier immune systems. So, potentially another reason to eat meat from smaller farms, and combined with the other reasons that the author mentioned, as well as those brought up in class, I’m leaning towards supporting the arguments made from the article.

Based on the topic of unhealthy chickens having negative consequences on human health, this reminds me of an FAQ I wrote as part of another class a couple of years ago. It’s about the emergence of bacteria that are resistant to treatment—having especially lethal implications in healthcare contexts. In other words, ‘supporting’ large-scale animal farms can have broader negative implications on human health, aside from just eating them. I.e. chickens pumped with antibiotics → the antibiotics then get transferred to the environment (bad for the environment), allowing bacteria to ‘get smart’ and find a way to survive any antibiotics → bad for humans. Although the article has a lot to do with problems with medication overuse, about halfway through it I talk about how the vicious cycle of why antibiotics come to be used in animals the first place. The article is posted on the Terry website if you’re interested: http://www.terry.ubc.ca/index.php/2009/07/24/faq-antibioticresistance/.

Thanks for the article Natasha!
The article in the Guardian made me wonder about scale. My knee-jerk reaction was to ask the question “Is local, small-scale agriculture enough to fulfill the hunger needs of a growing population?” Considering that it takes a lot more grains to provide the same amount of energy through meat than through the grain/vegetables themselves, it’s worth considering the scale at which food needs to be produced to feed the 6/7 billion of the world.

An article by Michael Pollen takes an interesting look at the food debate: http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/the-vegetable-industrial-complex/

Wendell Berry’s comments on the conversion of a previous solution (crops feed animals, animals fertilize crops) to two separate problems (fertility problem for crops and pollution in feedlots) are particularly interesting to look at. Industrialization of our food system has created the illusion that sustainable, small-scale agriculture is inefficient and problematic, and requires industrial, technological solutions such as pesticides.
It almost seems that some industrial technique are solutions to problems that were created for the sake of having industrialized solutions (if that makes any sense at all…)

Another interesting topic explored in the article is the role that stringent food inspection requirements, which are not tailored towards small farms, play in making it very expensive to run a small farm (cost of facilities required for FDA-approved inspections meant for large industrial producers).
These requirements are there to ensure food safety (a component of food security), but at the same time they allow large-scale, unsustainable practices to out-compete more sustainable ones, thus creating barriers to other components of food security such as sustainability and access. A classic dilemma…

I am vegetarian but mostly because I was raised a vegetarian. I have eaten meat before but I have never felt the need to start eating it on a regular basis. However, if I hadn’t been a vegetarian my whole life I would agree with the author and eat meat from small farms but it depends on the person’s values whether they want to eat meat or not. So, I wouldn’t say that eating meat from small farms is a better solution than being a vegetarian.

Throughout all these articles there are many examples showing that feedlots and the meat industry are not healthy for humans or the environment. I found the article by Michael Pollan very interesting in that he addresses the issue of fertility and finding a technological solution for diseases instead of getting to the root of the problem. I’ve studied a lot of soil science and manure provides nutrient and structural benefits to the soil if managed properly. Also, having animals on the farm increases the biotic diversity of the soil and the overall farm environment. However, then comes the issue of whether we can feed the growing the population and at the same time focus on small sustainable farms that can integrate animals and other crops.

I think antibiotics that are discussed by Natasha and technological solutions mentioned in Pollan’s article are addressing the same issue. Antibiotics and “nuking the meat” are seen as quick solutions to disease problems in feedlots but are far from solving the core of the issue. This system seems to be going from finding one technical solution after the other after the other. Farmers markets and eating local meat are effective methods to move away from the industrialized system, but they are extremely limited especially with the rules and regulations that hinder small slaughterhouses from operating. It will have to take some serious re-thinking and policy shifting so that small scale farming practices can be up-scaled without becoming industrialized.

I just found this article.. something brought up in class the other day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012302238.html?hpid=topnews

Thanks for the article, Megan. I really enjoyed it, being an ex vegan myself and having gone through a similar experience that the author did. Except that I still don’t have an animal farm…just half a bachelors degree.

I don’t know who’s questions these are but I will respond:
“So here are a few thoughts that came across my mind while reading this: What constitutes ‘free range’/’organic’ farming? I’ve never seen any meat packaged locally or from ‘free-range’ farming – how can I tell what to get in the supermarket if I want to make an informed decision on meat?”

As we touched on in class, the certification processes for free range and organic differ greatly from our ideals of what these things are. Free range, for chickens, simply means that the option to access the outdoors is there (could be a window that none of them actually go out of) and are not in cages. Free run, free range, and cage free are all slightly different, and involve space ratios, completely independent from organic certification.

If you don’t see free range or organic on a package, then it is not produced that way. The more information you can discern from a label at the market/supermarket/store, the more likely that you can trust the product. I personally get touchy about the reliance on certification that has been occurring in the last few years, because certification is not accessible to all producers, namely the smaller ones or those just starting up (which is increasingly difficult as producers continue to consolidate), and sometimes certified farms must comply with less efficient methods for their particular case simply to be in accordance with certification standards.

