Exploring the WHY in Animal Consumption and Industrial Animal Agriculture
The second-largest contributor to human-made greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollution, deforestation, and biodiversity loss all stems from one problem in the US; industrial animal agriculture. It’s not a new problem; over the past 40 years, the United States has industrialized operations, replacing the balance of smaller, diversified farming with harmful systems that affect the environment. To make matters worse, the amount of stakeholders within industrial animal agriculture is endless. Because many consumers watch their budget, people are quick to go to factory farms because they produce cheap products, which is something that many people don’t want to pay the extra dollars on. The effects of the industry only focusing on budgeting and cheap products provides problems such as climate change and other environmental issues such as, but not limited to, water pollution, air pollution, animal abuse, and industrial worker abuse. I had the opportunity to interview people and places that are stakeholders and/or have opinions on industrial animal agriculture, where I learned and observed a glimpse of what the effects are on people and places on Earth.
The first approach I took to gain more insight into industrial animal agriculture was by interviewing places. I had the opportunities to interview different animal-filled pastures in Ellis County as well as an hour-long interview in Whole Foods in Austin, TX. In my fieldwork, there were two main questions that I feel would give me more of an understanding on the topic of industrial animal agriculture, primarily on why although many know that the topic is the number one concern for other issues like climate change and water and air pollution, yet society says that animal consumption is a need. The two questions I explored are 1. Why isn’t industrial animal agriculture spoken more about how it’s the number one leader in climate change? And 2. What changes do you think you could make individually when it comes to animal consumption?
While visiting a nearby farm in my hometown, I observed cattle roaming free in about 100 acres. Because I know this area, I know that about 5% of these cattle are used to be killed for grass-fed beef, while the rest are raised to be sold to have babies. However, this farm is a small farm that raises its cows in a more humane way than what’s done in bigger industrial factory farms. While observing the space, I recognized that the energy was peaceful, and to my senses, the cows seemed at ease and happy in their land. The grass was plentiful, the cows had room to roam, and the owners do a good job at taking care of these animals. Observing this place helped me identify my second question on the changes individuals can make with animal consumption. My primary thought was this: although the observed cattle are raised healthily and humanely, this is a small factor of the cattle that are actually raised horrifically to be consumed. It’s proven that humans don’t need meat, and there needs to be a change in the system.
I also found myself spending an hour in Whole Foods market the same weekend for an hour and a half. Here, I found many animal substitutions such as plant substitutes and creative solutions to eating more holistically without the use of animals. This helped me identify my second question, and I concluded that the benefits of not consuming animals far outweigh the ten minutes people take to eat a cheeseburger.
Additionally, I engaged in the process of interviewing two people who have some knowledge about industrial animal agriculture and animal consumption. First, I met with my friend, Ali Rolnik, a vegetarian and sustainability guru, on her beliefs on animal consumption. She decided to be a vegetarian in fourth grade after learning about the harm animal consumption does to the environment. Because she’s extremely environmentally cautious, she helped me get a better understanding of my first question, why isn’t industrial animal agriculture spoken more about how it’s the number one leader in climate change. Ali helped me gain more insight on the thought that because we’ve been taught to consume meat for so long, it’s easier to blame climate change and other factors on fossil fuels rather than taking a bigger step and ending animal consumption.
I also interviewed my mother who has learned more about sustainable farming and small farming. She believes that animal consumption is necessary for some people and beneficial to a healthy diet, but she also believes in having safe and friendly practices in animal agriculture. However, after showing her the documentary, Cowspiracy, she did start to question her thoughts on animal consumption. She was shocked to find the amount of water consumption and other devastating downfalls that take place in factory farming. However, I’m not sure that it was enough to end her habits of animal consumption. Personally, though, I do believe even taking an hour to discuss the environmental impact on industrial animal agriculture helped her get a better understanding of the terrors that come with it. In conclusion, it was refreshing to see that taking a few moments to educate people on this topic could very much make a difference for the future of our Earth.
To gain more clarity on industrial animal agriculture, I explored a class reading to help me explore questions about the why on industrial animal agriculture. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor by Rob Nixon helped me explore the question of why we still use industrial animal agriculture. “Slow violence,” according to Nixon, is a “violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all” (Nixon). Industrial animal agriculture is slow violence. Most humans believe in the need for animal consumption. They choose the belief of using it for survival versus taking the liberty to explore that plant-based eating can be more sustainable than meat consumption for the earth. This reading helped me answer the questions I intended to explore through my field research. First, I observed more on why industrial animal agriculture is not spoken more about why it’s the number one leader in climate change. The answer is simply this: it’s easier to convince humans that fossil fuels are the number one leader in climate change than limiting or abolishing a practice that is used unnecessarily for the benefit of humans to consume food for enjoyment rather than necessity. The second question I answered was focused on changes individuals can make on the topic of one’s own animal consumption. Since animal consumption is purely a choice, not a necessity, making changes in our diets to have the benefits of cleaner air and water, healthier animals and industry workers, as well as healthier bodies far outweigh the benefits of the tastes of chicken fried steak and a glass of milk. Substituting cow milk for nut milk or switching to plant protein rather than animal protein — these are all small changes we can make to have a planet that lives longer than expected.
In conclusion, participating in fieldwork has impacted my capacity to write environmentally due to the long process of observing and asking questions. Oftentimes, when asked to write, I collect only facts rather than focusing on differing opinions and stances as well as feelings. Participating in fieldwork helped me gain insight into the opposing views of industrial animal agriculture and relate it to readings from class. It also helped me, personally, find changes that I want to make daily to support a lifestyle that is environmentally focused.
Works Cited
Nixon, Rob. “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor.” 2011, doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674061194.
