A talk by Robert Fraser, President of the Vegetarian Society of Western
Australia and IVU Regional Secretary for Australasia
When I was first invited to address this Congress, my initial thought was "Why
me - what could I possibly say that anyone at this Congress would be interested
in?". But as I am part of a panel discussing the environment, I decided
to talk about the vegetarian aspects of this topic from an Australian perspective.
My original professional training was in Chemistry, and I was interested in
the problems of environmental pollution and the chemistry of it long before
I thought of becoming a vegetarian. I feel that this is the part of the vegetarian
argument that gets less than it's fair share of publicity.
Before I start, I should make clear to you that I am not Australian by birth
and a relatively recent convert to the vegetarian lifestyle. So who am I to
address you on this subject? What I have to say is my own opinion, with material
and research provided by people who are qualified to know.
Like most "developed" countries, Australia has an active conservation
and environmental movement, ranging from relatively well-known nation-wide organisations
to smaller more local groups. We also have political movements that include
the environment in their policies. They all have their particular objectives;
be they the global problems caused by the Greenhouse effect and the depletion
of the ozone layer, or campaigns against uranium mining, logging or the destruction
of native bushland. But as far as I am aware, very few of them specifically
advocate the vegetarian option as an approach to the environmental movement.
Some conservationists like to point fingers at other people: large corporations
for creating pollution and toxic waste, feral cats for killing native animals,
rabbits and other introduced species for their parts in destruction of natural
ecologies, or mining companies for habitat destruction.
All too often - in fact I would suggest, most of the time - activists and supporters
of these movements continue to eat a traditional Australian meat centred diet,
without considering its environmental cost. So if we really want to minimise
our harmful impact on the ecosystem, we must critically examine our daily behaviours
-- and no behaviour is more important than what we eat.
Before I continue, I'd like to spend a few minutes in setting the scene. Australia
is a large island continent. Its climates range from cool and temperate in the
south, to warm and tropical in the north, with considerable arid regions and
desert in between. Australia is known as the driest of all the continents, with
the result that some of its ecologies are very delicate. Nevertheless, the continent
contains a vast animal population consisting of both introduced species and
native species.
The best-known of the native species is probably the kangaroo. When Europeans
arrived in Australia, there were 48 different species of kangaroo. It's our
national symbol; it's featured on the Australian coat of arms. Yet many Australians
happily eat kangaroos. This has, sadly, almost been elevated to a patriotic
act.
The arguments put forward are that kangaroos are plentiful; and that if we didn't
eat them, they would over-run the country and destroy farmers' crops. These
are old arguments, and applicable not only to this Australian situation. Unfortunately,
under this principle, kangaroos, and other animals, are regarded as tourist
attractions, often as pests, but always as resources. If you can make profit
out of them, fine.
Recently, movements have been started in Australia to exploit other native animals
- such as the emu. The emu is another national symbol which appears on the Australian
coat of arms along with the kangaroo. Emus are large flightless birds, and are
being promoted as healthy food, because the meat is considered to be low in
cholesterol, and they are being sold in so-called gourmet restaurants. And even
camels are being killed for food. Camels were introduced to Australia in the
last century as pack animals, but they escaped into the wild, and now roam the
open spaces, mainly in the north of Australia. Most of the introduced species
- sheep, cattle, horses, donkeys, camels - are hoofed animals which are not
suited to the delicate, dry natural countryside in the same way as the native,
soft-footed animals. They trample and churn up the soil and contribute greatly
to the destruction of the fragile environment.
It isn't my intention to pitch large quantities of statistics at you, but let's
just look at a few that relate specifically to Australia. Australia has an area
of nearly 7.7 million square kilometres. Incidentally, this is about the same
size as the USA. So please don't write off Australia as just a little island
somewhere at the bottom of the world. According to the 1996 Year Book of Australia,
approximately 60% of this land is listed as agricultural", but only 4%
of this is cropped, growing everything from garlic to potatoes and wheat. Almost
1/2 of our crop land is devoted to wheat, and about 90% of that wheat is exported.
So what about the remainder of the 60% of Australia used for agriculture? It
comprises sown pastures or rangeland. We export about half of the animal products
we produce. In round figures, meat eating requires that about 30% of Australia
be used for grazing -- either of natural or sown pastures. If the whole of the
Australian population were vegetarian, then less than 1% of land would need
to be cropped.
Australia was originally populated by various tribes who were collectively known
to European settlers as "Aborigines". Aborigines had inhabited Australia
for perhaps fifty thousand years, and were intimately bound to the land by spiritual
ties, with a great awareness of plant and animal life cycles. The land provided
them with everything they needed for a healthy life. They were nomadic and learned
to manage their country in such ways that its resources renewed themselves and
were not used up.
Aborigines were generally not vegetarians; they speared kangaroos and caught
fish or dug in the mud for crabs. They killed just what they needed, unlike
the "mass murder" practices of the more recent white settler. But
a large proportion of their diet included naturally occurring fruits and plants,
most of which are even today unknown to the average white Australian. At least
half of the food eaten by Aborigines came from plants; root vegetables, greens,
fruits and seeds. These foods were only available during their appropriate seasons,
but roots could usually be dug up all the year round, because the earth acted
as a natural storage cupboard. Important foods were replanted.
The regular digging-over of the soil, and the thinning out of clumps by collection
of plants, together with burning to provide fertiliser, is not very different
from what we do in our own gardens, and the whole country was in a way a sacred
Aboriginal garden.
Even in the dry arid zones of Australia, such plants were there for the finding.
Nuts, seeds, fruits, tubers; they were all there for the taking, and the natives
had great respect for their land and it's bounty. Sadly, reports by the Australian
Medical Association have shown that people in remote Aboriginal communities
are forsaking traditional foods in favour of fast food, promoted through slick
marketing campaigns. Soft drinks, fish and chips, pies and hamburgers are taking
the place of hunting and gathering.
Australia was settled, or invaded, according to your point of view, by Europeans
only about 200 years ago, and it didn't take them long to clear-fell large tracts
of bushland, annihilating many native animal and plant species, and to import
cattle and sheep. Originally these sheep and cattle were "free range".
As settlement spread across eastern Australia after 1830, sheep numbers increased
to in excess of 100 million in 1890, a size never again attained. A prolonged
dry period from 1895 and a slump in the wool price led to the subsequent drop
to less than 50 million sheep by 1903.
The sheep population behaved like any other herbivore occupying an empty but
favourable niche. Under these circumstances, growth of the invading sheep population
overshoots the resources, leading to a population crash with severe consequences
for the native vegetation and the native animals who depend on it to survive.
In fact, some 190 million hectares of Australian land is considered to be vegetationally
degraded, largely due to sheep and cattle grazing in arid lands that were never
intended for small footed European animals.
The growth of the sheep population in Australia was aided by the wholesale conversion
of the savanna woodland to pasture. But as the sheep population continued to
rise, the palatable grasses were eaten down and unpalatable woody shrubs and
young trees increased. This sequence of ecological change had profound long-term
effects on the land. The overgrazing of sheep 100 years ago is still affecting
plant regeneration today. Habitat alteration was also the main driver of the
extinction of small marsupials in the grasslands and dry woodlands. Large tracts
of land have been rendered almost useless due to salt contamination.
It seems likely that these profound changes also allowed the spread of the rabbit
(a species introduced for the sport of hunting as well as for food) across Australia
between 1870 and 1'0. If so, the rabbit was part of the response to, rather
than the cause of, the decline in productivity. One can still see sheep and
cattle grazing in paddocks around the country, but intensive animal production
is taking over. It is already the norm for pigs and chickens.
The figures on the massive waste of the world's food resources - land, water,
energy - from feedlotting animals are well known, and I don't intend to labour
the point. I first came across these statistics several years ago whilst reading
Jon Wynne-Tyson's book "Food for a Future", and they'd been around
for a while then.
If you want to find the major culprits who are helping to degrade the Australian
environment, just go to your local supermarket and look at the people buying
beef and lamb. People who want meat and who want it as cheaply as possible,
are the true and unwitting cause of environmental degradation.
What is the population of Australia? What should the population of Australia
be? What population can the unique Australian environment sustain? At the 1996
ANZAAS conference, prominent scientists argued that Australia's current human
population of about 15 million was already consuming nearly all available resources.
They predicted an inevitable drop in living standards as an increasing population
competed for decreasing resources. Personally, I think that less meat is an
increase in living standards, but their message is clear. It is the same message
that has been heard around the world for quite some time. The world is overpopulated
and the environmental tensions are well and truly evident. They are evident
in fisheries disputes and in genocides, in water disputes, in mass refugee movements.
It's easy in Australia to turn a blind eye to the symptoms of world overpopulation
which are daily apparent. But they are there. Obviously, changes must be made,
and a move to vegetarianism is one effective change
Australia's 26 million cattle and 120 million sheep represent a massive environmental
burden on the country. They also outnumber humans by about 16:1, compared to
about 5:1 in most other countries. In Australia, the cattle population peaked
in 1976 at 33.4 million. Drought in the early 1980's reduced the population
but it has been growing steadily again since 1989 to its current level. It is
clear that the sheep and cattle industries in Australia are becoming an environmental
disaster.
And so is the pig farming industry, which currently has some 2.7 million pigs.
They produce about 14,000 tons of mature daily. And this is relatively small
scale stuff, compared to other countries. In Holland in the late 1980s, it was
calculated that intensive animal industries were producing 94 million tonnes
of manure per year, but could only safely use 50 million of it as fertiliser.
And just one State of North America, North Carolina, has a pig population of
10 million hogs, producing 19 million tons of waste every year. That's 52,000
tons daily that must be recycled or disposed of.
I'd like to give one factual example of the way the pig industry directly impacts
on the environment. Not far from Perth, where I live, an inland waterway that
drains out into the Indian Ocean, was recently declared an environmental disaster
area. It's known as the Peel-Harvey Inlet, and it had a major algal bloom problem.
Algal bloom results from over-rich organic nutrients ending up in the river
system.
The Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary and nearby lakes are so important that in
1990 they were listed as Wetlands of World Importance. Almost a century ago
local people warned that potentially damaging changes were occurring in the
largest estuary on Australia's western coast as a result of changing human activity.
About 20 years ago, 150,000 birds were recorded using these wetlands. The se
included 67 different species of ducks, swans, waders and other birds. It is
a very important resting place for many of these, as they migrate long distances
around the world. These waters also have a large number of fish, crabs and prawns.
By the early 1980s scientists were describing the Peel-Harvey as almost biologically
barren. Why? The rural land to the east of this area has many dairy farms and
piggeries. The concentration of people91s activities, especially dairy and pig
farming, has caused a build up of nutrients in the wetlands. Several agricultural
drains enter the water bodies, so that animal waste products drain into the
water. The water in this wetland system was naturally flushed through the narrow
estuary, but silt frequently clogged it, and the nutrients (especially phosphates)
increased, causing a change in the balance of living things in the water.
Nitrogen and phosphorus serve as fertilizers but, in excess quantities, can
pollute water and air. When nitrogen and phosphorus get in the wrong place at
high concentrations, they stimulate algal growth which leads to "low dissolved
oxygen levels" (i.e., robs the water of oxygen). Low dissolved oxygen can
kill fish and other aquatic life. The main organisms to benefit were the algae,
and especially the poisonous blue-green algae known as Nodularia. Very large
blooms of algae have increased over the last 25 years. These cause several problems.
As the massive amount of algae decays, it uses most of the oxygen from the sediments.
This starves many of the other plants and animals and upsets the normal food
chain. The Nodularia is a health hazard for human beings, as they work or play
on the water, causing severe rashes or worse. Other animals also can be badly
affected.
The answers to the problem of algal blooms are those which stop the nutrients
from getting into the water in the first place, and those which help flush the
nutrients from the system. A vegetarian would argue that the former approach
to the problem; that is, to stop the source of the pollution, is preferable.
But the local farmers claimed that they could not easily reduce the materials
that cause the problems.
So the government of Western Australia adopted the second approach to the problem.
Most effort has gone into improving the flushing of the wetlands.
A channel, known locally as the "Dawesville Cut", was built, and opened
in January 1995. The Dawesville Cut is a canal which was dug through the land
so as to provide a direct link between the inland lagoon and the ocean. It is
between 130 and 200 metres wide, 2.5km long and varies in depth from 4.5 to
6.5 metres. It extends some way into the ocean and follows an old (thousands
of years) river path to the sea.
Since the channel has been opened, the tidal level in the estuary now rises
and falls about three or four times as much. It now takes about 50% less time
for the estuary to flush. Time will tell whether this solution is sufficient
and appropriate for the future of the Peel-Harvey estuarine wetlands.
As far as I am aware, the runoff from the local piggeries and dairies has not
ceased. The present government is anxious to avoid opposition from the farmers,
which have a powerful lobby in Australia, as no doubt elsewhere.
As recently as a few weeks ago, the State Minister for Water Resources released
the results of a major study into the ecology of the area. This report concluded
that amongst the effects of the project, fish populations had increased, the
algae were no longer to be found in the waters and tidal flushing had improved.
However, negative effects have also occurred. Populations of mosquitoes have
increased, which is being countered by spraying. Also, bird habitats have been
affected, especially pelicans and black swans, which are WA's emblem. One effect
already in evidence, is that the increased water movement is causing the small
fishlife to be flushed out into the ocean, and this, together with the increased
boat usage and tourist industry, is causing the local birdlife to move elsewhere
for their quiet retreats.
Groundwater can also become polluted from over-use of fertilizer to grow crops.
One recent water quality publication has commented on the massive number of
fertiliser trials around Australia demonstrating improved yields from fertiliser,
but the trials don't measure or mention the pollution problems. My interpretation
is simple. The pig farmers (and feedlotters generally) are working hard to build
a market for their waste, possibly without adequate safety testing. This is
normal. Their prime product -- meat -- is a health hazard when taken in typical
doses. Their secondary product -- waste -- will be likewise.
As a summary, I'd just like to mention a concept known as "Local Agenda
21". My wife, Gina, who is a town planner in local government, brought
this to my attention only recently, in fact just a few days before we left Perth
to attend the Congress. It's a process that aims to involve local people and
communities in a way of life that can protect the quality of life for future
generations. It originates from the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janiero in 19'
which led to the agreement of an Agenda 21 document detailing a series of strategies
for action worldwide. The process aims to integrate the social, environmental
and economic aspects of development in order that all future development is
sustainable at a local government level, and requires all of us to consider
the effects - on the local economy, the local environment and the local community
- of every policy and project and then to seek a solution that achieves a realistic
balance. Perhaps this might be a future aim of the IVU and it's member societies
to encourage our local governments to consider the effects on the environment
of the meat industries they generally encourage in the name of employment and
industry promotion.