I believe that certification should be seen as an alternative to familiarizing oneself with the story of the products one consumes, which is more likely is you are buying from local smaller scale producers. I think our food system is broken because humans broke their everyday knowledge and connection to food. I feel that certification has its place in large production schemes and especially internationally traded commodities, but this should be the fallback to actually getting to know what one’s more local options look like in production and quality. Yes, one should be wary of uncertified claims of “organic” or “sustainably-raised” or “ethical,” but if these uncertified claims are already certified in our local knowledge of our farms and processors, well, we can all save a lot of money and hassle!

The main thought that sparked that rant was, it is hard to be comfortable and knowledgeable when shopping at the supermarket, so, maybe we shouldn’t be shopping at supermarkets! I have an anxiety attack every time someone drags me into Safeway because I feel like anything I buy is a blind vote with my dollar. Supermarkets are large and homogenous middle men for large and homogenous producers. Just like in an ecosystem, our food systems need diversity to be healthy and resilient for all parties involved.
I realize that in this era of globalization the local sentiment gets laughed at. But our societies are losing basic skills, money to the global economy, as well as healthy social interaction and sense of place and community. Trade has its place. So does local production and consumption, especially with regard to food and services. Field trip to the farm anyone??
Amy

Hi Amy,

I would be interested in a farm field trip. I have been meaning to do some volunteer with UBC Farm or Sprouts, but haven’t got around to it yet during my UBC career.

I found the quote, “Your fork is your ballot, and when you vote to eat a steak or leg of lamb purchased from a small farmer you are showing the industrial system you are actively opting out.” from the commentary “My Beef isn’t with Beef: Why I Stopped Being a Vegetarian” to be an integral argument for how individual consumers can impact the capitalist food production market. This is a powerful statement for two reasons: 1) it illustrates that the food market can adapt to change and 2) empowers individuals as actors to direct the ethical status quo of food production. A well-known example of how food production companies have changed to accommodate the ethical concerns of consumers is Wal-mart, which began to carry a large supply of organic foods starting in 2007 (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2007/db20070412_005673.htm). Although the article reports that Wal-Mart may have over-estimated their supply needs for organic, leaving many organic producers in the dark, this example shows that the consumer does have the ability to make a difference.

Also, a sidenote from the same article, the mention of Temple Grandin is something to follow up on if you are not familiar with Grandin’s story. Grandin is a woman with autism who revolutionized the way the mass slaughtering of animals is conducted. Due to Grandin’s experiences with autism, she was better able to conceptualize the slaughtering process from an animal’s point of view and create a more efficient and ethical process of killing animals for consumption. You can watch the movie trailer for Grandin’s story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnI_Y8PyTHM

I think the author of this article makes a really good point. Is the absence of action more or less impacting than an action? I feel like people notice a deliberate action more than the lack of one. Although I’m sure industrial meat companies have noticed a dip in their sales since the outbreak of vegetarian frenzy and the uncloaking of animal cruelty, I bet they would pay more attention to their small farm competitors rising up. Obviously this article does nothing for the vegans and vegetarians who don’t eat meat because they believe eating meat is wrong in general, happy cow or not. But those who genuinely enjoy meat, but have sad-cow-meat-guilt, it’s a great idea. Personally, I believe god gave us the animals of this earth for consumption but that, with all things on earth, they deserve respect. It is a life lost, and while I wish there was some farm somewhere targeted to only eating chicken that had had a long happy life and died of natural causes…it’s unlikely. But I support local free range farmers who have respect for animals and for the gift of food.

To start off I ventured to PETA and went through their kind of ‘starter kit’ for becoming vegan vegetarian and looked at some of the celebrity testimonials and reasons why people choose it. it was pretty interesting but mostly just entertaining.

http://features.peta.org/VegetarianStarterKit/index.asp

I really liked this part of the article on Food Safety “Wendell Berry once wrote that when we took animals off farms and put them onto feedlots, we had, in effect, taken an old solution–the one where crops feed animals and animals’ waste feeds crops–and neatly divided it into two new problems: a fertility problem on the farm, and a pollution problem on the feedlot.”

I had never thought of it that way. It must really mess up the cycle for animals and nature/plants to be dived. Not only can I not imagine what they use for feed for animals, but what they use as fertilizer for plants. The two should coincide. I also never realized there were so regulations on the veggie farm industry. I think it would be pretty hard to turn any small farm into a bigger, better, industrial style farm without corrupting them. I think part of the reason people can take such time and care and respect with their animals/plants is because the farm is so small and they aren’t responsible for chugging out an insane supply of meat or watching over an infinite amount of veggies. I think the small farms would bend to industrial trends in order to meet industrial needs and to comply with the rules and regulations.

Thanks April for sharing thoughts on Grandin’s story. I really like the movie trailer and I will get the movie to watch as well.
After reading the Guardian article (great article find Megan), I had a similar immediate reaction as Dena. I am a support of small farming at heart. However, I wonder if the author’s suggestion is a feasible solution to animal welfare problem given the growing world population demand on food. In 2010 alone, there were 925 million hungry people in the world. This number is alarming and calls for increase/affordable food production so that the supply can meet the demand across the world. The following link has a great diagram that divides the number of hungry people in the world by regions. Something interesting to look. 🙂
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world
Also, as mentioned in the Micheal Pollan article, there are strict U.S.D. A. requirement that need to be met in order to operate small processing plants. As the author mentions, small plants need to install all the same facilities that are used by huge plants and thus making them more expensive to run. From an economical stand, this creates a loss as the same resources are used but the production level is lower as whole. In order to compensate for this loss of profit or (to break even), there is an increase in the price of the food. This creates a classic concern regarding affordability of these food. Socieoeconomical circumstance have a huge impact and create limitations on many people’s choices. The increase in the price of the food production along with decrease in production through small faming increases the total number of hungry people in the world as the two are in direct relationship. This may be more evident in the developing countries. So when the Guardian article argument says “You are showing them you are willing to sacrifice more of your paycheck to dine with dignity”, they are not fully considering the “affordability” and one’s socioeconomic status.

A farm field trip sounds like a fantastic idea Amy!

To respond to what constitutes free range/organic farming, I looked up a few articles online to see how organic is organic. I wanted to know whether the extra money we are spending is really giving the happy and respectable lives that animals deserve. In the middle of my research, I came across an article on PETA that talks about how many organically raised cows “spend their lives mired in their own waste.”

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/free-range-organic-meat-myth.aspx

Another Globe and Mail called “the dark side of ‘free-range’ chickens” reveals that only a small percentage of chickens raised in Canada are actually free range. Chickens are housed in spaces where the floor doubles as a litter box. The increased interaction with bacteria/microorganisms/viruses also means an increased chance of spreading diseases and causing more infections.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article966564.ece

I looked up Canada’s law on organic livestock living conditions (p.25).

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/on_the_net/organic/032_0310_2006-e_Amended%20Oct%202008-dec%2009%28Internet%20version%29.pdf

6.8.2 allows livestocks to have temporary confinement owing to inclement weathers. Many “free range” chicken owners are using Canada’s cold weather as the loophole to keep chickens indoors to reduce operational costs.

My question is, how can we make sure that our free range/organic foods are truly what they are certified to be?

Thanks for the article on traceability, Alcina. Nearly everyone owns a cell phone nowadays and this number will only expand in the near future, so traceability can soon be considered an accessible innovation. However, at this point in time, this is still a costly procedure. From creating and maintaining the database to bar coding every item entering the produce market, this will only add to the cost of the products that some may already consider too pricey. One also has to consider how many consumers will actually use the system – is it truly worth the cost?

I personally would be all for traceability, since I’ve learned about the health and environmental implications of poor farming practices, crop locations and dates of harvest, etc. I’d probably take a moment to look up different products if the information was made accessible to me.

But looking at the fast-paced world so many people are accustomed to, we really need to question: will people actually spend the time to scan? I think consumer behaviour needs to shift greatly before such a technology will be accepted and utilized. Either the cost of the technology drops significantly, or people start demanding the information. Overall, I think it is a great idea that has potential for the future.

wow so much to say this week! One point from the Pollan article I thought was really interesting was about the security reasons for buying local food. I like how Pollan brought the argument for buying local away form the sentimental aspect and focused on the pragmatic sense of it. As Tommy Thomson pointed out the ability for an attack on our food system to have such wide-spread and devastating effects is a huge cause of concern. As others have mentioned before, changes in policy that help local farmers rather than hinder them is important, but in order to do so it first requires a change in consumer habits. I’m not at all in favor of using fear to change consumers minds, but I wonder why the issue of security (and not just in an attack but security for a healthy practices for the environment and for consumers i.e. E coli) has not been used more widely in favor of buying local, at least from what I have encountered the sentimental and community support aspect have been the only reasons I’ve seen advertised.

Anyway I thought the article about antibiotic resistance was raises some really important global concerns as well. Here is an article I found a while back about how Norway is working on the issue of preventing antibiotic resistance: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/23/tech/main6014559.shtml

Ever since I found out that beef found in super markets are not from one cow but from hundreds of cows, I have been conscious about buying food from supermarkets. Fortunately, my parents have found a farm from where they buy whole sheeps and so on and often split it with friends. But most people are either not aware of such farms or do not see a point in making an effort in going so far to get meat. I agree with Sara in that we live in such a face-paced world that most individuals do not have the time. I think it’s not only the lack of time but also the lack of concern of individuals regarding sustainable farming. Especially with the high levels of inflation, most people are now concerned about finding food for cheapest prices.

About the article “My beef isn’t with beef: why I stopped being a vegetarian,” I agree with Alcina in that I too wouldn’t agree that eating meat from small farms is better than being a vegetarian because like Alcina, there are people who are vegetarians for other reasons than not wanting to eat ‘cruel meat.’ At the same time, I find the idea of buying meat from local farms in in order to defeat large scale farmers very interesting and keep thinking ‘everyone should buy from local farmers!’ However, most of BC’s population consists of working middle class individuals and the majority of them do not have the time or energy to go to a local market to buy just meat. Also, small farm organic meat are often times more expensive tan what one may find in the super market, thus there are some people that are not willing to pay the extra cash to get a better quality meat.