Meat production is one of the most inefficient food producing processes in existence. In addition to the water, energy, and land directly required to keep and raise the animals themselves, they consume a massive amount of grain during their lifespan - anywhere from 2-8kg per kg of body weight - thus taking up additional food, water, and energy resources (one has to harvest, process into feed, and transport said grain, after all). Some 50% of all US grain production goes into feeding livestock, overtaxing arable land that could be better utilized to raise crops for human beings. With close to 10 billion animals now being slaughtered annually for consumption, one has to wonder what marvelous things we could have done for world hunger with the resources squandered to produce flesh.
The focal point of "Humble Chicken" indeed shifts quickly to global food resources, with David Farrell, a professor at University of Queensland who apparently failed math and logic, correctly stating that meat competes directly with people in developing countries for increasingly limited grain resources. He then goes on to contradict his own point, however, when he notes that unlike beef and pork (which require seven and four kg respectively), chicken only requires 2kg of grain to generate 1kg of body mass (note: body mass, not edible mass in particular). This is supposedly "better" for world hunger. What he failed to note was that 2kg of grain makes... 2kg of edible food (prior to preparation, which greatly increases the mass!), which arguably would be best applied to the 18,000 children who will die today of malnutrition and starvation rather than chickens. Think chicken would provide more nourishment than grain? Wrong-o! 1kg of oats trounces 1kg chicken in calories and protein, a lack of either being a primary cause of malnourishment in developing nations. And oats, compared to amaranth or quinoa, are not even the most nutrient dense nor efficient grain to grow - yet they still beat chicken on both fronts.
There is nothing environmentally friendly about any meat consumption; there are enough problems with horticulture in and of itself without having to produce such a vast amount for feeding livestock on top of what is farmed for human consumption. Be it hog farms contaminating streams with waste, cattle emitting greenhouse gases, chickens spreading illness to wild birds, or feral goats destroying the outback, industrialized animal agriculture is the antithesis to environmentally mindful consumerism. Add to this human rights concerns ranging from world hunger to the treatment of farmers & meatpackers, human health concerns like deadly food borne illness & diet related chronic disease, and of course, the serious ethical connotations of exploiting and commodifying other living beings, and the picture becomes very clear: we have chosen our pallets over what is safe, logical, and moral, at the cost of human and animal lives, our own health, and our own planet.
The basis of ethics is forming rational decisions on how we ought to live our lives based on strong evidence to support our choice, as well as consideration of the effect our choices have on others. Tell me again, now, how consuming more chicken is the right choice in the face of world hunger and environmental devastation?
Is this the new face of "environmentalism?"