De que animais vem exactamente a carne que comemos é a
grande questão
 |
As consequências ecológicas da produção de carne são apocalípticas.
Ler texto em inglês em baixo
|
Bruxelas renuncia a seguir o rasto de animais clonados
para não aborrecer os EUA
AFP 18/12/2013 – in Público
Os descendentes de animais
clonados para fins alimentares humanos são uma realidade, em particular nos
Estados Unidos, na Argentina, no Brasil e no Uruguai.
A Comissão Europeia propôs nesta quarta-feira a proibição da
clonagem animal para fins alimentares, mas renunciou a banir a venda de carne e
de leite de descendentes de animais clonados para não indispor os seus
parceiros comerciais, nomeadamente os Estados Unidos.
“A Comissão propõe interditar a técnica da clonagem em
animais de pecuária e a importação de
animais clonados para a União Europeia”, anunciou o comissário europeu da
Saúde, Tonio Borg, durante uma conferência de imprensa. “Propomos interditar a
técnica da clonagem para fins alimentares e a importação de animais clonados”,
insistiu.
“Mas não propusemos a etiquetagem” para a carne fresca de
bovinos descendentes de animais clonados, acrescentou Tonio Borg, dizendo que o
assunto foi falado durante a reunião da Comissão Europeia. “Discutimos todas as
possibilidades, incluindo a etiquetagem da carne fresca de bovinos descendentes
de animais clonados, e considerámos que é preciso proceder a uma análise
profundada.”
“Compete agora ao Conselho [de ministros da União Europeia]
e ao Parlamento Europeu discutirem e lançarem o debate”, concluiu Tonio Borg.
“O Parlamento Europeu vai-nos saltar em cima”, antecipa a Comissão Europeia,
uma vez que a França e a Alemanha, defensores declarados do seguimento do rasto
histórico dos produtos clonados, deverão passar ao contra-ataque.
“Os nossos pratos não devem tornar-se uma lixeira”
“Esta proposta é um insulto ao Parlamento Europeu e aos
cidadãos que representa”, insurgiu-se, num comunicado, a eurodeputada
ecologista francesa Sandrine Bélier, do grupo dos Verdes.
“A prontidão dos negociadores americanos e europeus em ver
concluído o novo acordo transatlântico de livre comércio coloca em cima da mesa
uma proposta que o Parlamento Europeu tinha claramente rejeitado. As
negociações comerciais não devem ser um cavalo de Tróia para medidas não
democráticas e contrárias aos valores da União Europeia”, acrescentou a
eurodeputada ecologista.
“Os nossos pratos não devem tornar-se uma lixeira. Não
abramos a caixa de Pandora da manipulação dos animais vivos”, advertiu, por sua
vez, o eurodeputado ecologista francês José Bové, também do grupo dos Verdes.
Este grupo decidiu batalhar no Parlamento Europeu contra esta proposta da
Comissão Europeia.
Na União Europeia, a clonagem animal para fins alimentares
só se pratica na Dinamarca. A carne dos clones não é comida, devido ao preço
muito elevado dos exemplares. Mas os seus embriões e sémen são comercializados
e exportados e os seus descendentes são criados, em particular, nos Estados
Unidos, na Argentina, no Brasil e no Uruguai.
Todos os anos, a União Europeia importa entre 300.000 a 500.000
toneladas de carne de bovino dos Estados Unidos e da Argentina, países que
autorizaram a clonagem para fins comerciais mas sem nenhum sistema que permita
seguir o rasto dos animais.
A Comissão Europeia, o Parlamento Europeu e os governos
falharam em entender-se, uma primeira vez, em 2011 sobre um enquadramento da
questão. Após três anos de negociações infrutíferas, os Estados-membros
consideraram exageradas as exigências dos eurodeputados relativas a um sistema
de rastreabilidade.
O Parlamento Europeu exigia um sistema de rastreabilidade
bastante avançado, para informar os consumidores de toda a carne oriunda de
animais clonados remontando a várias gerações. Isto iria impor aos Estados
Unidos e à Argentina controlos que eles não querem fazer, e a União Europeia
seria obrigada a bloquear as importações, arriscando-se a uma nova guerra
comercial semelhante à provocada pela proibição da carne com hormonas dos
Estados Unidos. A União Europeia está a negociar com os Estados Unidos um
acordo de livre comércio.
