Could you do meat-free Mondays to save the planet? Gwyneth does.

I’m trying to eat less meat. You can read about my flirtations with vegetarianism here. Not for the planet (I had only the dimmest idea that meat was bad for the planet before I read the following post) but because eating animals has never sat entirely well with me. Admittedly it sits better at some times than others…like when I’m eating a tasty sausage. But I’ve stopped eating pork, ham and bacon because, well, I like pigs. In fact I’d like to adopt one.

Here’s a guest post from Kidspot editor, Lexy Brooks:

cow 300x225 Could you do meat free Mondays to save the planet? Gwyneth does. “I subscribe to Gwyneth Paltrow’s internet newsletter called GOOP – you can check it here – and each week I get some kooky little email, often with a recipe or some new age idea she likes to share. Sometimes it’s uplifting. Sometimes it’s just plain funny (although I’m not sure it’s MEANT to be).

This morning I received her ode to Meat Free Mondays, which is something that’s been on my mind for a while. You see, I love my meat. My son Captain Dramatic proudly calls himself a carnivore. Yet ALL the environmental groups tell us we need to eat less meat to help save the planet.

I’m so not sure I can give up steak, even if the planet really needs me to. BUT I do like to do my bit where I can. I try to choose low-impact meats such as chicken, kangaroo and rabbit rather than beef or lamb (which are more carbon-intensive and technically less earth-friendly).

I am a bit of a fan of author Rebecca Blackburn, who has written a book called Green Is Good, and she says if there is ONE thing we could all do to help the planet, it isn’t to recycle, it isn’t to stop driving – it’s to eat less meat. Rebecca was the first person who told me about the idea of “Meat Free Monday”. It’s for those died-in-the wool meat lovers who don’t want to ruin the planet. It simply means that one day a week, a family commits to eating vegetarian. Now that wouldn’t kill me (although Captain Dramatic would be moaning in the corner at such an idea).

Gwyneth has caught on to the idea too. This week in Goop, she writes:

“I am not a vegetarian, but when I heard about “Meat Free Monday,” I was intrigued. I had never thought about the environmental impact of raising livestock. Below are the facts presented by Paul McCartney,”.

” In 2006, the United Nations issued a report which stated that the livestock industry as a whole was responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the whole of the transport sector put together.

“I found this interesting particularly because people at the UN are not a vegetarian society and therefore, could not be accused of bias. They pointed out the following facts:

The Livestock industry produces gases that are extremely dangerous for the future of our environment.
The two main gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are considered to be more harmful than CO2 (methane is 21 times more powerful than CO2 and nitrous oxide is 310 times more powerful than CO2) so the data suggests that this is causing a highly dangerous situation for ourselves and, more importantly, for future generations.
Methane also remains in the atmosphere for 9 to 15 years; nitrous oxide remains in the atmosphere for 114 years, on average, and is 296 times more potent than CO2 – the gases released today will continue to be active in degrading the climate decades from now.
Livestock production is land intensive: a recent report by Greenpeace on land use in the largest meat producing state in Brazil found that livestock (cattle) production was responsible for vastly more deforestation than soya.
A third of all cereal crops, and well over 90% of soya, goes into animal feed, not food for humans. Eating less meat will free up a lot of agricultural land which can revert to growing trees and other vegetation, which, in turn, will absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Livestock production is water intensive: it accounts for around 8% of global human water use. The estimated 634 gallons of fresh water required to produce one 5.2 ounce (150g) beef burger would be enough for a four-hour shower. For comparison, the same quantity of tofu requires 143 gallons of water to produce.
Livestock production is the largest source of water pollutants, principally animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops, and sediments from eroded pastures.
The meat industry is set to double its production by 2050 so even if they manage to lower emissions by 50%, as they have promised to, we will still be in the same position.”

Love, --- Gwyneth Paltrow

So when it comes to eating animal flesh do you reckon you could give it a miss? Could you join Gwyneth and give it up one day a week to make the planet a better place?

[you can follow Lexy on Twitter here and find her at Kidspot here]

Article filed under: Featured, Food & Cooking , & published: Monday, February 8th, 2010.

Jen says:

February 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm

I eat meat EVERY night (a lot of fish though) and on the rare occasion that I have made a meat free meal (usually nachos with chilli beans rather than mince) my boyfriend is confused and never feels full. In saying that I went meat free last Monday AND Friday and will be continuing for every Monday from now on

GD Star Rating
loading...

Alert Moderator

Em says:

February 11, 2010 at 2:42 pm

“The Nazi end of animal welfare” – Pardon???? Happymum, it is way more efficient for the world’s hungry to eat vegetable products instead of meat. In the US, crops for farm animals to eat use nearly half of the total water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Farm animals consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of the grain. No wonder the hungry are hungry – the farm animals are eating all the food! This is the sorry truth – the meat industry has way more of an agenda than PETA ever will.

meg says:

February 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm

Well I LOVE my steak and preferably rare, something a good butcher could maybe revive. I will never give it up.

Pip says:

February 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Hi Mambol,

Thanks for your well thought out response. You are correct in the fact that the Queensland Government report looked at just on farm practice in relation to the carbon cycle. As an industry we of course realise that our impact extends beyond the farm gate, which is why we are in the process of undertaking a series of Life Cycle Assessments (LCA). The first Australian LCA to be completed was undertaken by the University of New South Wales and was published last month in the Environmental Science &Technology Journal. This LCA looked at Southern Australian production systems and was from the paddock to the exit point of production. To date we do not have results for a complete paddock to plate LCA, however this is something that we along with many other industries are working on, as is ISO who are looking at establishing a universal system for measuring the life cycle of products – until this is done comparison between one LCA to the next is not exact. The key point from this LCA for the Australian red meat industry was that we have one of the most efficient systems of major beef producing countries in the world. The issue our industry has is that overseas and exaggerated figures are often used for local production, so hence we are undertaking a series of LCA’s which take into consideration a broader picture than the Queensland government report did.

Your suggestion that you could put a large factory in the middle of a paddock and that it would also sequester the carbon, is both improbabe and unlikely to hold up. A recent report by The United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) found that livestock grazing lands have the potential to help minimise net greenhouse gas emissions through specific practices, especially those that build soil and biomass carbon. By just having a factory in the middle of a paddock you are missing the part of the process that increases the ability of the soil to sequester carbon – the cows chewing down on the grass to enable it to continually regrow and therefore absorb more carbon than if the grass was just left to grow.

Unfortunately Mambol the science is still relatively new in this area and we are all working very hard to reduce our emissions and fully understand our emissions profile. As you can appreciate quantifying the emissions from our industry is substantially more complicated than a standard production system. You are correct in saying that we are investing significantly in R&D and I’m sorry if you got the opinion that we were claiming the industry was carbon neutral and so didn’t need to do anything to reduce our impact. What we are trying to show by reports such as the Queensland Government report is that we need to take the carbon cycle into consideration before criticising the industry – which let’s not forget produces food for human consumption, often from land that is unable to be used for producing any plant based crops.

Cheers,

Pip

Otto says:

February 10, 2010 at 6:19 pm

PETA’s ‘own’ agenda is nothing to do with financial gain. Yours is.

Happymum says:

February 10, 2010 at 10:08 am

PETA have their own agenda which is everyone stop eating animals, using any animal products – such as eggs, milk, wool, leather etc.
They will not rest until the whole world is doing what they dictate. They are the extremists who do not care for the environment as polyester and man-made fabrics are created by oil and petrochemicals. Hypocritical…
Hardly environmentally friendly!
They are out to cripple and cause destruction of human life by targeting and destroying farmers who want to produce food fore the world’s hungry. We are easy targets, as they have masses of money behind them to fight-to-the-death legal battles without any constructive or positive outcomes.
I am all for looking after animals properly and no undue suffering of animals. But they are the extreme Nazi end of Animal Welfare.

I am not seeing this from only my perspective as my husbands Aunt started Animal Liberation Australia. She has distanced herself from PETA quite a bit as she now realises that farmers do not want to cause un-neccessary suffering of their animals which are their livelihood.

Mandy says:

February 10, 2010 at 8:54 am

Yes! That was my first thought too! Six days a week is a lot of meat! I’m not a vegetarian but my partner is so I hardly buy any meat at all. I’ll buy a kilo of high quality mince meat every fortnight or so to make spaghetti bolognese and the odd chicken breast. Not into steaks or sausages. My son won’t eat meat either but I buy chicken breast and ham for his lunches. The great thing about not having a big meat shopping list means I can afford to buy top quality when I do buy it…that means free range and usually organic.

Meat free Mondays! I reckon most people could do more than that, couldn’t they?

February 9, 2010 at 11:09 pm

Paul McCartney’s OWN agenda? So you think he’s benefiting financially from getting the world to eat less meat? Or are you just assuming he gets some megalomanaical glee from feeling like he’s influencing the diets of the world?

He’s trying to help the planet.

Suddenly everyone’s a conspiracy theorist when it’s suggested they do something good for the earth.

February 9, 2010 at 11:03 pm

Umm… nitrous oxide is NOT good for you when you inhale it either. Sorry to burst your bubble. I’m not saying I wouldn’t use it as pain relief either, but it’s not ‘healthy’ to inhale it. Straight nitrous oxide causes asphyxiation after more than a few seconds, so you’re breathing nitrous oxide plus oxygen in hospital. It affects coordination, causes nausea, sleepiness, disorientation and can cause unconsciousness.

February 9, 2010 at 10:58 pm

http://www.marineconservation.org.au/WhatWeDo.asp?active_page_id=238

Above is the web address of the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s downloadable pocket sustainable seafood guide. Or better still, don’t eat any.

I think the stat is approx 1/3 of the world’s wild fish catch is for feeding farmed fish, so farmed fish are just as damaging to the environment, if not more so.

Campaign for marine sanctuaries and never eat bluefin tuna, never.

February 9, 2010 at 10:51 pm

Tracy & Happymum: you both refer to PETA & environmentalists furthering their own agenda/cause. Exactly what is this supposed to mean? Their cause is protecting animals/the planet. There is no ‘hidden’ agenda. There is no personal benefit.

Unlike people like Happymum & our friend Pip from the Meat & Livestock Association (above) who come from a meat-producing background, PETA (and any environmental group you could name) do not own vegetable farms. They are charities.

February 9, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Hear hear mabol

Subscribe to our daily updates

Recent Comments

Could you do meat-free Mondays to save the planet? Gwyneth does.

262 Responses to “Could you do meat-free Mondays to save the planet? Gwyneth does.”

Topics

Top 10 Subjects

Stay Connected

Subscribe to our daily updates

Recent Comments

Could you do meat-free Mondays to save the planet? Gwyneth does.

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like:

You might also like: