One cost of eating meat

Trying to eat less and less meat seems like a great idea, right? Who can without remorse and regret eat an animal that was probably born, raised and killed for the sole purpose of being eaten. Sounds a bit amoral and just ethically incorrect, at least in my opinion. There are health reasons why one might avoid eating flesh as well – digestion and weight gain for example.

Environmental damage is another consequence of meat eaters. If you have ever driven by a huge cattle for beef farm your nose will find the truth. Have you ever wondered about where all that stuff goes? Depending on what went into the feed they ate, we may not want that stuff anywhere near our drinking water.

The LA Times (home) is not a newspaper known for its progressive stances, yet they published an article that adds to the justification to stop eating meat.

The Colorado river is losing its water; we all know that. The river’s water seldom these days reaches the sea as it’s gobbled up for all different kinds of purposes. This article shows, however, that feed for livestock that then gets eaten is the greatest user of Colorado River water. Almost 2x the amount of water goes to producing food for livestock than food for humans; and we all know that formula for eating foods higher up the food chain.

Maybe the thought of running out of water will help people kick the meat habit … probably not, but I thought worth the attempt to get people to start thinking differently about meat.