1

Elisabeth Beiter
November 1st, 2014
Lifestyle: Sustainable Eating
The Cost beyond the Price Tag
This issue of providing enough nutrients to sustain the human population was solved
when the agricultural revolution proposed the first surplus in human food. Agricultural
technology, planning, and design have been viewed as an unprecedented advancement in the
world; however, cautionary measures have not been put in place. Today, Americans consume
an overload of processed meat and other products. We have become adapted to an
unsustainable, industrialized method of food consumption. This has led to a decrease in natural
resources, landscape and an increase in food related diseases. According to the United States
Department of Agriculture, Americans at the beginning of the 21st century are consuming
more food and several hundred more calories per person per day than did their counterparts in
the late 1950s (when per capita calorie consumption was at the lowest level in the last century),
or even in the 1970s. The aggregate food supply in 2000 provided 3,800 calories per person per
day, 500 calories above the 1970 level and 800 calories above the record low in 1957 and 1958
(USDA.gov). The production on calories per person has only continued to intensify in the
present years. This increase in calorie production has affected the health of our planet and our
citizens. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention more than one-third
(34.9% or 78.6 million) of American adults are obese, notice this does not take into
consideration those facing obesity under the age of 18.
Food has become convenient, affordable, and readily available, but one question people
dont like to ask themselves is, at what cost? The industrialization of agriculture has changed
the landscape of our natural ecosystem. Massive cement aqueducts carry water hundreds of

2
miles, draining the natural source. Deserts are converted into rows of trees and fields of grain.
Livestock has been moved off the natural grasslands and moved into tight pens, better known as
confined animal feed operations, or CAFOs, where they live an unsanitary existence, never
exposed to even a single blade of grass. Cows are fed hundreds of pounds of grain to replace
their lack of natural nutrients then treated with antibiotics to help prevent disease caused by
living conditions. Emissions are released into the air expediting the consequences of global
warming. Profitability and margins override ecology, health, and welfare. This is the price for a
society of convenience.
The most significant environmental impact is generated by the meat industry. The
livestock sector faces the highest energy, land, water, and fossil fuel depletion next to all other
food sources. A single burger, weighing of a pound, depletes 6.7 pounds of grain, 52.8
gallons of water, 74.5 square feet for the production of feed crop, and an astounding 1,036 Btus
of fossil fuels (npr.org). This does not include the immense amount of emissions released by
tightly packed livestock operations. According to author A.J. Pordomigo, The livestock sector
faces the challenge to respond to the growing demand for animal protein from an expanding
population while reducing environmental impact through GHG emissions. Globally about 2.836
million tons of CO2-eq were emitted by the beef production sector equivalent to 46,2 kg CO2eq per kg carcass weight (CW) (Pordomingo, A. J.). These figures dont take into consideration
the emissions released by the machinery that performs the planting and harvesting of grain for
the livestock. Not to mention, the transportation of that grain, or the power depleted in machine
delivering that grain to each animal. A natural eating process turned completely industrial. On
average, every America consumes nearly 200 pounds of meat each year (psr.org). The red meat

3
industry, specifically, faces the highest environmental impact, as descried above, and is a
leading cause in human health issues.
The industrialization of livestock such as cows, pigs, and chickens has created a hidden
epidemic. It is estimated that non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock production accounts
for nearly 80% of all antibiotics used in the United States (CDC). This is yet another
environmental and health expense. An example of non-therapeutic drug use is the administration
of low levels of antibiotics to animals through feed and water to prevent disease and promote
growth. This is generally done to compensate for overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions
(i.e., conditions often found in confined animal feed operations, or CAFOs) and to fatten
livestock to get them to market sooner. The routine feeding of antibiotics for growth promotion
and disease prevention contributes to the presence of resistant bacteria. The mass amounts of
discharge create a massive insect infestation which only contribute to their risk of bacterial
spread. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60,000 Americans
die each year from antibiotic resistant disease. Inappropriate use and overuse of antibiotics in
human medicine is often thought of the main cause of this problem. While this phenomenon is
indeed seen in the health care sector, much of the inappropriate use comes from agriculture
(USDA).
We, as a globe, need to understand our limitation and consumers need to understand the
true cost of what we consume. Eating meat from factory-farmed plants is not sustainable. Its a
hazard to our environment and to the human body. Many of the articles I reviewed related the
increase in factory farming to the demand in animal protein. Contrary to what the public may
believe, animal protein is not the safest source. Red meat in particular proposes many risks, A
6-ounce broiled porterhouse steak is a great source of proteinabout 40 grams worth. But it

4
also delivers about 12 grams of saturated fat Processed red meat was even more strongly
linked to dying from cardiovascular disease and in smaller amounts: Every additional 1.5 ounce
serving of processed red meat consumed each day- equivalent to one hot dog or two strips of
baconwas linked to a 20 percent increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease death(Harvard
School of Health). Research has proven that processed red meat is a risky source of protein
when eaten often. According to the Harvard School of Health there are much safer sources of
animal protein, all which create much less Eco hazard than beef. In fact, 6-ounces of wild
salmon contained 34 grams of protein and is naturally low in sodium, and contains only 1.7
grams of saturated fat, a much better protein package.
Americas adaptation to meat has secured the industry for years to come. I certainly
would never try to deny someone their right to a steak, however, as consumers we need to
become more educated and aware of the source our food comes from. From health hazards to
depletion of natural resources and emissions, factory meat has a hidden cost many consumers
are blind to. I do believe there is a right way to farm livestock, in fact, a close friend of mine
lives in Butte Canyon and her family owns over 1,000 acres where they raise about 100 Beef
Cattle. She explained to me that due to the fires within California, its an asset to have the cattle
their to eat the grass down. Their cattle sustain themselves on the land without the need of any
additional grain. In fact, Animals raised on grain fed (i.e., corn, soy, etc.) diets versus a more
sustainable grass-fed diet, have been proven to have higher levels of total fat, saturated fat,
cholesterol, and calories. Additionally, some studies have found that animals raised on such a
diet have less Vitamin E and C, beta carotene, and omega-3 fatty acids compared to their grassfed counterparts (psr.org). Feeding America is hefty job, and its not realistic to expect all
livestock to roam freely on thousands of acres, however, more sustainable practices must be put

5
in place. The concept of sustainable farming is slowly starting to be seen. Sustainable
agriculture takes many forms, but at its core is a rejection of the industrial approach to food
production developed during the 20th century(National Geographic). The 20th century provided
us with advancements beyond compare, but it is now our responsibility to modify these
advancements in efforts to sustain our future.
Organizations such as The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), have
founded an alliance of grassroots organizations that advocates for federal policy reform to
advance the sustainability of agriculture, food systems, natural resources, and rural
communities. NSACs vision of agriculture is one where a safe, nutritious, ample, and
affordable food supply is produced by a legion of family farmers who make a decent living
pursuing their trade, while protecting the environment, and contributing to the strength and
stability of their communities(NSAC.org). The NSAC provides a voice and movement for
organic, local farmers. Exiting the massive scale industrialization of agriculture is going to
require organized groups such as Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and educated consumers.
Other Movements such as Certified Humane and Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) are
working to raise the living standards, well being, and health of livestock. Farms that comply
with their regulations are granted a seal on their packaged meat products.
The issue of unsustainable eating evolved when financial gain replaced animal welfare
and environmental precautionary. Livestock cannot be industrialized. Keeping these animals in
confined pens, with no natural pasture, feeding them hundreds of pounds of grains is not
progress. Consumers have an equal responsibility to eat efficiently. Chico residents, like so
many, have access to a wonderful Farmers Market that allows the community to keep their
money local and consume food free of antibiotics and pesticides. If we strive to become

6
informed consumers with higher standards for sustainability, production will be forced to move
in the right direction. Consumers and producers have a responsibility to understand limitations
and create a system that allows for a sustained future.

7
Work Cited
Austgulen, Marthe. "Environmentally Sustainable Meat Consumption: An Analysis Of
The Norwegian Public Debate." Journal Of Consumer Policy 37.1 (2014): 45-66. Business
Source Premier. Web. 6 Nov. 2014.
Rearte, D. H., and A. J. Pordomingo. "The Relevance Of Methane Emissions From Beef
Production And The Challenges Of The Argentinean Beef Production Platform." Meat Science
98.3, Sp. Iss. SI (n.d.): 355-360. Biological Abstracts 1969 - Present. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
Veysset, P., et al. "Mixed Crop-Livestock Farming Systems: A Sustainable Way To Produce
Beef? Commercial Farms Results, Questions And Perspectives." Animal 8.8, Sp. Iss. SI (n.d.):
1218-1228. Biological Abstracts 1969 - Present. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/safe-food/industrial-meat-system.html
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/sustainable-agriculture/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters
USDA.Gov
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/
http://sustainableagriculture.net/about-us/