Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Hidden Cost of Eating Meat in South Africa: What Every Responsible Consumer Should Know

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 November 2015

Abstract

Meat production in South Africa is on an increasing trend. In South Africa rising wealth, urbanisation and a growing middle class means South Africans are eating more processed and high-protein foods, especially meat and dairy products. These foods are more land- and water-intensive than fruit, vegetable and grain crops, and further stress existing resources. Traditional agricultural farms cannot keep up with the increasing demand for animal products and these farms are being replaced with concentrated animal feeding operations. There are a wide variety of problems caused by intensive livestock production. The concerns regarding factory farming in South Africa are social issues affecting food security, health concerns, environmental concerns and ethical concerns. In order to ensure food security in future we need to consider these concerns and support more sustainable systems to produce our food. Animal agriculture, like many other industries, works on the principles of supply and demand. By decreasing the demand for these products, we can decrease their production. Individuals can do this by becoming vegetarian or vegan, but also by simply cutting down one’s consumption of meat, eggs, and milk produced in intensive livestock farms. Less meat would be produced, and there would be less harm to local communities, lower risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, less land degradation and decrease of biodiversity, less damage to our water supplies and fewer animals living lives of suffering in factory farms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anomaly, J. (2014). What’s wrong with factory farming? Oxford University Press. www.phe.oxfordjournls.org.

  • ARC-Economic Services Unit. (2015). Economic outlook report XVII. Agricultural Economics and Capacity Development Division, March 2015.

  • Balcombe, J. (2006). Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the nature of feeling good. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begley, S. (2012). 2009 swine flu outbreak was 15 times deadlier: Study. Reuters. June 26, 2012.

  • Begley, S. (2015). America’s egg shortage, by the numbers. Time, 185(23), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2006a). Animal emotions and animal sentience and why they matter: Blending ‘science sense’ with common sense, compassion and heart. In J. Turner & J. D’Silva (Eds.), Animals, ethics and trade. London: Earthscan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2006b). Animals passions and beastly virtues: Reflections on redecorating nature. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2006c). The public lives of animals: A troubled scientist, pissy baboons, angry elephants, and happy hounds. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13, 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2007). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy—and why they matter. Novato, California: New World Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2008). Why “good welfare” isn’t “good enough”: Minding animals and increasing our compassionate footprint. Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences, 10, T1–T14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBC News. (2015). Quebec bill calls animals ‘sentient beings’ and includes jail time for cruelty. The Canadian Press. June 5, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-bill-calls-animals-sentient-beings-and-includes-jail-time-for-cruelty-1.3102399.

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2003). Code of hygienic practice for fresh fruit and vegetables (pp. 1–26). Geneva: Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome/World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, S. R., Moore, J. A., Grismer, M. E., & Miner, J. R. (1983). Bacterial pollution from agricultural sources: A review. Transactions of the ASAE, 26, 858–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1992). Population, sustainability, and Earth’s carrying capacity: A framework for estimating population sizes and lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations. BioScience, 42(10), 761–771.

  • De Haan, C., & Blackburn, H. (1995). The Balance between livestock and the environment. In: Eighth congress of Institutes of Tropical Animal Health and Production, September 25–29, 1995, Berlin, Germany.

  • Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S., &. Coubois, C. (1999). Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Food, agriculture, and the environment discussion paper 28. IFPRI/FAO/ILRI (International Food Policy Research Institute/FAO/International Livestock Research Institute), Washington, DC.

  • Ercin, A. E. M., Aldaya, M., & Hoekstra A. Y. (2011). The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products. Value of water research report series no. 49. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

  • Foer, J. S. (2009). Eating Animals. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Kindle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental Issues and options. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm.

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2011). Food balance sheets. FAOSTAT, FAO, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org.

  • Francione, G. L. (1996). Rain without thunder: The ideology of the animal rights movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, J. N., Burke, M., Bradford, G. E., Naylor, R., Falcon, W., Chapagain, A. K., et al. (2007). International trade in meat: The tip of the pork chop. Ambio, 36(8), 622–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, P. H. (2003). Water use. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 275–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (2012). The environmental impact of meat. ProQuest Discovery Guides. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/discoveryguides-main.php.

  • Hamerschlag, K., & Venkat, K. (2011). A meat eater’s guide to climate change and health: What you eat matters. Lifecycle assessments (sic): Methodology & Results. Environmental Working Group, Web, November 10, 2011.

  • Harison, P. F., & Lederberg, J. (1998). Antimicrobial resistance: Issues and options. In P. F. Harrison & J. Lederberg (Eds.), Forum on emerging infections. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy. Animal Frontiers, 2(2), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilea, R. C. (2009). Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaimowitz, D., & Smith, J. (2001). Soybean technology and the loss of natural vegetation in Brazil and Bolivia. In A. Angelsen & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 195–211). Bangor, Indonesia: CABI Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. A. (2008). China’s health care system and avian influenza preparedness. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 197, 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. (2013). Environmental health resilience. Environmental Health Insights, 7, 29–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight-Jones, T. J. D., Mylrea, G. E., & Kahn, S. (2010). Animal production food safety: Priority pathogens for standard setting by the World Organisation for Animal Health. Revue Scientifique et Technique, 29(3), 523–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotze, I., & Rose, M. (Eds.). (2015). Farming facts and futures: Reconnecting South Africa’s food systems to its ecosystems. Cape Town, South Africa: WWF-SA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livestock, Environment, and development Virtual Centre (LEAD). (2006). LEAD digital library: Livestock’s long shadow-environmental issues and options. http://www.virualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm.

  • Lymbery, P., & Oakeshott, I. (2014). Farmageddon. The true cost of cheap meat. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 419–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. M. (2009). The face on your plate: The truth about food. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, S. (2015). Animals are now legally recognised as ‘sentient’ beings in New Zealand. The Independent, Sunday May 17, 2015. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/animals-are-now-legally-recognised-as-sentient-beings-in-new-zealand-10256006.html.

  • Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2010). The green, blue and grey water foot-print of farm animals and animal products. Value of water research report series no. 48. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

  • Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). National water footprint accounts: The green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption. Value of water research report series no. 50. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

  • Morell, V. (2013). Animal wise: How we know animals think and feel. New York: Crown Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxfam. (2014). Hidden hunger in South Africa. The faces of hunger and malnutrition in a food-secure nation. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/hidden_hunger_in_south_africa_o.pdf.

  • Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PEW). (2008). Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America executive summary. http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPSmry.pdf.

  • Pluhar, E. B. (2010). Meat and morality: Alternatives to factory farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, 455–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, B. M., Langemeier, M. R., & Featherstone, A. M. (1997). Financial performance, risk, and specialization. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 29, 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, K. A., Jafta, J., Botha, M. J., Shole, G., Scholtz, M. M., & Bester, J. (2006). South African Country report on farm animal genetic resources. Department of Agriculture, July 2006.

  • Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribaudo, M. (2003). Managing manure: New clean water act regulations create imperative for livestock producers. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Amber Waves, February. www.ers.usda.gov/Amberswaves/Feb03/features/ManagingManure.htm.

  • Rollin, B. E. (2006). Animal rights & human morality. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosegrant, M. W., Leach, N., & Gerpacio, R. W. (1999). Meat or wheat for the next millennium? Alternative futures for world cereal and meat consumption. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58, 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safina, C. (2015). Beyond words: What animals think and feel. New York: Hendry Holt and Company LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, C. W. (2009). Swine CAFOs & novel H1N1 flu: Separating facts from fears. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(9), 394–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, J. (2015). Invoer van mielies dalk SA se voorland: “Krisis kan ontstaan”. Volksblad, 18 Junie 2015. 4.

  • Smith, R. A. (1998). Impact of disease on feedlot performance: A review. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 272–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stehfest, E. (2014). Food choices for health and planet. Nature, 515, 501–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld, H. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, L. H., Latham, S. M., & Woolhouse, M. E. (2001). Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 356, 983–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (2015). From field to fork: Food ethics for everyone. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D., Muriel, P., Russell, D., Osborne, P., Bromley, A., & Rowland, M. (2002). Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. Revue Scientifique et Technique, 21(3), 675–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2853–2867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South African Feedlot Association. (2015). http://www.safeedlot.co.za/index.asp?Content=90.

  • United Nations. (2004). World population to 2300. Report no: ST/ESA/SER.A/236, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations, New York.

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1998). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 19901996 (p5). http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/98CR.pdf.

  • Van der Merwe, L. (2015). Animal Voice. http://issuu.com/ciwfsa/docs/animal_voice_-_june_2015/1?e=4995170/13524906.

  • Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. L. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E. C. (2013). The ethics of meat production and quality-a South African perspective. South African Journal of Animal Science, 43(5, Suppl. 1), S1–S10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuetrich, B. (2003). Chasing the fickle swine flu. Science, 299, 1502–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2014). Facts about soy production and the Basel Criteria. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/factsheet_soy_eng.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid Jankielsohn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jankielsohn, A. The Hidden Cost of Eating Meat in South Africa: What Every Responsible Consumer Should Know. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 1145–1157 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9581-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9581-8

Keywords

Navigation