Issue date: 2/8/08 Section: Opinion

Once only associated with Birkenstock-sporting, stoned-out hippies, vegetarianism has enchanted many mainstream Americans in recent years - from Chelsea Clinton to Natalie Portman.

Indeed, the march away from meat is gradually changing the landscape of dining, with posh restaurants now offering separate vegetarian menus and even Burger King adding veggie burgers as a Meal Deal option.

Here at Penn, the case is similar. Students are increasingly abandoning turkey and bacon for "tofurkey" and "facon" and raving about it.

For instance, College junior Ameya Ananth said, "I grew up vegetarian because of my culture and family, but it's also a lifestyle I choose based on the principle of nonviolence and extending that to animals."

Another positive side effect of going meatless could be improved health - "I don't know if it's psychological or factual, but I feel healthier and I feel like I have more energy now," College sophomore Cameron Clark told me, after becoming a vegetarian.

However, what is arguably the greatest benefit of vegetarianism is also probably the least well known. Giving up meat is actually one of the most effective ways to reduce one's carbon footprint and live a greener lifestyle.

In 2006, the United Nations issued a report that American livestock operations generate more greenhouse gases than all transportation in the U.S. combined. And - heaven forbid - if you're one of those lunatics who happens to believe that global warming is real (it's okay, I do too, so at least you're in good company), that statistic is kind of a big deal.

For instance, Earth and Environmental Science professor Robert Giegengack pointed to "cows that are fattened up and slaughtered, then delivered to your house," as an example of such waste.

"Throughout the entire process, some of those expend 50 to 75 calories of energy per calorie of beef," he told me.

Seafood is no less of a culprit. "Considering fish are caught in giant boats that go out far to sea and kept in freezers … it does seem like a waste to use 75 calories of fuel to get one calorie of swordfish," he continued.

Unfortunately, livestock production is much more energy intensive and environmentally degrading than anything we, as consumers, can perceive on a superficial level.

"I think most people don't see the connection between food and greenhouse gases because it's not intuitive," said College senior and former Penn Environmental Group board member Bonnie Waring. "You just go to the supermarket, pick up your food, and you don't think about how your food plays into global ecology."

Still, the meat industry's negative impact on the environment goes beyond even excessive energy expenditures and greenhouse gas emissions.

Specifically, the feces and other wastes produced by industrial-scale animal farms often severely damage surrounding ecological structures. According to a New York Times article from last month, "manure lagoons" from hog farms pollute streams and groundwater. Clearly, that's a pretty shitty situation.

Given the magnitude of meat production and consumption in the United States, it would seem that the only way to approach livestock-driven environmental degradation is with comprehensive policy change.

"We have the most expensive food industry in the world because of our energy subsidy," Giegengack said, "but Americans spend less on food as a percentage of their income."

In other words, reducing governmental subsidies for the meat industry might help break down the pivotal role dead carcasses play in American food culture. Certainly, an all-you-can-eat homage to meat, like Philadelphia's recent Wing Bowl, probably would be less common if the costs of buying all those chickens were increased by 30 percent.

But let's be real. Congress has been trying to pass a comprehensive energy policy for years without success. Throwing in a rider that could take Angus steaks, buffalo chicken wings and spare ribs off American plates would likely cause a mutiny in both legislative chambers.

Instead, we as individual students should look to how we can play a part. The Times article states, "If Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent, it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan - a Camry, say - to the ultra-efficient Prius."

True, my daily diet of "magic meatballs" might not go a long way in reducing Penn's carbon footprint.

However, a concerted effort from all of us to diminish our meat intake could reduce local levels of livestock production and lessen environmental damages.

And who knows? Our arteries - and our globe - might just breathe a sigh of relief.

---

Lisa Zhu is a Wharton and College junior from Cherry Hill, NJ, United Minorities Council chair and Undergraduate Assembly member. Her e-mail is zhu@dailypennsylvanian.com. Zhu-ology appears Fridays.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools