It’s a little frightening that a diet containing animal products can be considered “plant-based”. But that’s what Katherine Livingstone from the School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences at Deakin University in Melbourne contends in a recent article in The Conversation.
Is this a form of doublespeak that might cause those in the livestock sector to rub their hands in glee at the prospect of confusing consumers?
Another concern is that some of the health evidence presented by Livingstone seems extremely selective. For example, she suggests that consumption of unprocessed red meat is not linked to heart disease or diabetes. There is strong evidence to the contrary.
The findings of a study by Pan et al., using data from two longitudinal studies involving 121,342 participants over a 26-year period, were published in Archives of Internal Medicine in 2012.
The researchers, from Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health, German Institute of Human Nutrition and elsewhere, reported that each daily increase of 85 grams (three ounces) of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 16 per cent increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease. For processed meat, the figure was 21 per cent.
A related study by Pan et al., using data from three longitudinal studies dealing with diabetes risk among 204,157 participants over periods ranging from 14 to 28 years, was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2011.
The researchers reported that daily consumption of 100 grams of unprocessed red meat increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 19 per cent. Processed meat was even worse, with a daily 50 gram serve increasing the risk by 51 per cent.
These are just two examples of damning health evidence against consumption of processed and unprocessed meat and other animal products. (Processed meat includes meat that is cured, smoked, salted or treated with nitrates or nitrites. Examples include ham, bacon and smallgoods.)
With the community’s health at stake, along with the plight of billions of animals and the environment on which we all depend, a supposedly reputable website like The Conversation needs to be more accurate and thorough than it appears to be in informing the community about the relevant issues.
Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hu FB. Red Meat Consumption and MortalityResults From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(7):555-563. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1134845
Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB, Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis, First published August 10, 2011, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.018978 Am J Clin Nutr ajcn.018978 , http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2011/08/10/ajcn.111.018978.abstract
Have you ever felt ill with nausea, lethargy, aching joints, loss of appetite, abdominal pain or fever? The symptoms could have resulted from many different ailments. One is hepatitis E, a largely hidden and inadequately diagnosed disease caused by the hepatitis E virus (HEV). It is usually self-limiting, in that it will disappear without treatment (there is generally none available in acute cases) after several weeks. However, far more serious outcomes can also occur, particularly in people with weakened immune systems, such as the elderly, some cancer patients, HIV patients, organ transplant patients and pregnant women.
There are four types of HEV, two of which can be transmitted between animals (primarily pigs but also others such as deer, rabbits and rats) and humans. Unlike its effect on many humans, HEV does not make the animals ill. [1] Although avian strains exist, they are not known to be transmitted to humans. [2]
Genotypes 1 and 2 are limited to humans and are generally found in countries with poor sanitation systems. Genotype 1 is common in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while genotype 2 is more common in sub-Saharan Africa and Mexico. [3]
Genotypes 3 and 4 are the forms that can infect humans and animals. [3] Genotype 3 has been found in all developed countries where its presence has been investigated, while genotype 4 is mainly found in China, Southeast Asia, some pockets of Europe and Japan (although it does not appear to be the dominant form in that country). [4] [5]
Accordingly, genotype 3 is the key form of the virus responsible for infections within developed nations.
Like all forms of hepatitis, HEV involves swelling or inflammation of the liver. In addition to the symptoms mentioned earlier, jaundice is common, with yellowing of the skin and eyeballs, while other symptoms can include tingling, numbness and weakness in the arms and legs, general itching, darkened urine, and mild flu-like symptoms. [1] The virus can sometimes cause acute liver failure, which can lead to death. [6]
Serious outcomes that are not related to the liver can include: (a) neurological conditions such as Guillain–Barré syndrome, brachial neuritis, transverse myelitis, Bell’s palsy (with paralysis of facial nerves) and vestibular neuritis; (b) haematological conditions such as thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia and monoclonal immunoglobulin; and (c) other conditions such as acute pancreatitis, arthritis and autoimmune thyroiditis. [4]
HEV in Britain
In a paper published in the medical journal, The Lancet, researchers estimated there were likely to have been 80,000 – 100,000 acute HEV infections in England during 2013. The findings were based on retrospective screening of 225,000 individual blood donations. After allowing for the duration of a detectable virus in the blood, the results were extrapolated across the country’s population. [7]
In comparison, only 846 cases were reported in England and Wales combined that year, indicating the extent to which the disease is insufficiently recognised by healthcare professionals and patients. [8] One reason may be that there are sometimes no symptoms, particularly in children (although the carriers can still spread the virus to others). [6] [22] Nevertheless, the number of reported cases more than tripled from 2010 to 2015, from 368 to 1,213 (with a further increase to 1,244 in 2016). [8] [22]
The Sunday Times in London recently reported that more than 60,000 Britons per year are being infected with HEV by consuming pig meat imported from France, Holland, Germany and Denmark, often consumed in the form of bacon, sausages, pork pies and salami. [9]
British farms may also be a source, with a 2013 study of abattoirs finding that 92.8 per cent of pigs tested had antibodies for HEV, which indicates they had previously been exposed to the virus. 5.8 per cent were found to have HEV in their blood and were therefore likely to be infectious at the time of slaughter. [10][11] [Footnote]
However, a study led by Sylvia Grierson of the Department of Virology at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, published in 2015, indicated that imported products were likely to be the dominant source. [12]
Although the Sunday Times report indicated that 10 per cent of sausages in the UK were affected, the nation’s Food Standards Agency has said that that particular finding needs to be “interpreted with caution as the sample size was small and not representative of the UK market and the majority of the HEV positive sausages were from the same batch”. [11]
HEV in Australia
HEV was first detected in Australian pigs in 1999, with a study reporting positive findings in 17 per cent of tested wild-caught pigs and more than 90 per cent of tested commercial piglets aged up to 16 weeks (which is close to the age at which piglets are generally slaughtered).
Writing in the Medical Journal of Australia in April 2016, Yapa et al. noted that there appear to have been no subsequent studies investigating the virus within Australia’s pig population, possibly leading to (as in Britain) inadequate recognition of the problem among clinicians and laboratories, in turn possibly leading to under-diagnosis. [13]
The first outbreak of locally acquired HEV in Australia’s human population occurred in New South Wales in 2013, when a number of people were infected after eating Australian produced pork livers or products made from them, such as pork liver sausages or pork pâté. The outbreak lasted nine months, and according to Dr Joseph Doyle of St Vincent’s Hospital and Dr Alexander Thompson of the University of Melbourne, shows that transmission of the virus should be considered an ongoing risk in Australia. [14]
In mid-2016, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service commenced a study with the aim of understanding how common the virus is in Australia, thereby assisting in determining appropriate blood safety measures. [20] The results are awaited.
Blood serum tests have found a higher incidence of the virus among pig veterinarians, pig farmers and abattoir workers than in the general population, which is consistent with overseas findings. [5] [13]
Australian Pork Limited (APL), which describes itself as “the producer owned organisation supporting and promoting the Australian pork industry”, has reported that around two-thirds of Australia’s processed pork (ham, bacon and smallgoods) is imported. [27] Around 45 per cent of imported product comes from Denmark and the Netherlands (Holland), two of the countries allegedly responsible for HEV in Britain. [28]
However, Australia’s import regulations distinguish between cooked, uncooked and cured meat. [33] Only Spain and Italy are permitted to export cured meat to Australia (that is meat preserved by salting, drying or smoking), with the product range limited to Iberian ham, Iberian shoulder ham or Serrano ham from Spain and dry-cured Culatta and Parma ham from Italy. (Product from those countries may also be responsible for some cases of HEV in Britain.)
All uncooked pig meat entering Australia is required to undergo heat processing at a facility operating under a compliance agreement with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and managed by the entry management national coordination centre in Adelaide.
Other foods can be affected
In addition to pig meat and venison (deer), other products found to carry HEV are strawberries, green leafy vegetables and shellfish. [17] [18] [19] Contaminated irrigation water was a suspected cause in studies examining the first two products. Similarly, human sewage and runoff from a pig slaughterhouse were suspected in the case of shellfish. The fact that shellfish are generally eaten raw means there is no opportunity to inactivate the virus through cooking.
The relevant papers also noted that the products can be contaminated through various other means, including: raw manure; compost; wildlife intrusion; and handling during harvesting or post-harvest activities. Two of the papers noted the robust nature of HEV and other viruses in the environment.
Given the risk of contamination, the practice of spraying pig waste on fields, supposedly as fertiliser rather than sewage, must be brought into question. [32]
A key mitigation measure in relation to other foods such as those mentioned here would be to reduce our reliance on animal-based food products, thereby reducing the contamination risk.
Prevention and treatment
The virus is passed on through faeces and contaminated food or water, so personal hygiene is an important factor in prevention. The British Liver Trust (BLT) has reported that, unlike some other forms of hepatitis, there is no evidence of HEV being transmitted through sharing needles, bodily fluids or sexual contact. [1] (NSW Health does refer to sexual contact as a risk factor, but notes that direct person-to-person transmission is uncommon.) [6]
BLT recommends that the following actions be avoided when traveling to high risk areas: drinking tap water (drink bottled water where possible); having ice cubes in drinks; cleaning teeth with tap water; drinking unpasteurised milk; eating uncooked meat and shellfish; eating unpeeled fruit and uncooked vegetables, including salads, that you have not been prepared yourself. [1]
To reduce the risk of becoming infected in developed countries (relevant to genotypes 3 and 4 ), all meat, especially pork, should be thoroughly cooked before eating. (Please see further comments below.) Hands should also be washed after touching uncooked meat or meat products and after contact with any animals that may be infected.
People who suffer from a long-standing liver disease, are pregnant or have a suppressed immune system for other reasons, should be particularly careful with raw meats, shellfish and pork products. Dr Harry Dalton, a gastroenterologist at Exeter University and Royal Cornwall Hospital, was quoted in the Sunday Times article as recommending that pregnant women and transplant patients avoid pork products altogether (with that view likely to also apply to anyone with liver disease or a suppressed immune system).
In terms of genotypes 3 and 4, it seems the most effective prevention measure would be for others to also avoid pig meat. Such an approach would also reduce an individual’s risk in terms of cancer, diabetes and cardio-vascular disease (noting that medical researchers generally consider pig meat to be a form of red meat). [25] [26]
There is no specific treatment for acute (non-chronic) hepatitis E infection. Some patients with chronic liver problems have been treated successfully with anti-viral therapy using the drug ribavirin. [23]
A vaccine was approved in China in 2012 but is not available in other countries. Researchers from the University Hospital Hamburg say it is unclear whether or not the vaccine prevents infections with HEV genotype 3, thereby questioning its value in most industrialised nations. [23] However, Zhang, et al, while acknowledging that the vaccine’s efficacy against genotypes 1 – 3 is yet to be investigated, argue that all HEV genotypes are recognised as belonging to the same serotype and that one hepatitis E vaccine can protect against infection with any HEV genotype. [24]
Because of various uncertainties regarding the vaccine, the World Health Organization has recommended against its use in children aged under 16 years, pregnant women, people with chronic liver disease, people on organ transplant waiting lists, and travellers. [29]
To what extent should meat be cooked?
Although it appears the virus can be inactivated by cooking, there is some uncertainty about the extent required. In any event, much of the pig meat consumed is cured rather than cooked, potentially providing no opportunity to inactivate the virus if it is present.
For pig meat that is cooked, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has said the required extent would depend, in part, on the number of infectious virus particles present and the composition of the food. [15]
In one study, the researchers reported that it was necessary to heat infected pig liver to 71oC for twenty minutes. [16] The FSAI has also referred to other studies indicating that 71oC for 10 minutes or 70oC for 5 minutes would be sufficient.
On balance, its opinion is that it is sufficient to cook pork and products containing pork (e.g. sausages) to a minimum temperature of 75oC at the centre of the thickest segment. It has not specified the duration, but stated: “Normal grilling or frying of sausages until they are well browned and firm inside with no traces of pink meat, usually results in centre temperatures in excess of 85oC.”
It says that visual cues should not be relied upon in isolation, and recommends that a meat thermometer be used to check the temperature of cooked meat and meat products before consuming them.
In Australia, NSW Health recommends the same approach, but specifies a minimum 2 minute time period. [6]
The UK Food Standards Agency is more general, recommending all whole cuts of pork, pork products and offal be thoroughly cooked until steaming hot throughout, with the meat no longer pink, and the juices running clear. [11]
HEV during pregnancy
The immune response in pregnant women is lower than normal, causing them to be more vulnerable to infection, including from HEV. There has been a high rate of mortality among pregnant women in developing nations after infection with HEV genotype 1.
Researchers led by Dr Harry Dalton (referred to earlier) have stated: “In contrast to HEV genotype 1, excess mortality in pregnant women is not seen with genotype 3, and the few women who have been described in the literature have all survived.” [2] Nevertheless, as mentioned, Dr Dalton argues that pregnant women should not eat pork products.
Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, who also perceive genotype 1 as the key area for concern, have cautiously stated, “the potential of genotypes 2–4 to cause adverse outcomes in pregnant women, given exposure, remains uncertain”. [30]
An increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth and death and disease in newborn children has also been reported. [21]
Curiously, the Victorian State Government’s “Better Health” page dealing with pregnancy and diet mentions listeria and salmonella, but says nothing about HEV. It also includes pork in its “healthy eating” recommendations, although it does recommend against eating ham, salami, pate and certain other products in relation to salmonella. [31]
Product labelling
How many people know the extent of risk involved in consuming pig meat products? Product labelling laws may currently be inadequate to warn people of those dangers, particularly for those in the most vulnerable categories. Consumers have a right to be adequately informed regarding products they consider purchasing, particularly in what can literally be life and death situations. It is essential that regulators respond to the extent that current labelling laws are failing.
Conclusion
There appears to have been a general lack of awareness of hepatitis E risk among health care professionals and the wider community. However, preventative guidelines are available from numerous authoritative sources for anyone who is concerned.
As with so many ailments facing our planet and its human and non-human populations, a simple, effective and potentially critical mitigation measure, which is not widely communicated, is to avoid certain products. In this case, food products derived from pigs are the primary concern, and can easily be replaced by nutritious plant-based alternatives. It is time for the community to embrace such choices.
There is a slight discrepancy between the two sources in the figures indicating the prevalence of HEV in British abattoirs. The Food Standards Agency reported figures of 93 per cent and 5.7 per cent, compared to figures of 92.8 per cent and 5.8 per cent used in the article, which it also contributed to.
[4] Dalton HR, Saunders M, Woolson KL. “Hepatitis E virus in developed countries: one of the most successful zoonotic viral diseases in human history?”Journal of Virus Eradication. 2015;1(1):23-29, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946667/
[5] Khuroo MS, Khuroo MS, Khuroo NS. Transmission of Hepatitis E Virus in Developing Countries. Izopet J, ed. Viruses. 2016;8(9):253. doi:10.3390/v8090253, 20 Sep 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035967/
[7] Patricia E Hewitt, FRCPath, Samreen Ijaz, PhD, Su R Brailsford, PhD, Rachel Brett, BSc, Steven Dicks, MSc, Becky Haywood, BSc, Iain T R Kennedy, MFPH, Alan Kitchen, PhD, Poorvi Patel, MSc, John Poh, PhD, Katherine Russell, MFPH, Kate I Tettmar, MBA, Joanne Tossell, RN, Ines Ushiro-Lumb, FRCPath, Richard S Tedder, FRCPath, “Hepatitis E virus in blood components: a prevalence and transmission study in southeast England”, The Lancet , Volume 384 , Issue 9956 , 1766 -1772, published 27th July, 2014, http://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61034-5/fulltext
[10] Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agencies, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Food Standards Agency, Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express (BPEX), Public Health England, Veterinary Medicines Directorate, “Study of Salmonella, Toxoplasma, Hepatitis E virus, Yersinia, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus, antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter coli and extended spectrum beta lactamase E. coli in UK pigs at slaughter”, March 2014, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140707135733/http://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/files/pig-survey-key-findings.pdf
[12] Grierson, S., Heaney, J., Cheney, T., Morgan, D., Wyllie, S., Powell, L., Smith, D., Ijaz, S., Steinbach, F., Choudhury, B., and Tedder, R.S., “Prevalence of Hepatitis E Virus Infection in Pigs at the Time of Slaughter, United Kingdom, 2013”, Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2015;21(8):1396-1401. doi:10.3201/eid2108.141995, Aug 2015, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/21/8/14-1995_article
[13] Chaturangi M Yapa, Catriona Furlong, Alexander Rosewell, Kate A Ward, Sheena Adamson, Craig Shadbolt, Jen Kok, Samantha L Tracy, Scott Bowden, Elizabeth J Smedley, Mark J Ferson, Vicky Sheppeard and Jeremy M McAnulty, “First reported outbreak of locally acquired hepatitis E virus infection in Australia”, Med J Aust 2016; 204 (7): 274, doi: 10.5694/mja15.00955, 18 Apr 2016, https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/204/7/first-reported-outbreak-locally-acquired-hepatitis-e-virus-infection-australia
[17] Brassard J, Gagné MJ, Généreux M, Côté C, “Detection of Human Food-Borne and Zoonotic Viruses on Irrigated, Field-Grown Strawberries”, Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 May;78(10):3763-6. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00251-12. Epub 16 Mar 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3346374/
[18] Kokkinos P, Kozyra I, Lazic S, Bouwknegt M, Rutjes S, Willems K, Moloney R, de Roda Husman AM, Kaupke A, Legaki E, D’Agostino M, Cook N, Rzeżutka A, Petrovic T, Vantarakis A., “Harmonised investigation of the occurrence of human enteric viruses in the leafy green vegetable supply chain in three European countries.”, Food Environ Virol. 2012 Dec;4(4):179-91. doi: 10.1007/s12560-012-9087-8. Epub 21 Sep 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23412890 and http://tinyurl.com/ya2zc7mo
[30] Krain LJ, Atwell JE, Nelson KE, Labrique AB. Fetal and Neonatal Health Consequences of Vertically Transmitted Hepatitis E Virus Infection. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2014;90(2):365-370. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.13-0265, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3919250/
Photographee.eu | Closeup of woman dishing out grilled sausage | Shutterstock | Photo ID 283801919
Update
29th May 2017: Additional comments and reference added in relation to Australian pig meat imports, along with additional comments in relation to the Victorian Government’s “Better Health” page.
Disclaimer
No information in this article is intended to represent medical, health, nutritional, dietary or similar advice, and should not be relied upon as such. Please consult a medical professional if you have any queries or concerns about the issues referred to in the article.
Australian Pork Limited (APL) is an industry organisation that describes itself as “the producer owned organisation supporting and promoting the Australian pork industry”.
Despite potential bias, the organisation is seemingly permitted to supply “educational” material to kindergartens and schools as part of its “Pigs in Schools” program. [1] [2] This article comments on its publication for Foundation – Year 2 levels (generally ages 4-7) and also refers to APL-provided feedback from a teacher on material prepared for older students. [3]
Promotional and other videos
In February 2016, APL published a video (Video 1 below) of teacher Kiara Edwards from Mt Compass Area School in South Australia, praising the APL material. Ms Edwards is clearly a committed and enthusiastic teacher, seemingly with a strong background in certain aspects of animal agriculture. However, in respect of pigs, she may have been over-reliant on material supplied by APL.
Despite admitting to having almost no knowledge of pigs before receiving the APL material, Ms Edwards seemed convinced, after watching an APL promotional video contained within the package (Video 2 below), that material produced by animal activist groups was inaccurate. Here’s some of what she said:
“One [resource] that stood out to me just allowed the kids to be able to see it from a different point of view, that not everything they see on TV and read in the newspaper is true and correct. There was a really good video that was in the package where I set it up with the kids. They had the video that was put up by an animal activist group. I played that video. I got the kids to go through that video and say right, what do we think about pig farming, and this was the start of my lesson, and they said, you know, they just listened to that video, and then in the resource pack, they actually had the farmer’s point of view.
[Cross to video of pig farmer, Ean Pollard, sitting amongst hay bales and piglets, talking about the night activists had filmed inside one of his sheds.]
And our eyes were just amazed to think that, you know, wow . . . what you hear isn’t happening in the pork industry and they are so proactive in what they’re doing, so they’re really, really good resources. I’d recommend them to anybody.”
She was also clearly impressed with industry personnel (with my underline):
“They’re the only industry that have really got their resources spot on, like with resources and being able to contact people like Popey, like just on the call.” [“Popey” may have been Graeme Pope of Graeme Pope Consulting, founder of the South Australian Future Pork Network and a quality auditor for APL.] [Footnote 1]
It seems Ms Edwards is comfortable with the idea of the students using marking paint on live piglets to demonstrate the “main cuts”:
“So they [the kids] do art in terms of they go and we learn the parts of a pig and then when they get big enough we go out and we get some marking paint and they do the main cuts and all that.”
That activity helped to support her focus on a cross-curricular approach to studying pigs, including art.
She seems similarly comfortable with the practice of naming the piglets, then sending them to slaughter and selling and eating the end “product”:
“And what we do is we actually sell the meat.
[Cross to image of pig meat.]
We get it processed at an abattoir, then it goes to our local butcher, and then we sell the fresh pork to the staff, and there’s a waiting list so we can’t get enough of it and it’s delicious and it’s great because the kids set up – we do a cost analogy [sic] on how much, like, the input costs, they work out how much profit they would like to make, which sometimes is a lot because they think it buys them all sorts of good things but, and then we scale it down and work out that, hang on, this is actually going home to parents and all that, and yeah, they sell the pork. They actually go to the, um, when the pork is getting sold.
We bring it here. The customer or consumer comes direct here and we let them know about the pork, what the pigs were like, they name them and that sort of stuff, so it’s a bit of paddock to plate all the way through and the kids absolutely love it so it’s really good.”
Here’s the video featuring Kiara Edwards (duration 9:28).
APL Promotional Video 1 (discussing “Pigs in Schools” program)
I’d like to have seen some empathy for the piglets, who are in the school’s care for ten weeks at a time, but it was not apparent.
Here’s the promotional video (duration 2:44) referred to earlier, which is included in the kit supplied to schools. Ean Pollard concludes the video with these words: “If we can’t produce pork in God’s country, God knows where we’re gonna get it from.”
APL Promotional Video 2 (included in school kit)
The keeper of the “maternity ward” in Video 2 says, “And did you know over a million piglets Australia-wide are saved by having these farrowing crates”. That’s the annual figure according to the APL educational material and a separate “fact sheet“. [4] No verification has been supplied in either document. It may be an adventurous claim in the context of between 4.5 and 5 million pigs born in Australia each year. In nature, the problem is almost non-existent, as described by author Jeffrey Masson in his book “The Pig who sang to the Moon” [5]:
“In the wild, . . . sows getting ready to give birth will often construct protective nests as high as three feet. They line these farrowing nests with mouthfuls of grass and sometimes even manage to construct a roof made of sticks – a safe and comfortable home-like structure. On modern pig farms, where the mother is forced to give birth on concrete floors, her babies are often crushed when she rolls over. This never happens in the wild because the baby simply slips through the nest and finds her way back to her own teat.”
A video from Animal Liberation ACT, reported to be of Mr Pollard’s Lansdowne piggery, was prepared in response to APL Video 2. [6] The video focused on the farrowing crate area of the piggery (with plenty of steel and concrete but no hay). Images were also released, including the group housing area.
Selection of images from Animal Liberation ACT reportedly from Ean Pollard’s Lansdowne piggery
Go to bottom of page.WARNING:Graphic images.
Animal Liberation ACT Video
Here is Animal Liberation ACT’s video of the farrowing crate area (duration 7:17). WARNING:Graphic footage.
xx
Teachers as co-learners
The “Educational Unit” booklet contains the following rhetorical teacher’s question:
“I don’t know much about pork production myself – will I be able to teach it effectively?”
Answer:
“Yes! The unit is designed in such a way that you, as the teacher are a co-learner and you are provided with teacher notes, plus the resources are mainly web-based and are readily available. Most importantly, you will find that you learn with the students and make discoveries with them.”
So teachers may depend entirely on what an organisation, established for the purpose of supporting and promoting the pig meat industry, tells it.
Is that the sort of education we want in Australia?
Looking after pigs
The booklet refers glowingly to the euphemistically-titled Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (Pigs). Epitomising the world of political doublespeak, the “welfare” code (reflected in exemptions to state-based “prevention of cruelty to animals” legislation) permits the following horrendously cruel practices, most of which apply routinely to the vast majority of pigs used for food:
life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking without anaesthetic;
ear notching without anaesthetic;
teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
castration without anaesthetic.
APL’s so-called voluntary ban on sow stalls, scheduled to commence this year (and already implemented by many member establishments but possibly irrelevant to non-members), will still allow them to be used for up to eleven days per pregnancy, and will not be binding on individual producers. In any event, the ability to monitor compliance must be questionable.
The industry has not indicated any action in respect of farrowing crates, which are even more restrictive than sow stalls. In its educational material, APL states, “a farrowing stall allows a sow to stand up, lie down and stretch out . . .”. But they cannot turn around. They cannot interact with their piglets. They cannot behave naturally. It sounds like hell on earth.
In his video appearance referred to earlier, Ean Pollard said:
“You may have seen some footage that activists have taken of sows [in sow stalls] that have been woken up early in the morning, and expected to be fed. And then when they weren’t fed, they got upset. So how would you feel if someone came into your bedroom in the early hours of the morning and woke you up.”
My answer is that I would not be happy, but I’d be far less happy if I spent 24 hours per day for sixteen weeks locked in an indoor cage that was so small, I couldn’t even turn around. I would also not be happy living my entire life indoors. Being woken in the early hours would be the least of my worries.
Sustainability
The booklet and Video 1 also commented on sustainability aspects of pig meat production, with the issue said to be “the dominant cross curriculum perspective”. The booklet claims: “GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions produced by the pork industry are significantly lower than other agricultural sectors, such as beef cattle, dairy cattle and sheep.”
It’s amusing that they chose the highest-emitting agricultural sectors to compare themselves against. Here’s how the emissions intensity of pig meat compares to that of some plant-based options, noting that soybeans contain more high-quality protein per kilogram than pig meat. [7] [Footnotes 2 and 3] (The term “GWP” relates to the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases measured over 100-year or 20-year time horizons.)
Figure 1: Emissions intensity per kg protein (kg CO2-e/kg protein)
Video 1 (referred to earlier) included Edwina Beveridge of Blantyre Farms demonstrating some aspects of her establishment’s biogas facility, whereby methane from effluent ponds is used to produce electricity. Such facilities are not widespread. In any event, the methane they use (which is a potent greenhouse gas) would not exist if consumers utilised plant-based options rather than pig meat.
Also, nitrous oxide emitted from manure, along with any fugitive methane emissions from the biogas process, would almost certainly offset any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions achieved by the farm using self-generated electricity. The respective global warming impacts of nitrous oxide and methane are 268 and 86 times that of carbon dioxide when measured over a 20-year time horizon. The figures are 298 and 34 over a 100-year time horizon.
The grossly and inherently inefficient nature of animal-based nutrition is also a major concern. It takes 5.7 kilograms of plant-based protein to create 1 kilogram of pig meat protein, with the result that far more resources, including land, are used than would otherwise be required. [8] That has major implications for forested areas such as the Amazon and Cerrado regions of South America, where most of the soy bean production that contributes to land clearing is destined for pigs and other farm animals. The clearing increases the likelihood of tipping points being breached and runaway climate change being triggered, over which we will have virtually no control. The trade in soy beans is global, with demand in any one country contributing to the overall extent of land clearing, including the clearing in South America.
Relatively high water usage and massive amounts of effluent (whether or not used in biogas production) are other key issues for pig meat establishments.
Promoting Australian pork: “Get some pork on your fork”
The educational booklet points out (possibly with despair) that 65 per cent of processed pig meat sold in Australia “is made from frozen boneless pork imported from places like Denmark, Canada and the United States”.
It then tells the teachers and students how to identify the Australian product.
That could be a strong example of the possible promotional intent of APL’s education kits.
In line with its major “get some pork on your fork” advertising campaign, on one page of the educational booklet’s teacher notes, there are four references to getting product from farm to fork. The line between advertising, PR and “education” appears to be extremely thin.
Healthy eating?
The booklet identifies a key activity in the form of investigating concepts and ideas about how food produced by pigs can be prepared for healthy eating.
Contrary to that notion, World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF International) published its Second Expert Report in 2007, titled “Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective”. The report was issued jointly with one of WCRF’s network members, the American Institute for Cancer Research. [9]
The report contained recommendations relating to red and processed meat (Recommendation 5, Chapter 12). For the purpose of the analysis, beef, pork, lamb, and goat were all considered to be forms of red meat. Processed meat consisted of meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives. Such meat includes ham and bacon.
WCRF International stated (p. 382):
“The evidence that red meat is a cause of colorectal cancer isconvincing. The evidence that processed meat is a cause ofcolorectal cancer is also convincing.” (The “convincing” category is WCRF’s strongest.)
WCRF UK has stated:
“The Panel of Experts could find no amount of processed meat that can be confidently shown not to increase cancer risk. That is why WCRF UK recommends people avoid processed meat to reduce their bowel cancer risk.” [10]
As part of WCRF International’s Continuous Update Project, in 2010, a research team at Imperial College London produced an updated systematic literature review of the evidence from 263 new papers on food, nutrition and physical activity. [11] WCRF International’s Expert Panel considered the updated evidence and agreed that the findings confirmed or strengthened the convincing and probable conclusions of the Second Expert Report for colorectal cancer.
One of WCRF’s key recommendations is to eat mostly foods of plant origin.
Similar findings on red and processed meat were reported in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO). In reporting the findings, Harvard University stated [12]:
“Consumption of processed meat was classified as carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic after the IARC Working Group – comprised of 22 scientists from ten countries – evaluated over 800 studies. Conclusions were primarily based on the evidence for colorectal cancer. Data also showed positive associations between processed meat consumption and stomach cancer, and between red meat consumption and pancreatic and prostate cancer.”
Processed red meats, such as bacon, sausage, salami and deli meats, are also associated with much higher risk of heart disease. [13]
Quality assurance and Oliver’s Piggery
APL is the owner and managing agent of the Australian Pork Industry Quality Assurance Program (APIQ). The questionable validity of this industry self audit process was highlighted in the 2009 case of Olivers Piggery in Tasmania.
Just three months before visits by animal activists and police, the piggery was inspected by an APIQ auditor. According to presenter Liam Bartlett in Channel 9’s “60 Minutes” episode “The Hidden Truth”, the auditor gave the piggery “the all-clear”. [14] He said it was only a clerical error by Mr Oliver that prevented the piggery from being accredited by APL. A court convicted Mr Oliver and the company that operated the piggery with animal cruelty.
At the time the activists recorded their video, Mr Oliver was appearing in brochures as one of Woolworths “fresh food people”. The business had been supplying Woolworths for ten years, and was supplying 20 per cent of the fresh pork sold in its Tasmanian supermarkets.
A shareholder and director of the company operating the piggery was a board member of APL.
APL Disclaimer
Perhaps wisely, APL has included this comment in a disclaimer within the educational booklet (with my underlines):
“. . . While APL has no reason to believe that the information contained in this publication is inaccurate, APL is unable to guarantee the accuracy of the information . . . The information contained in this publication should not be relied upon for any purpose . . .”
A similar disclaimer appeared in Video 1.
Conclusion
Parents and children place enormous trust in educational institutions. To subject children to biased promotional material in support of a profit-oriented industry group is an extremely questionable practice that each state’s education and agriculture departments need to address.
Graeme Pope’s industry bio states (with my underline) that he “has a strong interest in working with rural media and agricultural students to improve the public image of commercial pork production”.
The protein-based emissions intensity figures for pig meat shown here (from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) are higher than estimates I have conservatively reported elsewhere, where I chose not to adjust for yield.
Pulses comprise chickpeas, lentils, dried beans and dried peas. Along with soybeans, peanuts, fresh beans and fresh peas, they are members of the “legume” food group.
[7] Derived from: (a) MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., Vellinga, T., Henderson, B. and Steinfeld, H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Table 32, p. 68 [Pig meat]; (b) Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Figure 18, p. 35 [Pig meat]; (c) Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1 [Pulses and soybeans] (d) Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , Table 8.7, p. 714 [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ [GWP]
[8] Tilman, D., Clark, M., “Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health”, Nature515, 518–522 (27 November 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13959, Extended Data Table 7 “Protein conversion ratios of livestock production systems”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html#t7
The Victorian State Government in Australia has created an opportunity to right past legislative and regulatory wrongs.
Examples of those wrongs are exemptions to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTAA) in favour of the livestock sector.
If the legislature exempts certain practices from laws and regulations designed to prevent cruelty, then by definition, it is permitting cruelty.
That is despite political doublespeak to the contrary.
The livestock sector is currently permitted to perform extreme acts of cruelty on animals it is using as products. Those acts include (but are certainly not limited to): many forms of mutilation without anaesthetic; lifelong confinement indoors; sexual abuse of males and females, euphemistically referred to as “artificial insemination”.
Our elected representatives are expected to create conditions that ensure justice for all. A key anomaly at present is that “production” animals are excluded from that arrangement.
Why is such an approach considered acceptable when those animals experience physical and emotional pain in the same way as human members of society and companion animals?
The opportunity the government has created for itself is in the form of its five-year Draft Action Plan, with the title “Improving the Welfare of Animals in Victoria”.
Within the draft plan, the government has declared that we must protect animals, including those on farms, from cruelty.
In making that statement, it has created more than an opportunity; it has created an obligation.
The government should fulfill that obligation by removing exemptions to POCTAA, thereby preventing the livestock sector from continuing its barbaric practices.
Sale of products prepared by cruel means outside the state should also be prohibited.
A community education campaign could highlight the benefits in terms of justice, and inform consumers of the wide array of delicious, cruelty-free products that can easily satisfy their nutritional requirements.
Given entrenched practices, the process may be challenging, but those whom we elect should not expect an easy ride.
If the government does not have the courage to implement legislative changes that reflect its own statements, then it must inform the community through public relations and advertising of the horrors many are responsible for through their purchasing decisions. It must also mandate product labeling that reflects the current reality.
Each day in which honest and open discussion is delayed, more animals are born into lives of almost unimaginable cruelty.
Do we want to live in a civilised society or not? The choice is ours.
I recently posted an article containing the text of a letter I had sent to Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford.
My key point was that the website of Agriculture Victoria claims that exemptions to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act do not permit cruelty to occur.
That claim seems to ignore the fact that the relevant exemptions, relating to practices permitted under “other legislation, codes of practice . . . and the Livestock Management Act Standards”, allow practices that cause certain animals to experience extreme pain and suffering.
How can it not be considered cruel to deliberately inflict pain and suffering on another being?
Yet that is what our state government is claiming.
“Today’s corporations, government departments, news media, and, perhaps most dangerously, politicians, speak to each other and to us in cliched, impenetrable, lifeless sludge.”
Much of the so-called communication emanating from governments, corporations and increasingly the broader community, to the extent it can be comprehended at all, does not reflect reality.
Anyway, I’m pleased to report that Ms Pulford has responded to my letter, for which I’m grateful.
On the other hand, I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that her letter suffers from the same “decay of public language” highlighted by Watson, along with certain omissions.
Firstly, she did not respond to my suggestions:
Agriculture Victoria amend its website by noting that cruelty is permitted when it involves animals bred for food and other purposes.
Alternatively, simply remove the exemptions.
Secondly, she stated that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act “applies equally to all species and use of animal”, when the exemptions dictate otherwise.
Thirdly, she told me what I had already stated in my letter, which is that standards for the treatment of animals are specified in codes of practice for the “welfare” of animals.
Something that’s a little frightening, which highlights some of the horror the poor animals experience, is the fact that she notes (with my underlines) the codes of practice have been developed “to ensure that the appropriate levels of animal welfare are detailed in each code for the particular species or use”.
So for some animals, it seems it is “appropriate” that we inflict pain and suffering.
Imagine you are an animal for whom such an approach has been decreed by those in power. Those with the ability and desire to abuse you are fully within their rights to do so.
She mentioned that the livestock codes of practice are being reviewed at the national level, and are being replaced with Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines. I had referred to an example of those arrangements in my letter, noting that they allow (in respect of cattle at certain ages or under particular circumstances) castration, dehorning, disbudding (prior to horns growing) and hot iron branding, all without anaesthetic.
Unsurprisingly, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) was mentioned. Ms Pulford said they should only be contacted in relation to matters involving non-commercial or domestic animals, and that the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (what a mouthful) should be contacted in relation to livestock issues.
So the government department that is responsible for “economic development and job creation across Victoria” is also responsible for the well being of animals who are regarded as products to be slaughtered and exploited in other ways. What hope do the animals have when there is no one officially responsible for protecting their true interests?
In any event, the RSPCA earns royalties from the livestock sector in exchange for its “paw of approval” product endorsements. Is it just me, or does that also seem an “inappropriate” arrangement to you?
Perhaps the most extraordinary claim in the letter was that “animal welfare is a high priority for the Andrews Labor Government”.
Why do I consider that claim extraordinary?
Well, the Andrews Labor government is one of two in Australia that permit jumps racing for horses.
Also, the Andrews Labor government is one of three in Australia that permit duck shooting on public lands.
Conclusion
As governments, elected representatives, and the public sector in general have established a legal framework that permits and condones the mental and physical abuse of animals, they must acknowledge that such standards exist, and stop pretending that we live in a civilised society.
We are quick to condemn other nations and cultures for what we consider to be heinous acts of cruelty, when we need look no further than our own backyard to see equally reprehensible acts that are enshrined in the laws that govern our way of life.
It’s time to either wake up and change, or stop pretending.
I feel that the march toward the former is gaining momentum, and am hopeful it will soon become the norm.
Here is my letter of 31st March 2016 to Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford. I have informed Ms Pulford that I would be posting the content of the letter online. Some of the material was included in my article “When does ‘cruel’ not mean ‘cruel’?” of 31st August 2014.
The Hon. Jaala Pulford MLC
Level 16
8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne
Victoria, 3002
jaala.pulford@parliament.vic.gov.au
31st March 2016
Dear Ms Pulford,
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
I note that the Agriculture Victoria website states as follows regarding exemptions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act:
“There are a number of exemptions built into the POCTA Act for activities undertaken in accordance with other legislation, codes of practice made under this Act, and the Livestock Management Act Standards. However this does not permit cruelty to occur.”
I also note the following definition of the word “cruel” from the Oxford Dictionary:
“Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.”
When one considers the practices that are permitted under the codes of practice, standards and related legislation, I wonder how they could not be considered cruel.
Here are some examples from a small sample of codes and guidelines:
Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition)
The code permits the following practices, most of which apply routinely to the vast majority of pigs used for food:
life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking without anaesthetic;
ear notching without anaesthetic;
teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
castration without anaesthetic.
The Australian industry’s so-called voluntary ban on sow stalls, scheduled to commence in 2017, will allow them to be used for up to eleven days per pregnancy, and will not be binding on individual producers. In any event, the ability to monitor compliance must be questionable.
The industry has not indicated any action in respect of farrowing crates.
Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition)
The code permits:
life-long confinement indoors, including cages;
beak trimming of chickens without anaesthetic;
removing the snood of turkeys (the skin drooping from the forehead) without anaesthetic;
removing terminal segment of males’ inward pointing toes without anaesthetic;
killing of “surplus” chicks (mainly male) in the egg industry through gassing with CO2 or by “quick maceration”. (The Oxford defines “macerate” as “soften or become softened by soaking in a liquid”. In the case of chicks, there is no soaking in liquid. They are sent along a conveyor belt to an industrial grinder while still alive.)
Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle
The standards permit:
castration without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
dehorning without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
disbudding (prior to horns growing) without anaesthetic. Caustic chemicals may be used for that process under certain circumstances, including an age of less than fourteen days;
hot iron branding without anaesthetic.
Please also see comments regarding the dairy industry below.
National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments
The standards allow stunning prior to slaughter by: pneumatic captive bolt guns; controlled atmosphere (CO2) stunning; and electrical stunning
They state that CO2 concentration should be greater or equal to 90% by volume, and no less than 80% when gaseous mixtures are used. (Variations are allowed following a monitoring and verification procedure that demonstrates effective stunning.)
Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments
Like the standard referred to above, in respect of pigs, the code allows stunning prior to slaughter by: pneumatic captive bolt guns; controlled atmosphere (CO2) stunning; and electrical stunning.
It notes that the CO2 concentration recommended in Europe is 70% by volume, and that the recommendation may need to be modified for Australian conditions as experience with local conditions increases.
Evidence of a standard procedure in action: CO2 stunning of pigs
The great majority of pigs in Australia are stunned using the CO2 method.
Many people may wrongly believe that the process is free of pain and stress for animals.
Donald Broom, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Veterinary Medicine at Cambridge University, made the following points after viewing a video recording of the process from an Australian abattoir:
The use of CO2 stunning represented a major welfare problem, as the gas is very aversive to pigs.
The extreme reactions were typical for pigs lowered into a high concentration of CO2.
The best gas to use in the stunning chamber is argon, or a mixture of argon and up to 20 per cent CO2. Pigs do not detect argon, so are stunned without being aware of the gas.
For financial reasons, efforts are generally made to reduce the time taken to unconsciousness, so CO2 is often used. It is somewhat cheaper than argon.
From Professor Broom’s comments, it would appear that there are options available that would cause less stress to pigs than high concentrations of CO2, and that many in the industry may be avoiding those methods for financial reasons.
Additional comments on the dairy industry
Cows are continually impregnated in order to produce milk. However, the milk is intended for humans, so the cow and calf are separated almost immediately after birth, with the calves either going back into the dairy industry, to veal production or almost immediate slaughter. This process is an inherent component of dairy production and seems almost unimaginably cruel to the cow and calf.
Although not legislated, relevant industries have established a national standard whereby they can avoid feeding calves aged 5 to 30 days, who are being transported without their mothers, for up to 30 hours at a time.
The RSPCA and potential mandatory reporting
The RSPCA has called for mandatory reporting of animal cruelty. The organisation’s Chief Executive, Heather Neil, has said:
“But there are some people who, by the nature of their role, are expected to know what animal cruelty is and when action should be taken. These people should have a legal obligation to report cruelty when they see it.”
Although the RSPCA may not have identified the issue itself, its proposal highlights the strange dichotomy that exists between legal and non-legal cruelty. The organisation’s proposal is presumably aimed at non-legal cruelty, without seeming to acknowledge the extent of the legal variety.
Conclusion
Agriculture Victoria’s claim that exemptions to the POCTA Act do not allow cruelty to occur could be construed as an attempt to hide the truth.
I am reminded of the following statement from former Labor Premier, Steve Bracks:
“When you’re proud of what you’re doing, you don’t want it hidden; you want people to know about it. You only keep secret the things that you’re ashamed of.”
He also said a feature that would differentiate his government from that of his predecessor was:
“leadership that believes in openness and accountability, that isn’t afraid of scrutiny, that credits the people of this state with the intelligence to make their own judgements”
In the spirit of the comments from Steve Bracks, I feel that Agriculture Victoria should amend the relevant page by noting that cruelty is permitted when it involves animals bred for food and other purposes. That would assist consumers to “make their own judgements” based on a clearer understanding of the truth.
Another option would be to remove the exemptions. Surely it is unjust to have one law for certain animals, and a different law for others.
Regardless of the outcome, better-informed consumers may choose to avoid animal products altogether on the basis that any use of animals for food and other purposes is a form of exploitation, and arguably unethical.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with you if you would like to do so.
Yours faithfully
Paul Mahony
Co-founder Melbourne Pig Save
melbournepigsave.org
END OF LETTER
Image: Edgar’s Mission Farm Sanctuary
Footnote: This article also appears on the Melbourne Pig Save website.
A recent study from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh considered changes in energy usage, water usage and greenhouse gas emissions that could result from changing US food consumption patterns. This post focuses on the emissions aspect of that study. It uses emissions figures from the same source used by the study’s authors, and nutrient figures from the US Department of Agriculture’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.
Some curious aspects of the university’s announcement
On 14th December, 2015, the university released an article regarding the study. Some points to note:
It said the study’s findings were contrary to what had been said by Arnold Schwarzenegger in a speech at the recent Paris Climate Summit, where he had called for a reduction in meat consumption. The article referred to him solely as an “actor”, and neglected to mention the seemingly relevant point that Schwarzenegger had served two terms as governor of California, with environmental issues high on his agenda. (I am not critiquing his record in that regard.)
The study finding that was said to be contrary to Schwarzenegger’s statements was that “eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change”. However, contrary to that statement, the study did not consider vegetarian or vegan diets. It considered dietary scenarios based on the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines, which included seafood products. (Neither the study nor the university’s article referred to vegan diets, which exclude egg and dairy products.)
The finding that a vegetarian diet “could contribute to climate change” is hardly a revelation. The key point is that its impact is generally less than that of a diet that includes meat, while a vegan diet’s impact would be less again.
The article quoted a co-author of the study, Paul Fischbeck, saying, “Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon”. Apart from the poor grammar, that widely circulated statement lacked a key point that was mentioned later in the article, which was that the study assessed emissions on a “per calorie” basis, rather than the conventional basis of “per kilogram of end product”. For reasons referred to below, the validity of the “per calorie” approach is extremely questionable.
Lettuce was not specifically referred to in the study, but was included in the “vegetables” category.
Not a valid comparison
We do not generally eat lettuce for calories, which are a measure of food’s energy content. Energy from food is essential for our survival, but is generally obtained from foods other than lettuce. (It is widely known that excessive calories can contribute to weight problems.)
The authors were investigating the environmental impacts of achieving a healthy diet in terms of calorie count. However, it seems to make little sense to compare a food high in calories, such as bacon, to one which we rely on for other benefits.
Cos (romaine) lettuce was the variety considered for the purpose of the study. It is a good source of riboflavin, vitamin B6, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, copper, dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin K, thiamine, folate, iron, potassium and manganese, while being low in saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium. They are all good reasons to eat it, but we would not be doing so as an energy source.
Bacon, on the other hand, is a good source of protein, niacin, phosphorus and selenium, but has the disadvantages of being high in saturated fat (and related calories) and sodium. It has also been found by the World Health Organization and The World Cancer Research Fund to increase the risk of bowel cancer.
If Paul Fischbeck intended to comment on greenhouse gas emissions in relation to a particular nutrient or other feature, then it may have been beneficial to discuss a feature that was prominent in the foods being compared, so that we could choose a realistic option.
According to the USDA, cos lettuce has only 170 calories per kilogram, compared to bacon with 5,330. It would take around 48 average size heads of cos lettuce (weighing around 650 grams or 1 pound, 7 ounces each) to generate the same level of calories as 1 kilogram of bacon (comprising 25 to 30 thin or 15 to 20 thick slices).
Fischbeck also chose to comment on a type of meat with low emissions relative to meat from ruminant animals such as cows and sheep. Ruminants emit large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and often graze widely, with implications for CO2 emissions through land clearing and soil carbon losses. Their impact should not be ignored in any discussion comparing greenhouse gas emissions of different foods.
Emissions per kilogram of product including alternative time horizons
A more valid measure than the one used in the study would seem to be the widely used greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of end product.
Although most published emissions figures are based on a 100-year time horizon, it is also important to consider a 20-year period. The reason is that methane breaks down in the atmosphere to a large extent within that time frame. As a result, the 100-year measure (showing the average impact of a gas over the longer period) understates methane’s shorter term impacts, as the gas would be almost non-existent over the final eighty years. Those impacts will be critical as we try to avoid near-term acceleration of climate change, influenced by significant feedback mechanisms, potentially causing us to lose any ability to influence the climate system in favourable ways. The multiplier used to convert a gas’s warming impact to a “CO2-equivalent” (CO2-e) figure is known as the “global warming potential” or “GWP”.
Figures 2 and 3 show emissions of bacon, lettuce and beef with 100-year and 20-year GWPs.
As indicated earlier, the 100-year emissions figures used throughout this article (and used as the basis for calculating the 20-year figures) are from the data source utilised by the Carnegie Mellon researchers. It was a 2014 review by Martin Heller and Gregory Keoleian from the University of Michigan of life cycle assessment studies (LCAs) relating to US food consumption. The average figures from that review have been used. The LCAs it used were from the US and “other developed countries”. As a result, the figures for animal-based products, in particular, may be conservative relative to the global average. Emissions vary by region, and are influenced by factors such as feed digestibility, livestock management practices, reproduction performance and land use.
For the purpose of the 20-year comparison, the figures for beef and pork have been adjusted based on global average apportionment of emissions categories, as estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. As such, in the context of US emissions, the 20-year figures are approximations only.
The comparison is based on 1 kilogram servings of each product, with depictions of the estimated quantities shown in Figure 1. The depiction of eighteen bacon slices is based on an approximate average weight of thick rindless back bacon slices. The lettuces shown here are relatively small heads of cos lettuce, with some of the outer leaves removed. A large cos can weigh around 800 grams, while smaller heads with some leaves removed would typically weigh around 500 grams. A regular steak can weigh around 250 grams.
Figure 2: Kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product (100-year GWP)
Figure 3: Kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product (20-year GWP)
Other products and emissions per kilogram of protein
It is possible to compare emissions per kilogram based on any common nutrient. As protein is abundant in animal and plant products, and is often the focus of attention in terms of nutrition, a comparison based on emissions per kilogram of protein may be useful. The protein content of various products is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Protein content (grams per kilogram of product)
Notes: 1. The average of soybeans (365), lentils (258) and chickpeas (193) is allowed for in the “legumes” figures below; 2. The legume figures are based on raw product. Due to increased water content, soaking or boiling reduces protein content per kilogram.
100-year Global Warming Potential
The charts below show emissions per kilogram of: (a) product; and (b) protein; based on a 100-year time horizon.
Figure 5(a): Kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product (GWP100)
Figure 5(b): Kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of protein (GWP100)
20-year Global Warming Potential
The charts below show emissions per kilogram of: (a) product; and (b) protein; based on a 20-year time horizon.
Figure 6(a): Kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product (GWP20)
Figure 6(b): Kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of protein (GWP20)
Alternative multiples
Based on the preceding analysis, I argue that the following multiples of emissions from beef and bacon relative to legumes are more valid comparisons than Paul Fischbeck’s comparison of lettuce to bacon.
100-year Time Horizon
Kilograms of CO2-e greenhouse gas per kilogram of product relative to legumes (100-year GWP):
Beef: 34 times
Bacon: 9 times
Kilograms of CO2-e greenhouse gas per kilogram of protein relative to legumes (100-year GWP):
Beef: 34 times
Bacon: 6 times
20-year Time Horizon
Kilograms of CO2-e greenhouse gas per kilogram of product relative to legumes (20-year GWP)
Beef: 69 times
Bacon: 14 times
Kilograms of CO2-e greenhouse gas per kilogram of protein relative to legumes (20-year GWP)
Beef: 69 times
Bacon: 10 times
Other considerations and conclusion
The emissions intensity of different food products, as utilised in the Carnegie Mellon study and this article, are important factors in helping to identify opportunities for a low emissions diet. Although they almost invariably favour plant-based over animal-based foods, we must also consider other critical problems in animal-based food production.
An example is the precarious position of the Amazon rainforest, which results primarily from inherently inefficient animal-based food production, including livestock grazing and soybean plantations feeding billions of chickens, pigs and cows. We have virtually no buffer available in our efforts to avoid catastrophic climate change, and it is essential that we remove the pressure that currently exists on the Amazon and other critical ecosystems.
Another example is the dramatic release of carbon from ocean vegetation and sediment, along with loss of carbon sequestration capacity, due to industrial and recreational fishing.
In a nation considered to be the home of free enterprise, indirect subsidies to US animal-based food producers should be considered an anathema. Those subsidies are created by the fact that the true cost of animal-based food production is not accounted for in the consumer price. Rather, such costs currently represent externalities, borne by the community as a whole. If they were incorporated in the end price, the market for the more environmentally harmful products would contract, with major overall benefits.
The authors of the Carnegie Mellon study may be concerned about Americans’ ability to achieve a healthier diet, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, with the huge array of plant-based options available, which on any reasonable comparison offer enormous climate change benefits, it is clear that a general transition away from animal-based food products is essential and achievable.
Tom, M.S., Fischbeck, P.S., Hendrickson, C.T., “Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US”, Environment Systems and Decisions, published online 24th November, 2015, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y
None of the information contained in this article is intended to represent nutritional, dietary, medical, health or similar advice.
Additional comments regarding the Heller and Keoleian paper and the protein content of blade loin roast pork were added on 29th December, 2015, and the main image updated. Various figures were updated on 3rd January, 2016, and notes to figure 4 amended.
terrastendo 