I wish to preface this post by stating that the references made to the Australian Bush Meat trade in this post are only included as a condition of republishing this material as I feel the rest of the article has merit. I do not condone or support the commercial Bush Meat trade in any way and I encourage all readers to do the same.
Being vegetarian saves cows' lives, but threatens the future of other sentient creatures.nunro
The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.
Renowned ethicist Peter Singer says if there is a range of ways of feeding ourselves, we should choose the way that causes the least unnecessary harm to animals. Most animal rights advocates say this means we should eat plants rather than animals.
It takes somewhere between two to ten kilos of plants, depending on the type of plants involved, to produce one kilo of animal. Given the limited amount of productive land in the world, it would seem to some to make more sense to focus our culinary attentions on plants, because we would arguably get more energy per hectare for human consumption. Theoretically this should also mean fewer sentient animals would be killed to feed the ravenous appetites of ever more humans.
But before scratching rangelands-produced red meat off the “good to eat” list for ethical or environmental reasons, let’s test these presumptions.
Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:
- at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein
- more environmental damage, and
- a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.
How is this possible?
Agriculture to produce wheat, rice and pulses requires clear-felling native vegetation. That act alone results in the deaths of thousands of Australian animals and plants per hectare. Since Europeans arrived on this continent we have lost more than half of Australia’s unique native vegetation, mostly to increase production of monocultures of introduced species for human consumption.
Most of Australia’s arable land is already in use. If more Australians want their nutritional needs to be met by plants, our arable land will need to be even more intensely farmed. This will require a net increase in the use of fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and other threats to biodiversity and environmental health. Or, if existing laws are changed, more native vegetation could be cleared for agriculture (an area the size of Victoria plus Tasmania would be needed to produce the additional amount of plant-based food required).
Australian cattle eat mostly pasture, reducing their environmental impact.chris runoff
Most cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture. This is usually rangelands, which constitute about 70% of the continent.
Grazing occurs on primarily native ecosystems. These have and maintain far higher levels of native biodiversity than croplands. The rangelands can’t be used to produce crops, so production of meat here doesn’t limit production of plant foods. Grazing is the only way humans can get substantial nutrients from 70% of the continent.
In some cases rangelands have been substantially altered to increase the percentage of stock-friendly plants. Grazing can also cause significant damage such as soil loss and erosion. But it doesn’t result in the native ecosystem “blitzkrieg” required to grow crops.
This environmental damage is causing some well-known environmentalists to question their own preconceptions. British environmental advocate George Monbiot, for example, publicly converted from vegan to omnivore after reading Simon Fairlie’s expose about meat’s sustainability. And environmental activist Lierre Keith documented the awesome damage to global environments involved in producing plant foods for human consumption.
In Australia we can also meet part of our protein needs using sustainably wild-harvested kangaroo meat. Unlike introduced meat animals, they don’t damage native biodiversity. They are soft-footed, low methane-producing and have relatively low water requirements. They also produce an exceptionally healthy low-fat meat.
In Australia 70% of the beef produced for human consumption comes from animals raised on grazing lands with very little or no grain supplements. At any time, only 2% of Australia’s national herd of cattle are eating grains in feed lots; the other 98% are raised on and feeding on grass. Two-thirds of cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture.
To produce protein from grazing beef, cattle are killed. One death delivers (on average, across Australia’s grazing lands) a carcass of about 288 kilograms. This is approximately 68% boneless meat which, at 23% protein equals 45kg of protein per animal killed. This means 2.2 animals killed for each 100kg of useable animal protein produced.
Producing protein from wheat means ploughing pasture land and planting it with seed. Anyone who has sat on a ploughing tractor knows the predatory birds that follow you all day are not there because they have nothing better to do. Ploughing and harvesting kill small mammals, snakes, lizards and other animals in vast numbers. In addition, millions of mice are poisoned in grain storage facilities every year.
However, the largest and best-researched loss of sentient life is the poisoning of mice during plagues.
Each area of grain production in Australia has a mouse plague on average every four years, with 500-1000 mice per hectare. Poisoning kills at least 80% of the mice.
At least 100 mice are killed per hectare per year (500/4 × 0.8) to grow grain. Average yields are about 1.4 tonnes of wheat/hectare; 13% of the wheat is usable protein. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of usable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef.
Some of this grain is used to “finish” beef cattle in feed lots (some is food for dairy cattle, pigs and poultry), but it is still the case that many more sentient lives are sacrificed to produce usable protein from grains than from rangelands cattle.
There is a further issue to consider here: the question of sentience – the capacity to feel, perceive or be conscious.
You might not think the billions of insects and spiders killed by grain production are sentient, though they perceive and respond to the world around them. You may dismiss snakes and lizards as cold-blooded creatures incapable of sentience, though they form pair bonds and care for their young. But what about mice?
Mice are far more sentient than we thought. They sing complex, personalised love songs to each other that get more complex over time. Singing of any kind is a rare behaviour among mammals, previously known only to occur in whales, bats and humans.
Girl mice, like swooning human teenagers, try to get close to a skilled crooner. Now researchers are trying to determine whether song innovations are genetically programmed or or whether mice learn to vary their songs as they mature.
“Hoping to prepare them for an ethical oversight”Nikkita Archer
Baby mice left in the nest sing to their mothers — a kind of crying song to call them back. For every female killed by the poisons we administer, on average five to six totally dependent baby mice will, despite singing their hearts out to call their mothers back home, inevitably die of starvation, dehydration or predation.
When cattle, kangaroos and other meat animals are harvested they are killed instantly. Mice die a slow and very painful death from poisons. From a welfare point of view, these methods are among the least acceptable modes of killing. Although joeys are sometimes killed or left to fend for themselves, only 30% of kangaroos shot are females, only some of which will have young (the industry’s code of practice says shooters should avoid shooting females with dependent young). However, many times this number of dependent baby mice are left to die when we deliberately poison their mothers by the millions.
Replacing red meat with grain products leads to many more sentient animal deaths, far greater animal suffering and significantly more environmental degradation. Protein obtained from grazing livestock costs far fewer lives per kilogram: it is a more humane, ethical and environmentally-friendly dietary option.
So, what does a hungry human do? Our teeth and digestive system are adapted for omnivory. But we are now challenged to think about philosophical issues. We worry about the ethics involved in killing grazing animals and wonder if there are other more humane ways of obtaining adequate nutrients.
Relying on grains and pulses brings destruction of native ecosystems, significant threats to native species and at least 25 times more deaths of sentient animals per kilogram of food. Most of these animals sing love songs to each other, until we inhumanely mass-slaughter them.
Former Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Michael Kirby, wrote that:
“In our shared sentience, human beings are intimately connected with other animals. Endowed with reason and speech, we are uniquely empowered to make ethical decisions and to unite for social change on behalf of others that have no voice. Exploited animals cannot protest about their treatment or demand a better life. They are entirely at our mercy. So every decision of animal welfare, whether in Parliament or the supermarket, presents us with a profound test of moral character”.
We now know the mice have a voice, but we haven’t been listening.
The challenge for the ethical eater is to choose the diet that causes the least deaths and environmental damage. There would appear to be far more ethical support for an omnivorous diet that includes rangeland-grown red meat and even more support for one that includes sustainably wild-harvested kangaroo.
Thanks to many colleagues including Rosie Cooney, Peter Ampt, Grahame Webb, Bob Beale, Gordon Grigg, John Kelly, Suzanne Hand, Greg Miles, Alex Baumber, George Wilson, Peter Banks, Michael Cermak, Barry Cohen, Dan Lunney, Ernie Lundelius Jr and anonymous referees of the Australian Zoologist paper who provided helpful critiques.
At the time of original publication Mike Archer AM did not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and had no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published at The Conversation.
By Mike Archer AM, Professor, Evolution of Earth & Life Systems Research Group at UNSW Australia
Read the original article.
O² Bar Oxygen Station – Darling HarbourPhoto: Tee Kay
Thomas Henry (26 October 1734 – 18 June 1816) was a surgeon, apothecary and Fellow of the Royal Society of England. In 1776 he speculated, tongue in cheek, that Joseph Priestly’s newly discovered dephlogisticated air (now called oxygen) might become “as fashionable as French wine at the fashionable taverns”. He did not expect, however, that tavern goers would “relish calling for a bottle of Air, instead of Claret”
Well to some extent that is exactly what is happening. Bring on the O² Bar, the first of which opened in Toronto, Canada, in 1996 and now we have two here in Australia and more on the way.
For around $1 per minute an O² Bar is a kiosk that offers internet access (via iPads) and “non-medical” oxygen which, in Australia, is 90% oxygen mixed with various aromas and comes complete with claims, including at least two of which are therapeutic, of:
- increased energy
- an uplifted refreshing feeling
- clearing the mind
- relief of toxic headaches such as hangovers
- relief of stress
- promotion of higher concentration levels
- anti-aging properties.
Of the four primary layers of atmosphere it is Earth’s troposphere which contains the air we inhale and it is roughly composed of:
- 78% nitrogen
- 21% oxygen
- 0.96% argon
- 0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases
Whilst oxygen is the essential component of all breathing gases the use of O2 bars may well be just an expensive way to browse the internet. According to Wikipedia, “…no long-term, well-controlled scientific studies have confirmed any of the proponents’ claims. Furthermore, the human body is adapted to 21 percent oxygen, and the blood exiting the lungs already has about 97 percent of the oxygen that it could carry bound to hemoglobin(sic). Having a higher oxygen fraction in the lungs serves no purpose, and may actually be detrimental.”
Hyperoxia results from breathing high partial pressures of oxygen causing an excess of oxygen in body tissues and can lead to oxygen toxicity. Oxygen toxicity is characterised by visual and hearing abnormalities, unusual fatigue, muscular twitching, anxiety, confusion, in-coordination, and convulsions.
In the United States of America the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, states that any type of oxygen used by people for breathing and administered by another person is a prescription drug. Therefore the drug oxygen is covered by Section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)). and Oxygen bars are prohibited from making medical claims in relation to supplementary Oxygen.
In Canada, the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists simply says that “As health professionals, we cannot ethically or morally support providing oxygen therapy to those who do not require it”
In Australia the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which is part of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, is responsible for regulating therapeutic goods including medicines, medical devices, blood and blood products. The TGA website states “Essentially, any product for which therapeutic claims are made must be listed, registered or included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) before it can be supplied in Australia.”
According to the TGA document “Australian medical devices guidance document number 35” there is no mention of a division between medical or non-medical oxygen and as such it is referred to simply as “Oxygen”. The status for oxygen in the ARTG is that of “Medicine”, which certainly gives at least the appearance that regardless of its source the supply of oxygen is covered by TGA regulations and especially when any therapeutic claims are made.
When initially approached for a statement regarding Oxygen Bars a ‘spokeswoman’ for the TGA advised The Kritic that “Oxygen gas may only be considered a medicine if it is intended for therapeutic purposes.” Apropos the previously listed claims of relief of headaches and relief of stress would indeed see the oxygen supplied by an O² Bar as meeting the definition of a therapeutic good, or so you would think. The TGA have this little rider hidden within their regulations – “Some products, even though they may technically meet the definition of a therapeutic good, are declared not to be therapeutic goods under section 7 of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
The ‘spokeswoman’ continued with “The oxygen bar products do not appear to use medical grade (regulated) oxygen, and would therefore be considered non-therapeutic oxygen. Even products used to deliver non-therapeutic oxygen, such as a mask or tube, would not be considered a therapeutic product, and would therefore not be regulated by the TGA.” Medical grade (regulated) oxygen?? According to their own document – “Australian medical devices guidance document number 35” there is no division between medical or non-medical oxygen or any other flavour of oxygen.
The response finished with a suggestion that The Kritic take it up with State authorities of which three were suggested:
1. NSW Health Department
2. Department of Fair Trading
3. ACCC – Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Which is actually a federal body.)
After explaining the reason for my enquiry I had quite a lengthy discussion with a spokesperson for the NSW Health Department – Pharmserv division and he stated categorically that Oxygen is not listed as a poison therefore this matter does not fall under the purview of the NSW Health Department. Additionally he stated that “given the proponents are making quite obvious therapeutic claims that I should take the matter back to the TGA.”
Fair Trading NSW basically gave me the same run around, it is nothing to do with them unless I can prove the misleading claims and suggested it would be better if I took it up with the TGA as the governance of goods making therapeutic claims lies with that department.
The ACCC simply stated that this is not a matter for the ACCC and suggested, as with the other departments, that I take the matter with the TGA.
In a further enquiry to the TGA, The Kritic pointed out the incongruity between the statement provided and the information from the website. It was also pointed out that the above three departments, those recommended by the TGA, state that governance of this matter lies with the TGA. The following question was also included: “Is the TGA now prepared to assess, for safety or efficacy, the therapeutic benefits claimed by Oxygen Bars?” To which the following response was received: “Our original response to you stands.”
So if you decide to patronise one of these Oxygen Bars and spend $60.00 an hour on flavour infused oxygen do so with the knowledge that there is no department in Australia overseeing the use of Oxygen or Oxygen supply products and the ingredients of the various aromas in these premises and despite the fact that relevant agencies overseas have misgivings over the use of excess oxygen and the contents of some or all of the aromas nobody here seems to give a damn.
 Wikipedia – Thomas Henry (apothecary) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_(apothecary)
 O2 bar Health _benefit claims – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O2_bar#Health_benefit_claims
 Section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)) – http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124716.htm#GLOSSARY
 Therapeutic Goods Administration – http://www.tga.gov.au/about/tga.htm
 Australian medical devices guidance document number 35 (Page 9, 5. Body fluid replacements and nutrients: Oxygen & other medical gases Status for ARTG: Medicine) – http://www.tga.gov.au/pdf/devices-guidelines-35.pdf
Much of Australia’s waste plastic is ending up in the ocean, and in fish.Photo: John Schneider
Each square kilometre of Australian sea surface water is contaminated by around 4,000 pieces of tiny plastics, according to our study published today in journal PLOS ONE and data repository Dryad.
These small plastic fragments, mostly less than 5mm across, are loaded with pollutants that can negatively affect several marine species, from tiny fish and zooplankton to large turtles and whales.
Plastic pollution hazards to Australian species and ecological communities are therefore likely broader than those officially recognised.
Understanding the plastic pollution issue
Unfortunately, part of our plastic waste winds up in the oceans. Plastics can be transported from populated areas to the marine environment by rivers, wind, tides, rainwater, storm drains, sewage disposal, and flooding, or can directly reach the sea from boats and offshore installations.
Throughout their marine journey, plastics break down into increasingly smaller pieces mostly due to the effect of sunlight and heat.
These plastic fragments, commonly called microplastics when smaller than 5mm, represent the vast majority of human-made debris present at beaches, seafloor, and in the water column.
The effects of plastics on food webs and ecosystems have become focus of concern over the last decade. It is now known that over half of our plastic objects contain at least one ingredient classified as hazardous.
To make matters worse, plastics that enter the oceans become increasingly toxic by adsorbing oily pollutants on their surface. When plastic is ingested, these concentrated toxins can be delivered to animals and transferred up their food chains.
This biomagnification of toxins is more likely to occur when plastics are small enough to be ingested by low trophic fauna, such as small fish and zooplankton.
These tiny ocean plastics may affect the health of entire food webs, which include humans. For instance, little plastic pieces were found in the stomach of some Southern Bluefin tuna captured off Tasmania and destined for human consumption.
What kind of plastic and where does it come from?
Until now, plastic contamination in Australian waters was mostly inferred from beach clean-up reports. There was no at-sea survey focused on sampling plastic debris in waters around this country.
I wanted to fill this gap. During my PhD research, I went on seven transit voyages aboard three Australian vessels: RV Southern Surveyor, RV Solander, and Comac Enterprise.
During these trips, I used a net called Manta Net to catch floating plastics at the ocean surface.
Small fragments of hard plastic were the most common type, but soft plastics, such as fragments of wrappers, and strings (mostly fishing lines) were also common.
Size and types of marine plastics collected around Australia. Examples of each plastic type are shown in the photos. Image: PLOS ONE
These plastics were mostly made of polyolefins (polyethylene and polypropylene). These polymers account for 52% of our plastic production and are typically used to make throwaway packaging. They are also used for manufacturing fishing equipment such as crates, nets, ropes, and lines.
Our overall mean sea surface plastic concentration was 4,256.4 plastic pieces per km2. This mean value is higher than those reported for other regions, such as the Caribbean Sea (1,414 pieces per km2) and Gulf of Maine (1,534 pieces per km2).
However, in the subtropical gyres, plastics tend to accumulate due to converging ocean currents, and mean plastic concentrations are higher: from 20,328 pieces per km2 in the North Atlantic Gyre, to 334,271 pieces per km2 in the North Pacific Gyre. The Mediterranean Sea is also a global hotspot for plastics: it has around 116,000 plastics per km2.
We observed higher plastic concentrations close to major Australian cities (Sydney, Brisbane) and industrial centres (Karratha) as well as in remote areas where ocean currents converged (such as south-west Tasmania).
Marine plastic concentrations in waters around Australia. White crosses indicate location of major Australian cities. Image: PLOS ONE
These observations, along with our ocean current modelling results, indicate that marine plastics reach Australian waters from multiple sources: domestic and international populated areas, as well as maritime operations.
Plastics, made mostly of oil and gas, are cheaper than the natural materials they replace for the manufacture of many objects, such as packaging and fishing gear.
As a result, incentives to re-use or recycle every-day items have decreased over the last few decades. Meanwhile plastic production has increased from 1,700,00 tonnes in 1950 to 280,000,000 tonnes in 2011.
In Australia, 1,476,690 tonnes of plastics were used in 2011-2012, of which just 20.5% was recycled. Most of these plastics (around 37%) were used for manufacturing single-use disposable packaging, including plastic bottles, cups, and bags.
Marine plastic pollution is a global issue caused by our massive production of plastic waste. The solution for this recent environmental problem is not simple.
We believe there are three important steps. First, decrease plastic waste: this could be achieved by reducing production of single-use plastic packaging. Second, improve our plastic disposal practices on land at an international level. And last, better enforce the laws prohibiting dumping of plastics at sea.
Julia Reisser is a PhD candidate at the University of Western Australia, and receives funding and support from the University of Western Australia and CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship.
Charitha Pattiaratchi does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.
This article was originally published at The Conversation.
By Julia Reisser, University of Western Australia and Charitha Pattiaratchi, University of Western Australia
Read the original article.