Fighting World Hunger

Alroy Fonseca
(Cult)ure Magazine, October 2007

Recently, Cuban president Fidel Castro wrote that a U.S. plan to promote the production of biofuels in developing countries amounted to “the internationalization of genocide.” That is, as the use of fertile soil moves away from food production and towards biofuel crops, many of the world’s poor will face an increasing risk of starvation. Yet, though the ancient révolutionnaire’s comments generated much media coverage and discussion, both he and the ensuing debate neglected to acknowledge that the rearing of livestock to support meat consumption across the world is also an ineffective use of land. If vast land resources monopolized by corporate farming operations were devoted to plant-based agriculture instead of meat production, we could feed both the well off and the poor.

Cows, chickens and pigs require a lot of plant mass to grow. In other words, they are inefficient and environmentally unsustainable sources of protein and energy for human beings. Livestock production is what is sometimes called “a protein factory in reverse,” whereby a large amount of protein is processed through, say, cattle to produce a much smaller amount of protein in the form of food for us humans. According to estimates, it takes some thirteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, and six pounds of grain to produce one pound of pork. Chicken, though more efficient, still requires three pounds of grain for every pound of meat. Both in terms of straightforward energy and protein, it is far more sustainable to consume plants directly, rather than meat.

The problem of water scarcity also makes it difficult to sustain agriculture in the context of a high level of world hunger. The rearing of livestock is one of the most inefficient uses of water, with one estimate suggesting that it takes a stunning three million litres of water to produce a 450kg steer. By contrast, plant production is far more efficient. For instance, the production of one kilogram of hamburger beef requires 64 and 86 times the amount of water as does the production of one kilogram of potatoes and one kilogram of tomatoes, respectively.

In light of these statistics, what if rich agricultural lands across the world were devoted to plant growth instead of livestock? Given that plant cultivation is less resource intensive and thus cheaper, it would be far more accessible to the poor. Indeed, we would have a food economy that is more accessible to various socio-economic strata across the world.

But there are also other reasons why the rearing of livestock is problematic, as global warming has the potential to hinder crop production. Since the majority of the world’s poor do not have the luxury of paying premium prices for factory-produced food found in grocery stores, they would be the hardest hit by ruined crops. Some may end up starving to death. Thus, those of us who believe that global warming is a real and dangerous trend should do whatever we can to curb activities that emit greenhouse gases. In turn, this will reduce the likelihood of extreme and unpredictable weather altering levels of food production for the world’s poor.

One important way to do this is to reduce our rearing of livestock, since they are significant emitters of methane. Methane is a molecule said to be twenty times more effective at trapping infrared radiation than carbon dioxide. A recent study in the Lancet medical journal calculated that some 22 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases come from agriculture and four-fifths of this is accounted for by livestock production (including transport of animals and feed). Meanwhile, another study out of Japan calculated that one kilogram of beef generates the equivalent of 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide. As one nutritionist put it, “If people knew that they were threatening the environment by eating more meat, they might think twice before ordering a burger.”

The onus to reduce meat consumption falls on those of us who live in industrialized countries, since the wealthy can generally afford meat. It is estimated that people in the developed world consume 224 grams of meat per day, while most Africans consume only around 31 grams a day. Moreover, according to a study by the University of Manitoba’s Vaclav Smil, for everyone on earth to eat meat at the same level of industrialized countries we would need 67 percent more agricultural land than there currently exists on the planet.

Given the great North-South disparity in meat consumption and the marked inefficiency of livestock production, it seems reasonable to strongly consider a diet free of animal products. Reducing meat consumption is a good way to help reduce world hunger, especially now that so many alternative protein-rich, soy-based products are available. To be sure, large-scale soy production has its share of issues (e.g., it can also require a lot of water) but it remains far more efficient than the rearing of livestock.

So, here are three suggestions to help fight world hunger:

• Send the market signals to reduce its production of inefficient foods such as beef by consuming less of it;

• Educate yourself on the merits of a plant-based diet and take the time to learn about different sources of protein;

• Distribute literature critical of the meat industry to friends and family so that more people will make sustainable food choices.

There are, of course, many other important ways to help fight poverty and hunger, such as tackling the unjust economic system that allows multinational corporations to exploit the poor, but the three abovementioned suggestions are nonetheless an important set of steps each of us can take to promote a more sustainable food economy. Eating meat is a kind of ritual that is often vehemently defended, but it is one that we could do without.