Meat does not cause world hunger
Unmechanized agriculture causes world hunger.
A while ago The Third Estate carried a piece by Salman, Roland and Ambika detailing the socially destructive impact of meat consumption. The authors argued that a great deal of grain which could be used to feed humans was being used to feed animals, and more importantly that the process was wasteful: grain can feed more people when its fed to them directly than when its fed to animals who use up energy moving around etc. As such it was suggested that the “over-consumption of meat directly contributes to world hunger” – a claim which is constantly repeated by organised vegetarians.
The problem with this approach, however, is that it treats food production as a zero sum game, in which only so much food can be produced, and in which solving world hunger is a matter of wasting as little as possible, and of allocating a fixed amount of food resources to feed the greatest number. Interestingly, according to this logic, organic farming represents a prime cause of world hunger, since it tends to use land and agircultural labour in a way that yields far less than would be otherwise possible. Yet the logic itself is flawed, since in reality food production is not a zero-sum game. The original article told us with alarm that “the total number of animals slaughtered for meat in India nearly doubled from 66,299,600 in 1980 to 106,239,000 in 2000″. It is, then, significant that in the same period the production of rice in India – ie grain for humans – more than doubled. The point is that through investing agriculture it has been possible to rapidly increase the production of both.
The logic that says meat causes world hunger is simple and appealing. If an acre of land is used to rear cattle it will feed fewer people than if it is used to produce grain – and the space which is available to farm IS indeed fixed. Yet like all commodities, the production of food relies not just on land but on multiple inputs – i.e. labour and capital (machinery). Increasing any one of these has the potential to increase the production of food. As such, the production of meat uses up resources that could be used to produce more grain for humans, but then so does the production of any other commodity be it footballs or BMWs. The opportunity cost simply isn’t as visible.
From this perspective, the question of how we feed the world is not so much a question of what we do with a fixed amount of grain. Rather it is a question of how we can reallocate resources to the production of food in general, so that people can eat enough to live and that they can eat what they want (eating is a source of pleasure as well as nutrition, remember?). In the final analysis this has to do with purchasing power. There is a simple reason why a hell of a lot of resources are allocated to producing luxuries while insuffficient resources are allocated to producing food. Given the global distribution of income, there is a far more lucrative market for the former, while many who need food are unable to pay for it. This in turn means that there is less incentive to invest in producing more of it – ie to allocate the capital and labour necessary to produce enough for us all. Solving hunger is a question of wealth redistribution.
Sometimes it seems that the whole discourse of development has been turned on its head – and not in a good way. We should be talking about how we can increase the productive power and the purchsasing power of developing nations so that the needs – but also the wants and desires – of their populations can be met. Investing in food production is vital to both. By contrast, Salman, Ambika and Roland, are essentially telling Indians how to live within their means.
Reader Comments
It wasn’t about telling Indians to live within their means, it was about discussing how the world, and most importantly the West, could live within its means, and not just in the context of food production, but energy consumption. The latter is the more salient point I think. I agree with you that there is not a direct causal relationship between meat consumption and world hunger. But it is a contributing factor. It just so happened that we chose to focus on this one issue, rather than footballs. Talking “about how we can increase the productive power and the purchsasing power of developing nations so that the needs – but also the wants and desires – of their populations can be met” is a noble ideal, but at some point, that does become a zero sum game because land and energy resources are finite. If we want to avoid telling them how to live within their means – and this is something we definitely should avoid – at some point, we in the West, are going to have to learn to cut back on our own lifestyle expectations because it will take a serious effort in redistribution to enhance those in the developing world without causing runaway climate change and soaring food prices.
Before we get onto the subject of world hunger, I think we need to take a step back and consider what the end goal is here. Are we trying to produce and feed as many people as we can? If so, what world population target are we prepared to accept? 10 billion? 50 billion? Is that enough people? How many people should we aim to support? I’m sure we can pack the planet full to the brim with well fed people if we want to, but is this morally a good thing?
Look, this is a very tricky issue, and the alternatives are very hard headed indeed, but to just talk about ending world hunger, poverty and the likes is possibly the wrong way, or the wrong starting point.
Oberon, that presupposes sitting back whilst millions starve. I don’t think that’s a sensible option. Development – sanitation, shelter, health care and ample resources – is the only way to contain the population, bringing down mortality rates, and then maternity rates, as the Western model demonstrated.
Salman, I’m not advocating that we stand and idly watch whilst people starve, but I would like to tax thought on this. For every minute you spend thinking about it, you need to spend one thinking about the fact that the human population is out of control and all projections say uncontrollably. To simply suppose that the global population will normalise of it’s own accord is complacent. We all know what species do instinctively; and we might be more intelligent, but we are more instinctive. Your stance proves it perfectly. But nobody wants to think about where this will end because it’s not nice.
Thinking about where it is right now is not nice. That’s why it’s our responsibility to do something about it. Making the case for development is not complacency. Quite the opposite. If we are to look at instinct, it’s the low probability of infant survival in the animal kingdom that has produced high birth rates. Hundreds of tadpoles spawn, but only a few become frogs. Equally, the history of every developing society, our own included, demonstrates a strong correlation between high infant mortality and high maternity, followed by falling mortality, a population boom and then falling maternity. Part of it is increased access to health care, birth control and education. Part of it is the changing nature of labour and female empowerment. Part of it, quite simply, is that people have more children if they expect some won’t survive due to hunger and poor sanitation. In each of these cases, greater development is the key to bringing LEDC population growth in line with that of OEDC countries.
