Vegan Forum

Please sign our petition to the Law on banning meat.

If we do not IMMEDIATELY act within the next few years, there will be a global ecological disaster of unimaginable proportions

- According to the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization) to farm livestock causes more greenhouse gas emissions than the consumption of gasoline in cars, trucks and other transportation.

- Livestock is 70% of the total agricultural area of the Earth claim, including the growing of feed used 33% of the total arable land.

- Agricultural livestock leads to deforestation to make room for new pastures, and a serious, widespread land degradation through overgrazing, compaction and erosion.

- Arable farming is a major threat to the increasingly scarce water resources of the earth. Large amounts of water are consumed to produce feed for farmed animals.

- Producing animals to consume more protein than they are. Consumed for each kilogram of animal protein that is produced, animal vegetable kilograms on average nearly 6 protein in the form of grain and forage.

- It takes about 20,000 to 40,000 liters of water to produce one kilogram of beef, and about 900 liters to produce one kilogram of wheat.

- Every day, millions of animals are being killed all over the world for the unhealthy eating meat.

- A child starves every 2-3 seconds! The 760 million tons of grain that are consumed worldwide each year from agricultural livestock, would be sufficient to cover the global food shortages to 14 times!

It is the responsibility of the government, its citizens, protect the animals, etc. and is guaranteed by a meat ban.

Please sign the petition, because without you things will not change without you they will not change fast enough.

Every vote counts! When meat you approve a law to ban, click here to sign. The petition will be handed over to the governments in Europe.

Here is the petition:
http://fleischverbot.info/petition/

Many thanks and best wishes!

This petetion is quite great to vote for. But I don't agree with your signatures. Cows will not expire if we get their milk.

Signed

Nobody ever thinks about meat contributing to the destruction of the earth. It's like how some smokers with lung cancer still smoke.

Nobody ever thinks about meat contributing to the destruction of the earth. It's like how some smokers with lung cancer still smoke.

Sign me up Scotty
I mean WHERE does it stop, ppl here in Australia are now eating crocodile, Kangaroo, what next KOALAS>?

Oh this is never going to work - people are so ignorant to whats happening around them. As long as they are well fed and happy - who gives a toss about the earth?!

Take the japanese (I think its japanese - apologies if it's chinese) government backing the killing of dolphins dispite the law against it because they make so much money from it each year.

PFFFFT.

P.S. I'm not a pessimist...just angry.

- Arable farming is a major threat to the increasingly scarce water resources of the earth. Large amounts of water are consumed to produce feed for farmed animals.

do you know anything about water?

theres the same amount of water on the planet as there was 10000 years ago.

look up the cycle of water some time.

its one of the only inexaustable things on this planet.

While I agree that people shouldn't eat animals as I am a vegan, I don't believe in taking away a persons right to eat meat. I do believe however that it should be made extremely hard to obtain meat. Do away with factory farms and make people hunt and butcher their own meat. That alone would significantly drop the consumption of meat. It would also do away with most of the things listed in the original post. I don't really see a difference between an individual hunting for personal sustenance any different than an ape using a stick to get termites out of their nest to eat. I know my opinion is probably not that popular among this crowd but I don't believe taking aways peoples rights is always the best way of going about things, it can be a slippery slope.

I agree with sixfingered.


A better solution might be returning to more sustainable farming methods. One reason, that it takes so much arable land to feed cows, is that farmers are feeding them processed genetically modified corn. Cows were meant to eat grass.

Feed corn is what takes up most of the arable land in North America and it takes ammonia and other dangerous chemicals to grow it. Growing this corn also makes the soil sterile.

It's undemocratic to tell people what they can or cannot eat, but governments could stand up and make common sense laws that could benefit us all.

If the majority of people banned meat, then that would be democratic.

Corn fed livestock is significantly more efficient land-wise than grass fed livestock. If it wasn't they wouldn't be doing it. Grass fed is less sustainable than corn fed and will destroy more wild0life habitat.

The only logical conclusion is to ban meat or severely tax it like they do cigarettes.

[quote="CoeyCoey
atic.
Corn fed livestock is significantly more efficient land-wise than grass fed livestock. If it wasn't they wouldn't be doing it. Grass fed is less sustainable than corn fed and will destroy more wild0life habitat.


No, we'd just be raising less cattle.

Corn fed livestock are fed just about all that corn that you see in rural areas of North Amerca. This is genetically modified corn and it isn't even edible unless it's processed. It has little or no nutrition. This makes for very unhealthy cows.

Genetically modified corn was designed to survive pesticides that kill every plant that it comes into contact with except the crop itself. The poisonous pestcides pollute our waterways more than general industry does. It also tends to kill off the honey bee population. No bees, most fruit and vegetables wouldn't even exist.

Monsanto, who owns the right to most of these genertically modified seeds, is trying to monopolize the seed market.

More efficiently land-wise? I don't think so.

I suggest that you see the documentary films King Corn, The World according to Monsanto and One Man, One Cow, One Planet.

A cow grown on a feedlot will be slaughtered in 14-16 months and need average of around 1.2 acres of land to grow the feed it needs. A grass feed cow will graze from 3 to 5 years before being slaughtered and need 3.3 to 14.9 acres of land depending on its location. The average across the US is around 8 acres. 8 acres for 3 to 5 years is a LOT more land that 1.2 acres for 14-16 months.

If grass fed beef was more efficient, then everyone would be doing it and it would be cheaper than feedlot beef, which it is not. In reality, if the farmland that many farmers use was not subsidized, a grass fed beef hamburger would cost over $30. Grass fed beef is less inhumane, but it is certainly not more efficient. It is the absolute least efficient way to grow a cow.

Since you brought up the corn and pesticides, maybe you mean it is less environmentally damaging? That can be debated as well. Yes, there are deadly pesticides used in the production of corn, but they are also clear cutting rain forests for grazing land for cows. You can't easily quantify the damage either causes.

CoeyCoey wrote:A cow grown on a feedlot will be slaughtered in 14-16 months and need average of around 1.2 acres of land to grow the feed it needs. A grass feed cow will graze from 3 to 5 years before being slaughtered and need 3.3 to 14.9 acres of land depending on its location. The average across the US is around 8 acres. 8 acres for 3 to 5 years is a LOT more land that 1.2 acres for 14-16 months.

If grass fed beef was more efficient, then everyone would be doing it and it would be cheaper than feedlot beef, which it is not. In reality, if the farmland that many farmers use was not subsidized, a grass fed beef hamburger would cost over $30. Grass fed beef is less inhumane, but it is certainly not more efficient. It is the absolute least efficient way to grow a cow.

Since you brought up the corn and pesticides, maybe you mean it is less environmentally damaging? That can be debated as well. Yes, there are deadly pesticides used in the production of corn, but they are also clear cutting rain forests for grazing land for cows. You can't easily quantify the damage either causes.

See the documentaries that I suggested. Meat from feed lot animals is not good for our health. We are not going to live as long as our parents' generation did if we eat this meat because it has way more fat than the meat from a normal grass-fed cow. If a grass fed beef hamburger was more expensive, as you suggest, that really wouldn't affect vegans anyway.

Another problem with growing feed corn is that the soil is sprayed with ammonia. This makes the soil sterile and infertile for growing non-genetically modified crops.

There are many reasons why genetically modified crops are no good and even dangerous. The factory farms that use this technology aren't really more efficient at all for these reasons.

If vegans seriously want some day to be numbered the majority over meat eaters, it would help not to spread misinformation. Talk to an organic farmer to see why he/she has rejected mainstream farming or check out http://www.cban.ca to see what most farmers are really growing.

All meat is not good for our health. And I never stated that corn fed beef was more or less healthful. That was not the discussion and since you completely ignored the discussion at hand, I am assuming you are willing to concede that feedlots are more efficient than grass-fed.

CoeyCoey wrote:All meat is not good for our health. And I never stated that corn fed beef was more or less healthful. That was not the discussion and since you completely ignored the discussion at hand, I am assuming you are willing to concede that feedlots are more efficient than grass-fed.

You're wrong.

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network wisely takes the position that much more testing is needed on Monsanto's genetically modified crops to determine if they are truly safe for human/animal consumption and for the environment. They suggest that these tests be conducted by independent agencies. Health Canada's tests are a joke.

Medical research strongly links many serious diseases to increased consumption of GM crop-based foods.

Providing food that really isn't food is not being more efficient. This includes what cows eat.

Why do you keep changing the subject and saying I am wrong when I never stated anything concerning GM crops? Stick to the discussion at hand, or hand the courage to concede when you know that you are wrong.

CoeyCoey wrote:Why do you keep changing the subject and saying I am wrong when I never stated anything concerning GM crops? Stick to the discussion at hand, or hand the courage to concede when you know that you are wrong.

Do you even know what you are talking about. You are saying that corn-fed cows are a more efficient way to go than grass-fed cows. You do realize that that corn is genetically modified, don't you? Again I suggest that you check out those sources that I presented to you in earlier posts.

An ill-informed opinion can do irreparable harm to the mind set who listen to it.

What does a GM crop have to do with the amount of land that is used? The reason it is used is because it IS so land efficient!

What kind of drugs are you on, and can you get me some?

CoeyCoey wrote:What does a GM crop have to do with the amount of land that is used? The reason it is used is because it IS so land efficient!

What kind of drugs are you on, and can you get me some?

Good Grief!

How is it land efficient if it is destroying the soil, the waterways and the environment in general.

Do you work for Monsanto or something?

On drugs? You are blinded by your own stubborness to have the last word.

I don't suffer fools. Good day sir.

Your ignorance on this subject is what leads people to grass-fed beef instead of veganism because they somehow think grass-fed is better for the environment when it is not.

Grass-fed beef uses considerably more acres/year impinging on wildlife.
Grass-fed beef produces more methane per pound of meat.
Grass-fed beef causes more soil erosion over much greater areas of land.
Grass-fed beef uses more water than feedlots cows.
Grass lands for grass-fed beef often need fertilizer and over a much wider area than that used to grow grain.
Grass-fed beef still goes to the same slaughter houses as feedlot beef.

