I whole-heartedly agree that the terms “liberal” and “environmentalist” do not go hand in hand. The connection between the two is often drawn because conservatives hear environmentalist and they think government regulations. However, the environmental problem is not a problem of the interior but a global concern and while our government and/or we as individuals can sway the environmental policies of other nations, realistically it is a problem that needs to be embraced first by individuals.
    
First and foremost, PETA is not an environmentalist organization. They may have some overlapping ideals with environmentalists when it comes to preserving wildlife habitats, but beyond that their concerns about animal welfare have little to do with improving the health of our planet.
    
As for the dietary incorporation of animals into our meals, it takes far more resources to raise and feed a cow than to grow beans and vegetables that offer the same nutrients with less saturated fat and cholesterol. This problem is compacted by our current practices of shipping cows from all over the country to a few localized stockyards where they are kept in filthy conditions and fattened on grains (not a natural part of a cow’s diet) to be slaughtered and shipped back all over the country. The filthy conditions and grain diet lead to heightened bacterial contamination (i.e. E. coli) of the food.
    
Humans are omnivores and are meant to eat meat, sure. But they are also meant to eat fruits and vegetables and beans and nuts and grains. Most of these take far less energy to grow. The meat industry releases more green house gasses than all of the cars in the U.S. By cutting meat out of your diet one day a week you help the environment and your health and if you want you can eat hamburgers the other six days of the week. The best option is to buy locally grown meats from farms where the cows are grass fed, the chickens are pasture raised and the pigs roll in the mud. These meats are far better for your health with less hormones, antibiotics, saturated fat, cholesterol and more omega-3 fatty acids as a result of their natural diet.
   
 If you are worried about feeding the 7 billion, it is important to keep in mind that approximately 60 percent of the world lives on a mostly vegetarian diet. In places like India where the population is very high the people are culturally vegetarian. Besides, worrying about producing enough food to feed 7 billion is a wasted effort, because if globally we can feed 7 billion, it won’t be long before we are worried about the 9 billion or the 12 billion. Nature has a way of keeping things in check and it is better not to press those buttons.
    
By building up a dependence on GMO foods we have built, in large areas of this country, what is called a monoculture. In places where farmers used to grow animals, grains and vegetables now they are only producing one. Much of the Great Plains area is dedicated only to growing grains for cattle feed. The problems with monocultures are that if you only grow one crop the beasties that like to eat that crop amass in the area, leading to higher pesticide use and stronger pesticides. The soil that was once replenished by lying idle a season to be used as pasture land and nourished by the animal poo is now abused being forced to grow the same crop year after year, having its nutrients sucked from it and then being “nourished” by chemical fertilizers instead of natural.
    
The crop diversity in the modern age of the large scale farm has diminished from a historical 7,000 estimated species that were once cultivated for consumption to 150, according to the New York Times. Most humans live on about 12 species of plants. This is the epitome of putting all your eggs in one basket. The fewer species we produce the more likely one could be destroyed by pestilence or drought or some other disaster, leaving a large portion of the 7 billion to starve. The fact is relying on GMOs is actually setting us up for more catastrophic famine conditions.
    
As for recycling, it is true that plastic is not recycled to form new plastic bottles. Metals and glass are the most effectively recycled. However, if you are down with energy conservation because of your concerns about fossil fuels, I have news for you. Plastic is also produced from fossil fuels. Recycled plastic is used to produce other items such as textiles, but in general it is best to try to find products that are packaged in more recyclable materials. Anyone who has dealt with children’s toys at Christmas knows how ridiculously over packaged things are, anyway.
    
Ultimately, we can go to the polls and vote for politicians, but the polling place that has a far greater impact is the cash register. Clearly not everyone can afford expensive organic meat all the time, but if everyone did something, no matter how little, it would make an impact. By switching to a couple of organic products, or pasture raised eggs (don’t bother with cage free, that’s a total hoax) or energy saving light bulbs, or a couple minutes fewer in the shower in the morning, or by carpooling a couple times a week, or buying canned soda instead of the plastic bottle sometimes, as a whole we slowly change the market. If more people bought local things, the price would slowly decrease. No, it will never be as cheap as the ridiculous subsidies this country offers to corn and beef, but maybe over time that could change too. If subsidies were offered to farmers who raised spinach and green beans instead of corn and beef the average health of the average American would be better. The heath care costs of the nation would decrease. The dependence on foreign oil would decrease. So every day we vote with our dollar and with our deeds for the kind of America we want to live in.


Jamie Lawton
Post-Doctorate Research Associate
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering