The No Mammal

MANIFESTO
DIET FOR A
NEW, AND MORE
SUSTAINABLE
WORLD

ADAM ROGERS
No Mammal Manifesto:
Diet for a new, and more sustainable world

© 2019 Adam Rogers

The author has done extensive research to be able to render the most recent and
pertinent information available on this topic. However, this book is not meant to
provide legal, medical, or any other professional advice on health-related affairs. The
author and the publisher disclaim any personal liability, loss, or risk that may be
incurred as a consequence of the use and application of this book, either directly or
indirectly.

All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording
or via any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission
of the author.

Phoenix DA
Østergade 19, 8900 Randers C, Denmark

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Rogers, Adam, 1963 –
No Mammal Manifesto: Diet for a new and more sustainable world
Adam Rogers, 2019
Includes bibliographical references
Includes index
ISBN 978-87-971254-0-3 (Print)
ISBN 978-87-971254-1-0 (ebooks)

US$ 9.95, CAN$9.95, EUR9.95

Cover art and interior by Kerrie Robertson Illustration

Printed in USA and Denmark

Digital book(s) (epub and mobi) produced by Booknook.biz.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments

Introduction:

Why This Particular Manifesto?

A bit of background
In the beginning…
Our brains
Consciousness
Cultural and religious taboos
The food chain
The fast food chain
The pet factor

Reason 1: Your Health

Your heart
Increased risk of stroke
Cancer
Type 2 diabetes
The B12 vitamin myth
The growing resistance to antibiotics
Mad cow and other illnesses
Industry response
Just try it

Reason 2: Environmental Consequences

Climate change
So what’s your steak got to do with it?
Disappearing forests and land degradation
Impact on scarce water resources
Other reasons fish are disappearing
Moving in the right direction

Reason 3: Economic Considerations

 True cost economics
The costs of contaminated water
Wasted opportunities

Reason 4: We Are Also Mammals

Genetic similarities among mammals
Head hugs
Mammals to the rescue
“That’ll do pig, that’ll do”
Dogs as Man’s Best Friend
“Bearly” survived
Dolphins – man’s oceanic protector
Gorillas in the mist
Lionhearted protectors
Not horsing around
“How now, brown cow?”
Rabbit to the rescue
The memory of an elephant
Our fascination with animated mammals
Th-th-th-that’s all folks!

Reason 5: Global Coordinated Efforts to Address the Challenges

Food and the SDGs
Goal 1: No Poverty
Goal 2: Zero Hunger
Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being
Goal 4: Quality Education
Goal 5: Gender Equality
Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
Goal 7: Affordable Clean Energy
Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
Goal 13: Climate Action
Goal 14: Life Below Water
Goal 15: Life on Land
 Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals

6: Conclusion: Final Thoughts and Suggestions

Consider reducing your mammal meals
Vegeburgers are the new cool
But are these new foods satisfying?
New burgers on the horizon
Expanding our horizons
Bug burgers?
The Search for Artificial Meat
The not-so-secret life of pets
Support sound government policies
A transformative change is needed in society and in our economies
Hold the cheese, please – if it has rennet
Some causal considerations
An afterword to consider

About the Author

References Cited
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OF THE MANY PEOPLE TO whom I owe a debt of gratitude for

their input, resources and acting as sounding boards, I would
like to recognize several in particular. Patrick Leung of New
York and New Zealand, with whom I have had many inspiring
conversations, and who graciously reviewed the early drafts of
this manuscript. Gustavo González of the United Nations Food
and Agricultural Organization responded to my many repeated
requests for reports and references and provided much
valuable input. Gillian Rogers did the final check on the
manuscript and discussed with me many of the ideas therein
before pen hit paper. Janet Mills of Amber-Allen Publishing has
always provided a helpful reality check when I needed it most.
My sisters, Rima and Lara Devitt, have remained committed to
vegetarianism since they were teenagers, and continue to
inspire me with their insights and cooking. Rima owns what is
reputedly the best restaurant in Edmonton, Alberta: The Blue
Plate Diner.
Others who peer reviewed the Manifesto before it went to
press and to whom I owe a mountain of gratitude include Matt
Mulford, my esteemed professor at the London School of
Economics; Sid Kane, editor and communications officer
formerly with the UN Development Program and the World
Bank; Chris Fiscus, my editor at The Lumberjack; Judy Rae
Hallcom, my publisher at Earth News; Tore Brevik, former
communications director at the UN Environment Programme;
and Cherie Hart, former UN communication advisor and author
of one of my all-time favorite books, From Hollywood to Holy
Wars. Linda Kleinschmidt edited the manuscript and made it
more readable.
Thanks go also to Bekah Martin for letting me know about
rennet, thus forever changing my view of cheese. I would also
like to thank and recognize Frances Moore Lappé, who first set
me on this journey many years ago with her book, Diet for a
Small Planet. Lastly, and without hesitation, an expression of
gratitude to my two tentmates in Wyoming’s Wind River Range
during the winter survival course at the National Outdoor
Leadership School (NOLS). I have long since forgotten their
names, but without their words and encouragement, I probably
would not have started on the journey of inquiry that led to this
Manifesto.
For Sage, Addison and Alena
 INTRODUCTION:

WHY THIS PARTICULAR MANIFESTO?

AS HUMANS, WE ARE ONE member of the mammal family. We

have been walking around on this beautiful planet for around
200,000 years. Yet in that very limited amount of time we have
had an enormous impact– mostly negative. Much of this
destructive influence has been directed by what we choose to
eat and how we go about securing our meals.
How we humans choose to feed ourselves should in theory
nurture human health and support environmental
sustainability. The current system of food production and
distribution, however, is pushing our planet beyond the limits
of what it can actually support.
A mammal-centered diet is not very healthy – either for us
or our planet. Empirical studies have demonstrated that
reducing or eliminating mammals from our diet can add years
to our lives while also improving how we feel throughout those
years. Furthermore, by eliminating mammal meat from our
diets and embracing this No Mammal Manifesto, we will be
contributing to solutions that will ensure that we have an
ecologically-sound planet to enjoy in our new-found longer
years of good health.

Empirical studies have demonstrated that

reducing or eliminating mammals from our
 diet can add years to our lives.

The point of this book is when we have a choice, and most of

us do have many choices on the menu, we should choose wisely
– for our health, for the health of our planet and for the health
of our children in whose hands we leave this planet when we
die. Indeed we do need to eat to survive – but as omnivores we
can choose to kill or not to kill, and if we kill, we can choose
what, when and how.
I hope this book will encourage the reader to think
differently about eating mammals, not just because of the
mythical bond we share with them (Chapter 4), but because of
an understanding that to eat mammals (when we don’t have to)
makes no sense from a variety of perspectives – including those
related to our health (Chapter 1), the environment (Chapter 2)
and the economy (Chapter 3).

A BIT OF BACKGROUND
The views within this Manifesto did not come to me in a sudden
epiphany. I did not suddenly stop eating mammals because
someone convinced me not to, nor because I was inspired by a
sudden epiphany to change my diet. I evolved into doing so
over several years, and the reasons why were complex and
motivated by numerous factors, which I have presented in
these pages. I wrote this book because I hope to convince you,
the reader, to at least take some of my thoughts into
consideration and begin (if you are not already doing so) to
make conscious and fully informed decisions about the
consequences, both personal and planetary, of your dietary
decisions.
 People whose dietary preferences are out of the mainstream
are often asked to explain themselves – unless their restrictions
are due to an allergy or a religious dictate. When Muslims turn
down pork, no one asks them why they do so. When Hindus
turns down a beef burger, they are not asked to explain why.
When someone is lactose intolerant, he or she just needs to say
“no, thank you” to a glass of milk, and no one will press for a
reason.
If you are vegetarian, however, your dinner companions
may either act defensive or be genuinely curious and ask you a
plethora of questions — from how long you have been a
vegetarian to how “on God’s green earth” you ever do find
anything enjoyable to eat.
The usual response I hear from vegetarians is that they wish
to reduce animal suffering, benefit the environment, or lead a
healthier life. All these ideas ring just as true for those of us
who have chosen to exclude mammals from the menu, but the
explanation in this instance becomes a bit more complicated.
People often will say, I “don’t eat red meat,” but that misses
the point. I did not stop eating mammals because their meat is
red. I stopped eating mammals because they are mammals. I did
not stop eating meat that is red, I stopped eating meat that was
clogging up my red arteries and putting me at an increased risk
of heart disease and colorectal cancer. I do not avoid meat that
is red. I eschew meat, the industrial production of which is
destroying an earth that should always remain green.
I was not always this way. I have lived, worked, traveled, or
visited most countries on this precious planet, and in many of
them, people do eat a wide variety of things that move and
must be caught, captured, or raised in captivity. As part of my
travels, I usually joined my hosts in eating whatever they were
eating — pretty much everything from cats and dogs to snakes
and even insects.
In the winter of 1980, I found myself trekking through
Wyoming’s Wind River Range with a backpack and a pair of old
Army cross-country skis. I was 16 years old and taking a winter
survival course at the National Outdoor Leadership School. I
had two tentmates – a doctor and a psychologist. Both were
vegetarians. As a smart-mouthed teenager from the Yukon, who
thought it unnatural not to eat meat, I gave both of my
tentmates a hard time and teased them relentlessly at every
meal.
“But how can you comment on something you know
absolutely nothing about,” the doctor finally asked me. “When
you don’t know what you are talking about, you are all talk and
no bite – just hot air with no substance.”
After a few days of this debate, I finally agreed to stop eating
meat for a few months. They both told me I would feel stronger,
healthier, and more alive. I doubted them, but I accepted the
challenge. The only specific advice they gave me was to read
Diet for a Small Planet, the 1971 bestselling book by Frances
Moore Lappé that outlined the environmental impacts of meat
production. Lappé explained how world hunger was not caused
by a lack of food, but rather by ineffective food policies and the
industrial production of animal products.
The doctor said I needed to learn about balancing my amino
acids. To be a vegetarian, he said, is to be fully aware of one’s
body and the effects different foods have on it – combining the
right ingredients to get the maximum effect in terms of energy
and well-being. If I just ate grains, for example, I would not get
enough protein. However, by balancing grains with soy beans, I
would have more than enough energy to climb a mountain. I
learned this advice to be true years later when I hiked and
climbed 300 kilometers around the Annapurna Range in the
Himalayas, eating nothing but lentil beans, rice, and vegetables.
Unfortunately my tentmates never had the opportunity to
say to me “I told you so.” I lost touch with them, as I continued
to explore the world and my place in it, paying particular
attention to what and how people eat. Two years later, I had
run out of new places to see in North America, and so I set off
on a one-way ticket to Africa – and a journey that would take
me through fifty countries in five years on a budget of less than
$100 a month.
For most of this long journey, I stuck to a vegetarian diet
although I did occasionally eat meat when my hosts offered it.
When you travel on a shoestring budget, one naturally will rely
on the hospitality and generosity of strangers. But when you are
hungry, and your host kills a chicken or a goat to honor their
invited guest, it would be poor manners to decline. Also, I
learned that balancing one’s amino-acids, vitamins, and protein
can be challenging when traveling in remote areas of the world,
so if given the chance, I did sometimes choose to eat fish or
chicken when it was available.

IN THE BEGINNING…
Before going forward here, let’s back up a bit – actually way
back—to review where we humans fit in with the big picture.
Life on Earth first emerged about 3.8 billion years ago, initially
as single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular
life then evolved over a billion years, and it has only been in the
last 570 million years that the kind of life forms that we are
familiar with today began to evolve, starting with arthropods
and fish.
 All animals (that includes us) can be divided into six broad
families that range from the simplest (invertebrates) to the most
complex (mammals).
Invertebrates are the creatures that we, as mammals, have
the least in common with – and therefore, in my view, they are
okay to eat. Invertebrates were the first animals to evolve as far
back as a billion years ago, and as such, they are characterized
by their lack of backbones and internal skeletons, as well as
their relatively simple anatomy and behavior. Today,
invertebrates account for a whopping 97 percent of all animal
species. This widely varied group includes insects, worms,
arthropods, sponges, mollusks, fish, and octopuses. Fish evolved
from their invertebrate ancestors about 500 million years ago
and have dominated the world’s oceans, lakes, and rivers ever
since.
Vertebrates are a large group that is distinguished by having
a backbone or spinal column. This group includes amphibians,
reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals.
Let’s look first at amphibians. Amphibians are characterized
by their semi-aquatic lifestyles which require them to stay near
bodies of water to maintain the moisture of their skins and also
lay their eggs and reproduce. Today they are among the most
endangered animals on earth.
Reptiles, like amphibians, make up a fairly small percentage
of terrestrial animals. This group can be divided into four basic
categories: Crocodiles and alligators, turtles and tortoises,
snakes, and lizards. Reptiles are characterized by their cold-
blooded metabolism fueled by hanging out in the sun. Their
scaly skin and their leathery eggs, unlike amphibians, let them
survive away from lakes, rivers or streams.
Next are the fish. According to FishBase, a comprehensive
online database on fish species, there are 33,100 species of fish
in the world.1 That is more than the combined total of all the
other vertebrate species on Earth, including the mammals,
amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
New research led by the American Museum of Natural
History suggests there are about 18,000 bird species in the
world2, offering much more for our menu than mere mammals.
Descended from dinosaurs, birds are characterized by their
coats of feathers, their warm-blooded metabolisms, and their
ability to adapt to a wide range of habitats – as seen with the
ostriches of Australia and the penguins of Antarctica.
Let’s move on to mammals, among the least diverse animal
groups on earth and including only about 5,000 different
animals. A myriad of mammal species once roamed the surface
of this planet, creating a wonderful tapestry of life that covered
every continent. Now, as a result of both the worst species
extinction crisis since the demise of the dinosaurs and the rapid
expansion of industrialized agriculture, 96 percent of the
mammals present on earth today are livestock and the humans
who eat them.3 Just four percent are the lions, tigers, bears,
elephants, giraffes, etc. – and our domesticated cats and dogs.
Mammals are characterized by their hair or fur (all
mammals possess either during some stage of their life cycles),
the milk they feed their young and their warm-blooded
metabolism, which allows them to inhabit a wide range of
habitats, ranging from the deserts of North Africa to the arctic
tundra in Siberia.
The evolution of mammals has passed through many stages
since the first appearance of our ancestors about 300 million
years ago. The earliest mammals we know of were the egg-
laying animals of the Prototheria subclass, which started out as
something close to the platypus. However, we are not
concerned with these animals for the purposes of this
Manifesto, as there were no humans around then to eat them.
Mammals today range considerably in size from the 30–40
mm (1.2–1.6 in.) bumblebee bat to the 30-meter (98 foot) blue
whale. All modern mammals give birth to live young, except for
five species of egg-laying mammals (the platypus and four
species of echidnas, all indigenous to Australia and New
Guinea). However, like all mammals, the female monotremes
nurse their young with milk.
Most mammal mothers, obviously including our own human
mothers, have a placenta to facilitate the exchange of nutrients
and waste between the blood of the fetus and that of the
mother. This feature naturally creates a special bond between
mother and child that other groups of species do not have. The
largest groups of placental mammals are the rodents, bats and
Soricomorpha (shrews and their allies). The next three biggest
orders, depending on the biological classification used, are
Primates (apes and monkeys), Cetartiodactyla (whales and
even-toed ungulates), and Carnivora (cats, dogs, seals, and their
allies). All mothers of the mammals one finds on the menu at
McDonalds, Subway and Domino’s Pizza have placentas in their
wombs and mammary glands (breasts) to nurse their young.

OUR BRAINS
All mammals have a remarkably similar brain structure and
nervous system. Of all the vertebrates, it is we mammals that
have the biggest and most complex brain for our body size. On
average, a mammal has a brain roughly twice as large as that of
a bird of the same size, and ten times as large as that of a reptile
of the same body size.
 Size, although important (yes, when it comes to brains, size
does matter), is not the only difference. There are also
substantial differences in brain shapes. The hindbrain and
midbrain of mammals are generally similar to those of other
vertebrates, but dramatic differences appear in the front, which
is greatly enlarged and altered in its structure as well.4 This
front part of our brain, called the cerebrum (which controls
functions such as memory and learning), is much larger in
mammals than it is in other vertebrates.
The cerebral cortex also strongly distinguishes the brains of
humans and other mammals from the rest of the animals on
Earth. The cerebral cortex is an outer layer of neural tissue, and
it is separated into two cortices by the longitudinal fissure that
divides the cerebrum into left and right hemispheres. In non-
mammalian vertebrates, the surface of the cerebrum is lined
with a comparatively simple three-layered structure called the
pallium. In mammals, however, the pallium becomes a complex
six-layered structure that scientists call the neocortex.5 Several
areas at the edge of the neocortex, including the hippocampus
and amygdala, are also much more extensively developed in
mammals than they are in other vertebrates.6

CONSCIOUSNESS
Consciousness is not an easy concept to define. It has been
described as the state of being awake and aware of what is
happening around you and of having a sense of self. The 17th
century French philosopher, René Descartes, proposed the
notion of “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”), which is
the idea that the mere act of thinking about one’s existence
proves there is someone there to do the thinking. Descartes also
believed the mind was separate from the material body — a
concept known as mind-body duality. Yet if this concept were
true, how could you knock a person unconscious by simply
knocking him on the head (and cause him to lose some memory,
if the knock was forceful enough)? There must be something in
the head that makes consciousness possible. I believe that
“something else” is what all mammals have in common.

When we discover and accept that all

mammals have a consciousness as we do, we
may come to the obvious realization that the
way we treat and eat them should be
reconsidered.

When mammals experience elevated levels of stress, their

bodies release hormones that degrade the quality of the meat
on their bones, producing what the industry calls “pale soft
exudative” meat from pigs and “dark, firm, and dry” (DFD)
meat from cows or sheep.
These stress hormones, such as adrenaline, cortisol, and
other steroids, can lead to cardiac problems, impotency, and
general fatigue in the humans that consume that meat. 7 This
phenomenon is seen only in mammals — perhaps because
mammals have the consciousness to know they are about to be
killed and to freak out about it.
Some people may argue that humans are the only mammals
with consciousness and a conscience. It makes sense to me also
that if we want to eat mammals, we would need to take this
position, because if we became fully conscious of the
consciousness in all mammals, we could not in good conscience
eat them. I do believe this view will change over time, as we
become more aware of and more respectful toward our fellow
mammals. After all, it was not all that long ago when in my own
country, the United States, those of European descent classified
humans of African descent as being legally only three-fifths
human.8 It is now commonly accepted in America that all
humans are in fact created equal. When we discover and accept
that all mammals have a consciousness as we do, we may come
to the obvious realization that the way we treat and eat them
should be reconsidered.

CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS TABOOS

There are individual cases where modern societies mull over
the morality of eating our fellow mammals. In North America
and Europe, most people I know would shudder at the thought
of eating “man’s best friend,” the dog. However, we won’t
hesitate to chow down a hot dog, if it is made from the dog’s
close cousin, the pig – which according to most studies is much
smarter and intuitive than a dog. Pigs have outperformed three-
year-old human children on cognition tests and are smarter
than any domestic animal. Overall, the research suggests that
pigs have excellent long-term memories and are skilled at
mazes and other tests that require them to locate specific
objects. They have even been taught to put together simple
puzzles – something a chicken or a turkey could never do.9 My
point? If you eat a hotdog, make sure it is made of chicken or
turkey.
About a third of the planet’s population — who are
adherents to both the Jewish and Islamic faiths – will not eat
pork because of Scripture. But long before the emergence of the
Old Testament and the Qur’an, people in the Middle East had
largely cut pigs from the available menus. This decision was
probably for economic and health reasons once chickens were
domesticated. Chickens are a more efficient source of protein
than pigs are and only require 900 gallons of water to produce
two pounds of chicken, while it takes 1,500 gallons of water to
produce two pounds of pork. Also, chickens produce eggs, an
important secondary product that pigs do not offer. Chickens
are much smaller and can be consumed within 24 hours of
being killed, thereby eliminating the challenge of preserving
large quantities of meat in a hot climate. Chickens are also
easier to transport than pigs, and thus they were probably
selected as the animal protein of choice by our semi-nomadic
ancestors.
Indians also have a special mammal that is taboo for their
dinner table. In India as well as other communities of
Hinduism, such as Trinidad, Bali, and Fiji, killing and
consuming cows is a sacrilege of the highest order.
Most Americans would likely gag at the thought of eating
horse meat. However, horses are considered a delicacy in many
countries around the world. Mexico, France, Switzerland,
Kazakhstan, Belgium, Japan, Germany, Indonesia, Poland, and
China are among the nations where you will find horse meat on
the menu in many a fine restaurant.
In 2002, as the Republic of Korea prepared to host the World
Cup, Brigitte Bardot, the French actress turned animal rights
activist, led a global campaign against Korea’s practice of eating
dogs, calling it “barbaric.” The International Federation of
Football Associations (FIFA) received thousands of calls and
letters condemning the practice. Korea fought back, led by the
opposition in Parliament. Support was strongest among the
patrons of the 6,000 restaurants that thrive on a mixture of dog
stews, soups and satays washed down with alcoholic drinks
flavored with pulverized cat. 10
The amazing realization for me is that dogs somehow sense
when humans eat other dogs. I know this through an
experience I had many years ago. After dining on some roast
canine in the remote Northern province of Benguet in the
Philippines, nearly every dog I passed after that meal on the
dusty street looked at me and growled. That was the first and
the last time I ate dog meat.
Most Westerners are appalled by and sickened at the
thought of eating dogs, and most Americans would also shudder
at the thought of a horsemeat hamburger. One of the objectives
of this book is to get the reader, if currently an omnivore, to
consider broadening his or her circle of compassion to include
other mammals.

THE FOOD CHAIN

What I clearly seek to dispel here are the common assumptions
that we need to eat mammals to survive. For humans, eating
meat is a choice, not a necessity. We are omnivores, not
carnivores. It would be altogether a different matter if we
found ourselves in a position where we need to kill something
to survive or in a desperate scenario where the choice is either
eat or be eaten. But when we have a choice, between killing a
mammal or finding something else to eat, my goal is to present
a compelling case for people to choose the latter. This book is
my personal attempt to achieve that goal.
 For humans, eating meat is a choice, not a
necessity.

In ecology, a food chain is a series of organisms that eat one

another, so that both energy and nutrients flow from one to the
next. For example, if you have a steak for dinner, you might be
part of a food chain that looks like the following: grass → cow →
human. Each stage of this process is called a trophic level.
The primary producers include a group of organisms that
are producing their own food. As with the given example,
plants are primary producers based on their ability to
manufacture their food through photosynthesis. At the next
trophic level in a food chain or ecological pyramid, the
organisms feed on the primary producers and are referred to as
primary consumers, i.e. herbivores, such as cows and hippos,
which eat the grass. Organisms that feed on the herbivores,
called predators, occupy the next trophic level. At the top are
the apex predators like the lions and tigers and bears.
Humans often believe they occupy a natural position at the
top of this ecological pyramid. However, science does not
support this assumption. In 2013, a group of French researchers
calculated human trophic levels, and found that on a scale of 1
to 5, with 1 being the score of a primary producer (a plant) and
5 being a pure apex predator, they discovered that based on
their diet, humans score only a 2.21—roughly equal to an
anchovy or pig.
 FIGURE 1: A SIMPLIFIED ECOLOGICAL PYRAMID

These researchers, led by Sylvain Bonhommeau of the

French Research Institute for the Exploitation of the Sea, used
data compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (UNFAO) to construct models of people’s diets in
different countries over time. They then used that data to
calculate our human place in the food chain, using data from
176 countries from 1961 to 2009. Calculating the trophic level
for humans was very straightforward: If a person’s diet is made
up of half plant products and half meat, his or her trophic level
will be 2.5. More meat, and the score increases; more plants,
and it decreases.
Their results confirmed common sense. as a species, we are
primarily omnivorous, eating a mix of plants and animals,
rather than being top-level predators that only consume meat.11
The best evidence for this assertion is probably our teeth. Like
carnivores, we have incisors for biting, tearing and ripping
apart meat, as well as molars for chewing (as herbivores do).
Animals with the same kind of diverse teeth tend to be
omnivores.
In other words, we can eat meat, but we don’t have to eat it.
It is a choice. Also, when we do choose to eat meat, we can
choose which type of meat we want to eat – mammal or other
animals that do not include our close cousins. However, in
many developed countries today, such as the United States,
people are choosing to eat mammals every day – and quite
often a few times a day.

THE FAST FOOD CHAIN

Nothing exemplifies the fixation on fast food in America more
than the ubiquitous presence of the Golden Arches. The
coordinates of N 45.45955 W 101.91356 identify a spot in South
Dakota that has the peculiar distinction of being the
“McFarthest point” in the lower 48 states.12 The nearest
McDonald’s is 107 miles away from that spot, as the crow flies,
or 145 miles away if traveling by car. It means that any hungry
motorist is always within a full tank of gas of a McDonald’s
restaurant anywhere in the continental United States. That is
just in one country – albeit a country that consumes a lot of
hamburgers. Worldwide, as of early 2019, more than 69 million
people eat at 36,899 McDonald’s restaurants and consume
“more than 75 hamburgers per second, of every minute, of
every hour, of every day of the year,” according to the
company’s Operations and Training Manual.13

Industrialized global meat production has

transformed the food chain into a fast-food
chain.

Because many of us have chosen to eat meat every day,

industrialized global meat production has transformed the food
chain into a fast-food chain. In the United States alone, the total
mammal meat production (beef, veal, pork, lamb and mutton)
totaled 52.1 billion pounds in 2017, three percent higher than
the previous year. These figures come from the United States
Department of Agriculture14 but they do not include the actual
number of mammals killed. The Humane Society of the United
States on its website puts that total for 2015 at 28.7 million cows
(an increase of 4.3 percent from the previous year), 115 million
pigs, 2.2 million sheep and lambs – all raised and slaughtered
within a single year in the United States alone. In Fiscal Year
2018, according to the North American Meat Institute website,
there were 835 Federally-inspected livestock slaughter plants in
the United States. An additional 3,773 plants process mammal
meat, but they do not slaughter them.
In developing countries, according to the FAO, mammal
meat consumption has been growing at five to six percent
annually. This growing expansion of livestock production has
severe environmental implications, for example, the expansion
of land for livestock development. Livestock sector growth has
been a prime reason for deforestation in many countries, such
as Brazil and Argentina.
Global industrial mammal meat production has quadrupled
in just the span of my lifetime, from 86 million tons in 1963 (the
year I was born) to the current total of 340 million tons (308.4
trillion kg).15 Yet the human population of the planet has only a
bit more than doubled. This trend of meat production is
projected to continue, especially as the growing urban middle
classes in China and other emerging economies adopt the
burgers-and-steaks diet of North America and Europe.
According to the UNFAO, global meat production could increase
to 501 million tons by 2050.

THE PET FACTOR

If all the cats and dogs currently living in the United States were
together in their own country, they would rank 5th in global
mammal meat consumption, behind only Russia, Brazil, the
United States and China. In other words, cats and dogs in the
U.S. eat more meat than all of the people and their pets in
France and Germany. As outlined here in the chapter on
environmental considerations, producing all this meat has an
enormous impact on the environment. According to research
on climate change conducted by Professor Gregory Okin at the
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), total meat
consumption by dogs and cats is responsible for the emission of
64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year – around the same
climate impact as driving 13.6 million cars.16
This situation can be easily rectified with some effort. The
cat is considered by scientists to be a strict carnivore while the
dog is considered to be an omnivore. That means that cats eat
meat – but it does not have to be mammal meat. Although we
tend to think that our dogs need meat, they actually will eat
everything. I further address the issue of what to feed our pets
in the last chapter, Final Thoughts and Reasonable
Recommendations.
The next chapters address the different arguments, or
reasons, for reducing or avoiding mammal consumption,
beginning with the first reason, which is your health. I then
look at the impact that industrialized livestock production is
having on the environment, before turning to the economic
arguments that suggest we should stick to fish, chicken or
vegetables.
 REASON 1:

YOUR HEALTH
The FIRST reason to reduce or eliminate mammal
consumption from your diet is simple. Do it for your health.

A MAMMAL-CENTERED DIET IS REALLY not very healthy.

Empirical studies have demonstrated that reducing or
eliminating mammals from our diet can add years to our lives,
while also improving the way we feel throughout those years.
Researchers at Oxford University estimate that by 2020, 2.4
million deaths annually will be attributable to the consumption
of mammals — as well as a $285 billion health-care bill for
those who cling to life in a hospital bed. The World Health
Organization links these deaths to diabetes, heart problems,
and cancer – all a result of eating beef, lamb and/or pork on a
regular basis.
A January 2019 study by the EAT-Lancet Commission on
Food, Planet, and Health, a collaboration between the EAT
Foundation, The Lancet, Wellcome Trust, and the Stockholm
Resilience Centre, outlined the ideal healthy diet – one that is
best for the health of the individual and the planet. Thirty-seven
scientists from 16 countries (all international experts in health,
nutrition, and sustainability), argued that despite the rapid rise
in mammal meat consumption over the past several years, a
significant proportion of people worldwide remain
undernourished and overweight because their food lacks
essential nutrients. This report found that these unhealthy diets
posed a greater risk of death and disease than “unsafe sex,
alcohol, drug, and tobacco use combined.” 17
Some nutritionists refer to the ‘triple burden’ of
malnutrition weighing on most countries as “undernutrition,”
“micronutrient deficiencies,” and “overweight and obesity.”
Different forms of malnutrition can also co-exist within the
same country, the same household, and even for the same
individual. In the United States alone, which boasts some of the
highest mammal meat consumption in the world (after
Argentina), malnutrition – particularly as micronutrient
deficiency and obesity – is a reality for too many adults and
children. Indeed 31 percent of Americans over the age of nine
may be at risk of having a vitamin deficiency or anemia; more
than 70 percent of U.S. adults over the age of 20 are obese or
overweight18; and about 14 percent of kids under the age of five
have weight problems.19
One of the reasons for this situation (although not the only
reason) is an obsession with hamburgers. A research team from
Boston University’s Slone Epidemiology Center examined the
association between the consumption of hamburgers from fast-
food restaurants and obesity and found a direct correlation.20
The link between obesity and certain deadly chronic diseases —
arthritis, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes,
and some cancers, among others — is well documented.
Wartime history provides more important information
regarding the correlation between animal-based diets and
morbidity-mortality rates. As documented in the 2011 film,
Forks Over Knives, during the 1930s, cardiovascular disease
among Norwegians steadily increased. When the Germans
occupied Norway in 1939, they confiscated all the livestock and
farm animals to supply their own troops in their occupied
territories. As a result, the Norwegians were forced to eat fish
and plant-based foods. What was thought to be a curse,
however, turned into a blessing as deaths from coronary artery
disease plummeted during the war years from 1939-1945. When
the Norwegians finally got their cows and pigs back at the end
of the war, heart disease climbed once again.
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn explains it this way in the film: “The
native population subsisted on whole grains, legumes,
vegetables, and fruit. Almost immediately death from heart
attacks and strokes in Norway plummeted. With the cessation
of hostilities in 1945 animal products became available as well
as an immediate return to the pre-war levels of deaths from
these illnesses. It is a powerful lesson in public health about the
cause and cure of our most common killer—heart disease.”

The proportion of men with low sperm

concentration was three times higher for the
sons of beef eaters than it was for men whose
mothers did not eat beef.

There is even an emerging body of research that links

decreased male sperm quality to mothers who eat beef while
pregnant. A study in five US cities between 1999 and 2005
examined semen parameters in 387 partners of pregnant
women in terms of the amount of beef their mothers reported
eating while they were pregnant. The proportion of men with
low sperm concentration was three times higher for the sons of
beef eaters than it was for men whose mothers did not eat
beef.21 The researchers determined that the main cause for the
low sperm counts was the anabolic steroids and other
xenobiotics found in meat from industrialized livestock. The
same problem would presumably not be found in the sons of
mothers who eat only range-fed beef – although I have been
unable to find a study that verifies this.

YOUR HEART
High saturated fat levels in mammal meat have long been
known to contribute to heart disease, the leading cause of death
in the United States today. Your body needs healthy fats for
energy and other body functions, but too much saturated fat
can cause cholesterol to build up in your arteries, thereby
increasing your risk for heart disease and stroke.

Those who ate roughly four ounces of

mammal a day were more likely to die of
cancer or heart disease.

A joint study of more than a half a million older Americans

conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) concluded that
those who ate the most mammal meat over a ten-year period
were likely to die sooner than those who ate smaller amounts.
Those who ate roughly four ounces of mammal a day were
more likely to die of cancer or heart disease than were those
who ate the least, about half an ounce a day. 22
 A report from the Harvard School of Public Health also
determined that regularly consuming mammal meat could lead
to an untimely or early death.23 Their data was taken from a
study that followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years. They
discovered that those who ate a Western-style diet high in red
and processed meats had an increased risk of heart disease,
cancer, and death. Another study by the same researchers
followed 121,000 men and women for 24 years. All the
participants submitted information about their diets every four
years. Over the course of this study, almost 24,000 of the
participants died. Death rates among those who ate the most
red meat were higher than for those who ate the least. It found
that people who ate one additional three-ounce serving of red
meat daily faced a 13 percent higher risk of premature death. If
that serving was processed meat (such as bacon or hot dogs),
the risk went to 20 percent.24
One reason for the high incidence of heart disease for people
who eat mammals is Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a dietary
by-product that forms in the stomachs of those who eat
mammal meat. Within just a couple of hours of consuming a
steak, TMAO levels in the blood soar. This chemical, which has
been definitively linked to heart disease, is derived in part from
nutrients that are abundant in mammal meat. One of these,
carnitine, is found in red meat and indeed derives its name
from the Latin word carnis, the root for carnivore. Carnitine is
not dangerous by itself, but when metabolized by bacteria in
the intestines and thus ending up as TMAO in the blood, it
becomes deadly.25
In one effort to understand this phenomenon further, 113
healthy men and women were enrolled in a clinical trial at the
Lerner Research Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, a nonprofit
academic medical center. All their meals were prepared for
them, with dietary proteins coming from either mammal meat,
white meat, or non-meat sources. Compared to the people
eating diets rich in white meat or plant-based protein, those
who ate a diet rich in mammal meat had three times the levels
of this same TMAO chemical.26
The good news is that the TMAO increases were entirely
reversible. When the participants of this study discontinued
their mammal meat diet and ate either non-mammal meat or
non-meat diet for another month, their TMAO levels decreased
and were significantly below the levels associated with heart
disease.
While high saturated fat levels in red meat have long been
known to contribute to heart disease for people in general, a
relatively new discovery suggests that a subgroup of the
population may be at an even higher risk for a different reason
— a food allergen. Some of the emerging research from the
University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville is
starting to provide an empirical link between beef and allergic
responses in up to 20 percent of the population. The main
allergen in red meat — a complex sugar called galactose-alpha-
1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) — has been only recently identified
and so most people do not even know they have that issue.
Their allergy sets off an immunological chain reaction that
leads to atherosclerosis or a build-up of fatty plaque in the
arteries that hardens over time, narrowing the blood vessels,
and eventually stopping the heart.27

INCREASED RISK OF STROKE

Stroke is caused by a blood clot or a burst blood vessel that
stops blood flow to or in the brain. It is the third most common
cause of death in the United States, killing about 800,000 people
each year. Frequent consumption of mammal meat appears to
increase the risk of being in this group. According to a study by
researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and
the Cleveland Clinic, men who ate more than two red meat
servings daily had a 28 percent higher stroke risk than did men
who ate about one-third of a serving each day. People who ate
chicken or turkey each day instead had a 13 percent reduced
stroke risk over those who ate one daily serving of red meat.28

Men who ate more than two red meat

servings daily had a 28 percent higher stroke
risk.

The researchers who delivered these findings collected data

from two large-scale health surveys that tracked more than
10,000 men and women for more than 20 years from middle
age onwards. Not surprisingly, the investigators further found
that substituting other proteins, such as nuts or fish, for one
daily serving of mammal meat also reduced stroke risk
significantly.

CANCER
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States,
accounting for nearly 600,000 deaths in 2015. 29 The World
Health Organization has labeled mammal meat as a probable
carcinogen, and processed mammal meat like hot dogs as a
definite carcinogen – at the same level as cigarettes and
asbestos. The analysis by the International Agency for Research
on Cancer of the WHO found that eating 50 grams of processed
mammal meat (about 4 strips of bacon or a single sausage)
every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18
percent.30

Eating only one hot dog a day raises the

chances of developing colorectal cancer by 21
percent.

Another study conducted by the University of Hawaii goes

even further, claiming that processed meats like hot dogs, ham,
and sausage are responsible for a 67 percent increase in the
risk of pancreatic cancer. The American Institute for Cancer
Research claims that eating only one hot dog a day raises the
chances of developing colorectal cancer by 21 percent.31
A crucial question when interpreting the results of any
clinical trial is whether the size of the observed effect of a
particular intervention (like eating processed meat) is clinically
important. Several measures are used to quantify the “effect
size” of an intervention – absolute risk reduction, relative risk
reduction, and the number of cases observed. Scientists
recognize that a clear understanding of these terms can help
one make rational clinical decisions. While the studies noted
here may report relative risk reduction, the fact remains that
an increases in cancers were detected relative to the type of
food that was consumed. Whether or not one can make a
rational clinical decision to change one’s diet based on that
gathered information of course is always a personal choice. The
information is here to inform your decision.

TYPE 2 DIABETES
It is well known that eating too much sugar and fat can increase
your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes, but eating mammal meat
can dramatically raise those chances as well. Conversely,
several studies have concluded that choosing whole grains,
nuts, low-fat dairy, fish, and poultry instead of mammal meat
can significantly lower your risk of diabetes.
A 2012 study in the Journal of the American Medical
Association examined the deaths of nearly 700,000 people in
2012 from heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. It found
that nearly 50 percent of these deaths were related to poor
nutritional choices. For those who already had diabetes, the risk
of death increased if they consumed processed meats.32
Another study released in early 2017 from researchers in
Finland analyzed the diets of more than 2,300 middle age men
ages 42 to 60. At the outset, none of the participants had Type 2
diabetes –19 years later, 432 participants did. The Finnish study
revealed that those who ate more animal protein and less plant
protein had a 35 percent greater risk of getting diabetes. The
researchers concluded that eating more plant and egg proteins
could help prevent Type 2 diabetes.33

People who ate a single serving of red meat

each day had a 19 percent higher risk of
getting Type 2 diabetes.
 Researchers at Harvard University were also curious about
the links between eating mammal meat and diabetes. Their
extensive research concluded that people who ate a single
serving of red meat each day had a 19 percent higher risk of
getting Type 2 diabetes than those who didn’t. An even smaller
size serving of processed red meat, such as one hot dog or two
slices of bacon, increased the risk to 51 percent.34

THE B12 VITAMIN MYTH

Some of my friends who tenaciously adhere to a mammal-
centered diet have often used B12 as their excuse. We do need
Vitamin B12, as it is an essential nutrient that helps produce red
blood cells and maintain the nervous system. A diet that lacks
enough B12 can lead to deficiency symptoms that include
anemia, constipation, loss of appetite, sore tongue, difficulty
walking, numbness and tingling in the arms or legs, mood
changes, disorientation, and memory loss.35
While some argue that red meat is the best source of vitamin
B12, the vitamin is also found in other foods – for example, in
eggs, milk, and chicken. An egg contains 0.89 micrograms of
vitamin B-12 per 100 grams, or 15 percent of the daily required
value (DV) of 6 micrograms. Two- percent milk contains 0.53
micrograms of vitamin B-12 per 100 grams, or nine percent of
the DV, and 1.29 micrograms per cup, or 22 percent of the DV.
Milk contains more vitamin B-12 in its recommended serving
size than either eggs or chicken. Milk is also a good source of
protein, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, and riboflavin, as well
as vitamins A and D if it is fortified with these nutrients.
 Chicken meat with skin contains 0.31 micrograms of vitamin
B-12 per 100 grams, or five percent of the DV, and 0.21
micrograms per four-ounce serving, or four percent of the DV.
Both eggs and milk are good sources of vitamin B-12. However,
chicken provides other nutrients as well, which include protein,
phosphorus, niacin, and vitamin B-6, so it is a good nutritious
option to mammals
Other good sources of B12 that do not involve killing and
consuming a fellow mammal include clams, mussels, crab, fish,
fortified breakfast cereal, turkey, yogurt, and cheese.

THE GROWING RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS

The high volume of antibiotics used in industrial livestock
production is mind boggling. Approximately 80 percent of the
antibiotics sold in the United States are used for meat and
poultry production. The vast majority is used on healthy
animals to promote growth or prevent disease in mammals
raised in crowded or unsanitary conditions.36
The livestock industry argues that while its widespread use
of antibiotics may be causing antibiotic resistance on the farm,
it still is not an important human health issue, and thus, little
change in current practices is needed. Lawyers for the industry
made their case in a June 2012 letter to Congresswoman Louise
Slaughter of the House Rules Committee, which was cosigned
by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Feed
Industry Association, the American Meat Institute, the Animal
Health Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the
National Meat Association, the National Pork Producers
Council, and others. In the letter these groups declared that the
use of antibiotics in livestock “contributes little, if anything, to
the burden of human antibiotic resistance…”37
 Numerous studies however have demonstrated that farm
mammals that are raised for slaughter do in fact produce
bacteria (i.e., Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli)
that can be transferred to people. That transmission can occur
from direct human contact with animals and also via food
produced from animals with that resistant bacteria. Further,
antibiotic-resistant bacteria can travel away from the farm in
water runoff that carries manure and in airborne particles
carried by the wind from the farm to nearby communities.38
These bacteria are frequently antimicrobial-resistant and
can contaminate our food supply from farm to fork. In 2010, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
all testified before Congress that there is a connection between
the routine use of antibiotics for meat production and the
declining effectiveness of antibiotics given to people.39
Antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) infections in humans can
produce longer illnesses, increased frequency of
hospitalization, and treatment failures that can actually result
in death.
Some of the types of bacteria that cause serious infections in
humans have already developed resistance to most or all of the
available treatments. Thus, we are running out of treatment
options for these types of infections. The World Health
Organization is recommending an overall reduction in the use
of antibiotics in livestock to help preserve the effectiveness of
these drugs for human medicine use.40 My own
recommendation, which would completely solve the AMR
threat, is to reduce or completely eliminate the industrial
production of meat for human consumption.
MAD COW AND OTHER ILLNESSES
Mammals also have a significant reservoir of diseases that can
affect humans. While 60 percent of human diseases can be
shared with other mammals, 75 percent of new infectious
human diseases were first found in mammals. 41
One such example is mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), a transmissible, slowly progressive,
degenerative, and fatal disease that affects the central nervous
systems of adult cattle. A human version of mad cow disease, a
variant called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, can come from eating a
cow that is infected with BSE.
The worst recorded case of mad cow disease was in the
United Kingdom in the mid-1980s when the cattle were believed
to have been infected by being fed meat-and-bone meal that
contained the remains of other cattle and certain sheep
products. The cattle industry forced these herbivores to become
carnivorous, and the results were horrific.
This outbreak spread throughout the UK due to this practice
of feeding the young calves of dairy cows the slaughtered
remains of their close relatives. From 1986 to 2015, more than
184,000 cattle were diagnosed, with the peak of new cases
occurring in 1993. A few thousand additional cases were
reported in other regions of the world. A few million cattle with
the condition also likely entered the food supply during the
outbreak.42 To deal with the crisis, the British had to kill and
burn about 4.4 million cows.

INDUSTRY RESPONSE
The meat industry wants you to believe that their product is
good for your health. This view comes as no surprise, as the
meat industry broadly is responsible for 5.4 million jobs and
$257 billion in wages in the United States alone. An estimated
527,019 people have jobs in production and packing, importing
operations, sales, packaging, and the direct distribution of meat
and poultry products.43 This enormous industry has to do
everything it can to sustain and grow its profits. That is the
nature of business, and also their right within the law.

The meat industry wants you to believe that

their product is good for your health.

When the World Health Organization released its findings

that meat causes cancer, the industry hit back hard, questioning
the credibility of the researchers and their results. The leaders
of prominent processing companies throughout the industry
defended the meat industry. A similar study from the World
Cancer Research Fund that linked processed meat to cancer
received similar rebukes. Barry Carpenter, President and CEO
of the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) even went so far
as to declare that there was no significant relationship between
meat and colon cancer and that the opposite was true – indeed
that in some cases, there was a “protective effect.”44 On the
NAMI website it actually states that we should be eating more
meat. NAMI pegged the daily average meat consumption for
Americans at 4.8 ounces for men, and 3.13 ounces for women –
with a recommendation to increase that amount to 5.7 ounces
for both.45
In response to the January 2019 EAT/Lancet report calling
for an immediate reduction in mammal meat consumption to
improve human health, the National Pork Producers Council
issued a statement declaring the claim as radical, dubious, and
even irresponsible. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
issued a statement, calling beef “nourishing and sustainable.”
Kay Johnson Smith, President and CEO of the Animal
Agriculture Alliance, was quoted as saying “the Commission’s
radical recommendations to drastically limit meat and dairy
consumption would have serious, negative consequences for
the health of people and the planet.”46

FIGURE 2: DAILY MEAT CONSUMPTION FOR MEN AND WOMEN (SOURCE: NAMI
WEBSITE)

These statements on behalf of the meat industry are not

surprising, given that the WHO and the EAT/Lancet
recommendations, if implemented, would have serious,
negative consequences on this industry’s profit margins –
something they would obviously prefer to avoid at all costs.
JUST TRY IT
Many people may respond to this chapter by saying the jury is
still out on the effects of meat consumption on human health.
Indeed, the battle lines have been drawn, and the meat industry
continues to fight consumer advocates on the actual details.
However — you, as an individual, ultimately are the best judge
of your own health (along with your doctor). If this chapter is
not convincing enough, I would challenge you to adopt the
same tactic I did in response to my two tent mates back in
Wyoming: Just try it.
Giving up eating mammals can be extremely gratifying for
your body and mind — and not just because you will be
reducing your carbon footprint. It also has proven health
benefits that include disease prevention and improved
digestive health. However, still plan carefully to make sure you
get all the nutrients your body needs. Start with a full medical
checkup to establish a baseline – stress test, cholesterol levels,
body fat percentage, etc. Then, reduce the amount of mammal
meat you consume by 50 percent. Better yet, go cold turkey
(literally, avoid the cow and eat the turkey). After three to six
months, take a long walk and ask yourself how you feel. Do you
feel stronger, lighter, and more energetic? Chances are you will
feel all of the above. But do get another medical check up to
compare the numbers. Upon reflection, you may embrace the
No Mammal Manifesto, with gusto. You may even take it further
still and cut out all types of meat. The point is to find what
works for you and to balance that with what also works for our
planet – something I will cover in the next chapter.
 REASON 2:

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The SECOND reason to reduce or eliminate mammal
consumption from your diet is because you care about the
environment, and you depend on it for your own survival.

ACCORDING TO AN EXTENSIVE STUDY by the Union of

Concerned Scientists, the production and consumption of
mammal meat is the second most environmentally harmful
consumer activity in the world today. The only other human
activity that is worse for the planet is our reliance on fossil fuels
and the internal combustion engine to move us and our stuff
around. This finding means that if you eat a hamburger in
Alaska that was made from a cow raised in Brazil, you will be
making a massive contribution toward healing the planet by
reconsidering your meal choice.
The preceding chapter looked at the personal health
consequences of a mammal-centered diet, and was an
argument for personal responsibility – like seatbelts or
motorcycle helmets. This chapter is broader in the sense that it
looks at how your personal food choices can affect everyone
else.

The industrial production and consumption

of livestock is undermining the very
 ecosystems on which you and I and 7.6 billion
other people depend.

According to The Consumer’s Guide to Effective

Environmental Choices, one pound of beef on the table creates
17 times more water pollution and 20 times more habitat
alteration than preparing its caloric equivalent in pasta.47 In
the Guide, Michael Brower and Warren Leon lay out 11
“priority actions, ” that urge people to consider, for example,
the cars they drive, the appliances in their homes, and the
amount of meat in their diets. Brower and Leon identified what
they consider to be the top four environmental problems of our
modern Western lifestyles. These are air pollution, global
warming, habitat alteration, and water pollution. Then they
divided our household activities into broad and narrow
categories and ranked them according to their contributions to
these big four environmental problems. One of the biggest
personal contributions you can make towards healing the
planet, they asserted, aside from trading in your car for a
bicycle, is to stop eating mammals.
The industrial production and consumption of livestock is
undermining the very ecosystems on which you and I and 7.6
billion other people depend. For the past several millennia, we
have enjoyed a period of relative climatic stability that has
allowed humans to settle, farm, and create civilizations.
According to the International Union of Geological Sciences
(IUGS), the professional organization in charge of defining
Earth’s time scale, this recent period is known as the Holocene
(“entirely recent”) epoch. It began 11,700 years ago after the last
major ice age.
Many scientists are now speculating that we are leaving the
Holocene period and entering the “Anthropocen” (from the
word anthropo, for “man,” and cene, for “new” – a new global
environment caused by human activity). The 2017 book by John
W. Kress and Jeffrey K. Stine, entitled Living in the
Anthropocene: Earth in the Age of Humans takes a vital look at
this new era. The authors write that the root causes of the
Anthropocene Age are the spread of agriculture, pollution, and
urbanization. As we will see here, a heavy reliance on mammal
meat consumption is one of the primary reasons for the
unsustainable spread of agriculture.
In October 2018, scientists from around the world warned
that we needed to dramatically reduce the amount of mammal
meat we eat or face apocalyptic consequences. Beef
consumption, in particular, needs to drop by 90 percent, and
pork consumption needs to drop by about 80 percent if we are
to restore ecological balance and increase our long-term
chances of survival.48 The difference in this percentage is linked
to the efficiency ratios of converting grain to flesh (beef
requires more resources to produce than does pork). The
research, which was led by the University of Oxford, is the most
complete to date, combining data from every country to assess
the overall impact of food production on the global
environment.

Eating two pounds of beef is responsible for

more greenhouse gas emissions and pollution
 than driving around for three hours while
leaving all the lights on back home.

However, despite the urgent appeals to reduce mammal

meat consumption, the trend is still moving in the opposite
direction. As more countries develop, much of the world is
adopting American and European standards of living with an
accompanying fixation on eating mammals. In the United
States, each person now eats about 260 pounds of meat per
year, while the average Brit consumes about 170 pounds. 49
Fueled by rising incomes, mammal meat consumption in
China grew sevenfold over the last three decades and a half. In
the early 1980s, when there were fewer than one billion
Chinese, the average person ate around 30 pounds of meat per
year. Today, with an additional 380 million people, it’s nearly
140 pounds per person, per year. With its higher population,
the country consumes twice as much mammal meat as the
United States — 28 percent of the world’s total. And the figure is
only set to increase.50
Most of Africa and South Asia consumes less than 44 pounds
of mammal meat a year. In all likelihood, at the current growth
rates, worldwide mammal meat consumption is likely to double
by 2050, according to sources at the UNFAO.51 The planet simply
cannot support the industrial production of that much meat,
unless there are radical solutions discovered and implemented.
The final chapter offers some possibilities for those solutions
but one of the most obvious is to reduce, and advocate for the
reduction of mammal meat production and consumption.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The Earth would be a lifeless rock like the moon if it were not
for the thin layer of atmosphere above us that traps solar
energy and insulates the Earth’s surface from frozen outer
space. The way the atmosphere traps solar energy is called the
Greenhouse Effect, because the effect is just like a greenhouse
or a closed car that heats up in the sun. For our planet, the clear
windows that prevent the heat from escaping into space are
made up of certain gases in the atmosphere, mainly water
vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. This delicate balance of
celestial sun rays and carbon dioxide (or CO2) is what makes
our Earth such a nice place to live.
Since the dawn of history, the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere was stable at about 280 parts per million (ppm) —
meaning that out of every million molecules in the air, 280 of
them were carbon dioxide. It’s a pretty small fraction of the
atmosphere (0.028 percent), but it’s the right amount of carbon
dioxide to absorb just enough heat, so that the planet can
maintain the overall average temperature that we and
everything else on Earth have gotten used to living and thriving
in.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) is an American scientific agency within the United
States Department of Commerce that focuses on the conditions
of the oceans, major waterways, and the atmosphere. According
to NOAA, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is changing and
escalating quickly. These scientists say global average
atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2017 was 405 parts per million,
with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm.52
 The last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high
was more than three million years ago when the temperature
was about 3°C (5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era,
and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than it is
today. Eighty feet of difference in sea level would wipe out most
of today’s coastal cities, turning places like Manhattan into
Atlantis.
Scientists believe global temperatures will increase even
further, continuing to rise for decades to come, largely due to
the greenhouse gases produced by human activities that have
yet to reach the upper levels of the atmosphere. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which
includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and
countries around the world, has forecast an average
temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next
century.53

SO WHAT’S YOUR STEAK GOT TO DO WITH IT?

While energy generation, transport, and construction are
identified as the usual targets when governments seek to
reduce emissions, the impact from food production has been
somewhat overlooked. However, based on the current trend,
with intensive agriculture increasingly geared toward livestock
production, food production is now also a major factor to be
considered.
Throughout much of the world, forests have been cleared to
make way for livestock. The inefficient farming of cattle feed,
together with methane emissions from cows and fertilizer use,
creates as much greenhouse gas emissions as all the world’s
cars, trucks and airplanes combined. 54 Producing a kilogram of
beef (two pounds) generates around 26 kilograms (57 pounds)
of carbon dioxide, the highest of all the 197 foods examined
using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food
availability data set and a literature meta-analysis of emission
factors for various food types.55
Eating a kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse
gas emissions and pollution than driving around for three
hours while leaving all the lights on back home, according to
Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and
Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan. Ogino and his team
looked at calf production and focused on animal management
and the effects of producing and transporting feed.56
Comprehensive research, led by scientists at the Oxford
Martin School, found that shifting to a mostly vegetarian diet or
even cutting down on meat consumption to within accepted
health guidelines, would reduce greenhouse gases
significantly.57 A 2013 report from the FAO revealed that 14.5
percent of all human-induced emissions come from eating
mammals. The report, Tackling climate change through
livestock, says beef and cattle milk production account for most
emissions, contributing 41 percent and 19 percent of the
sector’s emissions, respectively. Pig meat production is second,
contributing nine percent to the sector’s emissions 58.
According to the FAO study, the main sources of emissions
are feed production and processing (45 percent of the total –
with nine percent attributable to the expansion of pasture and
feed crops into forests); fermentation from ruminants (39
percent); and manure decomposition (10 percent). The
remainder of the carbon emissions from meat production is
attributable to the processing and transportation of meat itself.
The report further states that the livestock sector can indeed
make an important contribution to international efforts to curb
climate change by voluntarily offsetting some of the sector’s
emission increases, since the worldwide demand for livestock
products is expected to grow by 70 percent by 205059.
The beef industry, to its credit, is working to reduce its
carbon footprint. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a
trade group for beef producers, claims that improvements in
cattle genetics and production methods have resulted in one-
third fewer cows needed in 2015 to produce the same amount
of beef produced in 1975.60

DISAPPEARING FORESTS AND LAND DEGRADATION

The quality of our land, sea, and water is deteriorating so
rapidly that our ecosystems may soon be unable to sustain life
as we know it today. The livestock industry already has
degraded 20 percent of all the world’s pastureland through
overgrazing. It is also overusing our limited freshwater
resources and has created vast oceanic dead zones from the
nitrogen and phosphorus run-off that comes from chemical
fertilizers. 61

Just four commodities—beef, soy, palm oil,

and wood products—drive most tropical
deforestation. Of these four, beef has by far
the largest impact.

The loss of primary tropical rainforest — the wildest and

most diverse swaths — has increased as much as 25 percent
since the 1990s. We are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of
tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading an
additional 80,000 acres every day. As the trees disappear, so do
some 135 plant, animal, and insect species every day —some
50,000 species each year. Cattle ranching is cited as one of the
primary reasons for the clearing of the forests – both for the
cattle themselves, and to grow all the crops to feed them. 62
Just four commodities—beef, soy, palm oil, and wood
products—drive most tropical deforestation. Of these four, beef
has by far the largest impact. Converting forest to pasture for
beef cattle, largely happening in Latin America, is responsible
for destroying 2.71 million hectares of tropical forest each year
—an area about the size of the state of Massachusetts.63
The drive behind the incessant clearing rainforests is both
growing demand for beef, as well as because much of the
grazing land is rendered useless after a few years (maximum
ten). The land suffers substantial losses of soil fertility and soil
erosion because soil nutrients are rapidly depleted after
clearing and grasses are soon replaced by less useful vegetation,
causing farmers to clear yet more rainforest to feed and pasture
their cattle.64
Data from the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association show
that beef exports from that country increased 20 percent in
2017 to 132,000 metric tons and then an additional 11 percent
in 2018 to 178,000 metric tons.65 How many Brazilian cows is
required to produce 178,000 tons of beef? A steer produces a
750-pound carcass after the fat and muscle are trimmed away.
Remove the bones, and you get around 490 pounds of boneless
trimmed beef. The 178,000 metric tons of beef exports in 2018
translates into 392,422,827 pounds of meat. Divide that figure
by 490, and we get around 800,862 cows that are slaughtered
each year in Brazil alone. Consider the amount of land it takes
to produce all those cows each year, and you will start to
understand what is happening to the rainforest.

IMPACT ON SCARCE WATER RESOURCES

Our mammal-centered diet is also delivering a devastating
double whammy to our scarce freshwater resources. First, the
enormous amount of water required to grow all the crops we
feed to cows and pigs is staggering. A January 2012 report in
National Geographic pointed out that irrigating the land for
cattle feed uses almost three times as much water as for all the
other foods combined. On the other hand, dairy cows require
much less water, and their products (primarily milk and
cheese) contribute the most calories to U.S. diets, but do not
involve killing the cow. 66

The enormous amount of water required to

grow all the crops we feed to cows and pigs is
staggering.

Just 55 percent of the world’s crop calories are actually eaten

directly by people. Of this amount, 36 percent is used for animal
feed, with the remaining nine percent going to biofuels and
other industrial uses. Recent studies find that global crop
demands will likely increase by 60–120 percent by the year 2050
(using the baseline year 2005).67 According to a 2011 analysis,
75 percent of all agricultural land (including crop and pasture
land) is dedicated to animal production – and by far the lion’s
share of that amount is used to produce feed mammal meat.68
It is becoming more and more difficult to grow a sufficient
amount of crops in the now increasingly depleted soils to feed
all the cows and pigs. Farmers are thus turning to nitrogen-rich
fertilizers to grow their crops. The chemicals in these fertilizers
are percolating down into our freshwater aquifers and running
downstream into our oceans. The result is that algae blooms are
sucking all the oxygen from the water, and killing all life. And
these “dead zones” are expanding like a giant plague: the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
announced in August 2017 that the dead zone in the Gulf of
Mexico that runs along the United States coastline was the
largest ever recorded, measuring 8,776 square miles – about the
size of the state of New Hampshire or Massachusetts.

OTHER REASONS FISH ARE DISAPPEARING

The United Nations recently reported that nearly 90 percent of
the world’s marine fish stock has now been fully exploited,
overexploited, or depleted.69 Because of this overharvesting of
fish, all 17 of the world’s major fishing areas have reached or
exceeded their natural limits, and fishermen the world over are
increasingly heading back to port regularly with empty nets.
 SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE GULF OF MEXICO IN 2017. LIGHT COLORED WATER IS THE
OFTEN NUTRIENT-RICH SEDIMENT FLOWING INTO THE DEEPER OCEAN WATER. THESE
NUTRIENTS FACILITATE GROWTH OF PHYTOPLANKTON BLOOMS, WHICH LEAD TO
HYPOXIC CONDITIONS. SOURCE: NASA

You might assume that all these fish are disappearing

because we humans are eating them. I was surprised to learn
that more than a third of all fish caught in the sea are fed to
livestock or fed to farmed fish as a form of aqua-cultural
cannibalism. 70 Thus, the livestock industry is killing sea life en
masse both through nitrogen runoff from inefficient farming to
grow feed crops as well as through overfishing to feed hungry
cows and farmed fish.
 More than a third of all fish caught in the sea
are fed to livestock.

According to Sustainable Fisheries, which is a group of

fishery scientists at the University of Washington, about 33
percent of the world’s fish stocks are being exploited beyond
reasonable sustainability.71 That’s right. A third of the fish that
are left are still being overfished. Since studies show that 31.5
million tons, or 37 percent of all fish taken from the world’s
oceans each year is used to feed livestock, we could easily
restore the balance simply by stopping the practice of feeding
fish to cows – or by eating fewer cows.

MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

As previously noted, while the people in emerging market
countries like China are eating on average more mammal meat
than before, other countries are slowly starting to wake up and
realize the errors of their ways. In the United States, according
to a 2017 survey conducted by the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Americans reduced their beef consumption by 19
percent from 2005 to 2014. These positive changes in the overall
American diet reduced emissions by the equivalent of the
pollution from 57 million cars — despite a population growth of
about 9 percent.72
Consumption of all meat in the United States, taken together,
has been falling from a peak in 2007, according to the U.S.
Agriculture Department. Per capita consumption of beef topped
out in 1976, but remained America’s favorite meat until the
mid-1990s, when it was surpassed by chicken. 73
Mintel, a consumer research firm, surveyed consumers to
see why Americans are eating less beef. Of this group, 37
percent cited the cost of beef as the No. 1 reason. These
respondents said they were eating more kinds of protein like
chicken or tofu because of their lower cost. More than a quarter
of the group ascribed the change to their concern about
cholesterol and saturated fats. A separate study surveyed adults
who had totally stopped eating meat. Of those surveyed, 52
percent cited taste as the top reason for eating plant-based
proteins, outranking the concerns over diet (10 percent), animal
protection (11 percent), the environment (13 percent) and
health (39 percent).74
Another study conducted by researchers at the Johns
Hopkins Center for a Livable Future collected survey responses
from a nationally representative sample of 1,112 U.S. adults age
18 and older. Their study found that 41 percent of Americans
are reducing their consumption of mammal meat, while 55
percent no longer are eating processed meats. Of those who
reported eating less mammal and processed meat, 37 percent
indicated they increased their consumption of non-mammal
meat, such as poultry or seafood.75
Whatever the reason Americans are eating fewer mammals,
it is clear that while their health is improving from their choice,
the rest of us are benefiting as well by having a cleaner more
stable environment. Let us all hope this positive momentum
continues.
 REASON 3:

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The THIRD reason for reducing or eliminating mammal
consumption from your diet is because it is economically
wasteful and unsustainable.

THIS SECTION ADDRESSES THE ECONOMIC considerations of

production, distribution, and consumption of goods and
services – the inputs of grain, pesticides, labor, water, land,
animals, etc., that go into producing mammal meat for public
consumption.
If the negative externalities of industrial mammal meat
production were included in its price, then meat would be very,
very expensive, indeed a luxury item to be consumed as a
special treat and rarely, if at all. The problem is that the true
cost is NOT reflected in the price. Yet as Charles Portis reminds
us in his book, True Grit, “You must pay for everything in this
world one way and another.”

The industrial conversion of calories from

plants to animals – especially mammals –
does not make for sound economic policy.
 The industrial conversion of calories from plants to animals
– especially mammals – does not make for sound economic
policy in an increasingly overcrowded world. It is incredibly
inefficient. Mammal production causes an enormous loss of
calories that are grown in fields, since cereals and oil seeds
must be cultivated to feed these animals. According to the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the calories
that are lost by feeding cereals to animals, instead of being used
directly as human food, could likely feed an extra 3.5 billion
people every year.
Furthermore, mammal meat is an inefficient source of
calories. Nearly 60 percent of the world’s agricultural land is
now used for beef production, and yet beef accounts for less
than two percent of the calories consumed worldwide. Beef
makes up 24 percent of the world’s meat consumption, and yet
it requires 7.4 billion acres of land to produce it. In the United
States alone, 70 percent of agricultural production goes to
feeding livestock. In South America and Central America, five
million acres of rainforest are felled each year to create cattle
pasture. 76 All these economic inputs are undertaken to produce
just 17 percent of the calories we consume!
According to the environmental organization, EarthSave, it
takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of
topsoil, and the energy equivalent of a single gallon of gasoline
to produce just one pound of feedlot beef. The conservative
British newsmagazine, The Economist, puts the figure for lamb
at six pounds of grain to one pound of lamb and “for beef starts
at five to one and goes as high as 20 to one,” depending on how
and where the cow is raised. On the other hand, the ratio for
chicken is only two to one. In other words, it takes two pounds
of feed to produce one pound of chicken.77
 A National Geographic calculation claims it takes 660 gallons
of water to make just one hamburger.78 That’s enough water for
three ten-minute hot showers. If you are trying or need to
conserve water, your significant other may prefer you skip that
burger rather than having to miss three showers.

Nitrates from cattle farming now

contaminate the public water supplies of
almost 1,700 communities across the United
States.

The cattle industry in the United States is, to its credit,

bringing this ratio down. An article in Mother Jones highlights
several things that ranchers are now feeding their cows to
move away from an outrageously-high dependency on corn,
soy, and hay. Sawdust is a big winner, after removing the lignin,
which makes it hard to digest. The lignin is removed by soaking
the sawdust in nitric acid. Other things that are now fed to cows
include surplus gummy bears, marshmallows, hard candy,
sprinkles, chocolate, candy corn, and hot chocolate mix. Candy
provides the sugar that cows would usually get from corn,
giving them more energy and making them become fatter.
Lastly, chicken manure, ground limestone, and crab guts are
also all used to fatten up cows while trying to keep feed costs
down.79

TRUE COST ECONOMICS

True cost economics is an economic model that seeks to include
the cost of negative externalities into the pricing of goods and
services. An external cost occurs when producing or consuming
a good or service then imposes a cost upon a third party.
Products and services can directly or indirectly cause harmful
consequences to living beings and/or the environment, and
these must be paid for eventually. If one factors in these costs,
the true cost of a product or service can then be more precisely
determined. Examples of external costs may include the cost of
disposing of the product at the end of its useful life; the
environmental degradation caused by its emissions, pollutants
and wastes from its production; or social costs associated with
rising unemployment due to increased automation. Extreme
externalizing of the full costs of a product or service is
considered market failure because everyone will have to pay
later for something that everyone did not consume today. In
other words, market failure is a situation in which the
allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient,
often leading to a net loss for society at large.
Economists consider climate change to be a market failure,
because it imposes huge costs and risks on future generations
who will have to suffer the consequences of our actions. These
costs and risks are not normally reflected in current market
prices. To overcome this market failure, they argue, we need to
internalize the costs of future environmental damage by
putting a price on what causes that damage – namely, carbon
emissions.
With this view in mind, let’s look briefly at the economic cost
of a burger in terms of greenhouse gas pollution. It is difficult to
put a precise price on the cost of this carbon, but the U.S.
Government’s official monetary valuation (cost) of greenhouse
gas pollution is roughly $37 per metric ton of CO2 emissions.
Other sources put the figure ten times higher. Using the
standard calculations of beef production discussed here in the
section on the environment, the monetary cost of the carbon
emissions produced by the average cheeseburger might range
from 15 cents (the official U.S. government rate), to 24 cents
(conservative independent sources) and even $1.20 (high
independent). Taking the average of these three estimates,
however, would add 53 cents to the cost of a typical burger. 80
Now let’s look at the substantial direct (yet external) health-
care costs of a mammal-centric diet and the indirect costs that
result from unpaid care from family or friends and lost work
days. There is an enormous economic burden placed on society
from obesity and a handful of deadly chronic diseases —
arthritis, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes,
and some cancers, among others — produced by a diet heavy in
mammal meat. Direct medical diet-related costs are currently
pegged at about $231 billion annually. Of that amount, by one
estimate, the U.S. spent $190 billion on obesity-related health
care expenses in 2005 alone.81
In a report published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Marco Springmann and his colleagues at
the University of Oxford conducted an extensive study to
determine the true cost that society must bear if it continues to
center its diet on the consumption of mammals. Springmann
and his team projected several possible dietary scenarios
forward to 2050, comparing health-care and climate-related
costs. They found that if the world continues its current meat-
heavy diet, and does not shift to a diet that meets standard
global dietary guidelines, the cost to the global economy could
be up to $1.6 trillion a year by 2050. 82
 Of all the world’s countries, the U.S. would save the most by
further curbing its taste for meat. Due to its very high per capita
health-care costs, it is estimated the U.S. could save $180 billion
per year if its people ate according to recommended guidelines,
and upwards of $250 billion if they avoided animal food
products altogether—more than China or all of Europe
combined. This calculation does not even include the number of
obesity- and chronic-disease-related deaths that could be
averted (at least 320,000 per year), and the accompanying
benefits of reducing the level of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Springmann and his team made another estimate using a
somewhat less intuitive measure called the “value of a
statistical life,” which put the savings from not eating meat in
the neighborhood of $2 to $3 trillion in the U.S. and $20 to $30
trillion worldwide, per year.

Figure #1: The economic insanity of beef production

 SOURCE: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

THE COSTS OF CONTAMINATED WATER

There are other costs that are not so easy to calculate, but which
are nevertheless real and should be included in any discussion
of the true economic costs to society of its support of a
mammal-meat centered diet.
Consider, for example, the elevated nitrates in water
supplies that result from the chemical fertilizers used to grow
the corn that feeds cattle. Nitrates now contaminate the public
water supplies of almost 1,700 communities across the United
States at levels the National Cancer Institute says could increase
the risk of cancer.83 Federal data shows that about two-thirds of
those – 1,155 systems’ serving more than three million people –
have no treatment systems in place to reduce nitrate
concentrations to safer levels.
This phenomenon creates costs to society that inevitably
must be paid somewhere by somebody. Either households
purchase bottled water, the costs get transferred to the
healthcare sector when people fall sick, or local governments
respond with higher taxes to clean up the mess.
Removing nitrates from tap water is expensive, and these
costs must be absorbed by direct local taxation, municipal
bonds, or the increased cost of water. The city of Des Moines
recently had to spend $3.7 million to build a water treatment
facility for precisely this reason.84 In October of 2017,
Hiawatha, Kansas, built a plant for $3.5 million to deal with
nitrate levels that were so high that residents were warned not
to drink the tap water.85 In 2005, the City of Chino, California,
spent $4.6 million on an ion exchange system to deal with its
dangerously high nitrate levels.86

WASTED OPPORTUNITIES
According to figures drawn from the (British) Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, as much as 50 percent of all food
produced in the world ends up as waste every year.87 Such poor
economic planning is particularly troublesome to me,
considering the number of people who go to bed hungry every
night. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated
that of the 7.6 billion people in the world today, about 815
million suffer from chronic undernourishment and are thus
unable to lead a healthy active life. The number of hungry
people in the world is also growing – now reaching one in every
nine people - while limited progress is being made in
addressing the multiple forms of malnutrition.
 One-third of the food produced in the world
for human consumption every year —
approximately 1.3 billion tons — is lost or
wasted.

According to the UNFAO, roughly one- third of the food

produced in the world for human consumption every year —
approximately 1.3 billion tons — is lost or wasted. The average
person in North America and Europe wastes up to 253 pounds
(115 kg) of food a year, while consumers in sub-Saharan Africa,
South and South-eastern Asia, each throw away 24 pounds a
year.88 Aside from the tragedy that is apparent in the face of
starvation, this waste is also a major squandering of resources,
including water, land, energy, labor and capital, and further
still, it needlessly produces greenhouse gas emissions, which
contribute to global warming and climate change.
As we have seen, nearly 60 percent of the world’s
agricultural land is now used for beef production, and yet beef
accounts for less than two percent of the calories consumed
worldwide. By producing all this beef, we are wasting an
opportunity to feed those who do not have enough to eat. By
feeding enormous amounts of agricultural products to cows, so
we can in turn eat the meat on those cows, we are – knowingly
or unknowingly – missing an opportunity to grow and provide
food to those who go to bed hungry every night. Worse, we can
see that by seeking to cut corners and thus feed dead cows to
cows, we ended up having to kill and burn the carcasses of 4.4
million cows – for nothing. We can do better. We must do better.
 REASON 4:

WE ARE ALSO MAMMALS

The FOURTH reason to reduce or eliminate mammal
consumption from your diet is because we share a special
and close relationship with all mammals

IN THIS FINAL CHAPTER, I will try and make the case that we
should reduce or eliminate our consumption of mammals
because we, as mammals, should look after one another.
They’ve got our back, and we should have theirs – to protect
them, not eat them. We mammals are more similar to each
other and connected to each other than most of us realize – and
to eat them may be just one step away from cannibalism.
You don’t have to look far to read instances of cases where
mammals take care of each other with very human
characteristics, nor to find evidence of other mammals reaching
out to save and protect humans. In this chapter I will first
present some cases from the real world before taking a quick
walk through the animated imaginations of our childhood,
where we actually bonded quite closely with a wide variety of
our mammal friends.

GENETIC SIMILARITIES AMONG MAMMALS

In the grand scheme of human history, our knowledge of
evolution and DNA sequencing is only a relatively recent
discovery. This science has enabled us to see how closely
related we are as a species to every other living thing on this
planet. Genetically speaking, we have much more in common
with our fellow mammals than we do with the rest of life on
Earth. Our closest genetic matches are of course our fellow
humans with whom we share 99.9 percent of our genes.
The chimpanzee and another ape, the bonobo, are humans’
closest living relatives.89 We look alike in many ways, both in
body and behavior – probably because we share a surprising
98.8 percent of our DNA with them.
Ongoing research is now discovering that we are also
extremely close to the pig. A study funded by the European
Research Council in 2011 discovered that the pig and its cousin,
the wild boar, share more DNA similarity with us than we do
with a mouse, a dog, a horse or a cow.90
Medical researchers were not surprised to discover our close
kinship with pigs. We already are using parts of pigs for various
medical conditions. For example, insulin is typically derived
from pigs for injection into humans, and estrogen from pigs is
used for birth control pills. Plastic surgeons also use dermal
fillers made from pig fat. Severe burns are often treated with
skin grafts derived from the epidermis of pigs. Researchers
have also discovered that when human genes are combined
with pig genes, they appear to fuse seamlessly..91
Dogs might be man’s best friends, but they also happen to
share 84 percent of our DNA.92 Cat people will love hearing that
their feline friends are even more like us than dogs are. A 2007
study found that about 90 percent of the genes in the
Abyssinian domestic cat are similar to humans. Domesticated
cattle share about 80 percent of their genes with humans,
according to the Bovine Genome Sequencing Project, an
international consortium of more than 300 scientists from 25
countries who worked six years to complete the genetic
sequence of the beef cow in 2009. 93 In these instances, 80
percent seems to be the dividing line for us mammals, because
when you drop much lower you get to chickens, at 65 percent.

HEAD HUGS
One of the first things I noticed about our fellow mammals is
the way they – and we – greet each other. I have not seen this
same rapport in other species of animals, only mammals, giving
rise to the possibility that all mammals possess a consciousness
much like our own and a deep awareness of the bonds we share
with one another.

All mammals possess a consciousness much

like our own and a deep awareness of the
bonds we share with one another.

For the Maori people of the South Pacific, the traditional

greeting between two people involves pressing noses and
foreheads together. I like to call this a head hug – they call it a
hongi. The greeting is used at traditional meetings among the
Maori and at major ceremonies. In the hongi, the ha (breath of
life) is exchanged in a symbolic show of unity. Through the
exchange of this greeting, one is no longer considered manuhiri,
a visitor, but rather tangata whenua, one of the people of the
land.94
For the Inuit of the far north, including the Kalaallit in
Greenland, the Inuvialuit in Canada, and the Inupiaq, Yuplit,
and Alutiiq in Alaska, rubbing noses with a loved one is called a
kunik. It is an expression of affection that involves pressing the
nose and upper lip against the skin (commonly the forehead)
and breathing in.95 In the Socotra archipelago of Yemen, men
touch their noses once or three times when greeting, as a
gesture of both friendship and respect.
 Mongolian nomads of the Gobi Desert have a similar
practice, as do certain Southeast Asian cultures, such as the
Bengalis, Cambodians, Laotians, Thai, Vietnamese, Timorese,
the Sabu people, Sumbese and the Ibans. Arabs also press the
bridges of their noses together as a traditional greeting when
meeting members of the same tribe, family, or clan. Many
Buddhists and Hindus believe we have a third eye in the middle
of our foreheads and connecting these eyes with others opens a
channel for an exchange of energy and unspoken
communication.
These greeting rituals also seem to be common among other
mammals, from cats and dogs to giraffes and elephants. I have
seen mammals engage in head hugs throughout the world —
giraffes, cows, and moose – even elephants.
If you have ever seen a female dog approach a litter of pups
that are not her own, you may notice she lowers her head and
touches the nose of each with her nose. She nuzzles the faces of
some a bit and sniffs other parts of their bodies; however, the
opening contact is almost always a nose-to-nose touch.
Psychologists who study animal communication say this snout
contact appears to be part of a greeting ritual.96 Cats use this
nose touch greeting virtually with any cat they meet that
appears to be non-threatening.
If you have not yet experienced a head hug with another
mammal – try it (both with a significant other human and with
any of the animals pictured below), you may be surprised at the
result.

MAMMALS TO THE RESCUE

For much of my life, I have seen stories in the media about
mammals rescuing humans. Each time I made a mental note,
thinking, “hmmm that’s interesting,” but I never really focused
on it until these stories started to mount up over time. While
some of the mammals in this section are obviously not in
danger of being eaten, my point here is to establish a new
paradigm in which all mammals are part of a family, our family,
and thus, should be included within our circles of compassion.
While traveling through Bangladesh in the 1980s, I read a
story in the local newspaper about a boy who had been taken
far out to sea in a hurricane when a tsunami washed in over his
village. Two days later, the boy was spotted by a fisherman —
balanced on the backs of two dolphins. I tried to find that story,
but I couldn’t. However, in searching for it I did come across
many others.

“THAT’LL DO PIG, THAT’LL DO”

A study at Emory University in the United Kingdom revealed
that pigs share several cognitive capacities with other highly
intelligent species, including dogs, chimpanzees, elephants,
dolphins, and humans. This research suggests that pigs have
excellent long-term memories and are skilled at mazes and
other tests that require the location of objects. Moreover, they
can build relationships with each other and also other fellow
mammals.97

Pigs have excellent long-term memories and

are skilled at mazes and other tests.
 In the Midwestern United States in 1997, Jo Ann and Jack
Altsman agreed to babysit their daughter’s Vietnamese pot-
bellied pig, Lulu, while the daughter was on vacation. They
grew fond of the pig and decided to keep it at their home in
Pennsylvania. Lulu grew and grew, from four pounds to 150
pounds a year later. In August 1998, Jack was fishing on Lake
Erie when Jo Ann, 61, had a heart attack— her second in
eighteen months. She threw an alarm clock through the
window hoping to attract attention, but to no avail. Their dog,
Bear, an American Eskimo, just barked.
According to the news reports, 98 at first Lulu “cried big fat
tears” but then she took action, squeezing her obese body
through the doggy door and pushing open the gate. Whenever a
car came, she would lie in the road in front of the approaching
vehicle. This activity went on for about 45 minutes as car after
car simply drove around her. Finally, a car stopped, and the
driver followed LuLu into the house and saw Jo Anne
unconscious on the floor. The motorist immediately called 911,
and a helicopter was dispatched. Jo Ann was flown to the
hospital where the doctors were quoted as saying that had she
arrived fifteen minutes later, she would have died.

DOGS AS MAN’S BEST FRIEND

The audience for this book probably does not need much
convincing to keep dogs off the dinner plate. However, dogs are
mammals, and as such, are genetically close to all the mammals
on the menu at the Black Angus Steakhouse, and thus worthy of
a mention here in our discussion about bonding with mammals.
The reason we call dogs “man’s best friend” needs little
explanation, at least in Western countries. As humans, we take
great pride in our dogs. We often show them off to others just as
we do our own children. We play with our dogs, hold them
close, and rely on them for many reasons, including security,
friendship, and compassion. We rely on dogs also for law
enforcement and military operations.
Every dog owner knows there are benefits to having a dog,
from barking at intruders to loyal companionship. However, for
people with disabilities, the presence of a dog can be critical to
their daily functioning. The emotional support and comfort
provided by their pets allows them to deal with challenges that
might otherwise compromise their overall quality of life. These
pets are known as service and emotional support animals. They
also can be trained to be psychiatric service dogs to support
people whose disability comes from a mental illness. These dogs
can detect the beginning of psychiatric episodes and help ease
their effects. There is little wonder why Brigitte Bardot
dedicated her life to protecting them.

“BEARLY” SURVIVED
In January 2019, three-year-old Casey Hathaway wandered
away from his grandmother’s backyard in North Carolina and
became lost in the woods. A local emergency team was called
that involved helicopters, drones, K-9 units, and divers, as well
as hundreds of volunteers to search for the toddler, who was
not dressed for the brutal below-freezing weather conditions.
The conditions were indeed so bad that the search had to be
called off after nightfall.
Two days later rescuers found him tangled up in thorny
bushes, cold and soaked, but safe. When asked how he had
survived, the little boy said a bear had come and kept him
warm and safe.99 North Carolina is home to many black bears.
The adults did not believe him at first, but the little man stuck
to his story.

DOLPHINS – MAN’S OCEANIC PROTECTOR

Dolphins are known to be some of the most compassionate and
intelligent animals of all mammals. There is recorded evidence
of them helping humans throughout history. In ancient Greece,
many coins show images of children, men, or gods riding a
dolphin. According to legend, the sea god, Poseidon, sent a
dolphin to save his son, Taras, from a shipwreck.
When the surfer Todd Endris was attacked by a 15-foot
white shark off the coast of California in the summer of 2007,
dolphins came to his rescue. The shark had taken a bite from
his back and sunk its teeth into Todd’s leg when a pod of
dolphins suddenly appeared and attacked the shark, then
forming a protective ring around him until the shark left. Todd
was then able to catch a wave back to shore and seek
emergency treatment100.

A pod of dolphins suddenly appeared and

attacked the shark.

The American actor,Dick Van Dyke, was once saved by

porpoises after he drifted out into the Atlantic Ocean on his
surfboard. Time Magazine101 reported at the time that the actor
had drifted so far out he could no longer see the shore. Van
Dyke began a feeble attempt to paddle back in the direction
from which he believed he had drifted, when he saw several
fins protruding from the water that started circling around him.
He first thought they were sharks, but then was relieved to
discover he was wrong. “They turned out to be porpoises, and
they pushed me all the way to shore,” he said.
In 1996, a British tourist, Martin Richardson, was reportedly
attacked by a shark in Egypt while swimming off the coast of
Sinai in the Gulf of Aqaba. A group of dolphins surrounded him
and kept the shark at bay by slapping the surface of the water
until Martin could be pulled to safety.102
The British lifeguard, Rob Howes and his daughters were
swimming 100 yards out to sea at Ocean Beach, near
Whangarei, New Zealand when seven bottlenose dolphins
suddenly sped toward them and herded the family together.
Howes tried to swim away from the group, but two of the
bigger dolphins pushed him back. He realized what was
happening only when he spotted a 10-foot great white shark
heading straight toward them. The dolphins continued their
defensive maneuvers for 40 minutes until the group could swim
safely back to shore.103
Ingrid Visser, of Orca Research, an environmental group,
was quoted in The Telegraph104 newspaper in Britain as saying
the dolphins’ behavior was understandable, as they attack
sharks to protect themselves and their young. “They could have
sensed the danger to the swimmers and taken action to protect
them,” she explained.
There are many more instances of dolphins rescuing
humans, but before this book turns into a treatise about
dolphins, since they are not usually found on the menu, let’s
move on to other mammals.

GORILLAS IN THE MIST

In August 1996, a crowd of visitors at the Brookfield Zoo in
Illinois, looked on in horror as they saw a three-year old toddler
tumble more than 15 feet into the enclosure there and land
near seven gorillas. Those witnessing the incident expected the
worst. However, much to their surprise, an unlikely hero
emerged. According to The Chicago Tribune,105 Binti-Jua, a rare
Western lowland gorilla, lumbered over to the boy and
protected him from the other apes. She cradled him in her
arms, carried him to a doorway, and laid him gingerly at the
feet of the waiting paramedics.
This case isn’t an isolated one. Ten years earlier at the Jersey
Zoo in the United Kingdom, a five-year-old boy fell into a gorilla
enclosure and lost consciousness. A large male gorilla named
Jambo stood guard over him, not allowing any of the others to
come near. When the boy woke up and started crying, all the
gorillas backed off, and zookeepers (along with an ambulance)
were able to retrieve him safely.106

LIONHEARTED PROTECTORS
In rural southwest Ethiopia in June 2005, a 12-year-old girl was
snatched by four men on her way home from school. Such
abductions, which often lead to forced marriage, are still
common in those rural areas. However, this time, it ended
differently. A week after she was taken, the local police
managed to track her down and were in hot pursuit when the
kidnappers fled – taking the girl with them. During the escape,
three lions encountered the group and chased the men off. The
lions stayed with the girl without harming her, before they
departed when police searching for her came near. Sergeant
Wondmu Wedaj told the BBC107 they found the girl alive but
shocked and terrified. An Ethiopian wildlife expert was quoted
in the same article as saying the lions could have spared the girl
“because her crying may have sounded like the mewing sound
from a lion cub.” The four men were later caught by the police
and tried for kidnapping.

NOT HORSING AROUND

It was a beautiful summer day in Castle Douglas, England,
toward the end of July 2014, but for Fiona Boyd it was just
another day on the farm. She had to move a cow and its calf
away from the paddock, as there were other cows about to give
birth there.
Farmers normally separate dairy cows from their calves
when they are very young. After birth, they walk both mother
and calf down to a special barn, and then afterwards, the
mother is returned, on her own, to the milking parlor, without
her newborn.
On this day, Fiona began to walk behind the two-day-old calf
and cross over the field. “It was a little thing with its back
reaching my knees,” she wrote in an editorial published in the
British newspaper, The Guardian.108 “Normally we’d expect the
mother to just happily follow.”
Not this time. The calf started to get a bit agitated. Mom was
upset and, in a panic, ploughed into Fiona’s left side, knocking
her to the ground. The frantic woman screamed, but there was
no one at the farm to help her. She knew that once someone is
on the ground, dairy cows have been known to group together
and attack en masse – and kill. She knew she had to get back on
her feet.
However, the cow wouldn’t let her get back up. She kept
pushing Fiona back onto the ground with her head. “I shouted
and tried to hit the beast’s face,” Fiona said, “but she was so
powerful I couldn’t push her away. She was straddling me, and
all I could see was her massive body looming over me.
Instinctively, I knew she was about to crush me.”
Fortunately, Fiona’s horse, Kerry, was nearby and galloped to
the rescue, lashing out at the cow, while Fiona crawled away to
safety under an electric fence. Needless to say, Kerry was
Fiona’s new best friend and was pampered until her death from
natural causes two years later.

“HOW NOW, BROWN COW?”

Cows exhibit a wide array of personalities and characteristics,
similar to dogs, cats, and even people. They are generally quite
intelligent animals who can remember things for a very long
time. Animal behaviorists have found that they interact in
socially complex ways, develop friendships over time and
sometimes even hold grudges against other cows that treat
them badly.109

Cows exhibit a wide array of personalities

and characteristics.

These gentle giants mourn the deaths of and even any

separation from those they love, sometimes shedding tears over
their loss. The mother/calf bond is particularly strong, and there
are countless reports of mother cows who continue to call and
search frantically for their babies even after the calves have
been taken away and sold to veal or beef farms.
 Janice Wolf is the founder of Rocky Ridge Refuge, a
sanctuary in Arkansas that cares for animals with special
needs. One day she was in the back pasture of the refuge when
an 11-month old Ankole-Watusi calf (a modern American breed
of domestic cattle) suddenly turned and blocked her path. She
couldn’t understand why, so she took hold of its horns and tried
pushing it away, but the calf tossed its head and knocked her off
balance. That is when Janice spotted a copper-head snake on
the ground exactly where her foot would have gone had the
baby cow not intervened.110
In New Zealand, a farmer’s wife who was swept away by
floods had her life saved by a cow. Kim Riley praised the animal
- known only as Number 569 - and described it affectionately as
“an ugly old tart”. She was leading a herd of 350 cows in early
morning darkness when they were caught in a torrent of
floodwaters. The cows who could do so swam to an outcrop of
dry land, abandoning Riley to her fate. One, however, turned
back to get her. “I looked back and saw one of the last cows
bearing down on me, number 569,” she later recalled. “I threw
my arm over her neck… the warmth that was coming from her
was so reassuring. I just laid back and relaxed, and said, ‘Take
me home.’”111

RABBIT TO THE RESCUE

Simon Steggall of Warboys, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom,
had been a diabetic since childhood. He had to inject himself
with insulin four times every day. One day in 2004, Simon
slipped into a coma while watching television. His wife,
Victoria, was in the next room and thought he had simply
nodded off. His pet Dory, a large rabbit weighing 21 pounds,
immediately sensed something was wrong. When Simon
slipped into a coma, Dory jumped up on his chest and thumped
furiously on his face. His wife, who was a nurse, noticed
something was wrong, and ran to his side, attempting
unsuccessfully to revive him. She then called the paramedics,
who rushed him to the hospital, where he received the medical
care he needed to save his life. The doctors said that if he had
stayed in the coma for much longer he would have died.112

THE MEMORY OF AN ELEPHANT

Elephants help each other in distress, grieve for their dead, and
share emotions with one another—just like we do. Asian
elephants show concern for others when they are stressed by
using their trunks to caress the suffering elephant. Scientists
have spotted elephants assisting others that are injured,
plucking out tranquilizing darts from their companions, and
spraying dust on the wounds of their friends. While doing
research for this book I came across a report of an elephant
who struggled to help a dying friend, lifting her with her tusks
and trunk, while calling out in distress.113
Asian elephants, like great apes and dogs, recognize when a
herd mate is upset. They have been documented offering gentle
caresses and chirps of sympathy. Consoling elephants often put
their trunk into another elephant’s mouth to communicate
vulnerability, perhaps showing the other elephant that they are
there to help.114
Elephants, like most mammals, are highly altruistic animals.
They will aid other species, including humans, who are in
distress. Once in India, an elephant was helping locals lift logs
by following a truck and placing the logs in pre-dug holes upon
instruction from the mahout (an elephant trainer). At one
certain hole, the elephant refused to lower the log. The mahout
came to investigate the hold-up and noticed a dog sleeping in
the hole. The elephant would only lower the log when the dog
was gone.115
In April 2019, a group of poachers illegally entered Kruger
National Park in search of rhinoceros. Rhino poaching has
escalated in recent years and is being driven by the demand for
rhino horn in Asian countries, particularly Viet Nam. It is used
in traditional Chinese medicine, but increasingly common is its
use as a status symbol to display success and wealth. South
Africa holds nearly 80 percent of the world’s rhinos and has
been the country hit hardest by poaching criminals, with more
than 1,000 rhinos killed each year between 2013 and 2017.
On this particular day, however, as the poachers tried to
chase down a rhino, they ran into some bad luck in the form of
an elephant. The elephant attacked the group, knocking one of
them to the ground. The others ran away as their partner-in-
crime was trampled to death. To finish it off, more mammals –
lions – joined the party and ate the poacher. The accomplices
informed the man’s family of their loss. They then told the
authorities, who went off in search of the man. A search party
struggled to find the body but eventually found part of a human
skull and a pair of trousers.116

OUR FASCINATION WITH ANIMATED MAMMALS

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to
absurdity”), also known as argumentum ad absurdum
(“argument to absurdity”) is a type of argument that attempts
either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to
a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion or to prove the
statement by showing that if it were not true, the result would
be absurd or impossible.
 The two mammals that immediately come to
mind as being both food and friend are Porky
Pig and Clarabelle the cow.

If you think about it, the fact that we can love and cherish
the same animals we also enslave, torture, kill and consume is
the ultimate reductio ad absurdum. Mammals have been our
best friends since childhood – most cartoon characters
depicting animals are in fact mammals – although the
mammals we choose to eat are often less famous. They have,
nevertheless, lit the imaginations of children for generations,
making one wonder how we can grow up and eat them.
The two mammals that immediately come to mind as being
both food and friend are Porky Pig and Clarabelle the cow.
There also is the operatic cow, Ermintrude, and of course
Gladys, who is the most famous of Sesame Street’s many
bovines. Peppa Pig is a small British pig with a red dress and a
very loud “oink.” She lives with her baby brother George,
Mummy Pig and the unshaven and aptly-named Daddy Pig.
Other mammals of repute that appear around religious
occasions are of course the Easter Bunny and Rudolph the Red-
Nosed Reindeer.
Piglet is Winnie the Pooh’s closest friend. Although he is a
“very small animal” with a generally timid disposition, he tries
to be brave and on occasion even conquers his fears. Pooh is an
anthropomorphic, soft-voiced, cuddly, loveable, and quiet toy
bear in the company of a group of like-minded mammals who
fill Christopher Robin’s imagination and provide sage advice
and perspicacious perspectives. There is Eeyore, Pooh’s ever-
glum, sarcastic, and pessimistic donkey friend. Kanga is a
female kangaroo and the doting mother of Roo. Rabbit and
Tigger round out the crew, except for the one non-mammal, the
aptly named Owl.
Possibly the only thing better than a great story is a great
story with memorable mammals. There are many unforgettable
literary animal characters that have made lasting impressions
on us and taught us all how to be better humans through their
examples of bravery and loyalty. If you think about it, many of
our childhood friends were mammals, cartoon characters, pets,
and the stuffed animals we hugged when we fell asleep.
Sure, there is also Dory the fish, Harry Potter’s pet snowy
owl, Hedwig, the adorable Rango, the chameleon — and who
can forget Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo, and Raphael of
the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? And yes, there is the spider
Charlotte, who saves her mammal companion (a pig) from the
dinner table by spinning messages in her web. There we find a
definite message that mammals are better kept as friends than
served as dinner.
But while Charlotte spins her web, Aslan, the ruler of
Narnia, is a majestic lion who is the embodiment of goodness
and justice. Simba, in The Lion King, grows up to take his
father’s place as the King of the Pride Lands. Rafiki (meaning
“friend “in Swahili) is his friend and another mammal, who
lives in a baobab tree in the Pride Lands and performs
shamanistic rituals for the lions of Pride Rock.
Bagheera guides and protects Mowgli from the other
animals in the jungle – many of whom like Shere Khan are
mammals while others, like Kaa, the massive python who
remains intent on hypnotizing a captured Mowgli, are not.
Baloo is a sleepy old brown bear, who teaches Mowgli the law
of the jungle. Mammals helping mammals is always the theme.
Nearly all our favorite characters in Madagascar are
mammals. Alex is a male African lion who is best friends with
Marty the zebra, and also friends with Gloria, the
hippopotamus, and Melman, the giraffe. After escaping from
the zoo and washing up on the beaches of Africa, Alex becomes
extremely hungry after days of being unable to eat. Hunger
drives Alex into a crazed state, almost killing Marty in hunger,
not realizing that steak is animal flesh. Alex is given sushi by
the penguins to satiate his hunger. Mammals, who are given
fish to eat by birds.
There is also Bugs Bunny, a mammal with mostly mammal
friends like Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, Sylvester and Wile E. Coyote
(and also there are a few non-mammals like Daffy Duck, Tweety
and of course the obnoxious Road Runner).

TH-TH-TH-THAT’S ALL FOLKS!

At the end of all Warner Bros’ classic Looney Tunes cartoons,
Porky the Pig appears at the closing screen proclaiming “ Th-th-
th-that’s all folks!” The voice is that of Mel Blanc, the most
prolific voice artist in the history of Hollywood. Blanc created
voices for an estimated 90 percent of Warner characters,
including such cartoon stars as Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky
Pig, Tweety Bird, Sylvester the Cat, Yosemite Sam, Foghorn
Leghorn, Marvin the Martian, Pepé Le Pew, Speedy Gonzales,
Wile E. Coyote, Road Runner, the Tasmanian Devil, and many of
the other characters from the Looney Tunes and Merrie
Melodies theatrical cartoons during the golden age of American
animation. He voiced all of the major cartoon characters except
for Elmer Fudd, whose voice was provided by fellow radio
personality Arthur Q. Bryan. When Bryan died in 1959, Blanc
took over voicing Fudd, as well, as there was no one around
with enough talent to do it.
Blanc was incredibly strong and healthy for much of his life,
despite the fact that he started smoking as a teenager and
smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. In 1961 he survived a near-
fatal car accident that put him in a coma for a few weeks,
breaking many of his bones. At 77 he suffered from
emphysema, but recovered remarkably after giving up
smoking. In the end it was advanced coronary artery disease
that took his life at the age of 81.
 REASON 5:

GLOBAL COORDINATED EFFORTS TO

ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES

EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is currently engaged in a

coordinated response to the environmental, social and
economic challenges that are plaguing our planet. Whether or
not we succeed of course remains to be seen, and depends– in
no small measure – on you.
After several years of intergovernmental deliberations and
community consultations among civil society groups the United
Nations produced the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
in 2015. The SDGs contain 169 quantified targets and their
progress is measured by 100 specific indicators. All have a
deadline of 2030 and commit all governments to
“comprehensive, integrated, and universal transformations.”
Countries are expected to mobilize their full efforts to end all
forms of poverty everywhere, fight inequalities, and tackle
climate change, while also ensuring that “no one is left behind.”
The SDGs are in part an extension of the successful eight
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were slightly less
ambitious but nevertheless comprehensive (formulated at the
turn of the millennium to be achieved by the year 2015). The
first of the 8 MDGs, for example, was to reduce extreme poverty
by half – a goal that was achieved ahead of schedule.
This time, by adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (Also known as “Agenda 2030” and in which the
SDGs are embedded), the international community has
committed itself to completely eradicating hunger and poverty
and achieving other vital goals, such as making agriculture
sustainable, securing healthy lives and full employment with
“decent work,” reducing inequality, and making economic
growth more inclusive so that all can benefit.
While much of the responsibility lies with governments to
enact policies and enforce regulations, we will never make it
unless you, the consumer, becomes more aware of the
consequences and repercussions of your choices – especially
those of your dietary decisions.

FOOD AND THE SDGS

Both food and agriculture feature prominently in the SDGs (also
known as the “Global Goals”), because the two are
interconnected and involve almost all aspects of the economy,
the environment and society: freedom from hunger,
malnutrition, desertification, sustainable water use, loss of
biodiversity, and also overconsumption, obesity and public
health. On a personal level, by consciously looking at the way
we eat, we can responsibly respond to all 17 goals and make a
direct and personal contribution toward making this world a
better place for all.

We can make huge strides toward making the

world healthier, wealthier and happier simply
by reducing or eliminating mammal
consumption.
 As we have seen here already, what we choose to eat, as well
as our production and cultivation processes that produce our
food, are having a devastating impact on our planet and the
people who live on it. We can make huge strides toward making
the world healthier, wealthier and happier simply by reducing
or eliminating mammal consumption – especially those
mammals who have been produced en masse using
unsustainable industrial processes.
A powerful report from the panel of nutrition, agriculture,
and environmental experts at EAT, a Stockholm-based nonprofit
that seeks to improve the world food system, was published in
January 2019 in the medical journal The Lancet. The report
declared that “getting it right with food will be an important
way for countries to achieve the targets of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals and the Paris Agreement regarding climate
change.”117
The report, Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet
Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems,
declared that if we are to survive as a species, everyone MUST
choose to eat mostly vegetables, grains, legumes, and nuts. For
those who choose to eat mammal meat, the report says it would
be better for them to limit it to just one serving per week.
A “planetary health diet,” as the authors call it, was a
provocative recommendation, especially for those countries
where many people eat multiple servings of meat each day.
Achieving the vision of this report will require a radical
revamping of our food culture — indeed prioritizing
sustainability and collective survival over entrenched traditions
and habit.
 The following is a quick look at the 17 SDGs, through the lens
of how they relate to the vision outlined here in No Mammal
Manifesto. For more detailed information on these Global Goals,
search for them on Google – there is a growing mountain of
information from groups who are actively committed to their
achievement. If you are on twitter, follow the hashtag #SDGs.

GOAL 1: NO POVERTY
More than 700 million people, or 11 percent of the world
population, still live in extreme poverty and are struggling to
fulfil the most basic needs like health, education, and access to
water and sanitation. Eradicating poverty in all its forms
remains one of the greatest challenges that has faced humanity.
While the number of people living in extreme poverty did drop
by more than half between 1990 and 2015 – from 1.9 billion to
836 million (and have dropped still further to 815 million as of
2019) – too many are still struggling for their most basic human
needs.118 Proper government policies that promote public
investment in food security will enable and then reinforce this
key goal, since enhanced food and nutrition security are
essential to reduce poverty and indeed eradicate extreme
poverty. For all these reasons, it is clear that any government
policies that allow for inefficient caloric conversions, food
waste, and the destruction of agricultural land should be
avoided and replaced with pro-poor policies that work to
ensure no one is left behind.

Eradicating poverty in all its forms remains

one of the greatest challenges that has faced
 humanity.

GOAL 2: ZERO HUNGER

Today, 815 million people are hungry, and every third person is
malnourished, clearly reflecting a food system out of
balance.119 The SDGs aim to end all forms of hunger and
malnutrition by 2030 by making sure all people – especially
children – have ongoing access to sufficient and nutritious food
year round. The Agenda recognizes that ending hunger will
require “sustainable agricultural practices.” It highlights that
these efforts in turn, will necessitate the support of small-scale
farmers and allow equal access to land, technology, and
markets.
To meet the world’s future food security and sustainability
needs, food production must grow substantially while, at the
same time, agriculture’s environmental footprint must shrink
significantly. Achieving the goal of ending hunger will require a
complete rethinking of how our food systems work. For
example, tremendous progress can be made by halting
agricultural expansion, closing ‘yield gaps’ on underperforming
lands, increasing crop efficiency, shifting diets and reducing
waste. Together, these strategies could double food production
while greatly reducing the environmental impacts of
agriculture occurring today.
Whatever approach we take, it is clear we need to produce
enough healthy food and we need to do it sustainably, so that
production remains secure well into the future.
For all the reasons outlined here in this Manifesto,
promoting industrialized mammal meat production clearly is
not a sustainable activity – by any stretch of the imagination.
Thus, ending government subsidies for this sector will be
important. Bolstering the agricultural sector to ensure food
security is not in and of itself a bad idea, but any government
support (as direct or indirect subsidies, tax breaks, market
access etc.) should only be directed at activities that are
sustainable. Clearly, raising cows, pigs, sheep, etc. is not
sustainable.

GOAL 3: GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

More than six million children still die before their fifth
birthday each year, and only half of all women in developing
regions have access to the health care they need. While good
health as a sustainable goal is primarily concerned with
reducing infant mortality and providing proper healthcare
where and when needed, it also addresses the need to keep all
people healthy up to and through, adulthood. It recognizes that
noncommunicable diseases are the biggest cause of premature
death in the world today. Obesity and malnutrition are major
culprits behind this epidemic of poor health, so switching to
healthier diets at any age can turn things around, giving people
longer, more enjoyable lives.

More than six million children still die before

their fifth birthday each year.

As we have already discussed in the preceding pages, good

health and well-being can be achieved by eliminating or
reducing our consumption of beef, pork, mutton, veal and other
mammals. It is not just eating mammal meat that is unhealthy –
the industrial production of it is polluting our water, our air,
and our bodies. The first step in promoting a healthier lifestyle
is to pay attention to what we are feeding ourselves, our
families, and our communities.

GOAL 4: QUALITY EDUCATION

This fourth goal primarily concerns enrolling all kids into
school and providing them with a good quality education. The
world is on track to achieving this goal, as the total enrollment
rate worldwide reached 91 percent in 2015.
Providing a good quality education also necessitates
ensuring optimal nutrition. Poor nutrition affects school
achievement and attendance, impacting learning at any age. At
the same time, schools are an ideal setting to teach and provide
students with more opportunities to practice healthy behaviors.
Undernutrition in children is linked to poor mental
development and behavioral abnormalities.120 In poor
households, children may not be getting the nutrition they
need, so schools are ideal places to give children at least one
good meal a day. The education system is also the perfect place
to raise more awareness about healthy as well as sustainable
diets.
Thus, any effort to achieve Goal 4 should focus on teaching
nutrition, while also ensuring students are eating well. As we
have seen, eating well means avoiding foods that contain
mammal meat. To set a good example and deliver the best
possible nutrition to students, many governments offer
assistance to schools to make sure their students are eating
well. The National School Lunch Program in the United States,
for example, is a Federally-assisted meal program that operates
in both public and nonprofit private schools and also
residential child care institutions. It seeks to ensure that all
school children in the United States receive a nutritious lunch
every school day. The vast majority of schools — approximately
95 percent — participate in this program, thus providing meals
to more than 30 million children on any given day.
Unfortunately, although a great idea in principle, there is
still room for improvement. Students who eat a National School
Lunch Program lunch in the United States are more likely to be
obese compared to students who bring their lunch from home.
Despite the ongoing warnings from many of the sources in this
book, National School Lunch Program often serves processed
beef and pork – often of such a poor quality that it has been
turned down by fast food restaurants like McDonald’s and
Burger King for failing to meet their quality or safety
standards.121

GOAL 5: GENDER EQUALITY

Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and
most probably more than half of its potential. Holding half of
humanity back holds us all back. Unfortunately, gender
inequality persists everywhere, stagnating social progress.
Women and girls are more severely affected by poverty, hunger
and disease than their male counterparts. When food is scarce,
female family members often get the smallest portions. In terms
of work, especially agricultural work, women (more than men)
are often paid starvation wages or fall into indentured
servitude – a modern form of slavery.
 Holding half of humanity back holds us all
back.

Agenda 2030 recognizes that ending all forms of

discrimination against women and girls is not only a basic
human right; it is also fundamental to accelerating and
succeeding at sustainable development. Smart governments are
starting to realize that empowering women and girls even has a
significant multiplier effect, accelerating economic growth and
development for everyone. A focus on ensuring that women
and girls are eating a balanced and nutritional meal is a major
part of this effort.
In the large developing countries such as India, China, and
across Latin America, large-scale industrial meat production is
displacing many small, rural producers. As an estimated 80
percent of growth in the livestock sector now comes from
industrial production systems, livestock are in direct
competition for scarce land, water and other natural resources.
This situation is making it difficult for the rural poor, and when
the going gets tough, women and girls tend to suffer the most.
Thus, any efforts to make our food and agricultural systems
more sustainable, practical, and logical will have a direct
positive effect on expanding gender equality. This will
necessarily involve a drastic reduction in the amount of land
taken for industrial livestock production. If people are eating
fewer hamburgers and steaks, demand for these products will
decline, and the land grabbing should stop.

GOAL 6: CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION

Water scarcity affects more than 40 percent of people in the
world – an alarming figure that is projected to increase with the
rise of global temperatures from climate change. In 2011,
according to the UN Development Program (UNDP), 41
countries experienced water stress. Of these, 10 are
dangerously close to depleting their supply of renewable fresh
water and now must rely on alternative sources. By 2050, it is
projected that at least one in four people will be affected by
recurring water shortages.
Ensuring universal access to safe and affordable drinking
water for all by 2030 will require significant investments in
adequate infrastructure, as well as the provision of more and
better sanitation facilities. It will also necessitate reducing the
industrial production and consumption of mammal meat.
We know that about 70 percent of freshwater is used for
agriculture – and most of it is used to grow crops that are then
fed to livestock. This form of intensive agriculture pollutes
freshwater resources, especially through nutrient runoff.
Sustainably managing water that goes into food production can
speed up the goal of ensuring water availability.

GOAL 7: AFFORDABLE CLEAN ENERGY

One in seven people today have no light to turn on at night.
Furthermore, more than 40 percent of the world’s population,
approximately three billion people, rely on polluting and
unhealthy fuels for cooking. As energy is the dominant
contributor to climate change, accounting for around 60
percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, any paths forward
to bring energy to all must be renewable. Improving energy
efficiency to avoid wasting energy is one solution. Studies show
that adopting stronger efficiency standards could reduce global
electricity consumption by buildings and industry by 14
percent.122

One in seven people today have no light to

turn on at night.

Producing mammals for food is notoriously energy

intensive. Reducing the amount of energy used in developed
countries for food systems would be an important step in the
right direction, as well as helping producers in poor countries
source clean, reliable energy that they can use to increase more
sustainable food production, closing the so-called yield gap and
ensuring greater food security and improved nutrition overall
for everyone everywhere.
As noted above, a massive percentage of agricultural land is
used to feed cattle and hogs. If more of this land were used to
feed chicken and fish – or better yet, feed humans directly,
more crops could possibly be used for biofuels.
Energy crops include wheat, corn, soybeans and sugarcane.
Biofuels burn cleaner than fossil fuels, releasing fewer
pollutants and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. While they are by no means a panacea for the
energy crisis, biofuels are definitely sustainable, affordable,
and clean. However, they should never be produced at the cost
of food security, and their use should be carefully calibrated to
meet demand price pressures on the cost of staple crops. My
hope is that eventually new technology will be developed (or
released) that generates infinitely clean and affordable energy
from renewable resources. However, for the time being, we
must do the best we can with what we have – and reforming
our food production systems by eliminating mammal food
sources will free up a huge amount of agricultural resources
that can produce more biofuel.

GOAL 8: DECENT WORK AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

The SDGs promote sustained economic growth, higher levels of
productivity, and technological innovation as a way of ensuring
that everyone everywhere can find a good job – a job that lets
them take care of their families while contributing to the
overall well-being of society at large. Encouraging
entrepreneurship and job creation are keys to this goal, as are
effective measures to eradicate forced labor, slavery, and
human trafficking.
Some of the world’s most dangerous, grueling, and
unhealthy jobs are currently in the food production and
distribution systems. More sustainable food production can,
and indeed must, ensure safer working conditions and better
livelihoods for all food producers. The UN Food and Agriculture
Organization estimates that more than a billion people work in
agriculture alone, so positive change in the food sector will
make a massive contribution to ensuring decent work for all.
Conversely, the development of new and more nutritious
menus will create many opportunities, both in small-scale
farming and also in the production and distribution of healthier
alternatives to the status quo. The world is long overdue for
disruption in this economic sector.

GOAL 9: INDUSTRY, INNOVATION, AND

INFRASTRUCTURE
There are currently few good estimates of the total
contributions that food, including production, processing, retail,
and support functions, make to the global economy. However,
World Bank data shows that the average consumer spends 40
percent of his/her income on food and beverages, and 30
percent of the labor force is employed in agriculture.123 We
know food is a huge and growing market. We’ve seen the power
of food to drive innovation, including the coming “clean meat”
revolution to try and produce meat through artificial means
(covered in the next chapter). We also know that solving
challenges related to infrastructure are an important
component of building a more sustainable food system. Much of
the food waste that occurs each year could be avoided through
improved transport, processing, and storage after harvest.
UNFAO Director-General Jose Graziano de Silva has called
for an “inclusive rural transformation” to leverage the
enormous untapped potential of food systems to drive agro-
industrial development, boost small-scale farmer productivity
and incomes, and create off-farm employment in new and
expanding segments. With rapid urbanization currently taking
place in developing countries, we need to shift the dietary focus
from mammal meat to healthier and more sustainable
alternatives. I do believe this change will go a long way toward
ensuring that truly inclusive transformation takes place, and
more importantly, takes a firm and permanent hold as
countries transition to higher levels of development.

GOAL 10: REDUCED INEQUALITIES

Income inequality is on the rise, with the richest 10 percent of
the world’s population earning up to 40 percent of total global
income. The poorest 10 percent earn only about two percent of
total global income. Reducing these ever-widening disparities
will require the adoption of sound policies to empower the
bottom percentile of income earners and promote economic
inclusion of all people, no matter where they live.
To reduce inequalities between countries and within
different societies, those at the bottom of the ladder will require
a huge leg up. We know that food producers and food system
labor is overrepresented in this group, so focusing on this issue
will improve conditions for the people and communities that
work hard to supply our food and also depend the most on the
sustainable use of natural resources for their own livelihoods.
As we have already seen, the caloric conversion of plants to
meat – especially that of mammals – requires huge inputs of
land, water, and fertilizers. Not only that, but the result of this
process pollutes waterways, kills oceanic life, and renders land
unproductive. Who suffers the most? Yes, the poorest in society,
who are often those living downstream from the rich. The
world cannot hope to achieve Goal 10 without a concerted and
coordinated effort to encourage a key shift in our dietary
preferences.

GOAL 11: SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES

For better or for worse, more than half of the human
population now lives in cities. By 2050, the number of urbanites
will have risen to 6.5 billion people or two-thirds of all
humanity. Extreme poverty is also often concentrated in these
urban spaces. Making cities safe and sustainable will
necessitate ensuring access to safe and affordable housing and
upgrading all slum settlements. It will also entail investing
more in public transportation, creating green public spaces,
improving urban planning, and shifting our diets away from
mammal meat.
Cities need to be prepared to support their growing, young
populations and secure their needs, not the least of which is for
healthy food. Cities don’t produce much food; they rely on rural
areas to sustain their people. City administrations thus could do
a lot more to manage their food supply systems sustainably.
Indeed, the Stockholm-based EAT Commission advised
municipal administrations to consider establishing zoning
regulations that promote urban agriculture and community
gardens as a way to produce food locally and also work to
support biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Further still, local farmers and producers in urban spaces
could be better supported with incentives to produce healthy
foods by facilitating market access, and shortening supply
chains. The World Health Organization believes green spaces
such as parks and sports fields, woods and natural meadows,
wetlands or other ecosystems, represent a fundamental
component of any urban ecosystem. Green urban areas
facilitate physical activity and relaxation, and form a refuge
from noise. Trees and plants produce oxygen, and help filter
out harmful air pollution, including airborne particulate
matter. Water spots, from lakes to rivers and fountains, help to
moderate temperatures.
What has not been adequately explored in many cities,
however, would be the extent to which some of these green
spaces could be used to produce the food that people in the
cities eat. There are, of course, unique challenges to urban
agriculture – often a lack of space and securing enough sunlight
amid the high-rise buildings of city environments. However,
with innovative solutions, political will and community
dedication, it is entirely possible to grow fruit and vegetables
and even keep bees in urban areas. Indeed, in 2011 San
Francisco passed city zoning legislation to allow agricultural
activity in all areas of the city and redefined the parameters by
which producers could sell their goods, making the local
economy for small-scale producers boom. Many Bay area
restaurants now sell meals made from food grown within San
Francisco city limits.

GOAL 12: RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION AND

PRODUCTION
According to leading demographers at the United Nations, more
people globally are expected to join the middle class over the
next two decades than ever before. This is good for individual
prosperity, but it will increase demand for already constrained
natural resources. If we don’t act to change our consumption
and production patterns, this shift will cause irreversible
damage to our environment, thus erasing the gains and
throwing millions of people back into poverty. We have a
chance now to set things right. While we have never been so
close to lifting everyone out of poverty, we have also never been
so close to complete ecological collapse. The choice of direction
is ours to make.