The only answer is to eliminate meat, not convince people they need to change what kind of meat they eat.

CoeyCoey wrote:Your ignorance on this subject is what leads people to grass-fed beef instead of veganism because they somehow think grass-fed is better for the environment when it is not.

Grass-fed beef uses considerably more acres/year impinging on wildlife.
Grass-fed beef produces more methane per pound of meat.
Grass-fed beef causes more soil erosion over much greater areas of land.
Grass-fed beef uses more water than feedlots cows.
Grass lands for grass-fed beef often need fertilizer and over a much wider area than that used to grow grain.
Grass-fed beef still goes to the same slaughter houses as feedlot beef.

The only answer is to eliminate meat, not convince people they need to change what kind of meat they eat.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not trying to convince people to eat meat of any kind, but to get people to stop eating meat overnight is not very realistic, is it? I do agree, however, that we should raise a lot less cattle.

I think that you under-estimate the damage that genetically modified crops do to our environment and that's exactly what most farmers are growing. Just about every where one looks in rural Canada, there are vast fields of genetically modified corn or soy beans.

Just a word of advice. If you want viewers, who read your posts, to take you seriously, at least provide some references to support your claims.

I suggest that see the documentary film King Corn or check out the website @ www.cban.ca

.

Here is a report from the UN for you.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?n ... R1=warning

If you don't expect them to stop eating meat overnight, and you don't want them to eat feedlot meat, then, it would appear, you would rather have them eat grass-fed beef. I am not putting words into your mouth. I am drawing simple conclusions based on your statements.

Cows eat grass. If they eat grass, then their manure will properly fertilize pasture.

If farmers use some of that manure to treat the vast amounts of land that was used to grow genetically modified corn, then that land will eventually become good land for pasture and hayfields.

If cows eat grass like they are suppose to, then their farts will become less intense as well. People fart methane too. It's part of nature.

In the case of the rain forests, it is the multi-national corporations that are behind most of that destruction. Rain forests are not just being cleared for cattle. In Argentina, vast amounts of land is being cleared to make way for fields that will grow genetically modified soy beans. The soy beans are sold to Europe to make cheap chicken feed.

Governments need to make strict laws to control these multi-national corporations, but there doesn't seem to be any political will to do so.

Presenting the government with a petition to ban meat is probably the right thing to do, but it will be futile.

Getting the government to make rules to control the population of cattle and to ban genetically modified crops also seems far-fetched at times as well, but I think it is the more realistic avenue to take.



See film documentaries:


King Corn

Food, inc

The World according to Monsanto

One Man, One Cow, One Planet


Also see websites @


www.cban.ca

www.naturalnews.com

Here is what is wrong with your conclusion. Grasslands are overgrazed which causes serious soil erosion. It doesn't matter that the manure will fertilize the top soil because a large amount of it will be washed away. In addition, the wildlife natural to those grasslands will be displaced.

Grass-fed cows produce significantly more methane per pound of meat than corn-fed cows. Therefore, if you are worried about methane, you should promote corn-fed beef to people.

Rain forests are converted to pasture more than for any other use.

When the environment gets bad enough and food shortages become common, then you will see action by governments. But until then, spouting that grass-fed beef is better than corn-fed beef just convinces people to eat different meat. Try convincing them to eat less meat or no meat.

You should watch less documentaries and read more.

CoeyCoey wrote:
You should watch less documentaries and read more.

Here's something I just read today in the Ottawa Sun (pg. 18, Monday, September 20, 2010)

A diagram illustrating methane emissions from melting permafrost in Arctic regions.

It obvious to me that global warming is heating up this vast region and in turn releasing increased methane emissions into our atmosphere.

There has always been a large population of livestock in the world. Maybe not as much as there is now, but a significant amount nonetheless.

What's new, in the last 100 yrs. or so, are autos and industry. I think that it is much more likely that this is the root cause of dangerous methane emissions.



.

CoeyCoey wrote:Here is what is wrong with your conclusion. Grasslands are overgrazed which causes serious soil erosion. It doesn't matter that the manure will fertilize the top soil because a large amount of it will be washed away. In addition, the wildlife natural to those grasslands will be displaced.



.

There is nothing wrong with my conclusion. You aren't comprehending what I'm writing.

I'm not condoning over-grazing on grasslands. I'm even agreeing with you that there should be less cattle. What I am saying, however, is that the vast amounts of land, already destroyed by genetically engineered crops, could be reclaimed for pasture. That wouldn't destroy anything that isn't already being destroyed.

[quote="CoeyCoey"]

Rain forests are converted to pasture more than for any other use.

quote]



It doesn't matter where one gets their info as long as it's from a somewhat reliable source.

I'm not saying the above statement is wrong, but you have given me only your word for it.

That's not going to convince the savvy reader. Where are your references to back up to this statement?

A savvy reader knows how to do their own research. But here you go.

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm

CoeyCoey wrote:A savvy reader knows how to do their own research. But here you go.

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm

That wasn't so hard, now was it? According to them, cattle ranching is responsible for 65% to 70% of the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest between 2000 and 2005.

Now you try and understand what I said. Don't be a pompous jerk.