Editorials that “Make You Go Hmmm”

"Per capita meat consumption more than doubled over the past half-century as the global economy expanded. It is expected to double again by 2050. Which raises the question, what does all that meat eat before it becomes meat?"

I know, the use of "meat" here is probably supposed to be cheeky, but still, it reinforces the notion that animals are not whole beings, but are equal to the chunks of their flesh that are cut up and weighed and packaged (after maybe an injection of carbon monoxide) and sold to omnivores who "love animals."

"Increasingly the answer is very small fish harvested from the ocean and ground into meal and pressed into oil. . . . 37 percent by weight of all the fish taken from the ocean is forage fish: small fish like sardines and menhaden. Nearly half of that is fed to farmed fish; most of the rest is fed to pigs and poultry."

So fish are farmed or caught and fed to cows, chicken and pigs. And I'm assuming that the issue is going to be similar to the one regarding soybeans and corn, where rather than going directly into the food supply, they take a detour and are processed through animals.

"forage fish are the feedstock of marine mammals and birds and larger species of fish. In other words, farmed fish, pigs and poultry — and the humans who eat them — are competing for food directly with aquatic species that depend on those forage fish for their existence. It’s as if humans were swimming in schools in the ocean out-eating every other species."

But wait, it gets worse . . .

"When it comes to farmed fish, there is a net protein loss: it takes three pounds of fish feed to produce one pound of farmed salmon. This protein pyramid — small fish fed to farmed fish, pigs and poultry that are then fed to humans — is unsustainable. It threatens the foundation of oceanic life."

Do they not understand that, according to the USDA, it takes 16 pounds of grain and soy to produce one pound of "beef" in a feedlot? Using fish to feed cows isn't the only unsustainable type of feeding we practice.

"The [Pew Institute for Oceanic Science] report’s authors suggest that it would be better if humans ate these small fish, as many cultures once did, instead of using them as feed. That is one way of addressing the problem of net protein loss."

So in order to not completely erase the small fish from the planet, we should eat them? Is that really the answer that scientists came up with?

"The real answers are support for sustainable agriculture in the developing world and encouraging healthy, less meat-based eating habits as a true sign of affluence everywhere."

First of all, if sustainable agriculture includes the unnecessary slaughter of sentient beings, I beg to differ about the word "real." Second, why not just say the obvious, that "meat," no matter what the animal of origin is fed, is never an efficient use of resources. Ever. Period. Just say it. Finally, what's all this about redefining how we think of affluence? Where did that come from? Thanks for the blog idea, though.