Vegetables. Irresistibly Edible. Indisputably Digestible. Suitably Equitable.
Is Meat-Eating Necessary?
Efficient Resource Usage
Food And Health
In 1999 217 million tons of meat were produced for human consumption worldwide,
with pastures for animals, along with land used to produce animal fodder, making
up somewhere between one quarter and a third of all
of the land on the planet. In most developed countries, more than 50% of the land
available to agriculture is used for rearing livestock for meat and growing fodder
for that livestock. In the UK more than 80 per cent of agricultural land is used
to produce meat either directly or indirectly. (And even though meat production in
the UK is heavily subsidised, it accounts for only 1.5 per cent of the UK's gross
national product). Globally meat consumption has increased by 43 per cent in the
10 years from 1988 to 1998.
This short paper looks at some of the knock-on effects of this widespread
desire for meat.
The Environment: 'Think Globally, Act Locally'
Human beings consume a lot of food. So if an individual makes changes to their
diet of an 'ethical consumerism' kind, the effects of these changes in the
world at large will have an impact. This first section looks at some of the
environmental effects of meat-eating.
In the USA, the effect of agriculture on water pollution is more pronounced than any
other factor, including all other forms of industry. The main problem is nitrogen,
also as nitrogen oxide (NO) nitrate (...NO4) or ammonia (NH3).
In Western Europe ammonia from the excrement of livestock is causing damage to
forests. This ammonia is a significant factor in what we have come to know as 'acid
rain', a major problem in certain areas of Western Europe. In 1992, a research committee
of the German Bundestag estimated that 80 per cent of global NH3 emissions originates in livestock production.
Intensive livestock farming often creates large quantities of liquid manure, a small but
significant proportion of which tends to find it's way into the ground where water
supplies may be threatened. In some low-lying areas such as Holland and East Anglia
in the UK, excessive nitrogen in rivers, lakes and underground water from liquid manure
(and also from nitrate fertilisers, which is another problem) has been causing
particular concern. There are potential health costs to human beings as well as damage
caused to aquatic ecosystems. Every year in the UK more than 2,000 serious water
pollution incidents can be linked directly to 'industrial' livestock farming, and
Europe-wide, it is estimated that around 50 per cent of all water pollution is due to
problems caused by livestock.
Again, in certain low-lying areas where livestock production is particularly intense
(such as some areas of Holland) over-acidification of the soil due to the presence
of too much liquid manure from livestock has become a significant problem.
Even if we continue to eat meat, however, There are other, better ways of doing things
in this regard. As John Sheffield of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US has said:
'Animal manure has value. The United States produces 1.4 billion tons of wet manure
a year, or more than 200 million tons in dry weight. The solids have value: as fertilizer, because it is rich in phosphates, and as an energy source. Those 200 million tons of manure contain energy equal to the energy in about 100 million tons of coal, roughly 10 percent of
US annual coal use.' Waste treatment systems can capture methane gas from anaerobic
digestion of manure, or through gasification or burning to provide an energy source to
produce electricity and process heat. After undergoing these processes, the manure will
have lower concentrations of polluting phosphates and also will have much reduced levels pathogens and antibiotics, allowing it to be recycled more readily.'
It's 'early days' yet, but we are likely to see this kind of approach more and more
as time goes by. Even the chemicals given to factory-farmed animals are turning out to be
a problem: huge quantities of antibiotics are used, partly to combat disease
in live animals (when often the conditions created by factory farming are themselves responsible for the potential increase in infectious diseases), partly to help 'fatten up' animals and partly also to help prolong the shelf-lives of meat products in shops.
On the other hand, salmonella poisoning (for instance) remains an intermittent but
serious problem. And the main reason for this is that these new strains of salmonella
tend to be difficult to treat because they are resistant to antibiotics. (With
over-use of the antibiotics heping to create the resistance).
Many farm animals are also fed growth-promoting hormones and appetite stimulants along
with other undesirable chemicals that accumulate in the meat of the animal. So whilst
these chemicals may be harmful to the environment, they may also be harmful to those
people who, at the end of the day, eat the meat: there is recent speculation in the
scientific community that there may be a link between the falling sperm counts in
most of the 'developed' countries, and the chemicals put into meat.
As the global demand for meat increases, so more and more forest is gobbled up too.
According to the WorldWatch Institute, between 1970 and 2000 more than 20 million
hectares of tropical forest were flattened in order that the land should be used
as pastures for cattle. (1 hectare is equivalent to about 2.5 acres). Unfortunately
logging operations are responsible for even more forest decimation, such that the
total loss of natural forests worldwide is running at 16 million hectares per year.
And at this rate there will be no rainforests left on earth between 50 and 100
years from now.
The Greenhouse Effect.
'The contributions of cattle breeding to the hothouse effect are about the same as
for the total of automobile traffic, if we take into consideration clearing of forests
for cattle and for fodder'.
. Methane is one of the three gases thought to contribute most to the greenhouse effect
(along with carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide). The 1.3 billion livestock cattle
worldwide are responsible for 12% of methane gas emissions, or 115 million tonnes per
year. A single cow will excrete around 60 litres of methane per day.
The populations of most of the common species of fish eaten in Europe and the USA
are under serious threat from overfishing.
For instance stocks of cod in both the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean have now been
overfished to the point where it would take many years for the population to recover
even if no more of these fish were fished at all in that time (this is a situation
referred to as 'outside safe biological limits'). But not only have we in Britain and
the EU devastated to North Sea cod population by not fishing in a sustainable
manner, now we are exporting this problem to the developing world as well: for instance
the EU paid the Mauritanian government £300m to fish in its waters between 2001 and 2006,
even though these stocks are already badly depleted as well.
A study commissioned by the Mauritanian government shows that as a result these EU
incursions the number of people employed in traditional octopus fishing in Mauritania
has fallen from nearly 5,000 in 1996 to about 1,800 in 2001. Currently (2002) the EU has
it's eyes on the fish in the waters off Bangladesh. However, as Klaus Toepfer, executive
director of United Nations Environment Programme pointed out
'it is vital that the unsustainable fishing of the past and the present is not
exported to the developing world.'
For every pound of commercial catch caught in 'trawling' nets, 10 to 20 pounds of
'bycatch' (that is, unwanted, 'waste' catch) is caught and thrown away.
Longlines (fishing lines up to 80 miles long, which carry several thousand baited
hooks at a time) are responsible for the deaths of an estimated estimated 180,000 birds
'Despite the fact that most of the world's fisheries are in trouble due to overfishing, fisheries mismanagement, and pollution, fishermen routinely blame seals for reduced
catches. Complaints by fishermen often lead to seal slaughters or "culls," which are
crude and cruel attempts to boost fishery yields. However, there is little scientific
evidence that seal slaughters help replenish fish stocks. In fact, removing large
numbers of seals may actually hurt fish stocks, as other animals usually eaten by seals
also eat commercial fish or compete with them for the same food'
In 1986 an estimated 133,000 dolphins were killed because of tuna fishing. The number
of dolphin casualties from tuna fishing went down year on year until 1988, when a mere
2,000 deaths were reported (although the real figure may have been higher). In 1999
however, new guidelines on the use of the phrase 'dolphin-friendly' have been introduced
(that sanction use of the term even when the techniques used incur huge numbers of
dolphin casualties) and dolphin deaths are increasing again as a result.
155,000 sea turtles drown in shrimp nets each year. Most of these belong to one or
another 'endangered' species of turtle.
Food and politics have always been intertwined. In particular, food issues are at the
heart of relationships between the developing world and the 'first' world. For instance
'Poor countries bought 68 percent of last year's  U.S. weapons output. US arms
makers signed contracts for some 18.6 billion dollars in 2000, up from around 12.9
billion dollars the previous year. US contracts accounted for 49.7 percent of global
sales last year.
'Much of the protein wasted on the livestock eaten by the West comes from the poor
countries; oilseeds and peanuts from West Africa, fishmeal from Peru, soybeans from
'In Senegal a subsidiary of the giant American transnational Bud Antle ... has
established huge irrigated "garden plantations" on land from which peasants have
been moved. These plantations produce vegetables in the winter and feed
for livestock (for export) in the summer. None of this produce is eaten in Senegal.'
'This process is occurring across all of North Africa. In Ethiopia in an area where
thousands of people were evicted to make way for agribusiness and then starved to
death, international firms are producing alfalfa to feed livestock in Japan.
Until recently Senegal also had an agreement with the EU whereby EU fishing fleets
were given right of access to Senegali waters in return for a couple of hundred million dollars, even though fish stocks were dangerously low there already. Currently two-thirds
of Senegal's export earnings come from the fish exported to Europe. However, whilst
traditionally fish has been one of the most important parts of the diet in coastal
communities, increasingly it is simply no longer available because stocks are so low.
'Much of the Third World's productive capacity has become geared to the demand of
the developed countries. This is most evident in the case of export crops. In some
countries half of the best land grows crops to export to the rich countries. This is
a direct consequence of allowing the highest bid to determine the uses to which the
Third World's productive capacity is put. These export applications of Third World
productive capacity yield to the people of the Third World only minute proportions of
the wealth generated. For instance in Central America a 3000 hectare cattle ranch might
provide (very low) incomes for only 2 people, yet one hectare of intensive home garden
might feed 5-10 people.'
In 1960 rich world average income was 20 times poor world income.
In 1980 rich world average income was 46 times poor world income.
In 1990 rich world average income was 55 times poor world income.
Source: World Development Reports, World Bank.
Between 1963 and 1985, the World Bank loaned 1.5 billion US dollars to the
livestock businesses of Latin America...
'Even if the growth rate of the poor countries doubles, only 7 would close the gap
with the rich nations in 100 years. Only another 9 would reach our level in 1000
If you go vegetarian these problems will not disappear overnight, but making such
a committment will surely be a step in the right direction.
The question here is 'why cause suffering to animals, either directly or indirectly,
if you do not have to do that?'. All to often the 'factory-farming' techniques
invloved in the rearing, transportation and slaughter of animals destined for the
table do cause suffering. Generally, this suffering is hidden from the public;
understandably perhaps as often the reality is nightmarish. Laws covering 'health and
safety' and 'animal welfare' seem to have barely made a dint in the horrors inflicted
on animals bred for their meat. Agribusiness treats animals as commodities, not living,
Even in 'developed' countries such as Britain and the US one finds up to six egg-laying hens
placed in wire battery cages that have a floor area of little more than 2 square feet.
Living in such conditions leads to lameness, bone brittleness, osteoporosis, and muscle
weakness in the hens. It 'pays' to put a lot of birds in a cage because chickens are
cheap, while cages and floorspace are reelatively expensive.
In 1888, the average farm hen laid 100 eggs per year in 1998, it was 256.
At the end of a laying cycle, sometimes food and water is denied for several days in
order to shock a hen's body into (unnaturally) initiating another laying cycle.
Egg-producing battery farms have no use for male chicks, so they are killed (usually
by suffocation in plastic bags). Chickens raised for meat are selectively bred and
genetically altered to produce bigger thighs and breasts. However this makes them so
heavy that often the bones cannot support the bird's weight, making it difficult for
them to stand. They are also 'encouraged' to grow so rapidly and unnaturally (generally
reaching their market weight of 3.5 pounds in seven weeks) that many die from
congestive heart failure. Beaks and toes may well be 'docked' to reduce the damage
to birds from infighting (the overcrowded conditions increasing a birds' aggression).
But even industry researchers have pointed out that
'neurophysiological and behavioral
observations provide indirect evidence that beak-trimming of pullets causes pain which
apparently persists for weeks or even months.'
Breeding sow pigs are pregnant for most of their adult lives, and they confined in
farrowing crates that measure just two feet by six feet. The sows cannot walk, turn
around, or even lie down comfortably. Over 70 per cent of factory-farmed pigs suffer
painful foot and leg injuries, irritating skin mange, and chronic respiratory diseases.
Many pigs die in transit from a to b, as one worker testified:
'over 250 hogs show up
dead at packing plants every day. Death losses during transport are too high. But it
doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out why we load as many hogs on a truck
as we do. It's cheaper.'
And then there are beef cattle, veal calves and dairy cows. Take a look at the
vegan outreach page
for more information on what goes in the world of factory farming, if you dare.
Is Meat-Eating Necessary?
Human beings are technically 'omnivores' as our bodies are capable of digesting both
meat and vegetable matter (but not grass, unfortunately!).
Forest apes have varied diets. They tend to be mostly vegetarian, with some
protein obtained from insects, birds eggs, small reptiles and the like.
15 million years ago our forest ape ancestors were most definitely NOT carnivores
in the true sense of the word. They were vegetarians who ate a little meat, if
catching it required little or no effort. (It has often been pointed out that a
gorrilla's large canine teeth emphatically suggest carnivorous habits:
this is not the case -a gorilla's canines are there mainly for show:
to impress and scare off other individuals in competition situations: gorillas
are mostly vegetarian).
It was around 15 million ago years that climate changes catalysed a global
reduction in the amount of forest cover. Some species of ape (gorillas, gibbons,
etc) stayed in the forest, while other species, the precursors of homo sapiens,
gradually moved out onto the plains to take their chances there. This move
from forest to savannah seems to have led to our ancestors eating more meat,
as in those circumstances it was the easiest way of satisfying their needs.
Around a million years ago further steps down the carnivorous road appear
to have been taken with the development of cooperative hunting techniques
where animals were tracked and brought down by teams using weapons.
So homo sapiens, who first appeared around 150,000 years ago, represents
a vegetarian-turned-carnivore, adapting to circumstances as necessary. We
are not innately carnivorous (with some current human societies having
had almost no contact with meat for thousands of years) and, as those of us
reading this on a computer can get hold of protein and other nutrients by other
means, there is no way it can be said that we need to eat meat.
If we miss out on one or two nutrients (such as B12) then it's easy to
get them from other sources (eg from various yeast-extract '...mite' products
or from supplements). Are we more in charge of our own destinies than our
prehistoric ancestors were? We have a choice.
In many latter-day human societies meat-eating is, or was, the exception
not the rule: that is, the occasion would be a special one. Often this would
be the case because economically, meat was a luxury.
In present-day Japan meat tends to be a garnish at meal time and not the
main food event. One study found that populations of Eskimos, Greenlanders and
Russian Kurgis had among the highest intakes of flesh foods. These groups also had
the lowest life expectancies. Conversely populations of Hunzas, East Indian
Todas, Russian Caucasians and Yucatan Indians, who ate little or no meat at all,
were found to have the highest life expectancies.
The World Health Organization has estimated that a human being's minimum daily protein
requirement is around 5 percent of the daily intake of calories. This is equivalent
to 37 grams of protein per day for an active male and 29 grams for an active female.
It is not difficult to obtain this much protein, present as it is in the majority
of non-meaty foodstuffs. Put another way it is extremely difficult to design a
vegetarian diet deficient in proteins (without recourse to a diet of sugar, jam
Although protein is essential, too much causes problems. As meat is digested,
the liver, pancreas and kidneys have to work harder to deal with the after-effects.
It used to be said that meat protein was superior to protein obtained from any other
source, but now it is known that the reverse is true: the proteins found in vegetables,
fruit, seeds, and nuts tend to be smaller molecules that are more easily digested
by the body, producing less toxic wastes in the process. The body is nonetheless
still able to use plant proteins for it's own synthetic adventures just as
easily. Animal proteins tend to lead to an increase in blood cholesterol, whereas
vegetable proteins tend to reduce it. In the United States, per-capita meat
consumption is now more than 2 kilograms a week, a full 8 times more than
the World Health Organization's recommended 37g per-day minimum daily protein requirement
(for men: the figure for women is even less: see above).
Efficient Resource Usage
It takes a lot of land, relatively speaking, to produce 1kg of meat per year.
The same amount of land could produce
200 kg of tomatoes or
160 kg of potatoes or
20 kg of cherries or
120 kg of carrots or
80 kg of apples
This same 1kg of meat will require between 2000 and 3000 litres of water
to produce, whereas growing a kilo of grain requires only 100 litres of water.
When fed to livestock, 7 to 16 kilo of vegetable matter is needed to produce 1 kilo
of meat. Clearly rearing livestock is a very inefficient way of creating protein.
Calculating a simple measure by which to compare the relative efficiency of i)
creating protein from meat and ii) creating protein from vegetable sources, is
not actually completely straightforward, as there are many variables that must
be taken into account, but most objective calculations suggest that
producing protein from plants such as soya is 5 to 8 times as efficient
as creating protein from livestock. A good (62-page hard-copy) source of the
statistics can be found in 'Taking Stock: Animal Farming And The Environment'
by Alan Durning and Holly Brough (available from the
Worldwatch Institute web site
You can find extracts of this book online at
the Vegetarian Site).
In the US, around 80 per cent of the each year's grain harvest is fed to the country's
8 billion slaughter animals.
About half of the grain produced worldwide is used as animal feed.
If the 'average' American were eat (say) 10 per cent less meat, then the quantity
of the grain saved would be enough to feed an awful lot of people elsewhere.
It would appear to be the case that across the world people
are eating more and more meat (that is, if you divide the total amount of meat
produced by the number of people on the planet, then you get a figure for
'average meat consumption per person' and this figure is rising all the time,
partly because people's average disposable income is rising all the time) and
following on from that, across the world the proportion of grain used for animal
fodder, as opposed to direct human consumption, is increasing all the time.
For example, in the former Soviet Union meat consumption has tripled since 1950,
with the concomitant demand for fodder quadrupling in the same period. In 1950 the
Soviet Union was a net exporter of grain. Now it is the world's second largest
According to the Vegetarian Society of the UK, a piece of fertile land 10 acres in
size (equivalent to 5 football pitches) will support
60 people growing soya (assuming a climate warm enough to grow soya)
24 people growing wheat
10 people growing maize
2 people growing cattle
Some 40 per cent of the world's cereal harvest is fed to livestock. In Europe we import
huge quantities from developing countries to feed to animals to produce more
meat and dairy products than we can use, thus creating the infamous EEC surpluses.
Many of the developing countries who do export grain to the 'first world' countries of
the West are unable to feed all of their own people. Historically it has at times been
also the case that countries may be keen to sell grain to the West in order
to acquire dollars with which to buy arms (from the West again of course, in which case
the rich countries gain twice over). As if this was not enough, having imported much of
the grain of developing countries, subsidised meat producers in the first world often
then offload meat back again to poor countries at unrealistically low prices,
encouraging yet more meat (over)production at the expense of local markets in the
It would be quite impossible for everyone in the world to eat the average Western diet,
since there is simply not enough land, and the current juggernaut increase in global
meat consumption has to stop somewhere as we are dealing with finite resources.
The Worldwatch Institute has estimated that if one took into account all of the
ecological costs of meat production, including fossil fuel use, the effects on
ground water, pollution of the soil by liquid manure and the release of harmful
gases by livestock animals (let alone the effects on public health, see Health
below) then the price for meat would have to be doubled or tripled.
Food And Health
The BSE crisis in the UK illustrated many things. Prior to that, the not-altogether-saintly
alliance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the farming lobby
itself in the UK had said, more or less 'leave it to us, we know what we're doing'.
But the BSE crisis demonstrated that to do so was not altogether wise. All too often
it had been the case that the British public had not known the conditions under which
meat was being produced. Did the meat-producers have something to hide? (The question
is rhetorical). Information on what parts of the animal were being used (eg brains,
spines, and so on) was also withheld from the British public. This lack of
transparency led to the adoption of practises that ultimately were a complete disaster.
And things had to get very very bad indeed before those who had been standing up to say
'we need to take critical look at this' could do so without having to withstand what were
often quite vicious character assasinations. (As happened to Professor Richard Lacey of
Leeds University, just around the corner from me...). But so much for vested interests.
Food has always had it's own politics.
A study sponsored by the British Medical Association in 1986 found that
'A vegetarian diet confers a wide range of health benefits. Research has proven
that vegetarians suffer less from many of the diseases linked to a modern Western
diet: obesity, coronary heart disease, hypertension, type II diabetes, diet-related
cancers, diverticular disease, constipation and gall stones'.
Whilst there is widespread general evidence that vegetarians live longer
(McMichael 1992) it is also clear that the main reason for this is the fact that
vegetarians are less liable to suffer from all of the diseases mentioned above.
Research demonstrating the extent to which vegetarians are often significantly
less prone to one or more of these diseases (heart disease in particular) includes
an 11-year study of 1,900 vegetarians in Germany, (Chang-Claude 1992/1993),
a 12-year study of 6,115 British vegetarians and 5,015 meat-eaters (Thorogood 1994),
another study looking at more than 6,000 British vegetarians (Burr and Butland 1988),
a 21-year study of Californian Seventh-Day Adventists (Kahn 1984), and
a study of more than 5,000 young adults aged 18 to 30 (Slattery 1991).
Another study looking into obesity found that of the vegetarians they looked at, 5.4
per cent of them could be considered to be obese, whereas the figure for non-vegetarians
was 19.5 per cent. (Levin 1986a).
Various studies have also shown that vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure than
non-vegetarians (Armstrong 1977, Rouse 1983, Margetts 1986). -High blood pressure is
undesirable for a number of health reasons.
And so on. There is actually a huge amount of research supporting the health
benefits of a vegetarian diet. I won't refer to any more of it here but it's not hard
to find this material on the internet if you want to pursue it further: try
here for instance
as a starting point.
Here is a list of the physical conditions that research has shown vegetarians to be
less susceptible to:
cancer of the colon
type II diabetes
If you decide to go vegetarian, these are the things that your diet may
have less of from now on
vitamin B12 (found in yeast extract, some beers and supplements),
vitamin D (found in many margerines),
iron and zinc so if you think you're missing out, taking vitamin and
mineral capsules to make up for the losses may well be a good idea.
Regarding protein, amino acids are the 'building blocks' used by the body in the
synthesis of protein.
There are more than 20 amino acids, but only 8 or 9 are considered to be 'essential'
insofar as they can't be synthesised by the body. The rest can be built more or less
'from scratch'. 'Ready-made' protein itself is found in many non-meat foodstuffs,
from fruit to nuts to bread, and so on, but should it be necessary for the body to
create more protein, then generally is not difficult for the body to find all of
the amino acids it needs for protein synthesis without any special choices having
to be made. (Many people live almost exclusively on fruit and/or nuts, for
Soya products, from soybeans, generally contain 7 of the 8 most essential amino acids.
The 'missing' amino acid, methionine, can easily be supplied from wheat (ie bread) or
maize (sweetcorn). Soya flour has twice the protein content of wheat flour. (Then
there's tofu, soya milk, soya curd, soy sauce, textured vegetable protein and many
many products containing soya protein in various forms). Similarly rice contains
all of the essential amino acids except tryptophan, and again this is not difficult
to obtain from other sources. As a vegetarian, you should not need to even
think about how to plug the gaps -a normal vegetarian diet will include all of
the building blocks. These days there are many different 'soy protein' products, and,
to illustrate the protein-value of soya relative to meat, full-fat soya flour
is around 40 per cent protein, defatted soy flour is around 55 per cent protein
(by weight): -the best beefsteak is only around 30 per cent protein by weight.
Frances Lappe, in her 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet, fostered
the idea that it was a good idea to get a good mix of amino acids (eg by mixing grains
and pulses) so that the body could then synthesise protein for itself most efficiently.
She has since revised her opinion on the subject, however, saying
'if people are getting enough calories, they are almost certain of getting enough protein'...
Sometimes people who are not used to a vegetarian diet say 'what on earth do you eat?'
as though this is a problem: sometimes they simply can't imagine what a vegetarian
might eat, seemingly holding an image of boiled carrots and potatoes in their
heads ad nauseam. However, creating vegetarian meals that are varied and interesting
is actually easy. (And there's thousands of recipes out there on the internet, of
course). If you think that a vegetarian diet may not provide enough nutritional value,
Actions have consequences.
Ethical consumerism is already helping to shape the world.
You don't need to eat meat.
Go for it!
1. Foreign Agricultural Service.
Total Meat Summary 1988-1998.
2. Cross, Russell H., Byers, Floyd M., and others: Current Issues in Food Production:
A Perspective on Beef as a Component in Diets of Americans, page 5.26, April 1990.
3. Ernst U. v. Weizäcker, Head of the Wuppertal-Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
4. Steven Pearlstein, Sealing the Seal's Fate. Washington Post Foreign Service,
September 19, 1999, p. A27.
5. US Congressional Research Service Report: Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1993-2000.
6. P. Harrison, Inside the Third World, 1979, p. 276.
7. W. Murdoch, The Poverty of Nations, 1980, pp 297-298.
8. Third World Poverty And Underdevelopment web site.
9. Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank. 1983.
10. Poultry Science Magazine Issue 71 1992.
11. Lancaster Farming, 10/27/90.
12. USDA FAS 1991; Bailey 1990.
13. Reisner & Bates 1990; Sweeten 1990; Weeks et al. 1988; Oltjen 1991; Ward, Dept. Animal Sciences.
Here are some other possible sources that you might want to explore for background information:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
FAS Production Estimates and Crop Assessment Division (PECAD)
National Agricultural Statistics Service
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID Famine Early Warning System (FEWS)
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
The World Bank
The World Bank Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
Some Famous Vegetarians
Billie Jean King
George Bernard Shaw
Henry David Thoreau
Leonardo Da Vinci
Louisa May Alcott
Mary Tyler Moore
Michael J Fox
Olivia Newton John
Ralph Waldo Emerson
That's All Folks!