iamgeekfit

It seems an awful lot of them have been eating GM'd AND non-GM'd soybeans alike grown where once old growth brazilian rain forest existed. This state of affairs is problematic for a number of reasons, but one of them at least is that the cost of that burger, stake or sausage may be significantly higher and have more global consequences than that with which a reasonable person may reasonably be expected to cope.

And yet we have so much choice in our affluence as a nation: once we're informed about problems, we have a capacity to chose. Less meat, less meat frequency; and if it is consumed, get local. Local raised, transported and now, FED with LOCALLY grown FEED. One might smile knowingly and say Ah but in the UK major grocery merchants have cut out GM feed from their products. Uh huh, we'll leave the current issue du gare of contamination between gmo and non-gmo crops aside for the moment. That still leaves soybeans that aren't GM'd - and where do they come from? Brazil. Who's the biggest importer of brazilian soybeans for livestock feed? the EU.

Once upon a time, McDonalds was chided because it was supposedly buying beef from cattle grazed on what was once old growth brazilian rain forest. As recently as 2005, the EU was importing this beef out of fear of mad cow disease. Market forces. Those forces turned ugly, turning the poorer people on that land (aka "peasants") off it by force so it could be given over to the more cost-effective cattle. When a nun was killed protesting these actions, public sentiment started to turn against government sanctioned practice. The obligatory "conservation" areas were set up.

It's tragically ironic that while EU beef products are largely back on the table, what feeds them is still more of the rainforest: soybeans grown on oldgrowth land. The UK is part of the EU, and UK cattle do chow down on non-GMO brazilian rain forest soybeans.

Large international feed companies like Carghill are now involved in efforts to work with Brazilian farmers and government on rainforest reforestation projects as many illegal soybean farms turn "legal" - and companies like cargill (though they aren't the only companies in the region) are buying less soy from the region because it is not in compliance with new "Forest friendly" regulations about soy production.

The question UK consumers - like you reading this - can start asking when going up to the butcher's shelf in the grocery is "what's the source of feed for the chickens here? for the cows?" and if they say soybeans, "are the sources certified as "forest friendly"

Now if you're a meat eater, you may want to ask yourself how great an idea is even forest friendly soybean feed? First there's the questionable practice of "reforestation" - i admit i haven't investigated what that means in the Amazon, but back home in canada, it meant monoculture: planting a single type of tree in straight rows in order to be harvested later again. That's not a forest; that's a farm.

Second, let's look at the cost of shipping that feed in for EU cattle. Food is grown in one country half way around the world; that heavy produce is then put into various transports and shipped non-stop across the planet to feed EU livestock (livestock. what a word). Transportation costs alone in terms of fuel are non-trivial. Add that to the energy cost of raising animals for food, and ya have to ask what fast food joints are doing to the food to make it profitable.

and THIRD - what is perhaps the most ironic point - may be in the following basic question (maybe it's not basic if you haven't spent any of your life around a farm or farm animals) Why does food need to be shipped in for cattle in the first place? if there's not enough room to graze the cattle, where are the cattle being kept? In little boxes? YES. Standing still in stalls. And that's OK? How artificial is that?

ALL this - ALL this grief death and destruction (no exaggeration that, eh?) for what? the fast food burger or nugget we grab and consume without thinking (and then feel like crap five minutes later); the cheap cut of meat whose source or provenance is not posted or queried? and this is good? this is something educated persons can rationalize as fine, if not good?

And before anyone pulls out "but i'm a student; i can only afford the cheap meat" there are alternatives, including "eat less; eat local" That also means avoiding the fast food lunch with chicken or meat from unknown sources. Go ahead: next time you pop into your fave food shop, ask where they get their chicken or beef.

That is, if we want to keep eating meat, we can eat less of it. That's the advice of economist Rajendra Pachauri offers in an arrgument that explains how this action alone will have significant benefits for the environment, too.

And when we do eat mean, we can ensure its local, its pastures are local - that it has pastures, and that it has some level of care that we would take pride in being scrutinized by the world (growing no. of uk examples, like "happy meats" (!)). If we start seeing meat as the high cost luxury good it is, we might value it a bit more, too.

Or we can just stop eating meat.

Lots of choices. One step at a time.