Sustainable Meat Through Genetic Engineering?

            It is pretty well known that meat production, especially on the factory scale, is horrible for our environment. Raising livestock produces lots of waste, which contains methane gas that, when released into the atmosphere, adds to global climate change. There are more sustainable alternatives for raising livestock. However, most of the meat in today’s markets come from the large factories that do lots of harm to the environment.

            While browsing the internet I came across an article on pigs that I found very interesting, while at the same time it kind of bugged me. I wasn’t really sure what to think of it, except that it was odd and kind of sick. Apparently, there are scientists in Canada who have created a species of pig that is “greener” with genetic engineering. They called it the “EnviroPig”, and it is engineered to be the same quality of meat as a normal Yorkshire pig. The difference is that it is genetically enhanced to produce less toxic manure. Doing so should release fewer pollutants into the atmosphere, making it a more sustainable pig option for farmers. The kind of things people invent or discover never in today's society never ceases to amaze me. The whole thing seems pretty ridiculous!

            
           While the first EnviroPig was created back in 1999, the FDA still hasn’t approved it and made it legal for consumption, along with various other genetically enhanced foods. And this is probably for the best. Whether or not we should be eating genetically altered foods brings up lots of controversial issues among people, and it would probably just be better to avoid it. While these scientific discoveries may seem like a good idea that could be helpful, it would probably be better to try and improve sustainability by just changing our habits, like was initially planned, instead of changing genetics. Having the FDA put genetically altered meats on hold is good. In the meantime, food organizations, farmers, and environmental advocates can get support on being sustainable in other ways.

Here's the article if you want to read more! :
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/31j1PJ/:1yrzY-7$3:XiGhE14y/www.enn.com/agriculture/article/41873/
Video on the Piggy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o5GzC-SwO4

Practice What You Preach

I have been noticing more and more media attention being given to the eating sustainably, praising companies that promote these efforts. But then I started to question bigger companies, wondering if there efforts are actually legit? Along with myself, many other Americans are also starting to become more interested in the good food movement (you know the one the president wanted to see?) Americans are interested in eating more sustainably, even if that means eating less meat, and people don’t just want to know where their food comes from – they want to know who produced it, and how. Noticing this trend, industrial food giants like Walmart, McDonald’s, Dominos and Frito Lay Corp have sought to capitalize on it.
The nation’s largest and most powerful retailer has been communicating to the public that they are committed to sustainability. In 2006, Walmart pledged to double sales of organic food when they were already the number one retailer of organic milk. In 2008, a company press release proclaimed that “Walmart Commits to American Framers, as Produce Aisle Go Local” promising that nine percent of its U.S. fruits and veggies would be local by the end of 2015. But Walmart’s definition of “local” is that the product is sold in the state in which it is produce, which means it can fill its promise just by having lots of stores in large states like in California, Texas and Florida, which have large populations and grow a lot of produce.

And Walmart is bad news for local economies and food systems in general. Its superstores take away customers from small, local retailers, which tend to be rooted in the community and therefore more committed to sustainable practices. In addition, the corporation’s stronghold on our food supply has caused both grocery prices to rise and wages for farmers to decrease. The retail giant is also currently renewing its efforts to get into big cities, and last July, standing side-by-side with Michelle Obama, pledged to open or expand 300 stores to in or near food deserts.

Though Walmart is an excellent case study, lots of other large corporations take part in the practice. Be conscience consumer and research corporations that you purchase your food from, many of them claim to be supporting buying local but in reality it is not the whole truth. Every time you buy something is a vote to support local and environmentally friendly practices.

Foods Effect On Deforestation

      

As we have all learned, food consumption is one of the number one contributers to environmental damage. I have written numerous blogs and read various articles on the packaging, processing, and transportation of food, but what about the land itself. We have touched on the negative effects of over consumption of meat in our country, but I want to focus on a different aspect of it. In order to have a cattle (or any meat) farm, you must have land. Therefore, the more meat consumed, the more land is needed, which is leading to deforestation. Clearing land for agriculture is a major cause of wilderness loss and habitat destruction in the United States. Also, in the tropical areas of Asia and South and Central America, the clearing and burning of rainforests is caused mainly by cattle production. It has been estimated that “about 260 million acres of forests in the U.S. have been cleared to create cropland for cattle, and many millions more have been cleared, and are cleared every day, in forests around the world.”

This topic interested me because just yesterday in class we watched a documentary on deforestation and the terrible long lasting damage it can cause a country. One of the many issues of deforestation is the amount of carbon in the air. Trees serve as carbon sinks and absorb the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So, if we are removing mass amounts of trees, it will leave more carbon in the air, causing and expediting global warming. It’s said that “the carbon footprint created by four years of deforestation is equal to the carbon footprint of every single air flight in the history of aviation up to the year of 2025.” That is a lot of carbon in just four short years.

So, essentially the production of meat is causing deforestation , which is causing global warming. I know that this has been said before, but I cannot stress enough how important it is to reduce the amount of meat you consume. It can help our environment enormously in so many different ways!

                 

http://www.sierraclub.org/sustainable_consumption/food_factsheet.asp

Is beef good or bad for you and the environment? You Decide!

While surfing around the web, I came across and interesting article in COSMO magazine regarding red meat consumption. Most humans’ diet is based around meat consumption, especially here in the U.S. According the USDA in 2011, the United States beef cattle industry had a retail equivalent value of $79 BILLIONS. Moreover the consumption of 25.6 BILLIONS pounds of beef, all in the same year. Livestock products provide one third of humanity’s protein intake.  This modern form of agriculture contributes to 18% of the global greenhouse emissions, as well as 8% of the total global water that is used for feeding and watering the cattle. As any business, the beef industry claims that meat provides good nutrients to the humans’ diet, such as: protein, iron, zinc, vitamins such as B-12, and omega-3 fatty acids. It might be true that meat is rich in these good nutrients; but veggies, grains and diary products also contain the nutrients previously mentioned and more. The National Health and Medical Research guidelines suggest that the necessary intake of meat a day should not exceed 100 grams. This is the equivalent to a really small portion. Currently people eat two or four times the amount recommended.

Vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters, mainly because they have less risk of suffering from high cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, bowel cancer, type 2 diabetes, etc. Meat is not only bad for you, but to the environment as well. Beef requires more resources, because livestock’ animals need to be fed huge amounts of grains in order to be ready for slaughtering.  For instance, it takes 8 pounds of grains to produce one pound of beef. On the other hand, chicken and fish require less amount of resources. In my wellness class, my professor mentioned that the best and healthiest choices of protein are those with no feet at all. Making fish not just the healthier, but best protein substitute for meat. Fish only consume a pound and half of grain. The most sustainable choice of fish is those plant eating fish, such as: catfish, tilapia and trout. Also wild-caught salmon and Pollack from the Pacific Ocean contain high amounts of omega-3 and healthy antioxidants. My role here is not to change the way you eat, because in the end I LOVE MEAT too! But just make you ponder on what we consume daily and the impact that it’s causing in our environment. 

Read more about this in the following links:       http://nutrition.about.com/od/changeyourdiet/a/green_diet_tips.htm
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/2965/reducing-your-red-meat-footprint

http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm

Food Dyes :(

       We obviously all know at this point that sustainable food is grown naturally and doesn’t contain all the harmful chemicals and ingredients that other foods do. Well, I know we’ve shoved this information down our throats a lot already, but I came across an article on food dye that I thought I would share with you guys. Food dye is a good example of why processed foods are the worst kinds of foods.

    

        According to an article I found while browsing stumbleupon, many factories use petroleum-based chemical food dyes that present a “rainbow of risks” to the consumer. These risks include things such as cancer, which was observed in animal studies, allergic reactions, and hyperactivity in children. The link to the article which I will provide below lists specific types of food dye that you should be sure to stay away from due to their harmful chemicals, and it lists their effects. There are multiple reasons as to why companies decide to use food dyes on their foods, but the main reason is because of looks. We tend to naturally want to buy foods that *look* good, when in reality they may not be good at all. The irony in this is that factories add the dyes so that the fruits/vegetables will *look* healthy to the consumer, when in fact they are better off without the dyes. Looks can be deceiving.

            There are lots of other natural and significantly healthier alternatives to food dyes, but they far more expensive, so companies will continue to use the dyes unless the consumer demands otherwise. One good way for us to change things would be to make use of farmer’s markets and locally grown items. Stop buying all the processed stuff. If you need to buy things with a label, make sure the ingredients listed are limited, and that they are ones that you know of personally. If people could start changing their habits, maybe we could even start a reform of our food industry. Our current industry does nothing but put society’s health at risk.

Link to the article: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2oDRRN/:zv4Cq$M5:Xl+_!VN7/www.justmeans.com/Food-Dye-For-There-Are-Sustainable-Options/21282.html/

Here’s a child talking about what’s wrong with our food system:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/8Nebc7/:1K5!DJE-D:V0jVkulN/www.ted.com/talks/birke_baehr_what_s_wrong_with_our_food_system.html/

GLOWING MUSHROOMS! (just because):

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/8qCXAL/:1K5!DJ0Dq:Tj@o3YxV/www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/glow-in-the-dark-mushroom-rediscovered-after-170-years/