Ururú, one of just six of the remaining Amazonian Akuntsu tribe, died 1 October 2009. Now just five remain and since they are all either closely related or past reproductive age, the end of this tribe is inevitable.

This week the Independent reported that the fate of Akuntsu tribe “represents the long-planned realisation of one of the most successful acts of genocide in human history”. For years the tribe lived peacefully and sustainably deep in the rainforest in Brazil, but then in the 1980s soy plantations and cattle ranches took over the region; this was the beginning of the end for the Akuntsus.

Fiercely industrious, the new migrant workers knew that one thing might prevent them from creating profitable homesteads from the rainforest: the discovery of uncontacted tribes, whose land is protected from development under the Brazilian constitution.

As a result, frontiersmen who first came across the Akuntsu in the mid-1980s made a simple calculation. The only way to prevent the government finding out about this indigenous community was to wipe them off the map.

At some point, believed to be around 1990, scores of Akuntsu were massacred at a site roughly five hours’ drive from the town of Vilhena. Only seven members of the tribe escaped, retreating deeper into the wilderness to survive.

Cattle ranching is the main cause of deforestation in the Amazon; soy plantations, which predominantly provide feed for animals in the West, are close behind. Corporations behind these industries don’t care about the rights of indigenous people, they only care about the money. People are forcibly removed from their ancestral lands and poisoned by pesticides from soy plantations; their lives ruined. But whilst we continue to buy cheap meat in vast quantities, the soy and meat industries will do whatever they need to do to provide it for us. Protect the rights of indigenous people, challenge governments and corporations, but don’t forget to take personal responsibility too.

Read the full Independent article here: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/decline-of-a-tribe-and-then-there-were-five-1801795.html

Congratulations to Greenpeace, their report, Slaughtering the Amazon, which highlights the fact that cattle ranching is the major cause of deforestation in the Amazon, has prompted Brazil’s top three retail groups to ban the purchase of beef originating in deforested areas of the Amazon.

Greenpeace: Destruction of the Amazon, the world’s most important forest carbon store, is being driven by the cattle sector. The Brazilian Amazon has the greatest annual average deforestation by area of anywhere in the world. The cattle sector is the key driver of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. According to the Brazilian government: ‘Cattle are responsible for about 80% of all deforestation’ in the Amazon region. In recent years, on average one hectare of Amazon rainforest has been lost to cattle ranchers every 18 seconds.

In reaction to this, retailers CBD, Wal-Mart and Carrefour have pledged to ban beef purchased from farms accused of deforestation. Of course, while there is still demand for beef, and as consumption grows, the farmers will have to increase their land area and this will no doubt impact the Amazon.

Also this week, a study published in Science confirmed what we all know already; that slashing and burning the forest to produce soy and cattle doesn’t help anyone but big business. The Guardian reports that “Chopping down the Amazon rainforest to make way for crops or cattle has no economic or social benefit for local people in the long term. Conservationists showed communities develop rapidly but temporarily when forests are cleared. But rates of development quickly fall back below national average levels when the loggers move on and local resources near depletion.”
Read the article here.

Ugandan livestock farmers, concentrated along ‘the cattle corridor’ which runs southwest to northeast across Uganda, are already in conflict due to water scarcity and this will be exacerbated by increased demand and climate change. Oxfam’s recent report ‘Climate Change and Poverty in Uganda’ reveals that:-

“People in Uganda, whose contribution to global warming has been minuscule, are feeling the impacts of climate change first and worst. On the one hand there is more erratic rainfall in the March to June rainy season, bringing drought and reductions in crop yields and plant varieties; on the other hand, the rainfall, especially in the later rains towards the end of the year, is reported as coming in downpours that are more intense and destructive, bringing floods, landslides, and soil erosion”.

Livestock farmers are already being forced to move their animals great distances to find pasture and water, increasing the conflict between them as they encroach on to each others territories.

Renowned British environmentalist Norman Myers coined the phrase ‘the hamburger connection’ in the 1980s to describe how the rapid growth in beef exports in Central America to fast food chains is the US was driving deforestation. Since then we have seen massive destruction of the Amazon for cattle ranching and now the largest meat producer in the world, Tyson, has ambitious plans to enter countries such as Brazil, China and India to introduce and profit from the industrialistion of meat production in those countries.

There is no question that Uganda needs to overcome poverty, but developing a meat export market is not the answer. We have already seen the result of meat exportation in Brazil and other developing countries which has only resulted in further environmental destruction, conflict, poverty and hunger. Forty per cent of children’s deaths in Uganda are caused by malnutrition; they need the resources to feed their own people, not to fulfil the desire for meat in rich nations. If Norway really wanted to make a difference to people in Uganda, and didn’t actually have an alterior motive, that’s what they’d help them to do.

The International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture have just released their ‘Manifesto on Climate Change and the Future of Food Security‘.

In the report, the impacts of growing animal feeds on the environment are explained:-

“Export-oriented countries such as Argentina and Brazil export millions of tons of GM soybean cultivated under monocultures to Europe to feed intensively reared and highly subsidized animals. This contributes to soil erosion and social desertification of the countryside and allows the maintenance of a highly unhealthy and energy-inefficient meat-based diet”.

The report also covers the combined impact of animal feeds and agrofuels on the Amazon:-

“In Brazil, vast swathes of the Amazon forest have already been cleared for soybean cultivation for cattlefeed. Encouraging soybean biodiesel would bring further devastation to the Amazon… Also, as farmers in the U.S. have switched from planting soy to planting corn, Brazil is trying to make up this difference in soy production and it is doing this by clearing more of the Amazon”.

And livestock’s impact on climate change:-

“Industrial agriculture contributes directly to climate change through emissions of the major greenhouse gases - Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)… Methane and nitrous oxide are particularly powerful contributors to climate change as the global warming potential of methane is 21 times, and of nitrous oxide 310 times, that of CO2. Since 1970 the emission of these greenhouse gases has increased by 40 percent and 50 percent respectively… In particular ruminants produce methane via enteric fermentation which increases when cattle are fed intensive feed. At 32 percent this is the second largest source of emissions [from agriculture]“.

The report goes on to explain how diets are changing and what this means for our health:-

“The nutritional transition based on meat, dairy and fats increase the incidence of food related diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and strokes. As the South adopts more western-style diets, such diseases are on the rise”.

This report, and the many others which have highlighted the impact of the modern meat and dairy industry - from deforestation, climate change, food security and health - makes it abundantly clear that our chances of creating a healthy and sustainable future are minimal so long as this industry continues.

Contributors to the report included many pro-vegetarian experts such as world-renowned scientist and environmentalist Dr. Vandana Shiva; Frances Moore Lappe, author of Diet for a Small Planet; Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy, Institute of Health Science and government advisor and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party.

The World Bank has lent $90 million to Bertin Ltda, Brazil’s second-largest beef processors.

According to Mario Menezes, of Amigos da Terra, Brazil looses 1.8 million hectares of Amazon forest every year, and around 70 and 80 per cent is because of cattle ranching. Brazil already exports 300,000 tonnes of beef per year (41% of which from the Amazon) which is more than any other country.  This injection of cash in to the cattle industry will create further destruction.

The Amazon is home to 75 million cows and Bertin Ltda slaughters up to 5,400 cows a day. However, with the use of this loan and others, they aim to double their capacity, which includes expanding their facility in the heart of the most deforested area of the Amazon. By expanding this slaughter house, they will, without question, encourage farmers to clear more forest to raise more cattle. Much of the land in that area is illegally cleared.

The Amazon rainforest is home to a fifth of the world’s plant and animal species and more than 200 indigenous cultures. As the forest is destroyed, we lose hundreds of species each year, indigenous people are forced off their land, the impacts of poverty is exacerbated, and carbon is being released in to the atmostphere - a major contributer to climate change. We are loosing the ‘lungs of the earth’ and we will all suffer as a consequence.

Brazil’s biggest importers of beef include the UK.  And remember, one of the other main drivers of Amazon destruction is soy, 90% of which is fed to animals raised for meat in Europe and China.

Be part of the solution. Stop eating meat and dairy, and ask others to do the same. In the grand scheme of things, it’s really not so much to ask.

The Metro published a piece yesterday about meat consumption and it’s environmental impacts. Sadly, the article missed a few important points and came to entirely the wrong conclusion!

In the article, Lawrence Alderson of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust made the arguement that ‘the IPCC is discussing places such as Brazil, which doesn’t apply to Britain very well.’ Richard Perkins, of the World Wide Fund for Nature, implied that forest clearing for livestock grazing is responsible for much of the sector’s impact on the environment. However, they both miss a vital point – cattle grazing is not the only cause of forest destruction.

Brazil in the world’s largest exporter of soy; producing 62.4 million tonnes a year using 21.2 million hectares of land (1). It is widely recognised that soy production in Latin America is fuelling forest destruction and the cause of abhorrent human rights abuses. Before anyone starts pointing their fingers at tofu burgers; take note of this startling fact – only 9% of global soy is eaten directly by people, the rest is fed to animals raised for meat and dairy (2). The UK imported 1.9 million tonnes of soy in 2004 (imagine the food miles!), over half of which is genetically modified (3). Genetically modified crops are yet to be proven as safe for consumption and have been linked to life-threatening health impacts as well as disastrous environmental consequences.

The article concludes that we should all buy ‘quality British stuff, particularly rare breeds’. This is totally impossible based on our current consumption of meat. The average Brit consumes 8 cows, 36 sheep, 36 pigs and 550 poultry birds in their lifetime (4). That means our meat habit results in the slaughter of 6,965,018 cows, 31,342,583 sheep, 31,342,583 pigs and 478,845,022 chickens every year. Where is there room for all these animals in Britain? Considering we currently import around 40% of our food (5), how can it be feasible to meet the demands of our current meat consumption by buying only British meat, let alone rare breeds?

And can someone please explain how killing our rare breeds in the name of conservation is not a total oxymoron?

We need to face facts. Meat consumption is bad for the environment and simply not sustainable. Switching to a vegetarian diet reduces our emissions by 50% and going vegan results in a reduction of a whopping 87% (6). Not only that, if we were all to become vegan we would require only 3m hectares of arable land - half the current amount of land we use for food production (5), thus making it far more feasible for Britain to sustain itself. If that’s not enough, if we all became vegan, the 760 million tonnes of grains we feed to animals globally every year could be fed to the 820 million starving people in the world. 760m tonnes would cover the global food shortage 14 times over (7).

The only ethical choice is to go vegan. And if you can’t quite manage that, take a step in the right direction by cutting out meat and dairy one day a week and build from there.

—

(1) Crop Tour “Rally da Safra” 2008. Agroconsult 2008.
(2) Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to save civilization. 2008. Earth Policy Institute http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm
(3) Genetically Modified Animal Feed. 2006. Friends of the Earth. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gm_animal_feeds.pdf
(4) Meat by numbers, Observer 7 September 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.beef
(5) Can Britain feed itself, The Land. Winter 2007/2008
(6) Report on conventional and organic agriculture and their greenhouse gas emissions. 2008. Foodwatch and Institute for Ecological Economy Research. http://www.deutschewildtierstiftung.de/_downloads/aktuell/foodwatch-Report_Klimaretter-Bio_20080825.pdf
(7) Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger. And if you care, eat less meat. Guardian. 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/15/food.biofuels

Barry O’Neil, president of the World Organisation for Animal Health said recently that livestock farmers need access to genetically modified crops if they are to keep up with the demands for meat.

He spoke at a meeting in London last week and acknowledged that the increased demand for food from a world population expected to rise by 50% by 2020 was of serious concern to farmers.  Already a third of crops are grown for animal feed, so there needs to be a new solution.

“I think we are entering a new phase, dominated by environmental issues, climate change and rising demand. By 2050 we will need twice as much food, produced from less land and with less water and more pressures around environmental sustainability. These are real challenges we need to get our heads around, and I think we need GM crops to help us” he said.

Jim McLaren, president of National Farmers Union Scotland, is also pressing for more GM foods. He believes that one of the most significant ways of stabilising and reducing feed costs is the relaxation of EU strict rules on the import of GM crops - mainly soya and maize, from the US.

Whilst many consumers oppose GM crops, few realise they are already eating animals fed on GM feeds anyway, since almost all soy grown in Argentina and the US has been modified, and the same is rapidly becoming so in Brazil. The soy is imported to feed chickens, cattle, and pigs prior to slaughter. Currently there is no mandatory requirement for shops to label meat produced from GM-fed animals.

Around 60% of the maize and 30% of the soya used in animal feed by dairy and pig farmers is GM. This means that most of the non-organic milk, dairy products and pork being sold in the UK is from GM-fed animals. (33)

Giant biotech multinationals and livestock farmers are using the rise in demand for food as an excuse to push GM. Let’s all make more efficient use of the world’s food by eating it ourselves instead of to animals: go vegan.

Brazil’s new environment minister has blamed cattle for the recent increase in deforestation of the Amazon.

Brazil’s previous environment minister, Marina Silva, blamed the increasing deforestation of the Amazon on Brazilian cattle ranchers and farmers and now the new minister, Carlos Minc, has announced that he also believes this to be the case - so much so that he has introduced new measures in an attempt to halt the destruction.

As the price of meat and grain increases, so does the illegal logging of the Amazon to make way for cattle. To combat this, Minc has warned that the government will impound cattle caught grazing on illegally cleared pastures with an operation dubbed “Rogue Bull.”

Forest is not only cleared for cattle grazing but also to make way for soy planatations. Around 90% of the world’s soy is fed to animals and it is now widely recognised that feeding the 73 million cows of the Amazon, and all the others animals raised for meat in the world, is the biggest driver of deforestation. On top of this, 75% of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions are caused by burning to clear new or overgrown pasture for cattle. The contribution to climate change this creates is further exasperated by the the methane that the cows produce.

Forests are crucial to the health of the planet. They clean the air, produce rainfall and absorb carbon dioxide. Without forests we all suffer - the animals and people who live there and the rest of us who depend on the environmental benefits they give us.

We know the meat industry is the leading cause of deforestation, therefore the solution is simple. Go vegan.

300 women activists invaded the Sao Paulo offices of Monsanto today.

The invasion was a protest to the Brazilian government’s decision last month to give clearance for two varieties of GMO corn for commercial use.

La Via Campesina, an organisation that fights for the rights of peasants and small farmer organizations, said “the authorization of these varieties shows once more that the government favors agribusiness and big foreign companies, abandoning land reform and family farming.”

GM soy has been legal in Brazil for some time, most of which is fed to animals in the West. No doubt the GM corn will be used in the same way. However, studies have shown that animals actively avoid eating GM crops. When they have eaten it they have suffered stomach lesions, diseased livers and kidneys, intestinal damage and many have died from toxic reactions. So far, we have no idea what happens when someone eats the meat of an animal fed GM crops.

The list of negative impacts of the GM industry is endless. Health risks are not just associated with eating GM crops - working with the crops or simply living nearby also affects health. Nearly 100 people living close to a GM corn field in the Philippines suffered from headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains and fever. People working with GM cotton have suffered allergies and skin erruptions.

Friends of the Earth International released a report last month titled ‘Who benefits from GM crops‘. The report reveals that GM crops have caused an increase in pesticide use and still have made no impact on poverty and hunger in developing countries.

“The biotech industry is telling Africans that we need GM crops to tackle the food needs of our population. But how can we believe such statements when the majority of GM crops are used to feed the animals of rich countries, produce industrial products like agrofuels, and overall don’t yield more than conventional crops?”, said Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Nigeria.

Considering the vast majority of GM crops are fed to animals, the meat industry has to take some responsibility for fuelling the development of GM. If there weren’t all the animals to feed, would there still be the need to grow crops so intensively? If there weren’t all the animals to feed, couldn’t we then concentrate on getting the food to people who need it?

In a new report, the 20,000 beef and sheep farmers in Northern Ireland have been told to cut their losses and find other work.

Red meat from South America is tough competition for farmers in Northern Ireland who cannot produce meat as cheaply. The Read Meat Task Force are asking that supermarkets pay more for meat from Northern Ireland but this is unlikely as the price NI farmers need for the meat they produce way exceeds that of their competitors in South America.

Whilst higher profits are to be gained by supermarkets and the like, once again, the negative environmental and social impacts are being ignored.

Most of the meat comes from Brazil, where already 70% of previous forest land has been cleared to make way for grazing animals. An increase in demand for Brazilian meat can only mean more destruction of the forests, plus the obvious impact on climate change from transporting the meat to Europe.

Farmers in Northern Ireland cannot produce meat cheaply enough for the supermarkets and their customers but buying meat from South America is obviously not the answer. We all just need to go veg, that’s the only way to solve this problem!

Read BBC article