Is It Okay To Be An Omnivore? New Study Says Yes. What Do You Think? Options

[Craig Minowa]

This week's topic rotates around the debate of meat eating. Is it okay to eat meat? A new study out of Cornell has reopened the debate as it suggests it's actually a more efficient way to raise food, if you eat modest levels of animal products. What's your opinion? We have pasted the Cornell article below for you to read more. Please share your thoughts with us by replying here. On this week's topic, we have also posted a poll to find out how many of our readers are vegetarians, how many are omnivores, and how many are carnivores. What do you eat? Please scroll down to take the "Is it okay to eat meat" poll and share your thoughts on the issue.




New Study Reopens Debate: Are Omnivores Better for the Environment Than Vegetarians?

* By Susan Lang
Cornell Chronicle, 10/4/2007
Straight to the Source (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7575.cfm)

A low-fat vegetarian diet is very efficient in terms of how much land is needed to support it. But adding some dairy products and a limited amount of meat may actually increase this efficiency, Cornell researchers suggest.

This deduction stems from the findings of their new study, which concludes that if everyone in New York state followed a low-fat vegetarian diet, the state could directly support almost 50 percent more people, or about 32 percent of its population, agriculturally. With today's high-meat, high-dairy diet, the state is able to support directly only 22 percent of its population, say the researchers.

The study, published in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, is the first to examine the land requirements of complete diets. The researchers compared 42 diets with the same number of calories and a core of grains, fruits, vegetables and dairy products (using only foods that can be produced in New York state), but with varying amounts of meat (from none to 13.4 ounces daily) and fat (from 20 to 45 percent of calories) to determine each diet's "agricultural land footprint."

They found a fivefold difference between the two extremes.

"A person following a low-fat vegetarian diet, for example, will need less than half (0.44) an acre per person per year to produce their food," said Christian Peters, M.S. '02, Ph.D. '07, a Cornell postdoctoral associate in crop and soil sciences and lead author of the research. "A high-fat diet with a lot of meat, on the other hand, needs 2.11 acres."

"Surprisingly, however, a vegetarian diet is not necessarily the most efficient in terms of land use," said Peters.

The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland, he explained. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay. A large pool of such land is available in New York state because for sustainable use, most farmland requires a crop rotation with such perennial crops as pasture and hay.

Thus, although vegetarian diets in New York state may require less land per person, they use more high-valued land. "It appears that while meat increases land-use requirements, diets including modest amounts of meat can feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian diets," said Peters.

"The key to conserving land and other resources with our diets is to limit the amount of meat we eat and for farmers to rely more on grazing and forages to feed their livestock," said Jennifer Wilkins, senior extension associate in nutritional sciences who specializes in the connection between local food systems and health and co-authored the study with Gary Fick, Cornell professor of crop and soil sciences. "Consumers need to be aware that foods differ not only in their nutrient content but in the amount of resources required to produce, process, package and transport them."

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American ate approximately 5.8 ounces of meat and eggs a day in 2005.

"In order to reach the efficiency in land use of moderate-fat, vegetarian diets, our study suggests that New Yorkers would need to limit their annual meat and egg intake to about 2 cooked ounces a day," Peters said.

The research was supported in part by the National Research Initiative of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.

[diana]

<sigh> I will be thrilled when the day finally comes for the elevation of food fat. We know that low-fat creates a host of ills, including elevated cholesterol, diabetes, and even the artificial weight gain that often accompanies both of those. It's also tremendously difficult to stay with, since food fat provides satiety!

I wanted to have an additional option, which was 'eat as much high-fat meat as you wish.' There's only so much that anyone can ingest, so it works out to be 'moderation' without the conscious restriction, and all the dangers therein. Moderate meat eating for those who wish to consume thus, and probably for all diabetics, seems quite reasonable.

Lots of info out there on the benefits of high-fat eating, including existing in ketosis (very different from the ketoacidosis of out-of-control type 1 diabetes). Mary Enig has written a great deal; the Weston A. Price Foundation has info; and diabetics with good docs have probably been directed to Dr. Bernstein's program. There's certainly better info out there than the sold science of the USDA and Cornell University. (Who really paid for the study?) --diana

[Flips]

I'm vegetarian-only because of health reasons & have not eaten meat in about 15 years or more now/ well if I think about it -maybe 20 years would be more like it!!!!
I have MCS & a few years ago was so sick & not able to eat much of anything ---for a very long period of time------when I tried to reintroduce meat back into my diet-my body said NO WAY!!!!!!!!

I can't eat meat -or anything seasoned with meat-or been cooked with meat--etc./etc----or I have terrible flu like symptoms!!!
I don't cook meat in the house------or I also get ill!!!!

My husband eats meat some times when we eat out/ which is very very seldom/ or go to our daughter's home.

Our daughter's family raise their own meat which is raised organic.

Even through I'm vegetarain-- I voted "Yes. If done in moderation and humanely raised." But I don't eat any meat myself!!!!! And never will again!

My Husband's health is soooooooooooo much better since he has not been eating hardly any meat at all. And that is the only change in his lifestyle! He even says he feels better!

Our daughter & her family eat less meat than they have in the past & also say they feel better!

[InsideOut]

Since I was saved from a modern diet and starting eating non-processed foods and omited meat (OK... we get an organic chicken every now and again... but it lasts a week or so and we use it all...)

Where was I?

Oh: 2001-Lived on process food as a operations guy at a small delivery service company right after college. Met my wife then and she and I clean-up our acts together... I weighed 210-215... I couldn't see <ahem> all of me.

2004-Newly-wed only Organic meat mostly vegitarian diet biking 10 or more miles a day for transportation (gave up car)... I weighed 170... clear visibility.

2007-still newly wed it seems, still eating the same, still biking, still 170.

[barose]

Though I eat a raw vegan diet for health reasons, I think others can eat organic or farm raised meat in moderation and be healthy, unfortunately, I cant.

For me, I foods like gluten, dairy and soy is much worse for me than meat.

Ethically, I think its OK to have organic, farm raised meat. I have no problem with it.

[Pammie]

I totally agree with Diana. Animal fat saved my health. I was born and raised vegetarian and became so sick I was desperate. Now the picture of good health, I drink cream and eat pemmican. I'll never go back to that depressing state of low-fat vegetarian ill-health. I'll have my animal fat (as much as I like), thank you very much.

---------------------------------------------

<sigh> I will be thrilled when the day finally comes for the elevation of food fat.

Mary Enig has written a great deal; the Weston A. Price Foundation has info; There's certainly better info out there than the sold science of the USDA and Cornell University. (Who really paid for the study?) --diana

[Rich Moser]

I'm commenting but not voting, because I don't agree with any of the four choices listed.

I'm a vegetarian, eating some dairy, no seafood and virtually no eggs.....I've eaten this diet for 29 years now. My health is tremendously better now than when I ate meat, and I find that the more fresh, raw foods I eat, the healthier I am.

That aside, I think it needs to be brought up that there is a spiritual component to many people's decisions to become vegetarian. For me, it is the most important consideration that killing an animated being, whether we think it's sentient or not, creates suffering. Even though humans evolved on an omnivorous diet, we do not have to eat one; so, as long as killing is not necessary, there is no reason to even consider it.

With some research, all reasons for eating meat--nutrition, economics, environmentalism, health, social justice, philosophy, and all others--fall away. The only exception I have found is taste; in other words, the only thing that stands up as being a good reason to eat meat is that you simply like the taste. I can see no other valid justification for it.

[Living Simply]

I am vegetarian, but I voted that eating ethically raised meat is okay. I choose to not eat meat, but that doesn't mean it isn't okay for other people as long as the animals are raised in a humane way and it is not hurting the land. Small-scale animal husbandry has been around for a long time, and I have to admit I would find it difficult to give up dairy and eggs, even though I don't eat them in nearly the amount of the average American.

[NancyJ]

<sigh> I will be thrilled when the day finally comes for the elevation of food fat. We know that low-fat creates a host of ills, including elevated cholesterol, diabetes, and even the artificial weight gain that often accompanies both of those. It's also tremendously difficult to stay with, since food fat provides satiety!

I wanted to have an additional option, which was 'eat as much high-fat meat as you wish.' There's only so much that anyone can ingest, so it works out to be 'moderation' without the conscious restriction, and all the dangers therein. Moderate meat eating for those who wish to consume thus, and probably for all diabetics, seems quite reasonable.

Lots of info out there on the benefits of high-fat eating, including existing in ketosis (very different from the ketoacidosis of out-of-control type 1 diabetes). Mary Enig has written a great deal; the Weston A. Price Foundation has info; and diabetics with good docs have probably been directed to Dr. Bernstein's program. There's certainly better info out there than the sold science of the USDA and Cornell University. (Who really paid for the study?) --diana

Diana,
Good for you! I too am weary of meat continually being villified. The vital, long lived, healthy people of the world (two key words there are VITAL and HEALTHY) eat between 50 and 80% animal products rich in saturated fats. They weren't ravaged by diabetes, cancer and heart disease; in fact, those words didn't exist in their vocabularies until the "wisdom" of westernized food consumption made them sick. Consider the Inuit, the Hunza and the Aborigines BEFORE the white man introduced their junk to them.

Humanely raised, sustainably farmed animals add back to the earth in the cycle of life. And, just how many small animals and bugs are scared witless then die horrible deaths when all those fields of soy (which, by the eay contain powerful estrogen-like compounds that throw the body's endocrine system out of whack. Unless it is unferemented, it can't be digested by people or animals. A single glass of soy milk contains phyto-estrogens equivelent to 5 birth control pills.) and corn are plowed under? How much fuel is consumed plowing those fields? I challenge everyone out there afraid of eating the very things required to rebuild the 2,000,000 cells that die each and every second in our bodies to read "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston A. Price. Mary Enig is a research scientist with a PhD who isn't seduced by what big food and pharma continues to sell us as "healthy" eating.

At 51, I am vital, fit and well. I eat between 3000 and 4000 calories every day of certified organic meat, raw dairy, lots of veggies, seasonal fruit, nuts, seeds and some sprouted grains. And no, I don't exercise hours each day either. Our societal wellness lies in the return to the traditional nutrition that got humans to this miniscule splash in time; that most certainly was not soy infused products and a proliferation of vegetable oils, grains, and artificial sweeteners that shut off the appestat. What animals and plants eat and are treated with, we eat.

"Vitality as you age is your birthright". That only comes from eating nutritionally dense food based on where your ancestors originally came from!

[courgette]

Like another poster, I voted for meat-eating being OK if it was raised humanely, etc., but would never eat it myself. I'm a longtime lacto-ovo vegetarian. Fat, veins and skin always gave me the creeps in my youth, and when I got to college, that was all they served as "meat," so I ate almost none for several years. After four years, I found I couldn't comfortably digest a big old steak any more, and simultaneously found that the idea of putting bites of a cadaver cow, pig, chicken, or whatever critter, gave me the creeps. I quite all red meat by 1980, chicken within a year or so. I continued to eat fish for several years, until I finally admitted to myself that I didn't especially care for it, and was eating it mainly for others' convenience. That was 1990, and I haven't had a burger, piece of bacon, or turkey sandwich since. The more I looked into the meat industry, too, the more horrifying it became, from an environmental angle; and the many terrifying stories about slaughterhouses (both the killing of the animals. and the maiming of so many immigrant workers) are so grisly that I can't imagine how anyone can EAT something that's a product of it!

My husband of 13 years, who's always been an enthusiastic eater of whatever I make, has been an omnivore; but when the Vick story broke this summer (the dog-fighting scandal), he came across some really hellish Youtube videos of people killing dogs for (gourmet!) food in Asia, and that did it for him. He's been experiencing life as a vegetarian since August.

[sylvan]

I am a vegetarian of 28 years, and wanted to be one as a child in an omnivore family. I am healthy, eat a well balanced diet that I do not supplement with vitamins, etc. I am active, in my forties and, though I do not judge people who like meat, I personally have a life long aversion to eating dead animals.


To the proportion of land use criteria, I would suggest a broader view on the topic: there was much more fertile arable land in this (and many other) countries before the wide spread grazing by animals raised for dairy and slaughter. On a related note, the beef industry has had a sad impact on our planetary ecosystem ~ to mention one: uncountable millions of acres of rainforest decimated on an ongoing basis for the purpose of grazing cattle.

If the underlying question is really sustainability of humans on this planet (as the thesis posits, what proportion of its residents a given state could it feed on vegetarian vs omnivore diet), we have much more to look at than *what* we eat. Namely how we produce what we eat, and the sustainability of these practices. (ie the practices of the industries we have created around our food supply.)
While I'm at it, (preaching to the choir (IMG:http://organicconsumers.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ) OCA is currently listing PRO-ORGANIC DRAFT FARM BILL as something worth signing asap as the bill will be looked at int the next few days...

[The Krust]

Diana,
Good for you! I too am weary of meat continually being villified. The vital, long lived, healthy people of the world (two key words there are VITAL and HEALTHY) eat between 50 and 80% animal products rich in saturated fats. They weren't ravaged by diabetes, cancer and heart disease; in fact, those words didn't exist in their vocabularies until the "wisdom" of westernized food consumption made them sick. Consider the Inuit, the Hunza and the Aborigines BEFORE the white man introduced their junk to them.

Humanely raised, sustainably farmed animals add back to the earth in the cycle of life. And, just how many small animals and bugs are scared witless then die horrible deaths when all those fields of soy (which, by the eay contain powerful estrogen-like compounds that throw the body's endocrine system out of whack. Unless it is unferemented, it can't be digested by people or animals. A single glass of soy milk contains phyto-estrogens equivelent to 5 birth control pills.) and corn are plowed under? How much fuel is consumed plowing those fields? I challenge everyone out there afraid of eating the very things required to rebuild the 2,000,000 cells that die each and every second in our bodies to read "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston A. Price. Mary Enig is a research scientist with a PhD who isn't seduced by what big food and pharma continues to sell us as "healthy" eating.

At 51, I am vital, fit and well. I eat between 3000 and 4000 calories every day of certified organic meat, raw dairy, lots of veggies, seasonal fruit, nuts, seeds and some sprouted grains. And no, I don't exercise hours each day either. Our societal wellness lies in the return to the traditional nutrition that got humans to this miniscule splash in time; that most certainly was not soy infused products and a proliferation of vegetable oils, grains, and artificial sweeteners that shut off the appestat. What animals and plants eat and are treated with, we eat.

"Vitality as you age is your birthright". That only comes from eating nutritionally dense food based on where your ancestors originally came from!

Thank you Nancy - your comment was very well put and I wholeheartedly agree. One thing I've discovered over the years is that some blood types do better with meat. As an 0, I was a vegetarian for 10 years and a vegan for about 3 of them. I ALWAYS craved meat (usually beef), but due to my strong animal rights beliefs I refrained. Now, after learning much more about health & nutrition, I eat beef almost on a daily basis. I am the healthiest I've ever been. I eat nearly 100% organic, lots of fruits and veggies, and very little processed foods. I personally think that individual bodies are different & it's up to the person to figure out what is good for them, but a lot can be said for looking at the evolution of humans as a race and what we've eaten over the years.

[missyjane]

I'm glad that the issue of eating animals has been raised on this forum. I just wish the options in the poll were more objective. I don't think humans were "meant" to do anything. I think we evolved to be able to eat meat because it was evolutionarily advantageous for us to have as many options as possible. But that doesn't mean that it's evolutionarily advantageous for us (Americans with choices) to do so now.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock industry is the number one use of land worldwide AND the number one cause of global warming. If we hadn't cleared so many trees for grazing and feed crops, we'd have 70% of the Amazon rainforest back...and a better ability to absorb carbon dioxide. It's not just about land, folks. It's about climate change. Methane is 23 times stronger than carbon dioxide in its global warming potential, and the livestock industry is the #1 cause of anthropogenic methane worldwide.

The good news is that methane cycles out of the atmosphere in 8-12 years, while it takes carbon dioxide over 100. The fewer cows = less methane = cooler planet VERY SOON = better world for everyone.

That's why I choose to be vegan. It feels really good to affirm life every day, three times a day.

[momof2]

I believe Weston A Price had it right. Good quality fats are so important for our health, especially pregnant, nursing mothers & their children. Our family strives for that ideal - however, organic, grass-fed, free-range meats are so expensive so we only have it twice a week. Wild Alaskan salmon the other days. At the very least, organic raw dairy.

[Bonita Poulin]

Yes, as long as you aren't allergic to it! I have MCS and used to be sensitive to Beef and Pork but NAET treatments eliminated those allergies. Now I eat only organic meats and lots of them. I have been on a strict Candidas diet for about a year and have lost 55 lbs. All I am allowed on this diet is meat, poultry, fish and veggies. No dairy, no fruits, no ugar or artificial sweeteners (stevia & zylitol only) no grains including rice and corn, no nuts or seeds, no tea (except herbal) or coffee. I am doing much better on this diet.

[diana]

So long as we are aware of (and accept consciously) the consequences of our choices, then we proceed honorably. I've said before, I was conscientious vegetarian through both my kids' pregnancies, and only when my body (or theirs) said I needed protein NOW, and eggs weren't enough, did I deviate. It came out to a couple of times for her, and a half-dozen for him. I still eat two veggie meals a day, sometimes, though not always, vegan. My meat meals tend to be the highest fat because that seems to work the best -- the more fat I eat, the more energy I have (given that I am a low-carb-intake diabetic).

I am glad no one went to an extreme on the vegan side of the issue. Some people can do vegan intake without health consequences, but diabetics cannot, and should not, or life expectancy is probably diminished (and hugely!). I am glad, IOW, that no one has listed diabetics as expendable! That's always my fear when it comes to sustainability discussions.

I think this is an incredible discussion, with a huge base of respect for all and immense awareness. Makes me really glad to be here!

Oh, and dearest InsideOut (with such fun posts), we each have a weight range that our bodies honor without hesitation (or defense). Mine is larger than most, maybe almost 60 pounds. Your forty-some isn't unusual. It depends on the carb factor, and circulating insulin, and on the exercise biz, and on the inflammation factor I would guess, as well -- some foods, like heavily-processed ones, will really make bodies swell. I know when I go back to low-carbing, even after having eaten really excellent whole grains made lovingly by hand, I lose a bit of water weight. On whole grains (best summer of my life, if not so great health-wise), my insulin level plus insulin resistance went up hugely. <sigh> I so wanted to be able to eat that way. Apparently my Inuit ancestors didn't eat a lot of grain ... who'd've thought?

Hey, InsideOut, I'm also thrilled you still feel newly-wed! How wonderful! --diana

[Roger108]

So far no one here has mentioned the fact that before a person eats an animal, the animal is killed. And because animals are actually aware of what's going to happen to them, they secret adrenalin and several other chemicals that have a very negative effect on the humans who consume them.

When you opt for meat, you are opting for early heart Disease, Stroke, Cancer, Osteoporisis, Kidney Disease, Diabetes, and other degenerative diseases.

So eating impacts the environment and everything in it, namely us. This is not rocket science or new age hoopla. These are the facts and they are backed by modern research and by the world's oldest tradition of knowledge, the Vedas of India.

If we want to live long and happy lives, we just have to let the animals live long and happy lives. It's Nature's law, not mine.

Thank you.

P.S. Most vegetarians, including myself eat diary products and one good reason for this is that dairy supplies the type of B12 that is necessary for the brain. Vegetable sourced B12 does not. Of course you want to get your dairy from organic cows. Commercial herds do not yield safe milk as the cows are subjected to drugs, hormones, and GE feed.

[Dan Peper]

This week's topic rotates around the debate of meat eating. Is it okay to eat meat? A new study out of Cornell has reopened the debate as it suggests it's actually a more efficient way to raise food, if you eat modest levels of animal products. What's your opinion? We have pasted the Cornell article below for you to read more. Please share your thoughts with us by replying here. On this week's topic, we have also posted a poll to find out how many of our readers are vegetarians, how many are omnivores, and how many are carnivores. What do you eat? Please scroll down to take the "Is it okay to eat meat" poll and share your thoughts on the issue.
New Study Reopens Debate: Are Omnivores Better for the Environment Than Vegetarians?

* By Susan Lang
Cornell Chronicle, 10/4/2007
Straight to the Source (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7575.cfm)

A low-fat vegetarian diet is very efficient in terms of how much land is needed to support it. But adding some dairy products and a limited amount of meat may actually increase this efficiency, Cornell researchers suggest.

This deduction stems from the findings of their new study, which concludes that if everyone in New York state followed a low-fat vegetarian diet, the state could directly support almost 50 percent more people, or about 32 percent of its population, agriculturally. With today's high-meat, high-dairy diet, the state is able to support directly only 22 percent of its population, say the researchers.

The study, published in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, is the first to examine the land requirements of complete diets. The researchers compared 42 diets with the same number of calories and a core of grains, fruits, vegetables and dairy products (using only foods that can be produced in New York state), but with varying amounts of meat (from none to 13.4 ounces daily) and fat (from 20 to 45 percent of calories) to determine each diet's "agricultural land footprint."

They found a fivefold difference between the two extremes.

"A person following a low-fat vegetarian diet, for example, will need less than half (0.44) an acre per person per year to produce their food," said Christian Peters, M.S. '02, Ph.D. '07, a Cornell postdoctoral associate in crop and soil sciences and lead author of the research. "A high-fat diet with a lot of meat, on the other hand, needs 2.11 acres."

"Surprisingly, however, a vegetarian diet is not necessarily the most efficient in terms of land use," said Peters.

The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland, he explained. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay. A large pool of such land is available in New York state because for sustainable use, most farmland requires a crop rotation with such perennial crops as pasture and hay.

Thus, although vegetarian diets in New York state may require less land per person, they use more high-valued land. "It appears that while meat increases land-use requirements, diets including modest amounts of meat can feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian diets," said Peters.