DTM predicts a plateau at 9ish billion, so increasing population size is not (as such) an issue. The issue is more development and consequent increase in per capita consumption.
If we’re talking subsistence meat farming, decreasing this would have a serious affect on human health (we have, after all, endured 5 million years of evolution to reach this omnivorous ecological conclusion). Meat production for export’s sake is another issue however – obviously there are issues here, as you have suggested. Everyone knows, though, that arable monoculture is far from a panacea: far from it (homozygosity and ecosystem malnourishment are obvious problems, to name but a few!).
Healthwise and in terms of agricultural sustainability then, we need a variety, though I agree that the extent to which meat farming occurs could have some negative effects on world yield.
Again I realise that this article is citing an illustrative point though, and that I am going off on a tangent!
“If we’re talking subsistence meat farming, decreasing this would have a serious affect on human health (we have, after all, endured 5 million years of evolution to reach this omnivorous ecological conclusion)”
-The more serious health complication, surely, is the over-consumption of red meat in the West. It’s quite apparent that vegan diets can be very unhealthy for some people. But I’m pretty sure a balanced vegetarian diet has no negative health implications.
Sorry, I meant effect not affect!
“I’m pretty sure a balanced vegetarian diet has no negative health implications”.
Hmn, for adults, yes, perhaps you are right. How many impoverished kids have access to an developmentally appropriate protein-rich diet without access to meat, though? Unless of course there is ready access to milk and cheese, but obviously this requires dairy farming… Vegans would be fucked…
Totally agree about over-consumption of red-meat however: atherosclerotic meltdown! A little bit can be good for you though
I do worry about vegetarianism; unforseen consequences and so on… As I said earlier, you can’t fault the survival potential of an ancestrally evolved state such as omnivory! It’s got to have arisen (and more importantly, persisted) for a “reason.” But then again, it was settled upon outside of the context of developed society… Consequences of excluding meat from diets could ring true in developing society though…
I certainly wouldn’t advocate the poorest people in developing countries going vegetarian, you’re quite right. One has to look at this in the cultural context. The Native Americans would have struggled to maintain their existence as vegetarians. Some people simply do need meat to survive. We in the developed world have the luxury of making these ethical choices. It would be wrong for animal rights activists to assume everyone has that choice.
The gist of our article is not that meat contributes to world hunger. It was rather that meat production entails the monopolisation of significant resources that could otherwise be put towards alleviating world hunger. If you consider that a third of the world’s cereal harvest is used on animal feed then there is some weight to the opportunity cost argument that we make. Sure if there was sufficient food surplus to feed the world population then our argument would not carry. If there was a shortage of steel and 1/3rd of production was going to produce BMWs then one could make a similar link. Given that there is a strong correlation between wealth and meat consumption it is not going too far to say that our profligate meat consumption in the west and amongst those who can afford meat in developing nations has at least some bearing on world hunger. I agree there needs to be a reallocation of food resources and moving away from the excessive consumption of meat has a role to play in this.
Interesting discussion. Not sure where I stand, being a (meat-eating) ignoramus on such topics. I have always believed that meat-eating is a cause of world hunger, mostly because Reuben said so when we were twelve and the logic makes sense. Having thought about it though, I can see another point – that even within the world of food production, it is not simply a choice between grain and meat. Although a dozen, mostly cerelal, species represent 80% of the worlds crop production, that leaves another 20% for far more ‘wasteful’ luxury crops that yield far less nutrition for populations. I don’t have the statistics on strawberry yields to hand, but my intuition tells they’re measured in mouthfuls of deliciousness rather than bellies full of substance.
Cerial, not Cerelal. Just seing how many spelling mistakes you can fit in one 6-letter word.
So, to sum up your changing positions, Roger: Comrade Reuben is always right!
Hmmm, I think Reuben can probably testify that we’ve hardly seen eye-to-eye on most things. In fact, as a life-long meat eater, I think it would be fairer to suggest that Reuben has come around to my way of thinking. Except I’ve always been lacking the arguments to support the decision, being as it was made from the tastebuds…
And I’ve just realised I spelled cereal wrong in my correction. As a lifelong cereal eater and cereal-box reader, it’s astonishing I haven’t absorbed the correct spelling by now…
I’d say you’re a serial cereal misspeller.
That’s one of mine…
Indeed roger. You were right and I was certainly wrong when I was a veggie and you were a meatie. I was right on the iraq war though.
I reckon a great cause of world hunger (and poverty), and moreover one reason for over-consumption of meat, are the agricultural subsidies in the EU/US. Many developing countries produce agricultural produce, which they cannot sell at a decent price as they are kept out of the market by developed countries (and the biased WTO). The EU spends 40% of its budget on farm subsidies; which supports mass-production of meat and dairy goods in the EU and keeps these products cheap. If farming subsidies were removed (which is unlikely as it would be politically impossible for EU govts) then meat would be more expensive, improving our health, and developing countries could actually sell their produce. Also, the problem with mechanised agriculture and artificial fertilisers is that they rely on petrochemicals, so we probably need to wean ourselves off it before it runs out.