While we have never been so close to lifting

everyone out of poverty, we have also never
been so close to complete ecological collapse.
 Achieving sustained and sustainable economic growth in
line with the SDGs will necessitate the urgent reduction of our
ecological footprint by changing the way we produce and
consume both goods and resources. We also need to look at the
incredible waste that is a by-product of the current scenario for
these activities. One-third of all food produced is never even
eaten by people – despite the fact that, as mentioned earlier, 815
million people are hungry, and every third person is
malnourished. The impact of such loss and waste worldwide is
tremendous. Food loss and waste is responsible annually for
$940 billion in economic losses and nearly ten percent of
greenhouse gas emissions.124
Goal 12 calls for halving a per capita global standard for
food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reducing the
food losses along the production and supply chains (including
post-harvest losses) by 2030. It puts the onus on “every country,
every major city, and every company involved in food supply
chains” to set food loss and waste reduction targets that will
ensure sufficient attention and a positive focus.
Agriculture is the biggest user of water worldwide, and
irrigation now claims close to 70 percent of all freshwater for
human use – indeed mostly to produce mammal meat for
human consumption. Because there are so many ways to vary
diets and food production, this is one area where it is possible
to set clear and achievable targets for more responsible
consumption and production and then drive related innovation
and successful large-scale changes.

GOAL 13: CLIMATE ACTION

Today, 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human activity
is creating a worldwide climate crisis . It is hard not to turn on
the television, computer, or Smartphone these days without
hearing discussion and statistics about climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise to the extent that
they are now more than 50 percent higher than their 1990
levels, when the mainstream media first noted the threat
publicly.
Many scientists believe it is still possible, with political will
and a wide new array of technological measures, to limit the
increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels. Affordable, scalable solutions are
becoming increasingly available to enable developing countries
to leapfrog these issues and become cleaner, more resilient
economies than those in the “industrialized” countries. The
pace of change is also quickening, as more people are turning to
renewable energy and other measures to reduce emissions and
increase adaptation efforts.
Yet while climate change has entered the lexicon of daily
conversation, not enough people are aware that their dietary
choices are part of the problem. As mentioned earlier,
producing just a kilogram of beef (two pounds) emits 26 kg (57
pounds) of carbon dioxide. The agriculture industry accounts
for roughly 20 percent of the greenhouse gases that are
responsible for climate change. Rethinking that burger thus can
could make you a pioneer in problem-solving and a part of the
solution.

GOAL 14: LIFE BELOW WATER

More than three billion people depend on marine and coastal
biodiversity for their livelihood. According to the UNFAO, fish
and fish products account for 17 percent of all animal protein
consumed in the world, and 26 percent of that 17 percent is
consumed in the poorest and least developed countries. The
ocean also provides an important source of income for 60
million people who work in fisheries and aquaculture.
However, nearly 90 percent of the world’s marine fish stocks
are now fully exploited, overexploited, and/or depleted.125 One-
third of the world’s fish catch is also fed directly to livestock to
be inefficiently converted into beef, thereby wasting significant
amounts of this precious resource. If we are not careful, this
overexploitation of “life below water” could push the
regenerative capacity of the oceans past the point of no return.

90 percent of the world’s marine fish stocks

are now fully exploited, overexploited, and/or
depleted.

As we have already seen, the oceans are suffering from

aquatic and marine dead zones that are caused by an increase
in nutrients in the water (particularly nitrogen and
phosphorus). This process, known as eutrophication, sucks
oxygen from the water and kills all life. In March of 2004, when
the UN Environment Program published its first Global
Environment Outlook Year Book (GEO Year Book 2003), it
reported 146 dead zones in the world’s oceans where marine
life could not be supported due to depleted oxygen levels. Some
of these zones were as small as a square kilometer (0.4 mi2), but
the largest, just off the coast of the United States, covered 70,000
square kilometers (27,000 mi2). A 2008 study counted 405 dead
zones worldwide.126 In 2017, scientists recorded the largest
dead zone off the Texas/Louisiana coast, where the rivers that
flow down from the American heartland dump into the Gulf of
Mexico.127 Just upstream from these dead zones are the farms
that feed our fixation for fast food Fatburgers
By reducing or avoiding mammal meat, you can directly
contribute to the solutions necessary to restore the health of
our oceans, restoring life below water to its balance within the
ecosystem.

GOAL 15: LIFE ON LAND

We all know our lives depend on the health of the Earth for our
sustenance and our livelihoods. At least 1.6 billion people
depend on forests for their livelihood, and 75 percent of the
world’s poor are affected directly by land degradation. Plant life
provides 80 percent of our human diet, and we rely on
agriculture as an important economic resource. Forests account
for 30 percent of the Earth’s surface, and provide vital habitats
for millions of species. Forests also are important sources of
clean air and water, and are crucial for combating climate
change through photosynthesis – the process through which
plants convert CO2 from the air into biomass.
However, as highlighted above, today we are seeing
unprecedented land degradation caused by human activity that
includes extensive livestock production. The grazing of
livestock takes up 26 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface,
and feed-crop production needs about a third of all arable land
on Earth. Expansion of livestock grazing land is also a leading
cause of deforestation, especially in Latin America. In the
Amazon basin alone, roughly 70 percent of previously forested
land is being used as pasture, while feed crops cover a large
part of what remains.128
Goal 15 challenges the world to protect, restore and
sustainably use terrestrial ecosystems, manage our forests, and
halt and reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss. Eighty
percent of endangered mammals are now threatened by habitat
loss due to ever expanding agriculture that feed the few
mammals that we eat. We simply must bring food production
back within the limits of planetary boundaries. Reducing our
consumption of mammal meat and eating a locally-based diet
that is sustainably sourced, is — in a nutshell— the single
biggest action we can take to protect life on land. And
remember – life on land includes us.

GOAL 16: PEACE, JUSTICE, AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS

For humanity to move forward towards a place where it can
realize its full potential, peaceful, just and inclusive societies
are needed. It is well known that food insecurity and food price
volatility can cause and/or exacerbate conflict, violence, and
civil unrest. The war in Syria has been attributed, in part, to
drought and rural distress following crop yield declines and
food scarcities. The Arab Spring uprisings have been traced
back to the 2011 price spikes for staples on international
markets.
There is also a direct causal relationship between food on one
side and peace, justice, and strong institutions on the other. A
lack of any of the latter can be a root cause of dysfunctional
food systems, hunger, and poor nutrition. Conversely, a
problem with food systems, caused by failing crops drought or
otherwise, can have a debilitating effect on the institutions that
support peace and justice. Getting it ”right” with food can
depend on this 16th Goal and strengthen opportunities to
establish the conditions for societies to flourish. Rethinking that
ribeye may seem trivial in this particular context, but believe
me, it is not – for all the environmental reasons outlined in this
Manifesto.

GOAL 17: PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS

In order to achieve these goals and ensure humankind charts a
way forward that is sustainable and equitable, we must realize
that we are all in this together. Personal choices have
repercussions far beyond one’s personal space, either hurting
or healing the world at large. It’s all about partnership and
community—looking after one another. The partnerships to
support the realization of these 17 Sustainable Development
Goals must of course happen at the global level of nation states,
but it is also required of subnational levels of government like
states and provinces, and of cities, of communities, of clubs and
associations, and of you, the reader of this Manifesto.

Personal choices have repercussions far

beyond one’s personal space, either hurting or
healing the world.

Food offers an excellent arena for building connections,

collaborations, and strong partnerships, precisely because
almost everything can be traced to food, and almost all social
and planetary issues that these SDGs want to tackle do have a
food component. Food is an incredible umbrella that farmers,
young people, scientists, business, inventors, politicians,
indigenous peoples, workers, creatives, and pretty much
everyone else can be brought together under to share solutions
and craft a new vision for the future – a future of shared
prosperity.
 6: Conclusion:

FINAL THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS

AS ESTABLISHED IN THE INTRODUCTION, and what is already

common knowledge to many, we human beings are omnivores.
As omnivores, we have the ability to eat and survive on both
plant and animal matter. In other words, we have a choice — to
kill or not to kill. And if we choose to kill, we can choose what,
when and how to kill.
My hope with this Manifesto is to nudge a few people in the
direction of choosing their food with more awareness – to
question that part of our consumer culture that produces
cellophane-wrapped sirloin steaks that are completely and
consciously disconnected from the mammal that was. If
veganism and vegetarianism are not for you, or if you are not
yet ready to give up the occasional steak or hamburger, you can
still be more conscious of the origin and impact of your dietary
decisions, and as you realize the need to act, you can reduce the
amount of mammal meat you consume until you are ready to
give it up all together.
I have noticed in recent years that awareness of this issue is
spreading. I am also encouraged that Americans have reduced
their beef consumption by 19 percent from 2005 to 2014.
Canadians are doing even better, now eating 25 percent less
beef and pork since 1999.129

CONSIDER REDUCING YOUR MAMMAL MEALS

If you can’t go “cold turkey” with the cow, perhaps try to reduce
the amount of meat you do consume. In his 2009 book, Food
Rules: An Eater’s Manual, Michael Pollan says to consider
changing the traditional portion sizes on your plate. Instead of
an eight-ounce steak and a four-ounce portion of vegetables,
serve four ounces of [grass fed] beef and eight ounces of
veggies”. In other words, treat meat as a flavoring or special-
occasion food – not as the center attraction of every meal.

If you can’t go “cold turkey” with the cow,

perhaps try to reduce the amount of meat you
do consume.

The January 2019 study undertaken by the EAT-Lancet

Commission on Food, Planet and Health outlined the ideal
healthy diet – one that is best both for the health of the
individual and the planet. The authors of the study, who are
international experts in health, nutrition, and sustainability,
suggested that if you feel you cannot do without, then eat no
more than a single hamburger each week. According to these
researchers, a hamburger a week is about as much mammal
meat as people should eat to improve their own health and the
health of the planet.130 Eating meat just once a week might be a
challenge for some, but I believe it is a challenge worth taking
on and overcoming.
A group of researchers who focus on heart disease pointed
out in an article on the Harvard Medical School website that
you don’t need to become a vegetarian to protect your health,
“but you can make modest improvements to your diet by
gradually cutting back on the amount of meat you consume.”
131 In a Harvard School of Public Health study cited in that
article, substituting a healthier source of protein for just one
daily serving of red meat lowered the participants’ risk of dying
prematurely. Switching to poultry, for example, dropped the
risk by 14 percent, eating nuts lowered it by 19 percent, and
substituting fish reduced it by seven percent. In other words,
reducing or eliminating mammals from your diet can add
healthier years to your life. Indeed, it’s never too late to turn it
around (but don’t wait too long).
I am very encouraged by the number of friends who are
starting to eat less mammal meat – often avoiding it altogether
except for special occasions. Once every few months for the
past ten years, a dozen of my closest friends get together for
“Steak Night” in New York. They “meat” four times a year to
have an evening of carnivorous chaos. The rest of the year they
try to reduce their animal protein intake to those that are not
mammals, like chicken, turkey or seafood.

VEGEBURGERS ARE THE NEW COOL

Veggie and vegan burgers are becoming increasingly popular
across both the United States and Canada. Traditionally meat-
centered restaurants like McDonald’s, Red Robin, and The
Cheesecake Factory now offer meatless sandwich options. In
fact, in the 12 months prior to August 2018, plant-based meat
sales skyrocketed worldwide by 24 percent, topping $670
million in sales in the United States alone, according to data
from Nielson. 132 In the United Kingdom, similar trends are
being seen. Within days of launching Vivera’s vegan steak in
May, the UK retail giant, Tesco, announced it had sold almost
40,000 units.133
Perhaps the New York Steak Night Club could eventually
start meeting at the famous Manhattan restaurant called
Momofuku Nishi, where renowned chef, David Chang, has a
new item on the menu: The Impossible Burger. It looks like the
real deal — crispy brown on the outside, juicy pink on the
inside – it sizzles on the grill and it smells like beef. It even
bleeds.
No animals are killed to make the Impossible Burger. It is
made entirely from vegetable products, including wheat,
coconuts, and potatoes, but it also has a secret ingredient:
heme, a molecule that makes meat taste delicious and which
Impossible Foods, Inc., has recreated by fermenting yeast.

A veggie burger can actually be more filling

and satisfying than beef burgers.

The global meat alternative market also is expanding— a

recent market forecast predicts it will reach $6.3 billion by
2023, from the current value of $4.63 billion.134 The Los
Angeles-based company, Beyond Meat, is taking advantage of
this opportunity by taking on the $1.4 trillion meat industry. In
2018, it expanded to more than 35,000 restaurants, grocery
stores, universities, hotels, and stadiums. It also built a 26,000-
square-foot R&D lab dedicated to diversifying its product
portfolio of non-meat food that looks and tastes like meat.
 In March 2019, Beyond Meat announced Beyond Beef, a new
product meant to taste, feel, and smell just like ground beef –
but with 25 percent less saturated fat than beef. Their
biophysicists studied the molecular structure of meat and
identified the plants needed to replicate the texture and taste of
beef. Beyond Beef is made from a blend of peas, mung bean,
and rice proteins intended to rival the popular ingredient found
in empanadas or tacos.135 The taste is so close to the real deal
that according to Beyond Meat Founder, Ethan Brown, 93
percent of people who now purchase the company’s products in
grocery stores are meat eaters.
However, Beyond Beef has not yet been able to compete
with the beef industry on cost. Beyond Burger retails at $5.99
for two patties — 71 percent more expensive than cow flesh
when compared pound for pound. This issue may soon be
resolved, as the company is looking into a variety of plant
proteins like sunflower seed, mustard seed and lupin to help
lower the price.136 If and when they are able to sell their
product at a lower price point than beef, but with better taste
and healthier results, expect Beyond Beef’s share of the burger
market to expand rapidly. Smart money is probably moving in
that direction already. Impossible Foods (and its Impossible
Burger) easily raised US$182 million from investors that include
Bill Gates and Google Ventures to make the widespread
availability of their burger possible.137

BUT ARE THESE NEW FOODS SATISFYING?

Many meat-eaters would scoff at the idea of a veggie burger
satisfying a man’s hunger after a hard day’s work. However, a
recent blind study would prove them wrong – a veggie burger
can actually be more filling and satisfying than beef burgers. A
study published in the journal, Nutrients, in December 2018
reported that men – when unaware of which kind of burger
they were eating, overwhelmingly reported feeling fuller after
eating a vegan burger. The scientists studied 60 men — 20
healthy, 20 obese, and 20 with Type 2 diabetes. All had their
physiological responses recorded after each meal.
Researchers were baffled by the results until they realized
that vegan meals actually produce higher levels of beneficial
gastrointestinal hormones that affect the regulation of glucose
metabolism, energy homeostasis, satiety, and weight
management.138

NEW BURGERS ON THE HORIZON

In late 2018, the Italian bioengineer, Giuseppe Scionti, from the
Spanish start-up company, Novameat, unveiled the world’s first
3D-printed meat-free steak made from vegetable proteins. This
“fake steak” is made from vegan rice, peas, and seaweed and
still provides the amino acids needed for a healthy diet. They
are turned into a food paste that is 3D-printed to form a raw,
steak-like substance that can be fried, grilled on the oven, or
thrown on a barbeque. Scionti’s method has allowed him to
print a 100-gram piece of steak in around 30 minutes.
I personally do not feel the need to fool my taste buds into
thinking I am eating a pig or a cow. I am fine with eating a steak
that might taste a bit like vegetables – or a turkey burger that
tastes like turkey. However, given the assumption that certain
people will never give up their preference for eating mammals,
all this new research is worthwhile in my opinion.

EXPANDING OUR HORIZONS

Our attitudes towards diet are a fundamental part of our
“culture”. These attitudes have been processed, legitimized and
transmitted over generations, shaping our habits and our
identities. At the same time, scientific inquiry and new
information can greatly contribute to further introspection and
allow us to question certain long-presumed assumptions that
we may have held concerning diet. Achieving any
transformation can be both complicated and complex and even
emotional sometimes.

Crops that have been long forgotten over the

last century are now being rediscovered.

By and large, our current diet is based on a very narrow

range of food options. Of the 30,000 available and edible plant
species on Earth, very few are actually consumed. Yet these
neglected and underutilized crops can help increase
diversification in our systems of food production. New or
rediscovered crops could add fresh and exciting items to our
menus that offer a better supply of nutrients, essential amino
acids, fiber, and new proteins. These new products could have
more positive impacts on the environment and our health and
even our future as a species.
Fortunately, crops that have been long forgotten over the
last century are now being rediscovered. Traditional crops are
often very nutritious and offer us a more well-balanced diet.
Quinoa, for example, is the only cereal that contains all the
amino acids needed by humans. The bambara ground nut is
another item that offers us a great source of protein, and millet
is high in calcium and iron. The search must go on for other
sources of sustenance. We should not limit our opportunities
when it comes to food – expanding the boundaries of our
imagination could yield new surprises that are much better
than what we are hitherto used to. We just need to branch out
and explore a little.

BUG BURGERS?
In April 2019, Abdulrahman Hassaballah, a PhD candidate at
New York State University at Buffalo, won $3,000 in a
sustainability competition by proposing the world shift to insect
burgers from those made from beef. “For every 100 beef
burgers we eat, that’s around 750 pounds of greenhouse gas
emissions,” he said upon receiving his award, “For every 100
insect burgers, only 10 pounds of CO2 is produced.”139
Hassaballah is not far off the mark, if only he can get
western consumers to adopt what is commonly accepted in
many parts of the world. Around two billion people regularly
eat insects as part of their daily diet, and over 1,900 species are
edible. The most commonly eaten bugs are beetles, caterpillars,
bees, wasps and ants, and they are on the menu in many parts
of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
In the United States, we have been eating bugs for decades
without even knowing it. The Defect Levels Handbook
published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration outlines
legal levels for insects in our food.140 Take beer for example—
the acceptable limit of insect infestation in hops is 2,500 aphids
(small sap-sucking insects like the blackfly) per 10 grams.
Canned fruit juices are allowed up to one maggot per 250 ml,
curry powder is allowed up to 100 insect fragments (head, body,
legs) per 25 grams and chopped dates are allowed up to 10
whole dead insects. The list goes on and on. Therefore, shifting
our burgers to bugs should in theory not bother us too much
because we have already been eating them for years.
In 2017, the Swiss supermarket chain Coop began selling
burgers made with mealworms, rice and vegetables, flavored
with oregano and chili. Essento, the Swiss start-up company
that launched the same year, claims business is booming and
that it is having a hard time keeping up with demand. Its three
best-selling products are Essento Insect Burgers, Essento Insect
Balls and Essento Grasshoppers skewers.141 The Swiss, which
are well known for the quality of their range-fed beef and their
wild game meat now seem to be ahead of the curve in Europe
when it comes to eating insects as a meat alternative.

THE SEARCH FOR ARTIFICIAL MEAT

In the 2009 animated film, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs,
Flint Lockwood invents a machine that transforms water into
food. This machine, which he calls the Flint Lockwood Diatonic
Super Mutating Dynamic Food Replicator (FLDSMDFR), uses the
principle of “hydrogenetic mutation” wherein water molecules
are “bombarded with microwave radiation that mutates their
genetic recipe into any food you want.”
While obviously this is science fiction, something similar
from actual science is now not too far off. Scientists across the
globe are working on a synthetic solution to the demand for
meat. Artificially -produced meat looks like meat, feels like
meat, and is meat for all intents and purposes. However, this
artificial or “cultured” meat is grown from stem cells in giant
vats. The technology still has a long way to go before it will be
served regularly at Black Angus Steakhouse, but it is moving in
that direction, and its time will come.
The creation of this meat – known as “clean meat” in the
industry – starts with a small amount of muscle tissue from an
animal you wish to replicate. Technicians collect stem cells
from this tissue, multiply them, and allow them to differentiate
into primitive fibers that then bulk up to form muscle tissue. A
spokesperson from Mosa Meat, one of the companies currently
investing in “clean meat” research and development, says that
one tissue sample from a cow can yield enough muscle tissue to
make 80,000 quarter-pounders. Someday this technology will be
able to serve up lab-grown beef, pork, poultry, and seafood at
your family restaurant – producing it on demand.
In early 2019, researchers at the University of Bath in the
United Kingdom succeeded in growing meat cells on blades of
grass. Their process uses grass as structural support (known in
the industry as “scaffolding”) to allow stem cells from pigs to
proliferate into edible meat. The team has successfully grown
pig cells using its grass scaffolding, which opens the door to
growing bacon in a lab-setting – and ultimately in a commercial
setting. Whether or not such artificially-grown meat will be
better for your health than the real meat, remains to be seen.
But at least it will be better for the planet.
Much more research and development is needed of course
until lab-grown clean meat will replace the need to raise
billions of cows and pigs for slaughter. However, if the capital
markets are any indication of these future developments, there
is considerable promise on the horizon. In 2017 alone, just one
of these companies in this space, Memphis Meats, took in $17
million from sources that included Bill Gates and the
agricultural company, Cargill.142
THE NOT-SO-SECRET LIFE OF PETS
It is obviously not their fault, but our pets are also part of the
problem – and conversely, they can be a big part of the solution.
What we are giving them to eat is exacerbating an already
dangerous situation, especially as pet ownership increases in
many of the developing countries like China and India.
On the health front, there is no reason not to believe that all
of the risks associated with humans eating other mammals is
not also the same for our cats and dogs. Also, with respect to the
environment, and as mentioned already, total meat
consumption by domestic pets is responsible for the emission of
64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year – around the same
climate impact as driving 13.6 million cars.143
If this Manifesto resonates with you, it is not too difficult to
bring your pets along with you on your journey so they too can
avoid eating their fellow mammals, reduce their carbon
footprint and safeguard the environment for future generations
of felines and canines. All you have to do is read the label of
your pet food before you purchase it.
The website for the Association of Feed Control Officials
(AAFCO) explains how to read the ingredients on a pet food
container: 144

“Meat is the clean flesh derived from slaughtered

mammals and is limited to that part of the striate
muscle which is skeletal or that part which is
found in the tongue, in the diaphragm, in the heart
or in the esophagus; with or without the
accompanying and overlying fat and portions of
the skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which
normally accompany the flesh. It shall be suitable
 for animal food. If it bears a name descriptive of its
kind, it must correspond thereto.”

In other words, “meat” is primarily the muscle tissue of the

animal, but it may also include the fat, gristle and other tissues
that normally accompany the muscle, like what you see in a
portion of raw meat sold for human consumption. In addition
to using the term “meat,” the pet food manufacturer may also
identify the species from where the meat was derived, such as
“beef” or “pork.” However, to use the generic term “meat” on
the label means the food can only come from cattle, pigs, sheep,
or goats. If it comes from any other mammal, that species must
be identified (for example, as with “buffalo” or “venison”).
If the muscle is from a non-mammalian species, such as
poultry or fish, it cannot be declared as “meat”, and the
appropriate identifying terms must be used. This description is
what I would recommend you look for if you agree with the
principles of this Manifesto and wish to include your pets in
your efforts to be part of the solution.

SUPPORT SOUND GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Our individual consumer choices may not be enough to avert
what the January 2019 Lancet report calls “catastrophic damage
to the planet.” Governments also will need to encourage healthy
food choices and ensure access to nutritious food. Policies and
government subsidies will need to be redirected away from
harmful agricultural practices and toward ones that are
healthier for our bodies and our environment and indeed our
planet.
It is clear that the societal costs of mammal meat
consumption are far greater than the price paid by the
consumer. There is now increased discussion in many places
around the need to formulate a governmental policy response
that regulates red and processed meat consumption similar to
the regulations for other carcinogens and foods with public
health concerns. One approach is to regulate the industry or to
outlaw certain foods – as New York City has tried to do by
banning sugar-sweetened drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces
(0.5 liters). A more market-based approach would involve
taxing red and processed meat according to their health
impacts. This latter approach looks at the cost of eating meat on
the global economy and how much tax people should pay to
offset the health and environmental consequences of their
diets.
Looking into the most optimal taxation levels for red and
processed meats in nearly 150 countries and regions, health
experts at Oxford university concluded in its 2018 study that
introducing a tax on meat would produce widespread health
and environmental benefits. In high-income countries, the price
for beef, lamb, and pork would need to be increased by more
than 20 percent, while processed meats like sausages and hot
dogs would need to more than double in price to cover their
true cost to society. These researchers concluded that
introducing such a health tax on these products would offset
healthcare costs and likely prevent more than 220,000 deaths a
year globally.145
Some argue that if the true cost of meat production were
reflected in the price of the meat itself, then only elites would
be able to eat meat. If so, so be it. There are many things that
are so expensive that only the rich can afford them. Just
because private jets can be afforded by the super wealthy
doesn’t mean we should argue that they should be subsidized
for everyone else. Let the rich eat their expensive beef that
reflects the products true cost, while the rest of us eat more
healthy alternatives.

A TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE IS NEEDED IN SOCIETY

AND IN OUR ECONOMIES
Achieving the vision outlined in this book will obviously
require a dramatic and transformative shift within both our
society and the economy at large. In the United States, the
mammal meat industry is responsible for 5.4 million jobs and
$257 billion in wages. An estimated 527,019 people have jobs in
production and packing, import operations, sales, packaging
and the direct distribution of mammal meat products. One
report claims the meat industry accounts for $1.02 trillion in
total economic output or in other words, 5.6 percent of gross
domestic product (GDP) – in the United States alone. 146
Livestock also plays a crucial economic role for an estimated
60 percent of rural households in developing countries –
including small-holder farmers, agro-pastoralists and
pastoralists. It contributes to the livelihoods of about 1.7 billion
poor people. According to the UNFAO, at least 70 percent of
those employed in the sector are women.147 Livestock,
including dairy and other animal products, creates cash and in-
kind incomes and enables savings for future needs. As a result,
it should be clearly recognized here that this sector – while
causing harm to our health, society and the environment— also
plays a major role in reducing poverty.
 Achieving the vision outlined in this book
will obviously require a dramatic and
transformative shift within both our society
and the economy at large.

If everyone were to stop eating mammal meat immediately

after reading this book, it would probably push a lot of people
into poverty. However, as with all disruptive technologies, shifts
in the market require economic adaptation. The suppliers and
supply-chain management infrastructure will resist like they
always do – but eventually they will have to adapt, people will
need to be retrained, and new jobs will need to be created.
What is needed is a more sustainable alternative which can
offer new technologies and thus new jobs, and an
accompanying shift away from relying on the exploitation of
our fellow mammals to fuel the economy.
Looking ahead, I do believe the path to inclusive prosperity
will include a dramatic reduction in the production and
consumption of our fellow mammals. Overcoming the complex
challenges that the world is now confronting will require a
political willingness to embrace the principles of sustainability
and transformative action to tackle the root causes of poverty
and hunger successfully. What we choose to grow, kill and eat
will play a big role in this effort.

HOLD THE CHEESE, PLEASE – IF IT HAS RENNET

One of the most difficult processes for me in the transition away
from mammal meat was discovering from a vegetarian
roommate that most cheese contains animal rennet, a
traditional cheese-making ingredient that is extracted from the
stomach lining of slaughtered cows, goats, sheep, and even pigs.
Rennet allows these young animals to digest the mother’s milk.
This enzyme curdles the milk, separating curds from whey, thus
completing the first step in the process of making cheese.
I was living in Switzerland when I learned this, and Europe
is famous for its many delicious varieties of cheese. I was
shocked to learn that most European cheeses are made with
animal rennet because their age-old recipes have always used it
– and are actually required to by law. For example, according to
European Union law, Parmesan must contain animal rennet in
order to be called Parmigiano-Reggiano.148

The path to inclusive prosperity will include a

dramatic reduction in the production and
consumption of our fellow mammals.

Rennet alternatives are necessary for the purposes and

principles outlined in this book — or even for those who simply
don’t like the idea of baby animal stomachs in their cheese.
Commercial cheese makers do not have to reveal whether the
source of their rennet enzyme is artificially synthesized, is real
rennet gleaned from a stomach, or is a non-rennet alternative.
Thus, when in doubt, look for cheeses marked “vegetarian” or
“kosher”. You can also ask a knowledgeable cheese monger for
the names of cheeses made with veg-friendly alternatives, such
as vegetable rennet. These typically come from thistle plants,
while microbial rennet is derived from fungus, yeast, or mold.
If you live in the United States, Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods
both label the sources of the rennet used in their generic-brand
cheeses, many of which are indeed vegetarian.

SOME CAUSAL CONSIDERATIONS

While preparing for a ten-day Vipassana meditation retreat at
Wat Suan Mokkh in Chaiya in Southern Thailand, I listened to
an English-speaking monk lecture a group of us on the laws of
causation. The monk explained that causation (or cause and
effect), is ultimately the essence of karma. It is what connects
one process (the cause) with another process or state (the
effect), wherein the first is partly responsible for the second,
and the second is partly dependent on the first. “The thing to
remember,” he said, “is good deeds bring good results; bad
deeds bring bad results; your own deeds bring your own
results.”
Later that same day, the monk elaborated on the teachings of
the Buddha about the karma of killing. “If you kill one sentient
being,” he explained, “then for 500 lifetimes you will be killed
by others. This is the result of the negative karma of killing.”
I raised my hand to ask a question, knowing that the
following day when the retreat began, we would be forbidden
from saying any word to anyone for ten days. So I asked:

“If the killing of any sentient being brings

uncomfortable consequences to the killer for 500
lifetimes, then by the laws of causation, should one
also look at the chain of events leading up to that
killing to understand ultimate karmic
responsibility. If the killing is the end result of a
 line of linked causal actions that can be
determined, and if the primary linked action does
not take place, then the killing would have been
avoided. Therefore, it makes sense to me that the
first action would be the one carrying the most
karmic debt, and that individual who killed would
thus be the one being killed by others 500 times.”

“In other words,” I continued, “when I purchase a

steak at the market, am I in fact ultimately
responsible for its death – even if I am completely
unaware of the cow?”

“Yes, you are,” replied the monk. “You are even

more guilty than the slaughterhouse executioner.
For if there were no market demand for beef, there
would be no need for killing of the cow.”

I have often observed that the food the 300,000 monks in

Thailand receive every day in their begging bowls consists of
rice, vegetables and meat. As the people of Thailand revere and
respect their monks, it stands to reason they would seek to
model their own lives accordingly. When they see the holy
monks receiving and eating meat, then in their view eating
meat must be permitted, probably even encouraged.
As I set upon my ten days of mindful introspection and
contemplation, I pondered the possibility that if the monks
chose to not accept meat, and encouraged people to give them
vegetables instead, then the number of animals being killed in
that country would be dramatically reduced. Thus, with regards
to the killing of those sentient beings that end up in their
morning begging bowls, the karmic debt belongs to the monks,
who will then have to suffer being killed themselves 500 times
by others. Perhaps, I thought, those monks will return 500 times
as cows and pigs, only to end up in the begging bowls and eaten
by other monks in an endless cycle that could only end by the
monks becoming vegetarians. An interesting thought to ponder.

AN AFTERWORD TO CONSIDER
If you are a committed carnivore and have made it to the end of
this book, I would like to thank you first of all for having an
open mind. If the arguments in this book make sense to you,
please pass them on – and define your position as someone who
does not eat mammals. When you say you don’t eat red meat,
you may find many people who will simply shrug and say
“okay.” But saying you “don’t eat mammals” defines a position
that usually inspires inquiry. When asked, do speak of the
insights I shared with you in this book, as well as your own
thoughts on these issues. Better yet, send them a copy of the
Manifesto so they can read it for themselves.
If this book resonates, or even if it doesn’t, I would love to
hear from you with suggestions for the next edition Please join
me at www.adamrogers.online, on LinkedIn, or on Twitter at
@adamrogers2030.
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ADAM ROGERS HAS BEEN EXPLORING the world and writing

about life for much of the last 40 years. His explorations have
taken him to more than 130 countries. He first began to
question the links between diet, well-being, and the
environment at the age of 15, after reading Diet for a Small
Planet, the 1971 bestselling book written by Frances Moore
Lappé. His first career effort was as a short order cook and then
a sous chef at Charlies, the only French restaurant in
Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada, where he grew up.
Despite being able to grill the best Chateaubriand in town,
Adam became a vegetarian – which he later adapted to become
a “no-mammalarian,” which he outlines in this book.
Adam first started traveling in his late teens, paying
particular attention to what people ate in different parts of the
world. At the age of 18, he set off with a backpack and the
intention to keep traveling east until he ended up back in the
West. This peripatetic exploration of the planet took him to
more than 50 countries on a budget under $100 a month. That
experience formed the basis for his first book, The Intrepid
Traveler: The ultimate guide to responsible, ecological, and
personal-growth travel and tourism. He then went on to explore
another 80 countries in different capacities as a writer,
photographer, and as a development professional.
As the editor-in-chief of the Los Angeles-based Earth News,
Adam covered the landmark 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro and most of the subsequent summits during the 1990s
in Barbados (Small Island Developing States), Cairo
(Population), Istanbul (cities), Copenhagen (social
development), and Beijing (empowerment of women). His book,
The Earth Summit, a Planetary Reckoning documented the 1992
conference through the perspectives of youth, business,
government, and civil society. Based on that experience, Adam
wrote a book for the UN Environment Program, localizing the
framework of Agenda 21 (Taking Action: An Environmental
Guide for You and Your Community). Not long afterwards, Adam
started working for the United Nations in various positions that
lasted 22 years. Throughout this vital journey of discovery he
has incessantly questioned what diet may have to do with the
state of the environment and the prevalence of poverty in many
parts of the world.
Adam received his BA in International Affairs from
Northern Arizona University, his MA in Communication and
Technology from the University of Alberta in Canada, and his
MBA from the TRIUM program at New York University, the
London School of Economics, and the HEC Paris School of
Management. He is very active on social media, and can be
found on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.
 REFERENCES CITED

1 Fishbase, see https​://www​.fish​base​.de/

2 Barrowclough GF, Cracraft J, Klicka J, Zink RM (2016,

November 23) How Many Kinds of Birds Are There and
Why Does It Matter? PLoS ONE 11(11): e0166307. Retrieved
from https​://doi​.org​/10​.1371​/journal​.pone​.016​6307

3 Milman, O. (2018, 21 December) Why eating less meat is the

best thing you can do for the planet in 2019. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https​://www​.the​guardian​.com​/envir​onment​
/2018​/dec​/21​/life​style​-change-eat-less-meat-climate-change?​
CMP=fb_gu

4 Barton, RA; Harvey, PH (2000, June 29). “Mosaic evolution of

brain structure in mammals”. Nature. Retrieved from https​
://www​.nature​.com​/articles​/35016​580

5 Aboitiz, F; Morales, D; Montiel, J (2003, October 26). “The

evolutionary origin of the mammalian isocortex: Towards
an integrated developmental and functional approach”.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Retrieved from https​://www​
.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​/pubmed​/15179​935

6 Barton, RA; Harvey, PH (2000, June 29). “Mosaic evolution of

brain structure in mammals”. Nature. Retrieved from https​
://www​.nature​.com​/articles​/3501​6580
7 Freund, D. (2011, August 25). How animal welfare leads to
better meat: A lesson from Spain. The Atlantic. Retrieved
from https​://www​.the​atlantic​.com​/health​/archive​/2011​/08​
/how​-animal-welfare-leads-to-better-meat-a-lesson-from-
spain/​2441​27/

8 Johnson, T. (2015, August 5). We used to count Black

Americans as 3/5 of a person. For reparations, give them 5/3
of a vote. The Washington Post. Retrieved on ( add dates for
these sources for retrieval dates) from https​://www​.washing​
tonpost​.com​/post​every​thing​/wp​/2015​/08​/21​/we​-used-to-
count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-repara​
tions-give-them-53-of-a-vote​/?utm_​term​=.2ea4f79​3c1e6

9 Zolfagharifard, E. (2015, June 12). Move over Lassie: IQ tests

reveal pigs can outsmart dogs and chimpanzees. The Daily
Mail. Retrieved from http​://www​.daily​mail​.co​.uk​/scien​
cetech​/article​-3122​303​/Move​-Lassie​-IQ-tests-reveal-pigs-out​
smart-dogs-chimp​anzees​.html

10 McElroy, D. (2002, January 6) Korean outrage as West tries

to use World Cup to ban dog eating. The Telegraph.
Retrieved from https​://www​.tele​graph​.co​.uk​/news​/world​
news​/europe​/france​/1380​569​/Korean​-outrage​-as-West-tries-
to-use-World-Cup-to-ban-dog-eating.​html

11 Bonhommeau, S. Dubroca, L. Le Pape, O. Barde, J. Kaplan,

DM. Chassot, E. and Nieblas, AE. (2013, December 17) Eating
up the world’s food web and the human trophic level.
Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences. Retrieved
from http​://www​.pnas​.org​/content​/110​/51​/20​617
12 Allen, N. (2009, October 19). McFarthest point in the US
from a McDonald’s. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https​
://www​.telegraph​.co​.uk​/news​/news​topics​/how​about​that​/638​
0193/​McFarthest​-point-in-the-US-from-a-McDonalds.​html

13 Duprey, R. (2016, October 11). 15 Fascinating Things You

Probably Didn’t Know About McDonald’s Corp. The Motley
Fool. Retrieved from https​://www​.fool​.com​/investing​/2016​
/10​/11​/15​-fascin​ating-things-you-probably-didnt-know-abou.​
aspx

14 USDA (2018, January) Retrieved from http​://usda​.mannlib​

.cornell​.edu​/usda​/current​/LiveSlauSu​/LiveSlauSu​-04​-18-
2018.​pdf

15 Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets, p. 7.

FAO, October 2015. Retrieved from http​://www​.global​agricul​
ture​.org​/file​admin​/files​/welt​agrarber​icht​/Global​Agricu​lture​
/02Hunger​/Oktobe​r2015​.pdf.

16 Okin GS (2017) Environmental impacts of food

consumption by dogs and cats. PLoS ONE 12(8): e0181301.
Retrieved 2019, January 13 from https​://doi​.org​/10​.1371​
/journal​.pone​.0181​301

17 Willett, W., et al. (2019, January 16). Food in the

Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets
from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. Retrieved from
https​://eatforum​.org​/initiatives​/the​-eat​-lancet-commission/​
eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/

18 Bird, J.K., Murphy R.A., Ciappio E.D., McBurney M.I. (2017,

June 24) Risk of deficiency in multiple concurrent
micronutrients in children and adults in the United States.
 Nutrients. Retrieved from https​://www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​
/pubmed​/2867​2791

19 Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Obesity

and Overweight. Retrieved from https​://www​.cdc​.gov​/nchs​
/fastats​/obesity​-over​weight​.htm

20 Malamut, M. (2013, December 19). Eating Burgers From

Restaurants Increases Obesity Risk, Shocking Study Says.
Boston Magazine. Retrieved from https​://www​.boston​
magazine​.com​/health​/2013​/12​/19​/eating​-burgers-
restaurants-associated-higher-obesity-risk/

21 Swan SH., Liu F., Overstreet JW., Brazil C., Skakkebaek NE.
(2007, June 22). Semen quality of fertile US males in relation
to their mothers’ beef consumption during pregnancy.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of
Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester. Retrieved
from https​://www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​/pubmed​/1739​2290

22 Lee, E. (2011, August 29). The Truth About Red Meat.

WebMD. Retrieved from https​://www​.webmd​.com​/food​-
recipes​/features/​the​-truth-about-red-meat​#1

23 Harvard Medical School. (2012, January). What’s the beef

with meat? Harvard Health Publishing. Retrieved from https​
://www​.health​.harvard​.edu​/healthy​-eating/​whats-the-beef-
with-meat

24 Skerrett, P. J. (2012, March 13). Study urges moderation in

red meat intake. Harvard Health Publishing. Retrieved from
https​://www​.health​.harvard​.edu​/blog​/study​-urges​-
moderation-in-red-meat-intake-2012​03134​490
25 Kolata, G. (2013, April 7). Culprit in Heart Disease Goes
Beyond Meat’s Fat. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https​://www​.nytimes​.com​/2013​/04​/08​/health​/study​-points-to-
new-culprit-in-heart-disease.​html?​pagew​anted​=all

26 National Institutes of Health. (2019, January 18). Eating red

meat daily triples heart disease-related chemical. Retrieved
from https​://www​.nih​.gov​/news​-events​/nih-research-
matters​/eating-red-meat-daily-triples-heart-disease-related-
chemical

27 Newman, T. (2018, June 15). Red meat allergy may increase

heart disease risk. Medical News Today. Retrieved from
https​://www​.medical​news​today​.com​/articles​/322​147.​php

28 Bernstein, A., Pan, A, Rexrode, K.M., Stampfer, M., Hu, F.B.,

Mozaffarian, D. & Willett, W.C. (2011, December 29). Dietary
Protein Sources and the Risk of Stroke in Men and Women.
Stroke. Retrieved from https​://www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​/pmc​
/articles​/PMC​328​8224/

29 Kimmell, J. (2018, August 2). The 5 behaviors that explain

your risk of cancer. Advisory Board. Retrieved from https​
://www​.advisory​.com​/daily​-briefing​/2018​/08​/02​/cancer​-5

30 Simon, S. (2015, October 26). World Health Organization

Says Processed Meat Causes Cancer. Cancer​.org / American
Cancer Society. Retrieved from https​://www​.cancer​.org​
/latest​-news/​world-health-organization-says-processed-
meat-causes-cancer.​html

31 American Institute for Cancer Research. (2009, July 22).

AICR Statement: Hot Dogs and Cancer Risk. Retrieved from
 http​://www​.aicr​.org​/press​/press​-releases​/aicr-statement-hot-
dogs-and-cancer-risk.​html

32 Micha, R., Peñalvo, J. Cudhea, F. (2017, March 7).

Association Between Dietary Factors and Mortality From
Heart Disease, Stroke, and Type 2 Diabetes in the United
States. JAMA. Retrieved from https​://jam​anetwork​.com​
/journals​/jama​/article​-abstract​/260​8221

33 Virtanen, H., Koskinen, T., Voutilainen, S., Mursu, J.,

Tuomainen, T., Kokko, P., & Virtanen, J. (2017). Intake of
different dietary proteins and risk of type 2 diabetes in
men: The Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study.
British Journal of Nutrition. Retrieved from https​://www​
.cambridge​.org​/core​/journals​/british​-journal​-of​-nutrition/​
article​/intake​-of-different-dietary-proteins-and-risk-of-type-
2-diabetes-in-men-the-kuopio-ischaemic-heart-disease-risk-
factor-study/1929E2C​C34B0A50​4B3A04​5FAA0​569CA3

34 Shaw, J. (2012, January). A Diabetes Link to Meat. Harvard

Magazine. Retrieved from https​://www​.harvard​magazine​
.com​/2012​/01​/a​-diabetes​-link-to-meat

35 TriStar Medical Group, Total Women’s Care. Vitamin B12.

Retrieved from https​://total​womens​caretn​.com​/hl​/?/22440​
/Vitamin​-B12

36 Consumer Reports. (2012, November 9). Press Release: The

Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals Threatens Public
Health. Retrieved from https​://advocacy​.consumer​reports​
.org​/press​_release​/the-overuse-of-antibiotics-in-food-
animals-threatens-public-health-2/
37 American Farm Bureau Federation. (2012, June 12) Letter to
Congressperson Louise Slaughter. Retrieved from https​
://www​.ahi​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads/​2012​/06​/Congress​
woman​-Slaughter​-science-June-12-final.​pdf

38 Hoelzer, K. (2017, November 10). Answers to Common

Questions About the Use of Antibiotics in Animal
Agriculture. Pew Trusts. Retrieved from https​://www​.pew​
trusts​.org​/en​/research​-and​-analysis/​articles​/2017​/11​
/answers​-to-common-questions-about-the-use-of-antibiotics-
in-animal-agriculture

39 United States Government, House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce. (2010, July 14).
Hearing: Antiobiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in
Animal Agriculture, Subcommittee on Health, Energy and
Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives.
Retrieved from https​://www​.govinfo​.gov​/content​/pkg​/CHRG​
-111​hhrg​77921​/pdf/​CHRG​-111​hhrg​77921.​pdf

40 World Health Organization (2017, November).

Antimicrobial resistance in the food chain. Retrieved from
https​://www​.who​.int​/food​safety​/areas​_work​/anti​microbial​-
resistance​/amr​food​chain​/en/

41 Meat and greens: How bad for the planet is eating meat?
(2013, December 31). The Economist. Retrieved from https​
://www​.economist​.com​/feast​-and​-famine/​2013​/12​/31​/meat​-
and-greens.

42 Casalone, C; Hope, J (2018). Atypical and classic bovine

spongiform encephalopathy. Handbook of Clinical
Neurology. 153. pp. 121–134. ISBN 9780444639455.
43 North American Meat Institute (NAMI). (2017). The United
States Meat Industry at a Glance. Retrieved from https​
://www​.meat​institute​.org​/index​.php​?ht​=d​/sp​/i​/47465​/pid​/47​
465

44 Fortune, A. (2017, September 11). US Meat Industry

Debunks Cancer Link. Global Meat News. Retrieved from
https​://www​.global​meat​news​.com​/Article​/2017​/09​/12​/US​-
meat-industry-debunks-cancer-link

45 North American Meat Institute (NAMI). (2017). The United

States Meat Industry at a Glance. Retrieved from https​
://www​.meat​institute​.org​/index​.php​?ht​=d​/sp​/i​/47​465/​pid​/474​
65

46 Shike, J. (2019,January 16). Pork Industry Calls EAT-Lancet

Report Radical, Irresponsible. Farm Journal. Retrieved from
https​://www​.agweb​.com​/article​/pork​-industry​-calls-eat-
lancet-report-radical-irrespo​nsible/

47 Brower, M., and Warren L. (March 30, 1999). The

consumer’s guide to effective environmental choices:
Practical advice. The Union of Concerned Scientists. Three
Rivers Press; 1st edition.

48 Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K.,

Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L.,… (2018, October 25). Options
for keeping the food system within environmental limits.
Nature. Retrieved from https​://www​.nature​.com​/articles​/s41​
586​-018-0594-0

49 Meat and greens: How bad for the planet is eating meat?
(2013, December 31). The Economist. Retrieved from https​
 ://www​.economist​.com​/feast​-and​-famine​/2013/​12​/31​/meat​-
and-greens.

50 Rossi, M. (2018, July 31). The Chinese Are Eating More Meat
Than Ever Before and the Planet Can’t Keep Up. Mother
Jones. Retrieved from https​://www​.mother​jones​.com​
/environment​/2018​/07​/the​-chinese​-are-eating-more-meat-
than-ever-before-and-the-planet-cant-keep-up/

51 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. (2009,

September 23). 2050: A third more mouths to feed.
Retrieved from http​://www​.fao​.org​/news​/story​/en​/item​/35​
571/​icode/

52 Lindsey, R. (2018, August 1). Climate Change: Atmospheric

Carbon Dioxide. NOAA. Retrieved from https​://www​.climate​
.gov​/news​-features​/under​standing​-climate​/climate-change-
atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

53 IPCC 2007, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 17.0*****

54 Milman, O. (2018, 21 December) Why eating less meat is the

best thing you can do for the planet in 2019. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https​://www​.the​guardian​.com​/environment​
/2018​/dec​/21​/life​style​-change-eat-less-meat-climate-change?​
CMP=​fb_gu

55 Heller, M.C. and G.A. Keoleian. 2014. Greenhouse gas

emission estimates of U.S. dietary choices and food loss.
 Journal of Industrial Ecology: Supporting Information.
Retrieved from https​://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/jiec​.121​74

56 Fenelli, D. (2007, July 18). Meat is murder on the

environment. New Scientist. Retrieved from https​://www​
.new​scientist​.com​/article​/mg1​9526​134-​500-meat-is-murder-
on-the-environ​ment/

57 Harvey, F. (2016, March 21). Eat less meat to avoid

dangerous global warming, scientists say. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https​://www​.the​guardian​.com​/environment​
/2016​/mar​/21​/eat​-less​-meat​-vegetar​ianism-dangerous-global-
warming

58 Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C.,
Dijkman, J…. (2013). Tackling climate change through
livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation
opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), Rome.

59 Ibid.

60 Strom, S. (2017, March 21). Americans Ate 19 percent Less

Beef From ’05 to ’14, Report Says. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https​://www​.nytimes​.com​/2017​/03​/21​/dining​
/beef​-consumption-emissions.​html

61 Kunzig, R. (2014, January). Carnivore’s dilemma. National

Geographic Society, 2014. Retrieved from http​://www​
.national​geographic​.com​/food​features​/meat/.

62 Ibid.
63 Union of Concerned Scientists. (201). What’s Driving
Deforestation? Retrieved from https​://www​.ucsusa​.org​
/global​-warming/​stop-defore​station/​whats-driving-defore​
station

64 Haan, C. & Blackburn H. (1997). Livestock-Environment

Interactions: Issues and Options. United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization. Retrieved from http​://www​.fao​
.org​/ag​/againfo​/resources​/documents​/Lxehtml/

65 Williams, A. (2019, January 19). Brazil closes 2018 with

largest-ever beef volume exports. Global Meat News
Retrieved from https​://www​.global​meat​news​.com​/Article​
/2019​/01​/22​/Largest​-ever-beef-exports-by-volume-for-Brazil

66 Measuring the Daily Destruction of the World’s Rainforests

Scientific American, 2009. Retrieved from https​://www​
.scientifi​camerican​.com​/article​/earth​-talks-daily-
destruction/

67 Alexandratos N and Bruinsma J. (2012). UN Food and

Agriculture Organization. World Agriculture Towards
2030/2050: The 2012 Revision No. 12-03. Retrieved from http​
://www​.fao​.org​/fileadmin​/templates​/esa​/Global​_persepctives​
/world​_ag_2​030_5​0_20​12_​rev.​pdf

68 Foley J A et al (2011, October 12). Solutions for a cultivated

planet. Nature. Retrieved from https​://www​.nature​.com​
/articles​/nature​10452.

69 Thompson, P. & Kituyi, M. (2018, July 13). 90 percent of fish

stocks are used up – fisheries subsidies must stop. World
Economic Forum. Retrieved from https​://www​.weforum​.org​
 /agenda​/2018​/07​/fish​-stocks​-are-used-up-fish​eries-subsidies-
must-stop/

70 Alder, J., B. Campbell, V. Karpouzi, K. Kaschner and D. Pauly

(2008, August). Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 153-166.
Retrieved from https​://www​.annual​reviews​.org​/doi​/10​.1146​
/annurev​.environ​.33​.020​807​.143​204

71 Sustainable Fisheries (2019). How many Fisheries are

Overfished? Retrieved from https​://sustain​able​fish​eries-uw​
.org​/fact​-check​/how​-many​-fisheries​-are-over​fished/

72 Natural Resources Defense Council (2017, March), Issue

paper: Less beef, Less carbon: Americans shrink their diet-
related carbon footprint by 10 percent between 2005 and
2014. Retrieved from https​://www​.nrdc​.org​/sites​/default​/files​
/less​-beef-less-carbon-ip.​pdf

73 Strom, S. (2017, March 21). Americans Ate 19 percent Less

Beef From ’05 to ’14, Report Says. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https​://www​.nytimes​.com​/2017​/03​/21​/dining​
/beef​-consum​ption-emissions.​html

74 Mintel. (2018, February 15). Press Release Taste is the Top

Reason US Consumers Eat Plant-Based Proteins. Retrieved
from https​://www​.mintel​.com​/press​-centre​/food-and-​drink​
/taste-is-the-top-reason-us-consumers-eat-plant-based-
proteins

75 Coffman, V. Milburn, D. (2018, September 12). Two-thirds of

U.S. consumers say they are eating less meat. HUB/Johns
Hopkins University. Retrieved from https​://hub​.jhu​.edu​/2018​
/09​/12​/consumers-cut-back-on-meat-consumption/
76 Davis, L.C. (2016, March 28). The economic case for
worldwide vegetarianism. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https​
://www​.the​atlantic​.com​/business​/archive​/2016​/03​/the​-
economic​-case-for-worldwide-vegeta​rianism/​4755​24/

77 Ibid.

78 Hallock, B. (2014, January 27). To make a burger, first you

need 660 gallons of water. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
from https​://www​.latimes​.com​/food​/daily​dish​/la​-dd​-gallons-
of-water-to-make-a-burger-2014​0124-story.​html

79 Park, A. (2013, December 19). 5 Surprising Things We Feed

Cows. Mother Jones. Retrieved from https​://www​.mother​
jones​.com​/food​/2013​/12​/cow​-feed​-chicken-poop-candy-
sawdust/

80 Bittman, M. (2014, July 15). The True Cost of a Burger. The

New York Times. Retrieved from https​://www​.nytimes​.com​
/2014​/07​/16​/opinion​/the​-true-cost-of-a-burger​.html

81 Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. (2012, January 31).The medical

care costs of obesity: an instrumental variables approach. J
Health Econ. 31:219-30. Retrieved from https​://www​.ncbi​
.nlm​.nih​.gov​/pubmed​/2209​4013

82 Springmanna, M, Godfraya, C, Raynera, M & Scarborough,

P; Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change
cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), 2015, January 22.
Retrieved 16 January 2019 from https​://www​.pnas​.org​
/content​/pnas​/early​/2016​/03​/16​/1523​1191​13​.full​.pdf
83 Schechinger, A. W. (2018, October 2). America’s Nitrate
Habit Is Costly and Dangerous. Retrieved from https​://www​
.ewg​.org​/research​/nitrat​ecost/

84 City of Des Moines Water Works (2015, December 10).

Nitrate Removal Facility Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http​
://www​.dmww​.com​/upl​/documents​/water​-quality/​lab-
reports/​fact-sheets/​nitrate-removal-facility.​pdf

85 May, J. (2017, July 11) City of Hiawatha Issues High Nitrate

Warning. Hiawatha World, Retrieved from www​.hiawa​
thaworld​online​.com​/news​/city​-of​-hiawatha​-issues-high-
nitrate-warning/article​_71208​a3a​-b98e-54a4-bc20-1c4b9​
bdd7​a10.​html

86 Vivian B. Jensen et al., (2012, July). Technical Report 6:

Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate. Center for
Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis.
Retrieved from ground​water​nitrate​.ucdavis​.edu​/files​/139​
107.​pdf

87 Institute of Mechanical Engineers. (2013, November 2).

Global food: Waste not, Want not. Retrieved from https​
://www​.imeche​.org​/policy​-and​-press/​reports/​detail/​global-
food-waste-not-want-not

88 UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Key facts on food

loss and waste you should know! Retrieved from http​
://www​.fao​.org​/save-food/​resources/​key​findings​/en/

89 Lovgren, S. (2005, August 31). Chimps, Humans 96 percent

the Same, Gene Study Finds. National Geographic. Retrieved
from https​://news​.national​geographic​.com​/news​/2005​/08​
/chimps​-humans​-96​-percent-the​-same-gene-study-finds/
90 Rosemary, J. (2013, November 30). Pigs and Chimpanzees
Living in Sin? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https​
://www​.psychology​today​.com​/us​/blog​/what​-makes-us-
human​/201​311​/pigs-and-chimpanzees-living-in-sin

91 Pigs: The Missing Evolutionary Human Link. (2016,

December 13). Retrieved 20 November 2018 from https​
://www​.global​founders​.london​/blog​/pigs​-the-missing-
evolutionary-human-link

92 Cahill, M. (2016, January 26). Humans Are Genetically

Related To Some Pretty Bizarre Things...So Weird.
ViralNova. Retrieved from http​://www​.viralnova​.com​
/genetic-relatives/

93 Steenhuysen, J. (2009, April 23). Cattle genes may give clues

about human health. Reuters. Retrieved from https​://www​
.reuters​.com​/article​/us​-cattle​-genes/​cattle-genes-may-give-
clues-about-human-health-idUSTR​E53M5X​T200​90423?​irpc​
=914

94 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Maori – Maori

Culture in The 21st Century. Encyclopædia Britannica.

95 Eskimo Kisses, Arm Hair, Moon Flags & Spike Lee vs. Stan
Lee vs. Bruce Lee. Esquire Magazine. 2007-05-09.

96 Coren, Stanley (2004, January 10). Why Dogs Touch Noses:

Communication and More. Psychology Today. Retrieved 8
January 2019 from https​://www​.psychology​today​.com​/us​
/blog​/canine​-corner​/201001/​why​-dogs​-touch-noses-
communication-and-more
97 Zolfagharifard, E. (2015, June 12). Move over Lassie: IQ tests
reveal pigs can outsmart dogs and chimpanzees. The Daily
Mail. Retrieved from http​://www​.daily​mail​.co​.uk​/science​
tech​/article-3122​303​/Move​-Lassie-IQ-tests-reveal-pigs-
outsmart-dogs-chimpanzees.​html

98 Fuoco, M. A. (2002, April 9). LuLu the heroic pig now known
worldwide. Pittsburg Post-Gazette. Retrieved from http​://old​
.post​-gazette​.com​/neigh​_west​/20020​409lulu0​409p1​.asp

99 Price, M. (2019, January 25). 3-year-old boy lost in NC woods

tells his family he ‘hung out with a bear for 2 days’. The
Charlotte Observer. Retrieved from https​://www​.charlotte​
observer​.com​/news​/local​/article​22509​0590​.html

100 Kandlbinder, S. G. (2009) Saved By Dolphins: The Todd

Endris Story. AuthorHouse.

101 Adams, W.L. (2010, November 12). Dick Van Dyke: Porpoises
Saved My Life. Time. Retrieved from http​://news​feed​.time​
.com​/2010​/11​/12​/dick​-van-dyke-porpoises-saved-my-life/

102 Elliott, K. (1996, August 4). True tale or great white lie? The
Independent. Retrieved from https​://www​.independent​.co​.uk​
/sport​/true​-tale​-or-great-white-lie-1308​156​.html

103 Thomson, A. (2004, November 25). Dolphins saved us from

shark, lifeguards say. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from
https​://www​.nzherald​.co​.nz​/nz​/news​/article​.cfm​?c_id​=1​
&obje​ctid​=3613​343

104 The Telegraph (2004, November 24). Dolphins ‘save’

swimmers from shark attack. Retrieved from https​://www​
 .telegraph​.co​.uk​/news​/147​7378​/Dolphins-save​-swimmers-
from-shark-attack.​html

105 Chicago Tribune (2016, August 16).20 years ago today:

Brookfield Zoo gorilla helps boy who fell into habitat.
Retrieved from http​://www​.chicag​otribune​.com​/news​/ct​-
gorilla​-saves-boy-brook​field-zoo-anniversary-2016​0815-
story.​html

106 Burrows, T. (2016, January 20). EXCLUSIVE - My guardian

gorilla angel: 30 years on from the amazing moment ape
saved tiny boy who fell into his enclosure, the man
protected by gentle giant reveals how the incident has
shaped his entire life. Daily Mail. Retrieved from http​://www​
.dailymail​.co​.uk​/news​/article​-340​6830​/I​-m​-forever-thankful-
Jambo-gone-one-two-ways-Man-protected-huge-gorilla-fell-
enclosure-boy-relives-dramatic-moment-30-years-says-t-
wait-kids-there.​html

107 Kidnapped girl ‘rescued’ by lions. (2005, June 22). BBC.

Retrieved from http​://news​.bbc​.co​.uk​/2​/hi​/africa​/411​6778​
.stm

108 Boyd, F. (2014, November 21). Experience: my horse saved

me from a raging cow. The Guardian. Retrieved from https​
://www​.the​guardian​.com/​life​and​style/​2014​/nov​/21​
/experience-my​-horse-saved-me-from-raging-cow

109 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The Hidden

Lives of Cows. Retrieved from https​://www​.peta​.org​/issues​
/animals​-used​-for-food/​factory-farming/​cows/​hidden-lives-
cows/
110 Soomro, B.R. (2016, January 30). Remarkable animal
rescues of humans. Dawn. Retrieved from https​://www​
.dawn​.com​/news​/1235​930.

111 Chapman, P. (2004, February 18). Swimming cow saves

farmer’s wife. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https​://www​
.telegraph​.co​.uk​/news​/world​news​/australia​and​the​pacific​
/newzealand​/1454679​/Swimming​-cow-saves-farmers-wife​
.html

112 BBC News website. (2004, January 19). Rabbit saves diabetic
from coma. Retrieved from http​://news​.bbc​.co​.uk​/2​/hi​
/uk_news​/england​/cambridg​eshire​/344​1337​.stm.

113 Morell, V. (2014, February 23). It’s Time to accept that

elephants, like us, are empathetic beings. National
Geographic. Retrieved from https​://news​.national​geographic​
.com​/news​/2014​/02​/140221​-elephants​-poaching-empathy-
grief-extinction-science/

114 Plotnik, J. (2014, February 18). Asian elephants (Elephas

maximus) reassure others in distress. PeerJ. Retrieved from
https​://peerj​.com​/articles​/278/

115 Holdrege, Craig (Spring 2001). Elephantine Intelligence. In

Context. Retrieved 8 Jan 2019 from http​://www​.nature​
institute​.org​/pub​/ic​/ic5​/elephant​.htm

116 Mele, C. (2019, April 7). Rhino Poacher Killed by Elephant

and Eaten by Lions, Officials Say. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https​://www​.nytimes​.com​/2019​/04​/07​/world​
/africa​/south​-africa​-poacher-rhino-lions.​html
117 Willett, W., et al. (2019, January 16). Food in the
Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets
from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. Retrieved from
https​://eatforum​.org​/initiatives​/the​-eat-lancet-commission/​
eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/

118 The statistics and references in this section were taken

from www​.undp​.org

119 Food and Agircultural Organization of the United Nations.

(2018). Transforming Food and Agriculture for the SDGs: 20
interconnected actions to guide decision-makers. Retrieved
from http​://www​.fao​.org​/3​/I990​0EN​/i99​00en​.pdf

120 Vinicius, M. (2011, June). Long-Lasting Effects of

Undernutrition. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health. Retrieved from https​://www​
.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​/pmc​/articles​/PMC​3137​999/

121 Eisler, P. Morrison, B. DeBarros, A. (2009, December 8).

School Lunches Wouldn’t Meet Fast-Food Safety Standards.
USA Today. Retrieved from https​://usatoday30​.usatoday​.com​
/news​/education​/2009​-12-08-school-lunch-standar​ds_N​.htm

122 UNDP (2016) What are the Sustainable Development Goals?

Retrieved from http​://www​.undp​.org​/content​/undp​/en​/home​
/sustainable​-development-goals.​html

123 FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2017). The state of food
and agriculture 2017: Leveraging food systems for inclusive
rural transformation. Food and Organization of the United
Nations. Retrieved from http​://www​.fao​.org​/3​/a​-i7658e​.pdf
124 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
(2016). Sustainable Development Goals target 12.3 on food
loss and waste: 2016 progress report. Retrieved from http​
://www​.fao​.org​/save​-food/​news-and-multimedia/​news​/news-
details/​en​/c​/436​985/

125 Thompson, P. & Kituyi, M. (2018, July 13). 90 percent of fish

stocks are used up – fisheries subsidies must stop. World
Economic Forum. Retrieved from https​://www​.weforum​.org​
/agenda​/2018​/07​/fish​-stocks-are-used-up-fisheries-subsidies-
must-stop/

126 Perlman, D. (2008, August 15). Scientists alarmed by ocean

dead-zone growth. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from
https​://www​.sfgate​.com​/green​/article​/Scientists​-alarmed​-by-
ocean-dead-zone-growth-320​0041​.php

127 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. (2018,

June 7) Press release: Average-sized dead zone forecasted for
the Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved from https​://www​.usgs​.gov​
/news​/average​-sized​-dead-zone-forecasted-gulf-mexico

128 Neal, K. (2007, February 21). Global impact of livestock

production focus of recent event. Stanford News. Retrieved
from https​://news​.stanford​.edu​/news​/2007​/february21​
/livestock​-022107​.html

129 Brownell, C. (2016, September 29). The end of meat?

Economics, the environment and changing tastes have top
protein feeling the heat. Financial Post. Retrieved from https​
://business​.financialpost​.com​/commodities​/agriculture​/the​-
end​-of-meat-economics-the-environment-and-changing-
tastes-have-top-protein-feeling-the-heat
130 Willett, W., et al. (2019, January 16). Food in the
Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets
from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. Retrieved from
https​://eatforum​.org​/initiatives​/the​-eat​-lancet-commission/​
eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/

131 Harvard Medical School. (2012, January). What’s the beef

with meat? Harvard Health Publishing. Retrieved from https​
://www​.health​.harvard​.edu​/healthy​-eating​/whats-the-beef-
with-meat

132 Plant Based Foods Association, Press Release, (2018, July

30). Plant Based Food Sales Grow 20 percent. Retrieved from
https​://plant​based​foods​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads/​2018​/07​
/PBFA​-Release-on-Nielsen-Data-7.​30​.18​.pdf

133 Chiorando, M. (2018, August 1). US Plant-Based Meat Sales

Hit $670 Million Skyrocketing By 24 percent. Plant Based
News. Retrieved from https​://www​.plant​based​news​.org​/post​
/us​-plant​-based-meat-sales-hit-670-million-skyrocketing-by-
24

134 Chiorando, M. (2018, July 4). Global Meat Substitutes

Market To Exceed $6 Billion By 2023. Plant Based News.
Retrieved from https​://www​.plant​based​news​.org​/post​/global​
-meat​-substitutes-market-to-exceed-6-billion-by-2023

135 Raphael, R. (2019, March 5). Beyond Meat just launched a

plant-based product for beef lovers. Fast Company.
Retrieved from https​://www​.fast​company​.com​/90314807​
/beyond​-meat-just-launched-a-plant-based-product-for-beef-
lovers?​partner=​rss
136 Ibirogba, P. (2019, March 16). Vegan Company Beyond
Meat’s Plans to Lower Price Could Be Disastrous for Meat
Industry. Vegan News. Retrieved from https​://vegan​news​.co​
/vegan​-company​-beyond-meats-plans-to-lower-price-could-
be-disastrous-for-meat-industry/

137 Brownell, C. (2016, September 29). The end of meat?

Economics, the environment and changing tastes have top
protein feeling the heat. Financial Post. Retrieved from https​
://business​.financial​post​.com​/commodities​/agriculture​/the​-
end​-of-meat-economics-the-environment-and-changing-
tastes-have-top-protein-feeling-the-heat

138 Klementova, M.; Thieme, L.; Haluzik, M.; Pavlovicova, R.;

Hill, M.; Pelikanova, T.; Kahleova, H. A Plant-Based Meal
Increases Gastrointestinal Hormones and Satiety More Than
an Energy- and Macronutrient-Matched Processed-Meat
Meal in T2D, Obese, and Healthy Men: A Three-Group
Randomized Crossover Study. Nutrients 2019, 11, 157.
Retrieved from https​://www​.mdpi​.com​/2072​-6643​/11​/1/​157

139 Murphy, P. (2019, April 19). ‘Bug burger’ idea wins UB

World’s Challenge Challenge. UBNow. Retrieved from http​
://www​.buffalo​.edu​/ubnow​/campus​/campus​-host-page.​host​
.html​/content/​shared​/university​/news​/ub​-reporter-articles/​
stories​/2019​/04​/worlds​-challenge-challenge​.detail​.html

140 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (February, 2005).

Retrieved from https​://www​.fda​.gov​/Food​/Guidance​
Regulation​/Guidance​Documents​Regulatory​Information​
/Sanitation​Transpo​rtation​/ucm05​6174​.htm
141 Tousignant, L. (2017, August 16). Bug ‘burgers’ are hitting
supermarket shelves. New York Post. Retrieved from https​
://nypost​.com​/2017​/08​/16​/bug​-burgers​-are-hitting-
supermarket-shelves/

142 Schaefer, O. G. (2018, September 14). Lab-Grown Meat:

Meat produced without killing animals is heading to your
dinner table. Scientific American. Retrieved from https​
://www​.scientific​american​.com​/article​/lab​-grown-meat/

143 Okin GS (2017) Environmental impacts of food

consumption by dogs and cats. PLoS ONE 12(8): e0181301.
Retrieved 2019, January 13 from https​://doi​.org​/10​.1371​
/journal​.pone​.0181​301

144 Association of American Feed Control Officials. What is in

Pet Food? Retrieved from https​://www​.aafco​.org​/consumers​
/what​-is​-in-pet-food

145 Springmann M, Mason-D’Croz D, Robinson S, Wiebe K,

Godfray HCJ, Rayner M, et al. (2018, November 6). Health-
motivated taxes on red and processed meat: A modelling
study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts.
PLoS ONE 13(11): e0204139. Retrieved from https​://doi​.org​
/10​.1371​/journal​.pone​.0204​139

146 The North American Meat Institute. (2018). The United

States Meat Industry at a Glance. Retrieved from https​
://www​.meat​institute​.org​/index​.php​?ht​=d​/sp​/i​/47465​/pid​/474​
65

147 UN Food and Agriculture Organization. (2018). Decent Rural

Employment. Retrieved from http​://www​.fao​.org​/rural​-
employment​/agricultural​-sub-sectors/​livestock​/en/
148 Vegetarian Times Editors (2014, November 26). How to buy
veg-friendly cheese. Vegetarian Times. Retrieved from https​
://www​.vegetari​antimes​.com​/skills​/how​-to-buy-veg-friendly-
cheese