"The key to conserving land and other resources with our diets is to limit the amount of meat we eat and for farmers to rely more on grazing and forages to feed their livestock," said Jennifer Wilkins, senior extension associate in nutritional sciences who specializes in the connection between local food systems and health and co-authored the study with Gary Fick, Cornell professor of crop and soil sciences. "Consumers need to be aware that foods differ not only in their nutrient content but in the amount of resources required to produce, process, package and transport them."

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American ate approximately 5.8 ounces of meat and eggs a day in 2005.

"In order to reach the efficiency in land use of moderate-fat, vegetarian diets, our study suggests that New Yorkers would need to limit their annual meat and egg intake to about 2 cooked ounces a day," Peters said.

The research was supported in part by the National Research Initiative of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.

[Abby Eagle]

This week's topic rotates around the debate of meat eating. Is it okay to eat meat? A new study out of Cornell has reopened the debate as it suggests it's actually a more efficient way to raise food, if you eat modest levels of animal products. What's your opinion? We have pasted the Cornell article below for you to read more. Please share your thoughts with us by replying here. On this week's topic, we have also posted a poll to find out how many of our readers are vegetarians, how many are omnivores, and how many are carnivores. What do you eat? Please scroll down to take the "Is it okay to eat meat" poll and share your thoughts on the issue.
New Study Reopens Debate: Are Omnivores Better for the Environment Than Vegetarians?

* By Susan Lang
Cornell Chronicle, 10/4/2007
Straight to the Source (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7575.cfm)

A low-fat vegetarian diet is very efficient in terms of how much land is needed to support it. But adding some dairy products and a limited amount of meat may actually increase this efficiency, Cornell researchers suggest.

This deduction stems from the findings of their new study, which concludes that if everyone in New York state followed a low-fat vegetarian diet, the state could directly support almost 50 percent more people, or about 32 percent of its population, agriculturally. With today's high-meat, high-dairy diet, the state is able to support directly only 22 percent of its population, say the researchers.

The study, published in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, is the first to examine the land requirements of complete diets. The researchers compared 42 diets with the same number of calories and a core of grains, fruits, vegetables and dairy products (using only foods that can be produced in New York state), but with varying amounts of meat (from none to 13.4 ounces daily) and fat (from 20 to 45 percent of calories) to determine each diet's "agricultural land footprint."

They found a fivefold difference between the two extremes.

"A person following a low-fat vegetarian diet, for example, will need less than half (0.44) an acre per person per year to produce their food," said Christian Peters, M.S. '02, Ph.D. '07, a Cornell postdoctoral associate in crop and soil sciences and lead author of the research. "A high-fat diet with a lot of meat, on the other hand, needs 2.11 acres."

"Surprisingly, however, a vegetarian diet is not necessarily the most efficient in terms of land use," said Peters.

The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland, he explained. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay. A large pool of such land is available in New York state because for sustainable use, most farmland requires a crop rotation with such perennial crops as pasture and hay.

Thus, although vegetarian diets in New York state may require less land per person, they use more high-valued land. "It appears that while meat increases land-use requirements, diets including modest amounts of meat can feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian diets," said Peters.

"The key to conserving land and other resources with our diets is to limit the amount of meat we eat and for farmers to rely more on grazing and forages to feed their livestock," said Jennifer Wilkins, senior extension associate in nutritional sciences who specializes in the connection between local food systems and health and co-authored the study with Gary Fick, Cornell professor of crop and soil sciences. "Consumers need to be aware that foods differ not only in their nutrient content but in the amount of resources required to produce, process, package and transport them."

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American ate approximately 5.8 ounces of meat and eggs a day in 2005.

"In order to reach the efficiency in land use of moderate-fat, vegetarian diets, our study suggests that New Yorkers would need to limit their annual meat and egg intake to about 2 cooked ounces a day," Peters said.

The research was supported in part by the National Research Initiative of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.

[Abby Eagle]

Hi, There is an article in Wise Traditions of the weston a price foundation written by sally fallon which shows that one of the most efficient uses of good quality farming land is to run a dairy herd, pigs, chickens, veggies, fruit, nuts etc. Poor quality soil can be used for grazing beef. I became very ill on a vegetarian vegan diet and have to eat meat to be healthy. Low fat diets are a real problem for many people. I think the real problem is not meat versus vegan but too many people who eat too many calories. This needs to be addressed.

BTW if you have any recipes that you would like to share feel free to post them at http://www.rejoiceinlife.com

Kind regards Abby