The Story of Beef Production: An Environmental Justice Lens
Take a moment to think about your childhood defining dining experiences. Maybe for you this means home-cooked meals prepared by your parents in your home kitchen, occasional celebratory restaurant dinners, fun-filled cook-outs in the backyard or snack stops at a gas station during a long drive. For the average American child, there is a good chance that many of these experiences involved the consumption of beef in one of its various forms: hamburgers, steaks, beef jerky, cheeseburgers and others. I remember eating hamburgers during summer camp cook-outs every Friday at lunch. Kids swarmed to the smokey grill where the head chef was flipping juicy patties.
Meat as a Lifestyle
Self-identified carnivores and workers in the beef production industry view beef not just as a popular American food, but as a defining symbol of American culture. Due to it’s heavy social ties to our modern social scenes, it is difficult to avoid eating for the average American consumer and socialite. However, it’s large-scale social and cultural popularity comes at a cost. Beef overconsumption may have negative impacts on consumer health, animal well-being, and natural ecosystems making it a complex and multi-faceted controversy.
For example, this year, a national program that aims to address climate change and economic inequality was proposed, The Green New Deal. Popular House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a recent speech regarding the deal touches upon the extreme nature of the beef overconsumption issue,
“we’ve got to address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner.”[1]
Factory farming is a system of raising livestock using intensive methods in which cattle are confined indoors, under stressful conditions. Her statement brings to attention the realities of the classic American diet. She believes that the large-scale production of beef can have harmful effects. In turn, people have a responsibility to create impactful change by eating less meat.
Largely in response to Cortez’s inflammatory statement, Republicans have made hamburgers their symbol for rejecting the Green New Deal.[1] According to the Washington Post, Utah Representative Rob Bishop dramatically held up a burger during a news conference in Washington DC, in protest of the proposed beef limits. He emotionally cautioned his followers that if the deal is approved, eating burgers “will be outlawed,”.[12] Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina also responded in outrage that “Chick-fil-A stock will go way up” as Democrats try to “get rid of all the cows.” [1] These republicans see this democratic green proposal as an attack on American culture and our nationalistic values. Limiting beef is a violation of their intrinsic human right to freedom of food choice.
A Changing Climate
Conversely, according to climate change activists, eating hamburgers sourced from factory farming methods has innumerable larger environmental implications. In fact, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that methane is produced at an accelerated rate via factory farms as compared to alternative production methods.[2] They agree with Representative Ocasio-Cortez, they believe that factory farming and beef consumption should be limited in the name of environmental conservation.
The raising of cattle is widely associated with environmental degradation due to it’s release of greenhouse gases in a process called enteric fermentation. This is a digestive process occurring in the guts of cows where carbohydrates are broken down by microorganisms into simpler molecules. The simple molecules are then used as an energy source by the cow.[3] As a byproduct, this fermentation process releases methane (CH4) through the ruminants mouth. Furthermore, a cow raised in a stressful environment, like factory farming housing conditions, is more flatulent and releases more methane than one in a relaxed environment, like free range housing conditions.
A 2008 article by an environmental education and advocacy group, Time For Change, reported that the average cow releases roughly 100kg of methane (CH4) per year.[4] In 2018 there were 31.7 million beef cows in the United States.[2] This means that approximately three billion one hundred seventy million kg of CH4 were released from beef production in 2018. To put this number into context, it equates to the staggering weight of more than 2.4 million average-sized cars. Furthermore, roughly 9% of all United States greenhouses gases are emitted from agriculture.[8]
The release of excessive levels of greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2 are harmful to the earth because they degrade the ozone layer. The ozone layer is essential to planetary survival, acting as a protective boundary against ultraviolet radiation that is emitted by the sun. Some consequences of this boundary degradation include DNA damage, infectious disease outbreaks and mass extinctions.[7] Other climactic changes that will have profound impacts on agriculture include increased natural disaster frequency, shortened growing seasons, heightened nutrient losses in soil and decreased biodiversity. [8]
In a study of the CO2 emissions of vegetarians versus meat eaters, a United Kingdom journal article reported an average production of 7.19 kgCO2 each day by heavy meat eaters versus only 3.81 kgCO2 each day by vegetarians.[5] The American Vegan Society cites climate change as the primary environmental issue backing their campaign to eliminate the consumption of animals and animal byproducts. [10] [6] In conclusion, the excessive release of greenhouse gases via excessive meat consumption is problematic in the eyes of many environmentalists, including myself.