The Ecological
Consequences of Meat Consumption
Worldwide meat
production continues to increase
Meat production worldwide:
1990: 170 mio. tons
1994: 194 mio. tons
1997: 210 mio. tons
1999: 217 mio. tons
2003: 253 mio. tons
2004: 258 mio. tons
2005: 267 mio. tons
2009: 284 mio. tons
Although the
consumption of meat in industrialised countries has been decreasing for years,
consumption globally has continued to grow. In 2005, 267 million tons of meat
were produced worldwide, 600,000 tons in Switzerland alone. Meat production
has more than doubled since 1970.This has enormous ecological consequences
that unfortunately have received very little attention up to now.
Use of Land
On the same
amount of land needed to produce one kilo of meat, 200 kg of tomatoes or 160 kg of potatoes could be
harvested in the same time span. In Switzerland, approximately 67% of
agricultural land is used for keeping livestock and the production of animal
feed. This corresponds with the worldwide average. In the USA, 230,000 km2 of
land are taken up with the production of hay for farm animals, and only 16,000
km2 (= 7%) are used for growing plant foods for humans. The enormous amounts of
land needed for meat production also damage the rainforests: 40% of all
rainforest in Central America has been cleared or burned down within the last
40 years, mainly to gain land for grazing and the cultivation of fodder. 1.5
million tons of meat were imported into the EU in 2004. Over one third of this
came from Brazil.
Water Consumption
It has been
said that, in future, wars will not be fought over oil, but over water. An
average household needs around 2–5 litres of water for drinking, and 100–500
litres for everything else (such as showering, washing etc.). This is nothing
in comparison to the 2,000–5,000 litres needed every day for the production of
foodstuffs for an average family.
In the fight
against world hunger, the focus is often put upon the supply of food, while
water, essential to be able to produce food in the first place, is ignored.
Therefore, a water conference was held in Stockholm in 2004, concerned solely
with the supply of water for humans.[8] Interesting conclusions were brought to
light: whether a family requires 2,000 or 5,000 litres of water
daily to produce their food depends very much on their type of nutrition.
Worldwide, approximately 1,200
m3 of water are required per person per year for the
production of foodstuffs. In the poorest regions of the world, where people can
hardly afford animal products, the amount of water needed is around 600 m3 . In comparison,
regions that consume the most meat (the USA and EU) require circa 1,800 m3 annually per
person.
A direct
comparison shows the impact of meat consumption even more clearly:
A diet
consisting of 80% plant-based foods and 20% meat (in industrialised countries
the proportion of meat is actually 30–35%)[9] requires 1,300 m3 of water per
year, while a purely vegetarian diet requires around half this amount.
The increasing
consumption of animal products leads to ever-larger quantities of water being
needed in agriculture. Water is already being pumped up from depths of over 1,000 metres in
certain parts of India. One generation ago, hand-dug wells were sufficient for
farm irrigation. Today, 95% of these small pumps have run dry. This situation
is echoed across other Asian countries.
Food wastage
7–16 kg of
grain or soya beans are needed to produce 1 kg of meat. This can easily be defined as one
of the most effective ways to waste foodstuffs. The artificial extension of the
food chain due to the transformation of grain into meat causes a huge loss of
nutrients, including 90% protein, 99% carbohydrates and 100% fibre, among other
things. In addition to this, only a small portion of the body of a slaughtered
animal consists of meat – 35% of the weight of a cow or 39% of a calf
(excluding bones).
Nevertheless,
57% of the grain in Switzerland is still being fed to animals (1990). In the
USA, 8 billion slaughter animals eat their way through 80% of the grain
harvest. 90% of the world’s soya beans serve as animal fodder. In total,
approximately half of the grain produced worldwide is fed to animals so that
their meat can be eaten.
If Americans
ate 10% less meat, the quantity of the grain saved could protect around one
billion people from starvation. In Switzerland alone, about 1,700,000 tons of
concentrated feed (mostly grain) are fed to livestock. Switzerland may be able
to afford this waste; however, the figures are not much different in developing
countries. The FAO reported that in 1981, 75% of the grain imports into the
Third World were used for fodder. The domestic cultivation of foodstuffs also
competes with the worldwide production of animal feed: in Egypt over the last
25 years the cultivation of corn as fodder has been given priority in fields
that used to produce staple foods such as wheat, rice and millet. The
proportion of land planted with grain used for fodder has thereby increased
from 10% to 36%.
A similar
thing has happened in other countries where meat consumption has grown. In
1950, 170 kg
of grain per head was adequate to nourish the population of Taiwan. By 1990,
meat and egg consumption had multiplied sixfold. The grain requirement per head
has increased to 390 kg
due to this extension of the food chain. Despite steadily increasing harvests,
Taiwan can only meet this rising demand through imports. While Taiwan was a
grain exporter in 1950, in
1990 it had to import 74% of the quantity needed, mostly in the form of fodder.
Similar
figures apply to the former Soviet Union: meat consumption has tripled since
1950 while the demand for fodder has quadrupled. In 1990, cattle in the former
Soviet Union consumed three times as much grain than the people. Imports of
grain used as fodder reflect this, with an increase from almost zero in 1970 to
25 million tons per year in 1990. Through this, the Soviet Union became the
world's second largest importer of fodder.
Forest Destruction through Liquid Manure
Scientific
research clearly indicates that today's mass keeping of livestock is one of the
main causes of forest destruction. Biologist Dr. Hans Mohr states in «Spektrum
der Wissenschaft», January 1994:
«An essential
insight gained through ten years of research on forest damage is that the
amounts of nitrogen, in particular ammonia[, which stems primarily from
agriculture, being released into the atmosphere must be reduced. [...] The
disposal of the steadily increasing quantities of liquid manure and human
excrement remains the cardinal problem.»
Today, human
excrement is mostly disposed of by sewage plants; animal excrement, however, is
still poured or sprayed on to fields. The result of this is that 85% of
nitrogen (N) in the form of ammonia (NH3), today still considered to be mainly
responsible for the destruction of forests, is caused by livestock emissions.
Nitrogen,
actually an essential nutrient for meadows, forests and water-based life, can
lead to over-fertilisation if found in excess. However, this was only noticed
when it was already too late. Forests initially grew faster with a higher
nitrogen supply, and only showed the first signs of damage once the soil was
already over-saturated with nitrogen.
Around
90% of ammonia emissions from agriculture come from liquid manure and dung.
In 1992, the
German Bundestag’s Research Committee into the Preservation of the Earth’s
Atmosphere reached the same conclusion. On the subject of ammonia (NH3), they
published the following text in «Climatic Changes Threaten National
Development»:
«NH3-emissions
are nationally (West Germany), continentally (Western Europe) and globally to
be assigned 90% to agriculture and 80% to the keeping of livestock. 528,000
tons of NH3 are emitted annually in the Federal Republic of Germany. Ammonia
originates in the cattle stable area, in pastures and through the storage and
spreading of organic fertiliser. [...] Ammonia and nitrogen release could be
decreased by reducing the number of livestock, making changes in feeding and
reducing the use of liquid manure as fertiliser. [...] This would be desirable
not only in ecological, but also in economic respects.»
Air pollution due to
animal husbandry
Ammonia from
animal faeces does not only play a deadly role in acid rain. Secondary aerosols
form in the atmosphere through ammonia, endangering human health in the form of
particulate matter (PM10) or fine dust. The Director of the Swiss Ministry for
the Environment, Forests and Agriculture, Philippe Roche, reckons on 3,700
deaths annually due to fine dust in Switzerland. He estimates the additional
health-related costs to be around 4.2 million Swiss francs per year. Despite
its large contribution to the problem, animal husbandry is seldom mentioned in
the fight against fine dust. The reaction of Swiss President and Environment
Minister Moritz Leuenberger at the press conference on particulate matter on 2
February 2006 shows how difficult politicians find it to address this topic.
When asked about the contribution of animal farming to the fine dust problem,
he merely replied that «it is an awkward topic».
Since
1970, over 20 million hectares of tropical rainforest have been converted to
grazing ground for cattle.
Worldwatch
Institute
Water Pollution
Ammonia does
not only have terrible consequences for forests and the air, but also for
water. Among other things, over-fertilisation causes the unnaturally strong
growth of algae, which in turn extracts oxygen from the water.
Animal-factories, which today require much less land than previously, produce
such a large amount of liquid manure that the ground water is seriously
threatened. 890,000 tons of feed are needed to «produce» pork for the Swiss
population, and 2.5 million m3 of liquid manure are created in the process. For
example, the Swiss Sempach and Baldegg lakes already need to be given
«artificial respiration» with a huge oxygen blower. Over 50% of water pollution
in Europe is caused by the mass keeping of livestock. Nitrate from agriculture
has already penetrated so far into the ground water that some of the mineral
water brands no longer comply with guideline values for drinking water.[24] In
the USA, agriculture contributes more to water pollution than all the American
cities and industries together.
Over-acidification of
the soil
Cattle
pastures already cover one third of the land mass of our planet.
Worldwatch Institute
Ammonia and nitrogen oxide (NOX) also contribute substantially to
the over-acidification of the soil. This problem had reached such proportions
in Holland by 1989 that a ministerial department took on the problem. The
results of the Dutch Institute for Health and the Protection of the Environment
read:
«Nitrate from liquid manure that is released as ammonia into the
air is an environmental poison that causes so-called acid rain and other
deposits containing acid. In Holland, most of the precipitation comes from
ammonia gases out of cow sheds – they cause more damage to the country than all
of the automobiles and factories.»
Since
1970 more than 20 million hectares (1 hectare = 2.47 acres ) of tropical
forests have been changed into pastures for cattle.
Worldwatch Institute
The Greenhouse Effect
Up until now, traffic and industry have been held almost
exclusively responsible for the greenhouse effect. Here too, the influence of
animal husbandry has also been neglected for a long time. The head of the
Wuppertal-Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Ernst Ulrich von
Weizsäcker commented: «Cattle breeding’s contribution to the greenhouse effect
is about the same as that of all automobile traffic, if we take into
consideration the clearing of forests for cattle and for fodder. [...] And the
transformation of savannas into deserts, the erosion of mountain areas, the
excessive need for water for cattle, and the gigantic energy requirement for
keeping animals fattened are simply added reasons why we damage the environment
further with each additional pound of beef.»
The greenhouse effect is caused by the three gases methane, carbon
dioxide and nitrogen oxide, among other things. All three gases originate
through animal husbandry on a large scale. The 1.3 billion cattle kept
worldwide (and the consumers of their meat) alone are responsible for 12% of
annual methane gas emissions. Breeding of livestock creates 115 million tons (115,000,000,000 kg )
of methane gas per year. This becomes even more critical when one considers
that one molecule of methane contributes 25 times more to the greenhouse effect
than one molecule of carbon dioxide.
The heavy demands placed
on the udders of dairy cows often mean that medication is required to prevent
infection. The medicines used then pass directly into the eco-system.
Antibiotics and Hormones
One aspect has been neglected so far in the discussion of
the ecological consequences of meat production above. The breeding of species
for increased performance, the abnormal food they are fattened up on and the
unnatural conditions they are kept in cause more and more animals to become
ill. In many countries today it is forbidden to give preventive antibiotics to
healthy animals. This ban is necessary as antibiotics (as well as certain
hormones) were often misused by farmers as performance-enhancers. However, the
use of antibiotics on sick animals is still allowed. The current treatment of
farmed animals means that almost every animal needs to be treated with
antibiotics.
Although the preventive use of antibiotics on healthy
animals has been banned in Switzerland since 1999, a study carried out
in 2004 showed that 90% of calves in Switzerland had been treated with antibiotics.
The use of antibiotics on dairy cows is also frequent, as the heavy demand on
the sensitive udders of high output dairy cows often leads to infection
(mastitis).
There have long been limits on the levels of antibiotic
residues allowed in animal products intended for human consumption. In April 2005, a study published by
the Consumer Protection Ministry in Nordrhein-Westphalen, Germany announced
that antibiotics had been found in grain plants for the first time. Excrement
from animals treated with antibiotics is sprayed on the fields and through this
spreads into the eco-system. Although the values measured were below the
permitted limit for human foodstuffs, the constant absorption of small amounts
of antibiotics causes bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotics normally
used to kill them. Over time, these antibiotics lose their effectiveness. As a
result, ever stronger medicines need to be developed which upset the natural
balance even more.
All medicines and hormones (those used frequently in the USA
to increase milk and meat output) that are given to animals end up in the
eco-system sooner or later through meat, milk, eggs or excrement. The long-term
consequences of this are impossible to predict.
Even in the oceans, animals
are not safe from the consequences of humans’ consumption of meat.
A way out through Seafood?
The days when small boats went fishing in the sea are long
gone. Today’s catches are taken with kilometre-long nets. As fish numbers are
steadily decreasing due to heavy over-fishing, attention has turned to fish
farms in recent years. The same ecological problems have arisen here as with
the other species discussed above.
One example: A variety of chemicals, including antibiotics,
pesticides and fungicides are used on salmon farms. In addition, it will need
to be vaccinated against disease to enable it to cope with living in close
proximity to so many other fish. As the antibiotics and other medicines /
chemicals are poured directly into the water with the fish food, their rapid
spread into the eco-system is unavoidable.
Wild salmon normally travel thousands of kilometres during
their lifetime. Living in cages in a fish farm is so unnatural to them that
their flesh does not turn pink (as consumers now expect it to be). To overcome
this, the fish are usually fed artificial colouring in their food. The diseases
of the farmed fish spread to their wild counterparts, thereby decimating the
wild salmon population.
Fish food for farmed fish comes from the sea. For every
kilogram of farmed fish produced, 2 kilograms of wild fish are taken from the sea
as food.The same applies to other seafood such as crabs, prawns etc.
In addition to this wastage, fish populations in the sea
also suffer from the fact that one third of fish catches worldwide are
processed into fish-meal, and two thirds of which end up in the food troughs of
slaughter animals on land.
In recent years, the quantities of prawns consumed in Europe
have increased considerably. This has led to the creation of large farms on sea
beaches in Asia where mangrove forests previously stood. The mangrove forests
have an important ecological function as they act as a buffer against flood
waves. The Asian tsunami in 2004 was so devastating partly because the majority
of protective mangrove forests had been felled to make way for seafood farming.
For instance, there were originally over 500,000 hectares
of mangrove forests in the Philippines. Today there are just 36,000 hectares .
The rest (around 93%) have been replaced by crab farms for export to the rest
of the world.
Due to over-fishing, fishing techniques have also had to
become much more radical. In order to catch the last few fish, dynamite is
sometimes used. This reckless procedure, as well as vast drag-nets stretching
across the sea beds, is destroying coral reefs. Along with many other
ecological consequences, the loss of the coral reefs reduces the slowing effect
that these normally have on tidal waves.
Economics
How is it possible that meat consumption is still increasing
worldwide, despite the tremendous disadvantages of a meat-orientated society
shown above?Apart from the various psychological and social reasons, mostly
caused by advertising (e.g. the claim that meat gives you strength), there is
one aspect that should not be underestimated: money.
At first glance this seems to be a contradiction, as under
normal conditions a branch of the economy destined to destroy foodstuffs and
resources would have collapsed long ago. The costs created on a worldwide basis
by today’s meat production are no longer in proportion to its alleged benefits.
Costs are shifted to the taxpayer
One reason why the meat industry still exists is that the
revenues are being transferred into private ownership while the costs are still
being shifted on to the public (and therefore the taxpayer). According to
estimates by the renowned Worldwatch Institute in Washington, the price of meat
would have to be doubled or tripled if one took into consideration the full
ecological costs, including the burning of fossil fuels, lowering of the ground
water level, chemical pollution of the soil and release of gases such as
ammonia and methane, let alone the resulting costs to the public health system.
State-subsidised madness
Although the majority of the costs of meat production are
passed on to the general public (i.e. taxpayers), this is not enough to keep
meat production profitable. The industry is distorted by heavy subsidies to
ensure that the production of meat is attractive to companies. Livestock
farming is supported financially on an international basis, and thereby kept
alive. Between 1963 and 1985, the World Bank pumped 1.5 billion dollars into
livestock farming in Latin America alone, the majority of which went to large
cattle farms.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário