Given our finite natural resources it becomes increasingly unsustainable to try and maintain a ‘business as usual’ approach, with meat production worldwide projected to grow to 465 million tonnes by 2050. Perhaps given the nature of global food markets within capitalist economies, and the failure of recent climate accords to yield meaningful reform, we must instigate change at a consumer level.
With 1.3 billion livelihoods dependant on animal agriculture, and intensification inherent to economic growth, the steep environmental price exacted by the cultivation of livestock is often dismissed (FAO, 2006; FAO, 2018). This is evidenced by the widely successful shift to intensive, industrial methods of livestock production following the globalisation of food, despite a robust consensus emerging from recent literature that the agricultural sector is a leading driver in key ecological issues, which include deforestation, severe forest degradation, as well as the depletion and pollution of our waterways (FAO, 2006). This deforestation can be attributed to cattle ranching and livestock feed production, which account for roughly 80% of tropical deforestation rates, and quickly prompt other issues including soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and anthropogenic climate change (Yale, 2007). Environmental damage is only projected to accelerate alongside demand for agricultural goods, as global policy makers and transnational corporations, put economic output higher up on the agenda (FAO, 2012). A lack of intervention is exacerbated by the convergence of inappropriate policies, inadequate livestock management, and a media blind spot for the subject, which has played a key role in a public lack of awareness around this issue (FAO, 2006; Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2014). In the wake of global population growth and rising affluence within developing nations, it seems increasingly far-fetched to keep up with projected consumer demands in a sustainable manner. Are we overlooking the ethical significance of the hyper consumption of animal products, including its role to play in our global nutrition crisis? Perhaps given the nature of global food markets within capitalist economies, and the failure of recent climate accords to yield meaningful reform, we must instigate change at a consumer level. Rising Global Demand The livestock sector’s effect on the planet is “so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency,” according to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. The industry has emerged as one of the top contributors to most of our serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global and will only continue to grow alongside demand. FAO projections predict a future 74% surge in demand for meat, 58% for dairy, and 500% for eggs (Steinfeld 2006; FAO 2012). A separate 2013 FAO report, finds that today, annually over 70 billion land animals are slaughtered worldwide, which is 10 times higher than the figure in 1960, despite the fact that global population has “only” doubled since then; thus indicating that food production has outstripped population growth (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2014). This discrepancy between the rate of consumer demand and population growth can be attributed to rising incomes in the developing world, and a surge in consumption as food preferences change with increasing affluence (FAO, 2012; Fukase & Martin, 2017). Given our finite natural resources including land, water, and energy, it becomes increasingly unsustainable to try and maintain a ‘business as usual’ approach, with projections indicating meat production worldwide will grow to 465 million tonnes by 2050 (Gerber & Steinfeld, 2008).
Image Credits: David Mark via Pixabay
Cattle ranching is the main driver of deforestation and accounts for 80% of deforestation rates today. In 2019 alone, the tropics lost 30 football fields worth of forest every minute, and today over 32 million acres of land are deforested annually for live pastures; this is an area the size of Greece (UNEP 2003).
Deforestation: Cause and Effect Cattle ranching is the main driver of deforestation and accounts for 80% of deforestation rates today (Butler, 2009). In 2019 alone, the tropics lost 30 football fields worth of forest every minute, and today over 32 million acres of land are deforested annually for live pastures; this is an area the size of Greece (UNEP, 2003). The impacts of grazing have been detrimental in the Amazon basin with 15% of its forest destroyed in the last 30 years, and approximately 900,000 km2 of its land replaced by pastures (Veiga et al., 2003). In addition to land used for pastures, livestock feed crop production occupies another 33% of global arable land spurring further deforestation (FAO, 2012). The global food industry’s utter reliance on livestock feed, has led to the emergence of a ‘soy and cattle pasture deforestation dynamic’ with 59 million acres of land in Brazil alone devoted to soy cultivation (Yale, 2020). Currently 90% of soy produced is used as livestock feed with the remaining percentages going towards direct human consumption, and oil production (Ortolani, 2019). This was discernible in 2007, when of the 222 million tonnes of soy produced; 207 million tonnes went directly towards cow, pig, and chicken feed. (Brown, 2008). High yields, low input cost, and cheap land have enabled the rapid expansion of industry, allowing Brazil to become the world’s largest beef exporter, supplying about a quarter of the global market (Yale 2020; Zia et al., 2019). Numerous political factors have enabled this deforestation crisis in the Amazon basin, including the Brazilian government’s tax exemption program that was implemented in order to stimulate agricultural colonisation. This incentivised an increase in the establishment of large-scale and concentrated cattle farms. Furthermore, in South America, low-interest public loans have favoured cattle ranching rather than perennial crops in order to aid agricultural colonisation in the Amazon (Veiga et al., 2003). Climate Change The environmental impacts of deforestation extend beyond lost forest habitat, inefficient land use, and land degradation. When forests are slashed, burnt and no longer able to regenerate, they loose their ability to sequester carbon and are therefore no longer able to act as carbon sinks to mitigate the effects of climate change (Tinker et al., 1996). Although a portion of deforested land is replaced with feed crop plantations, these often monocrop plantations store less carbon dioxide than native vegetation, therefore failing to counteract the effects of greenhouse gas release (Asher, 2019). Annually deforestation due to cattle ranching alone releases 340 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Berardi, 2014). This contributes to the already extensive greenhouse gas footprint that animal agriculture has, with the entire industry generating 18% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than energy and transport sectors (FAO, 2006). Animal agriculture also accelerates anthropogenic climate change through means other than deforestation; particularly through methane release from manure, and enteric fermentation (Houghton, 2009). Though methane (CH4) is much less concentrated than carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (1.775 ppm vs. 380ppm), its global warming potential (GWP) is 84 times higher at a 20-year scale due to its potency (Henning, 2011; EDF, 2021). Furthermore nitrous oxide (N2O) is significantly more deleterious in terms of GWP and has a potency 300 times higher than that of CO2 at 100 year time scales (Shankman, 2019). In the US alone about 75% of all N2O emissions are attributed to agriculture –particularly from microbes in fertilized soils and animal manure (Shankman, 2019). Livestock related nitrous oxide emissions are estimated to total between 1-2 million tonnes annually and are particularly prevalent in areas of animal husbandry after heavy rainfall or irrigation events (Department of Agriculture, Water, and the Environment, 2019). It is essential to take into account the unfortunate paradoxical nature of climate change, where it is often those that are least responsible for emissions, that are most vulnerable to it’s effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has noted that socially and economically disadvantaged communities and developing nations are disproportionally affected, as areas of lower latitudes bear the brunt of climate change. For example in aquaculture, it is predicted that alongside warming, fish will acclimatize to areas of higher latitudes (IPCC, 2014). As a result tropical countries like Indonesia will suffer, where about 2.2 million people are dependent on the aquaculture sub-sector for their livelihoods (IPCC, 2014; Paryanti, 2006). An insidious self-perpetuating feedback loop can be seen where emissions due to livestock cultivation will pose increased risk for future agricultural production, threatening food security. This in turn leads to increased ‘high input’ intensified farming with greater returns on yield, and therefore an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and the cycle continues (Bajželj & Richards, 2014). Biodiversity Loss In addition to climate change, deforestation quickly prompts other environmental issues, including biodiversity loss. The growth of the livestock sector has seen vast tracts of forestland appropriated for grazing, pushing out and even extirpating wildlife. Deforestation in Australia alone kills over 34 million native mammals, birds and reptiles every single year (WWF, 2017). It is reported that about 30% of land livestock currently occupies was previously home to wildlife (Null & Feldman, 2009). With many native species displaced from their natural habitats, some scientists warn that we are in the midst of another great extinction with the present rate of extinction as high as 140,000 species each year (World Animal Foundation, 2020). The impact of grazing is seen to be profound on endangered species, with habitat destruction leaving native species vulnerable to exposure, and competition for resources as they're forced to migrate to neighbouring regions (WWF, 2017).
Soil Erosion The price of animal husbandry’s immediate surplus is the compromised integrity of arable land for future use (Null & Feldman, 2009). Low input costs, and cheap land have enabled rapid expansion of industry, which has led to intensified use of agricultural land without sufficient recovery periods. Alongside pesticides stripping away nutrients within soil, tree clearance has left land particularly vulnerable to erosion due to the absence of roots to anchor fertile topsoil (WWF, 2017). Overgrazing coupled with deforestation has led to the expeditious deterioration of soil quality with 90% of cropland soil in the US being depleted 10 times faster than the natural rate of replenishment. Over 30% of arable land is now unproductive due to erosion over the last fifty years, and annual damage from soil erosion is estimated at $400 billion worldwide. Geologist David Montgomery reports that Iowa has lost half of its topsoil in the last 150 years – this is topsoil that took thousands of years to develop (Null & Feldman 2009). The consequences of overgrazing, compaction, and eventual erosion are only amplified within the drylands where advancing desertification can be observed (FAO, 2006).
Water Water Depletion Although water covers about 71% of the earth's surface, the majority of this is highly saline. Only 3% of earth’s water is fresh and around 1% of this is accessible for human use. The rest is inaccessible, much of it trapped in polar ice caps, and glaciers. In essence, we are depending on 1% of the planet’s water to power and sustain 7.8 billion people (USBR, 2020; National Geographic, 2021). Globally close to 70% of this freshwater is used for agricultural development, and in some developing countries, withdrawals for farming are up to 95% (FAO, 2019). This is all the while domestic use of water only accounts for 10% of freshwater usage (Henning, 2011). So why is livestock cultivation so water intensive? It takes around 14,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef, versus the 1,600 litres it takes to produce one kilogram of soy (USGBC, 2021). This is because to produce meat, more water is required for pesticide and fertilizer applications, irrigation, livestock feed production, and livestock sustenance (Gerbens-Leenese et al., 2013).
Only 3% of earth’s water is fresh and around 0.5% of this is available for human use. Close to 70% of this water of this freshwater is used for agriculutral development. Animal husbandry today is the leading cause of water pollution, as farms discharge large quantities of agrochemicals, hormones, animal waste, organic matter, and other residues into the aquatic environment (FAO 2018).
Water Pollution The negative implications of livestock cultivation are not limited to the depletion of freshwater resources. Animal husbandry today is the leading cause of water pollution, as farms discharge large quantities of agrochemicals, hormones, animal waste, organic matter, and other residues into the aquatic environment (FAO, 2018). A progressive deterioration of water quality and stream health occurs as runoff and infiltration transport these pollutants into local water bodies and groundwater aquifers (USGS, 2021). Agrochemicals are particularly prevalent as a result of industry, with nitrate from fertilizers now being the most common contaminant found in groundwater (FAO, 2018). According to the USGS over 11 billion kilograms of nitrogen fertilizer and 300 million kilograms of pesticides are used annually for pest control and maximising productivity. Furthermore a 2004, national US study detected at least one pesticide in 94% and 90% of its water and fish samples, respectively (USGS, 2021). Elevated quantities of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous from agrochemicals not only pose demonstrated risk for drinking water supplies and human health, but are a major cause of eutrophication, stimulating algal blooms. This has negative environmental and ecological effects, producing what is known as hypoxia or ocean “dead zones” that degenerate coral reefs, as well as kill fish and other aquatic life (FAO, 2018). Animal agriculture is also one of the largest water polluters, with livestock generating 85% of the world’s animal faecal waste (FAO, 2018). Annually livestock and poultry on the largest concentrated animal feeding operations [CAFO’s] alone, produce around 369 billion kilograms of manure. This is 13x higher than the volume of human excrement produced in the US alone, a quantity that pales in comparison. Whilst human waste is sent to municipal wastewater treatment plants and subject to stringent regulation, animal waste is dumped into open ponds or lagoons. These lagoons often leak, discharging a collection of animal excrement containing antibiotic residues into the aquatic environment (Foodprint 1, 2021). Emerging research has also identified a new class of agricultural contaminants, which include pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, and animal growth hormones that frequently contaminate soil, groundwater, and surface water through this discharge of sewage sludge, and effluent overflow. Other sources include the application of this contaminated manure as a fertilizer, as well as via direct runoff from animals at pasture. These pharmaceuticals, and antibiotics particularly found in effluent, when discharged are deleterious for aquatic life as they mimic natural hormones and interfere with the immune and reproductive systems of macroinvertebrates and other organisms (FAO, 2018). These chemicals, alongside other agricultural pesticides are classified as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) as they are known to cause abnormalities and impaired reproductive performance in various animals (Tillitt et al., 2010). For instance atrazine, an EDC and herbicide commonly used in feed crop production, causes male frogs to develop female characteristics (with male amphibians developing ovaries). Furthermore the inordinate application of antibiotics in livestock management has led to an increased dominance of tolerant and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in water bodies (FAO, 2018). The WHO reports antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic water-borne pathogens as an emerging public health concern (WHO, 2004). Faecal matter and blood from abattoirs are also cause for concern as they source pathogens such as E.coli, which are detrimental to human health in large concentrations (Burkhart et al., 2018). New Policy? Because of all this in 2003, the EPA listed all CAFOs as point source polluters under their Clean Water Act (Foodprint 2, 2021). However despite this, most attempts to regulate CAFOs have failed as legislators continuously yield to the interests of farm group lobbyists who campaign against regulatory reform (Foodprint 1, 2021; Allison, 2019). Agribusiness in 2020 alone spent over 138 million dollars on legislative lobbying in an effort to hinder the implementation of more stringent environmental protection regulations around CAFOs (Opensecrets, 2020). Lax regulations and government inaction persist despite community opposition, as these lobbyist groups continue to employ a range of strategies designed to realign policy, and prevent regulatory agencies from providing proper oversight over agricultural practices (Baron, 2019). Methods include election campaign financing to back local and state legislators who favour ‘big meat’ and their shareholder interests, abandoning a wider stakeholder approach (Sewell, 2012). With significant profits, and close to 850 lobbyists, the leverage ‘big meat’ has over government agencies is furthermore evidenced by their ability to supress information, and the major data void that exists around CAFOs (Sewell, 2012; Baron, 2019). The US Government Accountability Office has highlighted these concerns, reporting in 2008 that the EPA in fact had no data on the quantity of CAFOs operating in the US, nor did they have information on CAFO locations, thus zero way of tracing or regulating pollutant discharge volumes as a result of husbandry practices (Baron, 2019).
Annually livestock and poultry produce around 369 billion kilograms of manure. This is 13x higher than the volume of human excrement produced in the US alone. Most attempts to regulate CAFOs have failed as legislators continuously yield to the interests of farm group lobbyists who campaign against regulatory reform. Agribusiness in 2020 alone spent over 138 million dollars on legislative lobbying in an effort to hinder the implementation of more stringent environmental protection regulations around CAFOs.
Hermaphrodite Frogs?Herbicide Atrazine causing male frogs to develop ovaries
Economic Growth There is unassailable evidence to suggest that a meat and dairy-based diet is a dominant contributor to most of today’s pressing ecological issues. There is also robust consensus amongst the scientific community that addresses the correlation between the growth of animal husbandry, and anthropogenic climate change (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2014). Despite this, policymakers and the public continue to dismiss the steep environmental price exacted by the production and consumption of livestock. So why do we as a collective continue to bury our heads in the sand? Addressing this issue would undermine economic growth. The livestock sector continues to evolve and intensify rapidly in response to shifts in the global economy as incomes and populations rise, driving up food consumption. Globalisation has enabled agribusiness to have remunerative leverage, with many national economies heavily reliant on agricultural earnings. For instance, the survival of New Zealand’s economy depends on the industry which generates about 70% of NZ’s merchandise export earnings (Ministry of Primary Industries, 2017). The livestock and red meat sector in Australia alone rakes in $17.6 billion annually, and in the US, livestock contributes around $1.1 trillion to gross domestic product [GDP] (MLA, 2020; USDA, 2020). 767,000 people are employed in US cattle production alone, and the industry generates millions of other jobs in related sectors including transport, trade, feed, and input provision (IBISWORLD, 2020; FAO, 2021). Furthermore, the economic role of the livestock sector appears to be more crucial for those in developing nations, particularly smallholder farmers. According to the FAO, 60% of rural households in the developed world are dependant on jobs in livestock cultivation, and globally there are 1.7 billion people dependant on this sector for their livelihoods (FAO, 2021). With increased industrialisation and intensification being paramount to economic growth, is this simply the common case of profit being put before the environment? Regardless, it is necessary to question whether economic output warrants this level of environmental destruction. At a global scale, it seems that burdens imposed on the environment as a result of animal husbandry are out of proportion to its economic importance, considering the sector only contributes less than 2% to global GDP (FAO, 2009). The dominance of the meat industry is indicative of the flawed global economic order that underpins open markets and globalisation. This economic dominance translates into legislative and regulatory power, as major corporations in the meat industry are able to spend exorbitant amounts on lobbying efforts to preserve and benefit from a weak regulatory environment. As a result, government agencies have proved absent or ineffectual in addressing the environmental degradation brought about by these agricultural practices. Media Blindspot? The media’s framing of an environmental issue plays a powerful role in shaping public opinion and perception. Therefore we must take into consideration how the economic dominance of agribusiness interferes with perspectives outside of a directly political sphere and permeates into advertising and media spaces. Financial bias continues to shape how the news is configured, with most networks required to highlight profitable stories and perspectives. The corollary of this is seen in ecological matters, with media outlets offering minimal to no coverage on the link between livestock cultivation and anthropogenic climate change (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2015). According to journalist and filmmaker, Ruby Hamad, “While some media outlets do report on the link between animal agriculture and global warming, they also undermine the urgency by featuring stories on, for example, how to include bacon in every meal - including dessert” (Hamad, 2014). This is emblematic of a media blind spot and failure to address the responsibility of individual dietary choices with regard to environmental issues. Instead the media have decided to take a ‘fossil fuel approach’ to their climate change narrative (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2015). So aside from financial agenda, why is this the case? Convenience. It’s easy to blame fossil fuels and transnational corporations, as this entails no considerable personal sacrifice. However, diet is different, and acknowledging that the livestock sector is problematic would mean giving up something that we enjoy, something that is convenient, something we feel entitled to (Hamad, 2014). It would mean change at an individual and consumer level. Convenience coupled with avoidance of moral discomfort are primary social factors that stint reform, and preserve a public lack of awareness.
There is unassailable evidence to suggest that a meat and dairy-based diet is a dominant contributor to most of today’s pressing ecological issues. Despite this, policymakers and the public continue to dismiss the steep environmental price exacted by the production and consumption of livestock. The dominance of the meat industry is indicative of the flawed global economic order that underpins unregulated open markets and globalisation. This economic dominance translates into legislative and regulatory power, as major corporations in the meat industry are able to spend exorbitant amounts on lobbying efforts to preserve and benefit from a weak regulatory environment. Financial bias continues to shape how the news is configured, with most networks required to highlight profitable stories and perspectives.
Global Food Inequality At the core of global food supply networks, an insidious paradox can be seen. Today we have more food than ever, yet millions are starving. What is often glossed over is the ethical significance of the hyper-consumption of animal products and the part that it plays in our acute malnutrition crisis. This is a sad testimony to global inequality and a great disparity in wealth and resources that persists (Henning, 2011). Today there are more individuals affected by obesity (780 million) than individuals suffering from chronic undernourishment (690 million) (Reid, 2020; Chamie, 2017). So how do we justify such a blatant misdistribution of resources? Globally 40% of grain is diverted as livestock feed to produce meat, when this crop could alleviate world hunger (Cornell, 1997). 1/6 people lack access to fresh drinking water, and 2.4 billion people don't have access to clean sanitation (Henning, 2011). When we are essentially depending on 1% of Earth's water to power and sustain 7.8 billion people, why do we continue to pollute our water supplies through harmful agricultural practices? When millions suffer from dehydration and waterborne illness, why are we committing 70% of our water withdrawals to animals so we can eat them? About 1/3 of food produced is wasted. This represents more than the 1/3, but the 24% of freshwater resources, 23% of cropland, and 23% of the world’s fertilizer it took to produce it (FAO, 2018). The animal agricultural sector is reliant upon a gross misdistribution of resources that would be better utilised to aid people, and when we consume animal products whether intentional or not, we are condoning an industry that is founded upon this inequality.
Globally 40% of grain is used as livestock feed to produce meat, when this grain could end world hunger. When millions suffer from dehydration and waterborne illness, we commit 70% of our freshwater withdrawals to agriculture.
"About 1/3 of food produced is wasted. This represents more than the 1/3, but the 24% of freshwater resources, 23% of cropland, and 23% of the world’s fertilizer it took to produce this food." (FAO 2018) Today as many people in the developing world face starvation, a common explanation for their hunger is the widely held belief that overpopulation has placed undue stress on already tenuous food supplies. This thinking is rooted in Neo-Malthusian theory that warps hunger into a scarcity issue as opposed to the distributional issue that it is (Robbins, 2004). Null & Feldman (2009) discuss how the primary problem with this way of thinking is the presumption that global hunger can be overcome by increased intensification, agricultural production, and more stringent birth control measures. Null & Feldman (2009) point out how these assumptions are somewhat culturally prejudiced, particularly the western assertion that modern methods of development in the global north are superior to traditional agricultural practices. It is this erroneous, neo-Malthusian belief system around hunger that upholds existing power structures and opens up opportunities for transnational corporations to try and capitalise further off intensified farming and green revolutions (with Bill Gates trying to open up a GMO package and start a second green revolution in Africa) (Holt-Giménez et al., 2006; Malkan, 2020). Academics have in the past pointed out how these methods could further exacerbate inequality, enabling foreign interests to take over more agricultural land in the developing world (Holt-Gimenez et al., 2006; Von Braun, 2009). Ultimately it is the proliferation of these hunger myths, which maintain current distributions of agency and control whilst failing to take into account the downfalls of intensification and increased agricultural production. Solutions Henning (2011) from an economic perspective discusses how the price of meat has not reflected the actual scarcity of the resources it took to produce it. He goes on to state, “the failure to internalize the cost of these externalities has led to artificially low prices and the overexploitation and pollution of the global commons.” Henning presents the solution of internalizing costs, to allow for market forces to naturally moderate demand, as consumers would be paying the true price for meat. This would drive up costs, therefore resulting in a reduction in the production and consumption of these animal products. However, for this to occur, agricultural subsidies would have to be eliminated alongside a re-pricing of water and pastureland for agricultural entities. Unfortunately, Henning also identifies that given the entrenched nature of global subsidies, this route seems increasingly unviable. Other solutions suggested by the FAO to abate environmental damage include the implementation of grazing fees, minimising fertiliser usage, restricting livestock access to waterways, and accelerating the research around biogas, and methane capturing systems (Henning, 2011). Although these solutions are all effective mitigation strategies, they are perhaps idealistic methods of circumventing meaningful change as they still fail to acknowledge the issue at hand and allow authorities to opt-out of tougher approaches when it comes to solving environmental issues. To Conclude We pride ourselves on being a morally and intellectually superior species yet we are destroying the only planet we have. We are so conditioned to believing that big, prevalent issues like climate change are out of our control so we sit behind our computers signing the odd petition on Facebook declaring that we are against fracking or oil dredging. The animal agricultural sector is the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation. Global policymakers, transnational corporations, and consumers must put sustainability and environmental protection higher up on the agenda. There is a necessity for policy change and regulatory reform around agricultural practices if we as a collective want to preserve and restore natural resources for future generations to come. Our culture’s apathy towards the harmful effects of agriculture is indicative of our inability to compromise economic efficiency even in the face of ecological crisis. Furthermore, it is reflective of how economic power can work to shape discourse and narratives around food today. We cannot tackle environmental issues of this magnitude without assessing capitalist modes of development as well as current distributions of power, control, access, and agency. In the wake of global population growth and rising affluence, increased consumer demands and agricultural intensification will only exacerbate environmental degradation. Given the nature of global food markets and capitalist economies, it is not enough to wait for reform at a corporate or legislative level. Rather than looking to science for technological fixes to circumvent real change, we must instigate the change we want to see at a consumer level and reduce our meat and dairy intake. The future of our species will depend on this.
References Allison Roger 2019 Corporations, lobbyists try to control agriculture https://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/2019/04/04/roger-allison-corporations-lobbyists-try-control-agriculture/3366212002/ Andrea Berardi 2014 Amazonian challenges: Cattle ranching and agriculture https://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/amazonian-challenges-cattle-ranching-and-agriculture B. Bajželj, K. Richards, 2014. The positive feedback loop between the impacts of climate change and agricultural expansion and relocation Land, 3 (2014), pp. 898-916 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276039196_The_Positive_Feedback_Loop_between_the_Impacts_of_Climate_Change_and_Agricultural_Expansion_and_Relocation Brian G, Henning 2011. Standing in Livestock's long shadow: the ethics of eating meat on a small planet Claire Asher 2019 Brazil soy trade linked to widespread deforestation, carbon emissions Cornell 1997 U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat Department of Agriculture, Water, and the Environment 2019 Nitrous oxide emissions https://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/climatechange/australias-farming-future/n2o-emissions EDF, Environmental Defence Fund, Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-opportunity-climate-fight#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20two%20decades,more%20potent%20than%20carbon%20dioxide.&text=While%20methane%20doesn't%20linger,how%20effectively%20it%20absorbs%20heat Emiko Fukase & Will Martin (2017) Development Research Group Agriculture and Rural Development Team, Economic Growth, Convergence, and World Food Demand and Supply Eric Holt-Giménez, Ph.D., Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D., and Peter Rosset, Ph.D. 2006 Ten Reasons Why the Rockefeller and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations’ Alliance for Another Green Revolution Will Not Solve the Problems of Poverty and Hunger in Sub- Saharan Africa FAO 2006 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html FAO 2009 Livestock in the Balance http://www.fao.org/3/i0680e/i0680e01.pdf FAO 2012 http://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf FAO 2018 More people, more food, worse water? - a global review of water pollution from agriculture http://www.fao.org/3/ca0146en/CA0146EN.pdf FAO 2019 Water Scarcity – One of the greatest challenges of our time, http://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1185405/ FAO 2021 Livestock http://www.fao.org/rural-employment/agricultural-sub-sectors/livestock/en/ Foodprint 1 2021 https://foodprint.org/issues/how-industrial-agriculture-affects-our-water/#easy-footnote-bottom-7-7652 Foodprint 2 2021 https://foodprint.org/issues/what-happens-to-animal-waste/ Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2013). The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resources and Industry, 1, 25-36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 Giovanni Ortolani, 16 January 2019 Brazilian hunger for meat fattened on soy is deforesting the Cerrado: report https://news.mongabay.com/2019/01/brazilian-hunger-for-meat-fattened-on-soy-is-deforesting-the-cerrado-report/ Hamad Ruby 2014 Meat the hidden culprit of climate change https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/hamad-meat-the-hidden-culprit-of-climate-change/5414894?fbclid=IwAR1SJYY4gKtgn1hmz4Ib6spxhd0Qo6IvbMTiKs-RPNfgr9MQd0GZYNvgazg Henning Steinfeld, FAO 2006 Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, United Nations report http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf page 297 Houghton, John. 2009. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/04/brazil-soy-trade-linked-to-widespread-deforestation-carbon-emissions/ IBISWORLD 2020 Beef Cattle Production in the US - Employment Statistics 2003–2026 https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/employment/beef-cattle-production-united-states/ IPCC, 2014: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32. Page 26 J. B. Veiga, J.F. Tourrand, R. Poccard-Chapuis and M.G. Piketty, 2003 CATTLE RANCHING IN THE AMAZON RAINFOREST http://www.fao.org/3/xii/0568-b1.htm Joseph Chamie 2017 Overfed and Underfed: Global Food Extremes http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/06/overfed-and-underfed-global-food-extremes/ Joshua Sewell 2012 Political Power of the Agribusiness and Crop Insurance Lobbies https://www.taxpayer.net/agriculture/political-power-of-the-agribusiness-and-crop-insurance-lobbies/ Kathryn Reid 2020 World Vision https://www.worldvision.org/hunger-news-stories/world-hunger-facts#:~:text=How%20many%20people%20are%20hungry,exceed%20840%20million%20by%202030 Kira Burkhart, Courtney Bernhardt, Tom Pelton, Eric Schaeffer, and Ari Phillips of the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). 2018 Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses. Three Quarters of U.S. Meat Processing Plants that Discharge into Waterways Violated their Permits, 2016-2018 Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0. Mobilizing to Save Civilization (2008), p173 book Ministry Of Primary Industries (2007) https://www.mpi.govt.nz/exporting/overview/growing-exports/ MLA Meat and Livestock Australia 2020 The red meat industry https://www.mla.com.au/about-mla/the-red-meat-industry/# Mustafa Zia, James Hansen, Kim Hjort, and Constanza Valdes, 2019 Brazil Once Again Becomes the World’s Largest Beef Exporter https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/brazil-once-again-becomes-the-world-s-largest-beef-exporter/ National Geographic 2021 Freshwater Crisishttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/freshwater-crisis Null Garry & Feldman Martin (2009) The Argument for a Vegetarian Diet Part Two https://www.townsendletter.com/May2009/vegetarian0509.htm Núria Almiron & Milena Zoppeddu (2015) Eating Meat and Climate Change: The Media Blind Spot—A Study of Spanish and Italian Press Coverage, Environmental Communication, 9:3, 307-325, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2014.953968 Opensecrets 2020 Agribusiness Lobbying. Centre for Responsive Politics https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?ind=A P.J. Gerber and H. Steinfeld, 2008) Worldwide growth of animal production and environmental consequences https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242550948_Worldwide_growth_of_animal_production_and_environmental_consequences Rhett A. Butler, 2009, Beef drives 80% of Amazon deforestation https://news.mongabay.com/2009/01/beef-drives-80-of-amazon-deforestation/ Robbins, P. (2004). Political ecology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Shankman. Sabrina 2019 What Is Nitrous Oxide and Why Is It a Climate Threat? https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092019/nitrous-oxide-climate-pollutant-explainer-greenhouse-gas-agriculture-livestock/#:~:text=Nitrous%20oxide%20is%20300%20times,significant%20impact%20on%20global%20warming Sri Paryanti, T. FAO 2006. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Indonesia. National Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries Division [online]. Rome. Updated . [Cited 15 April 2021] http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_indonesia/en#:~:text=Aside%20from%20contributing%20about%20one,employed%20in%20the%20fisheries%20sector Stacy Malkan 2020 Gates 'failing green revolution in Africa' https://theecologist.org/2020/aug/14/gates-failing-green-revolution-africa Tillitt et al. Atrazine reduces reproduction in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Aquatic Toxicology, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2010.04.011 Tinker, P.Bernard, Ingram, John S.I., Struwe, Sten (1996), Effects of slash-and-burn agriculture and deforestation on climate change, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 1996, Vol.58(1), pp.13-22 [Peer Reviewed Journal] UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme. 2003. “Key Facts About Water.” 5 June 2003. (assessed November 9, 2010). USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation 2020 Worldwide Water Supply https://www.usbr.gov/mp/arwec/water-facts-ww-water-sup.html#:~:text=3%25%20of%20the%20earth's%20water,water%20is%20available%20fresh%20water. USDA 2020 Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/ USGBC 2021 United States Green Building Council North Florida “The Sustainable Kitchen” https://usgbcflorida.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/Regions/NE/LiveSMART/LS%20Sustainable%20Kitchen.pdf USGS 2021 Agricultural contaminants https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/agricultural-contaminants?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects Valerie Baron Natural Resources Defense Council 2019 Big Ag Is Hiding in Plain Sight and It’s Making Us Sick https://www.nrdc.org/experts/valerie-baron/factory-farms-what-we-dont-know-hurting-communities Von Braun, J., and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2009). ‘Land grabbing’ by foreign investors in developing countries. Policy Brief No. 13. Washington, DC: International for Food Policy Research Institute. WHO World Health Organisation 2004 Waterborne Zoonoses Identification, Causes, and Control https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/zoonoses.pdf World Animal Foundation 2020. https://www.worldanimalfoundation.com/advocate/farm-animals/params/post/1280000/animal-agriculture-causing-extinctions WWF The World Wide Fund for Nature 2017 Tree-clearing: the hidden crisis of animal welfare in Queensland, https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-tree-clearing-hidden-crisis-of-animal-welfare-queensland-7sep17.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y Yale 2007“Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Region” http://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching YALE, 2020 Soy Agriculture in the Amazon Basin." 2020. Yale School of the Environment: Global Forest Atlas. Soy Agriculture in the Amazon Basin | Global Forest Atlas (yale.edu)