Environmental (In)justice
The sociological concept, environmental justice, can be applied to this climate change discussion in order to make better sense of the American meat overcosumption epidemic. Environmental justice is well explained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
“the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”.[11]
Climate change has a disproportionate impact on minority group communities, such as those of color and low income. Resource deficient and developing areas will also experience increasing difficulties in adapting to our changing global climate. This will only worsen with time due to their lack of essential resources to prepare for change. These underprivileged regions cannot afford to invest in climate mitigation efforts. Natural disasters, increased diseases and other related consequences of climate change will be fatalistic. This is an example of an environmental justice issue. The global south, who contribute relatively insignificant emissions to the global carbon budget, will experience the worst effects of climate change and will have the most difficulty in shielding themselves from harms. While developed areas, like America, who are the largest emitters of greenhouses gases will reap the least severe consequences.
It is important to distinguish between and define two different climate change strategies, mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation measures are classified as actions which are taken to reduce and curb emissions.[9] [10] Mitigation directly addresses the causes of climate change while adaptations address the impacts of climate change.[9] [10] Adaptation measures are classified as actions which are taken to decrease vulnerability to climate change effects.[9][10]. Some climate justice experts argue that high emitting countries should bear the greatest responsibilities in mitigation. [8] These nations have a responsibility to provide climate aid to needy countries therefore allowing less developed countries to prioritize survival efforts via adaptation measures. [8]
Animal Abuse
Factory farming’s greatest lifecycle flaw is that it prioritizes quantity over quality of output at the expense of basic animal welfare. According to animal rights activists, large-scale factory farmers receive a multitude of economic incentives to produce beef as quickly, efficiently, and cost effectively as possible. In order to mass produce beef at the rate required to meet market demand, factory farming usually entails the use of growth hormone injections, confined animal housing conditions, and artificial insemination of cattle. Critiques of hormone applications theorize that humans may later consume some of these harmful additives in our food. [13] The additives also harm the cow through unnatural and painful growth spurts by creating irreversible muscle damage.[13] Confined animal housing conditions are harmful to the mental health of cattle and artificial insemination is viewed as a method of “rape” by many activists. These advocates view these as extreme violations of basic rights.
The American Vegan Society on their website states,
“an animal has feelings, an animal has sensitivity, an animal has a place in life… the production of animal-source foods — all of them — and all other animal commodities involves destruction of life. This cruelty and death violates basic laws of humaneness and common decency.”[14]
In conclusion, vegans and vegetarians argue that beef consumption is immoral due to both their effects on animal welfare and environmental conservation.
Health Considerations
Issues of environmental injustice can also be represented through the analysis of fast food markets and their consumers. Fast food consumption is associated with a diet high in calories and low in nutrition.[15] [16] [17] According to a peer-reviewed 2013 piece written by student Julia Ransohoff, there are nearly 50,000 fast food chains across the country which provide easy access and low-cost to processed beef, such as hamburgers.[18] The fast food industry produces efficiently manufactured, packaged, shipped, delivered and prepared edible products. Such efficiency can lead to food overconsumption and related health problems like obesity and malnutrition.
The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) advertises on their website that low-income communities have greater availability of fast food restaurants, especially near schools. [19] [20] [21] Youngsters are easily impressionable, poorer than their parents and before a certain age should not be expected to understand the health implications of saturated fat. Yet, minors are the primary victims of the fast food industry. They are easy targets of mouth watering advertisements and are highly susceptible to the health effects of the food products. Beef is addictive due to its high concentration of saturated fat. As such, unrestrained minors are provided with easy geographical and financial access to fast food restaurants. The more they consume, the more they crave the highly saturated fatty foods
In the popular food injustice documentary, A Place at the Table directed by Lori Silverbush and Kristi Jacobson, a 5th grader from Colorado is experiencing malnutrition, the “insufficient, excessive or imbalanced consumption of nutrients” due to her families’ poor financial status.[22] The overconsumption of beef greatly contributes to this “imbalance”, in fact too much of essentially any fatty, highly processed food contributes to malnutrition. Poor nutrient balances in children may lead to developmental delays, increased susceptibility to infectious diseases and reduced social, language and physical functioning skills. [22] Due to her financial status, Rosie is at a natural health disadvantage because she lacks access to nutrient dense foods.
FRAC declares that healthy food is commonly more expensive and inaccessible to marginalized communities. These people are also less likely to have their own vehicle for grocery shopping. [23] Therefore they have substantially more difficulty acquiring nutritious food. [23] This, in turn, makes food desserts an environmental justice issue. Food desserts are regions severely lacking in fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthful whole foods, which are usually found in impoverished areas. [23] With 39.7 million impoverished Americans which equates to roughly 12% of all citizens, low-cost fast food markets are heavily relied upon by the average American, like Rosie.[24]
Conclusions
Roughly 89% of all Americans consume beef which equates to the consumption of approximately seventy-one pounds of red meat per American each year.[25] The issue with beef consumption in America is not that it is eaten but that it is overeaten. According to a study done by the Harvard School of Public Health, excessive intake of processed red meat has been shown to lead to heart disease, diabetes and even premature deaths. [11] Such data supports the vegan viewpoint that not only are we not designed to consume meat because it is a violation of our relationship with nature but also that it’s overconsumption is an even more extreme exploitation of this relationship. [14] They argue that its associated negative health problems are symbolic of this message.
Beef consumption is an issue with social and political significance, health implications, environmental consequences, and animal rights impacts. It is incredibly complex and this epidemic will only become increasingly important with worsening climate change and polarizing stakeholders in the coming years.
[1] “Why Conservatives Won’t Stop Talking About Burgers.” EaterDetroit, last modified March 1, 2019. https://www.eater.com/2019/3/1/18246220/aoc-green-deahttps://www.eater.com/2019/3/1/18246220/aoc-green-deal-burgers- backlash-creepshotl-burgers-backlash-creepshot
[2] . “USDA Strategic Goals.” USDA, 2018, accessed February 25, 2019. https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/strategic-goals
[3] . “Beef is back on the grill and its sales are heating up, too.” USA Today, last modified July 5. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/03/americans-eat-more-beef-and-meat- trend-thats-expected-continue/435331001/
[4] . “Are Cows the Cause of Global Warming,” Time For Change, last modified 2008, https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2
[5] Henning Steinfeld, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales & Cees de Haan. “Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options.” Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2006, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1B9LQQkmqMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP18&ots=LOZbUcImH&sig=rKYwgEr8JG2fWbmvBgGZAgfrijs#v=onepage&q&f=false
[6] “Go Vegan For The Animals,” American Vegan Society, accessed May 1, 2019, https://americanvegan.org/animals/.
[7] “The Facts of Ozone Depletion.” National Geographic, last modified November 14, 2018, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/
[8] David Wolfe . “Climate and Food Security.” Lecture, PLHRT 3600 from Cornell University: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Lecture, Ithaca, NY, August-September, 2018.
[9] “Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation.” USDA Technical Bulletin, 2013, http://www.usda.gov/oce/climatechange/effects_2012/CC%20and%20Agriculture%20Report%20%2802-04-2013%29b.pdf
[10] .“Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture: Abridged report.” Last modified 2014,
[11] . “Environmental Justice”. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
[12] Dino Grandoni “The Energy 202: How the hamburger became the GOP’s rallying cry against the Green New Deal,” The Washington Post, March 1, 2019.
[14] “Climate Change Can Be Reversed Now,” American Vegan Society, accessed May 1, 2019, https://americanvegan.org/environment/.
[15] Nicole Larson, Mary Story, Melissa C. Nelson, “Neighborhood environments: Disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S.,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36, (2009): 74–81.
[16] MA Pereira, AI Kartashov , CB Ebbeling, L Van Horn, ML Slattery, DR Jr Jacobs, DS Ludwig, “Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis,” PubMed 365, no. 9453 (Jan 2005):36–42.
[17] LM Powell, BT Nguyen, “Fast-food and full-service restaurant consumption among children and adolescents: effect on energy, beverage, and nutrient intake,” PubMed 167, no. 1 (Jan 2013): 14–20.
[18] “Fast Food.” N. Brown, Ed.,.http://www.pamf.org/teen/health/nutrition/fastfood.html
[19] SE Fleischhacker, KR Evenson, DA Rodriguez, AS Ammerman, “A systematic review of fast food access studies,” Obesity Reviews 12, no. 501 (2011): e460–e471.
[20] Angela Hilmers, David C. Hilmers, Jayna Dave, “Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice,” American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 9 (September 2012): 1644–1654.
[21] Y Kestens, M Daniel, “Social inequalities in food exposure around schools in an urban area,” PubMed 39, no. 1 (Jul 2010): 33–40.
[22] A Place at the Table. Directed by Lori Silverbush and Kristi Jacobson. Produced by Julie Goldman and Ryan Harrington. Performed by Jeff Bridges, Janet Poppendieck and Raj Patel. Magnolia Pictures, 2013.
[23] . “Why Low-Income and Food-Insecure People are Vulnerable to Poor Nutrition and Obesity,” Food Research and Action Center (FRACT), accessed May 1, 2019, http://frac.org/obesity-health/low-income-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-poor-nutrition-obesity
[24] “Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector: technical paper” UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2008. Last modified November 21, 2008, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/tp/08.pdf
[25] “Eat Less Meat, We’re Told. But Americans’ Habits Are Slow To Change,” National Public Radio (NPR), accessed February 26, 2019, https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/26/465431695/eat-less-meat-were-told-but-americans-habits-are-slow-to-change
