Foreword by FirstFlora: we share the positions of Fairlie is that of vegans and vegetarians even though we are more ethically agree with them. But it is undeniable that some animals are useful biodynamic agriculture (which is fine to tell the truth to organize small food crops and niche of origin and for the preservation of biodiversity for food but to save the biodiversity of the planet and you feed him necessary for the efficient intensive agriculture that has much higher production per hectare). Always say that it is important to reduce consumption of meat. It's nice to see that faces a new kind of real communication on important issues that will not start from dogmatic positions and opposite. So we got permission to add a point to interogativo title.
Here is the article:
"The meat is good for the planet"
If you convert the vegetarian
The editor of the environmentalist magazine "The Ecologist" change the diet, and data in hand, said: "I feel more environmentally friendly a vegan. " But not everyone agrees: "Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice, more people eating meat polluter"
SARA Ficocelli LaRepubblica.it
Eating meat will not necessarily hurt the planet, indeed. To launch the challenge is the ecologist Simon Fairlie, editor of British magazine The Ecologist and a former vegetarian. "I have not touched meat from 18 to 24 years - said in an interview with Time - and then I started raising goats. But the men did not know what to do: not producing milk, were not children. So I started to eat them." Strong words, as spoken by a man who for 30 years, including investigations and insights, is dedicated to environmental issues. It has now decided to put pen to paper on his new creed prints giving the book "Meat: A Benign Extravagance" (ed. Maddy Harland, £ 19.95).
Pressed by Time's colleague Tara Kelly, Fairlie explained that it is possible to combine a serious commitment to the environment with the pleasure of a Florentine steak: "Eat moderately, twice a week, does not cause any damage to the planet. All farming systems produce a surplus of biomass that must be disposed of, and I do not see what's wrong with giving this surplus as fodder for animals. This way of raising livestock is environmentally friendly and even good for the earth. Goats, sheep and cows in turn produce a useful natural fertilizer to farmers. The cycle is perfect. And I feel more of a vegan environmentalist. "
few months ago, similar conclusions were reached by a New Scientist investigation of 2. Yet the 2006 report of the Food and Agriculture Organization has determined that raising animals for the production of meat produces 18% of annual global carbon emissions. "A since it contains basic mistakes - continues Fairlie - because the assumption that farms inevitably lead to deforestation. Not so. Science has also calculated that to produce a piece of meat are consumed plants useful to man in a ratio of 5 to 1. But even this figure is controversial breeding animals with non-edible plants for us, the proportion drops to 1.4 to 1.
Fairlie also provides specific information about the types of meat that is good to eat to become a good "omnivorous ecologist "yes" to that of pork, because these animals consume waste of all kinds, and yes even the beef, as long as it was brought up in the meadows. "A diet with too much meat is definitely bad - says Professor Peter Migliaccio, president of the Italian Society of Food Science 3 - but to have a balanced diet should eat meat at least twice a week. And the environmental impact would not worry: the Mediterranean diet "polluter" 50% less than the Anglo-Saxon, and these are official data that will bring in Rio De Janeiro October 26, during the world day of pulp.
But according to the president of the Italian Vegetarian 4, Carmen Somaschi, the discourse of the journalist Ecologist from a mistaken assumption: "That's become a vegetarian is an ethical choice - he explains - and then accept or all or nothing. Also eat meat only twice a week will damage the planet, because as long as there will be those who consume livestock. Authoritative studies have shown that the environmental impact of a person who eats meat is equal to that of 10 vegetarians: you use the fridge to keep it, to dispose of animal waste is polluting the waters. I do not criticize those who eat meat, consume only say that it is objectively harmful to the environment. "The Somaschi recalls that when the association was founded in 1952 in Italy vegetarians were a handful of marginalized:" Again in 1980 we threw outside the restaurants. Today, only in our country, we are 7 million and a half. We have done so much to get here, I find it unfair that our commitment to ethical and practical is misleading discredited provocations. "
of the same opinion, the doctor Luciana Baroni, president of the Scientific Society of Nutrition 5 Vegetarian and author of" VegPyramid - The vegetarian diet of the Italians "(Ed. probe, 190 pp).. According to Baroni, "the choice not to eat meat is first of all staff, linked to the most varied reasons. But it becomes a social issue when you understand that if all behave the same way, the habitat of living beings will be safeguarded. "As to healthiness of a vegetarian diet, the nutritionist notes that there are communities that do not naturally eat meat and are the longest in the world, as Hunzas, the Vilcamba or Okinawa. "Unfortunately - he concludes - the trend today is to mediate between the dell'onnivoro will not give up meat, need not renounce the production of profit, and ecological reasons. It 'clear that in this light, attempts to say that the meat should be reduced, and this is certainly right, but it is only the first step is to go beyond. " The Barons concludes by recalling that the average conversion ratio of plant-animal is 15:1, meaning that it takes 15 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of meat. "I understand that might annoy those who draw huge profits from these wastes. But these are the data," he concludes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment