vegan soya imported from Brazil vs home reared meat

[GeorgeEliot]

I'm interested in exploring some ecological concerens about food here.

Normally eat locally produced, organic, free-range etc - have policy of never buying anything from outside Europe. We don't eat bananas, mangos, anything like that.

That includes ethically produced meat - for example I get organic grass-fed beef from a friend who farms just five miles away (I know how lucky I am).

But I'm trying out a vegan diet for a bit - and replacing a lot of dairy with soya products. Looked on the soya milk website and the soya beans it's made from are grow in Brazil!

Now I know it's never going to be that clear cut - but the local organic beef looks like a better bet to me than the soya that's come from Brazil.

Interested in hearing what others think - I'm motivated by both reducing carbon emissions and ethics.

I guess what you need to know is the amount of concentrate that the cows eat - are they eating all / nearly all grass / silage, or are they also being fed a compound feed that may contain soya. I'm sure that your friend would be able to tell you the answer to that.

There's also I suppose from the vegan argument the issue that good grazing land for cattle could be used more 'efficiently' to produce arable crops for direct human consumption. That still wouldn't include soya, of course (I'm not sure that soya in any quantity is a sensible food for humans in the UK). If you're looking for an alternative milk for tea, oat milk is ok, or you can get powdered almond milk which is produced in France (though its pricey and over sweet to my taste).

Of course then if you don't have the cows, there's the question of how much land would be needed to be set aside for green manure crops to take the place of the animal muck.

I think Simon Fairlie's new book about meat eating would address lots of these issues. I haven't read it yet but he's generally an extremely good writer who goes into issues thoroughly (or maybe he just shares my predjudices?).

(FWIW I'm an occasional meat eater myself)

When I was vegan, I wondered about this too. I didn't really come to a conclusion - other than reinforcing my belief that being self-sufficient is best (but also nigh on impossible)

Hmm, isn't there a real issue with the rainforests being decimated to grow soya? Sure I read that somewhere. I would go with the local, organic meat.

The beef is only fed on organic grass and clover leys. I think there is a case for eating grass-eating animals - particularly sheep - because they can graze in areas which would be unsuitable for cultivation for arable crops - either because the terrain is steep or rocky, or because the quality of the soil will only support grass.

I've been buying organic soya milk - checked the website and it says that it's not grown in rainforest area.

I don't think not buying any food from outside of Europe is such a good rule of thumb. Not least because Morocco is closer than Cyprus. But also because it is often more energy efficient to grow stuff in the right climate and transport it than to grow it in heated greenhouses more nearby ( tomatoes, peppers, flowers from Holland vs from Morocco, Kenya etc.., sugar made from tropical sugar cane vs sugar from uk sugar beat etc..)

I can understand not buying airfreighted out of season green beans, strawberries etc... but to not buy tea, coffee, chocolate, bannanas, oranges, brown sugar, mangos, pinapples, pepper, spices etc.. seems too much -- The shipping part of the carbon footprint is relatively low - and because they provide jobs and export revenues that poor countries need (and because it's a lot to give up !)

Really, I think self sufficiency is a dead-end. There are no societies anywhere in time or place that have been able to sustain a large middle class (I.e. with access to healthcare, transport, higher education) on the basis of subsistence agriculture, and population levels make it even less likely.

All that said there are serious issues with Brazilian soya due to rainforst destuction.

If I were you i'd stick with the organic, grassfed meat, but cut down in how often you eat it.

actually I do buy coffee and tea which are obviously grown outside Europe - but with things like fresh tomatoes, I only buy them when they are in season in Europe - we make do with tinned the rest of the year - so no recourse to heated greenhouses - and I grow and preserve a lot of my own stuff.

But we make do without exotic fruit because there is plenty of delicious fruit you can eat closer that's produced closer to home.

And I think you are right about soy and Brazil - have to be very careful about that.

DS is allergic to soya, and there are so many alternatives. For instance, Oatly which is an oat based milk (from Sweden, I think?) and almond milk. I don't really understand the point of soya as it's really a filler and/or substitute.

Well I'm glad you drink tea and coffee, I hate to think of anyone going without caffine, I know I couldn't

I'm still not sure that boycotting tropical fruit is a good ethical choice- particularly things like oranges and banansa that come by sea. But even for other tropical fruits to boycott them is also punishing growers in developing countries for our carbon guilt. I read that the co2 associated with 1kg of airfreighted produce is about the same as driving 5 miles, so if you eat a lot of tropical fruit the footprint would add up, but on the other hand the occaisional mango won't blow your personal carbon budget!

Himalaya, I know you make a good point - but I think there is also an issue that by creating a market for out of season fruit and veg in the West we are encouraging developing countries to grow those vegetables for export (eg Kenyan beans) when it would be economically more efficient for them to grow food to feed themselves.

Can't remember where I read that though.

It's a hard call dealing with our carbon guilt!

The thing is though George that if it was more economically efficient to grow for local markets then that's what growers would be doing. Developing countries also need money to buy technology, pay doctors, pay for public infrastructure etc... You can't grow your own computers.

As a rule I'd say unless local trade unions, peoples organisations etc are calling for a boycott, it's not for us to boycott their industries 'for their own good'.

Himalaya - I think that you are perhaps oversimplifying a very complex subject. I'll try and come back & post more later on (RL rather full right now), but its worth remembering that it was 'economically efficient' for Ireland to be exporting large quantities of grain throughout the Famine years.

Also, its important to take into account the wider context - for example the long term problems caused for poorer countries by climate change as a result of increased global shipment of food.

Takver - you are right I was over simplifying a bit, but George did say - more economically efficient - so I was replying to that.

The ethical issue that I was skating over is access to land. The same issue in Ireland too. I.e. If a class of people/companies are given or able to buy up land ignoring the customary rights of the people who have been farming that land then you can end up with landless peasants/farmers in marginal land starving while others export food.

That is a corporate responsibility issue (e.g. World bank/IFC standards cover this) but it doesn't follow that you should therefore boycott fruit and veg from developing countries. In the big fresh produce exporters like Kenya, Thailand, South Africa, Dominican Republic etc... there are development problems but it isn't lack of absolute food supply, it's jobs, infrastucture, industrial development, corruption etc... Boycotting their exports so they can grow their own food isn't helping.

Yes climate change will effect developing countries more

Sorry, hit 'post' too early - yes to climate change question, but this doesn't solve climate change and punishes growers in developing countries.

The institute for environment and development did a good report on this [ pubs.iied.org/15516IIED.html]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'this doesn't solve climate change'? Clearly transported food is not the only (or even the major) driver of climate change.

But I think it is still fair to say that in a long term sustainable economy, where fossil fuel prices included the full cost of the damage done in their production/use we would not be transporting perishable items of food for long distances.

FWIW I think a useful guideline to think about when considering whether an imported item of food is likely to be a sensible use of global resources is to think about whether it was generally imported say 150 or 200 years ago (when we weren't in an age of cheap fossil fuels). Of course that isn't an absolute answer, but it does suggest, for example, that wheat, tea, coffee, chocolate would still be readily available, whereas Kenyan green beans not.

Another issue to bear in mind is that whilst cheap imported food may in some circumstances be benefitting local people in the originating countries (although as you've pointed out, access to land is a massive issue) it also contributes to the impoverishment of rural farming communities in the UK.

Takver -

Just about everything in modern life is currently unsustainable as long as energy supplies come from fossil fuels.

Transport, housing, lighting, central heating, medicine, education, entertainment, travel, trade and population size. But we can't go back to 100 years ago. Not least because there are 4 billion people in emerging economies who want to live with the comfort and freedoms we have. + another 3 billion to come.

If the plan is to solve climate change by getting people to give stuff up, then you are talking about very authoritarian government, because people won't do it by choice. It's not my plan A.

Or you need serious technology change - energy efficient housing and appliances, renewable energy, biofuels, electric vehicles, probably nuclear (!), high tech sustainable agriculture, more efficient everything -going back 100 years isn't a good guide - we need to think forward 100 years.

Yes, pricing carbon is needed. But if you priced carbon a mango would probably go up from a pound to two pounds. You wouldn't necessarily stop buying them, but they would be more of a treat.

As for impoverishing UK rural communities. I don't think you can lay that at the door of Kenyan growers. Uk farmers(landowners particularly) have done pretty well out of the Common Agriculture Policy of the EU - subsidies and trade barriers, which hurt farmers and food producers in developing countries. Rural unemployment is in large part a result of farm mechanisation.

"Yes, pricing carbon is needed. But if you priced carbon a mango would probably go up from a pound to two pounds. You wouldn't necessarily stop buying them, but they would be more of a treat."

Surely that's kind of where we started this thread - making decisions along those lines on an ethical basis as carbon isn't currently priced.

Right, indeed.

I am not saying we shouldn't make decisions on ethical grounds at all, just that 'don't buy anything fresh from outside Europe' is not a good ethical rule of thumb.

The impoverishment of UK farmers reasoning is a big red herring for example.

People in countries where the agricultural export industry is a big employer, and where agricultural products are an important part of their countries export earnings (which enables them to buy computers, medicine, technology etc.. all the stuff you can't grow your own) certainly do not see it as ethical for people in Western countries to boycott their products.

I'd always go for the vegan option, for animal welfare, human welfare and environmental reasons.

Have you tried Kara milk (I've mentioned it on another thread today and someone thought I was trying to market it - but I do love it!), as an alternative to soya? It's partly produced in Indonesia, but there won't be a deforestation issue I presume.

My DD loves it in her porridge!

Just noticed this on the Animal Aid site: "Soya production for animal feed is another major cause of deforestation. Around 75 per cent of global production is fed to farmed animals (Worldwatch Institute 2006). It is the demand for meat that drives the production of soya and, therefore, the
destruction of the rainforest."

OP, are you sure that the cows only eat grass? BTW, I found the phrase "The beef is only fed..." very weird. Beef is dead flesh - it can't eat!

It depends wat ecological concerns you have.

If it is 'greenhouse gas' emissions then cattle emit a lot of methane so wil contribute a lot to global warming, but is that worse than the CO2 released by knocking down and burning a rain forest and then burning oil to grow and transport the soya beans?

If it is a concern about optimal land use and reducing starvation on the planet then growing vegetables is better than meat in general as 1 hectare of vegetables feeds more people than a hectare of grass for cows to eat. Even that is not necessarily so if the cattle are grazed on land that is not suited to arable crops.

Its complicated. In fact, there is probably a whole PhD of ethical issues just in this post and a hundred different researchers would come up with 100 different cost benefit analysis results.

Exactly BeenBeta!