11 soy farming also 4-10 above
12 gmo
13 agrochemicals
14 deforestation
15 the baying mob
16 media attention what is in season
17 boobtube politics

1. Ignorance of the issues (ocean depletion, impact of animal farming on environment).
2. As a result lack of public and political debate about the issue and resulting regulation.
3. Imperfect political system; anyone managing ocean fisheries should know that the type and scale of fishing done today is unsustainable. They shouldn't be able to claim ignorance, so why the lack of regulation?
0. And yes, killing is wrong.

I have NOT read the following books, nor do I claim to be an expert on ths subject, but please do not delude yourself that you are an expert on the matter after watching one documentary, especially when the documentary is arguably presenting false data to support its claims.

And if you're serious about the subject, you need to be aware that there are opposing viewpoints out there.

————————————————-

Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production

The public has long been led to believe that livestock, especially cattle, erode soils, pollute air and water, damage riparian areas, and decimate wildlife populations.

In Defending Beef, Hahn Niman argues that cattle are not inherently bad for either the Earth or our own nutritional health. In fact, properly managed livestock play an essential role in maintaining grassland ecosystems by functioning as surrogates for herds of wild ruminants that once covered the globe. Hahn Niman argues that dispersed, grass-fed, small-scale farms can and should become the basis for American food production, replacing the factory farms that harm animals and the environment.

The author—a longtime vegetarian—goes on to dispel popular myths about how eating beef is bad for our bodies. She methodically evaluates health claims made against beef, demonstrating that such claims have proven false. She shows how foods from cattle—milk and meat, particularly when raised entirely on grass—are healthful, extremely nutritious, and an irreplaceable part of the world's food system.

———————————

Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth

Schwartz challenges much of the conventional thinking about global warming and other problems. For example, land can suffer from undergrazing as well as overgrazing, since certain landscapes, such as grasslands, require the disturbance from livestock to thrive.

As one ignorant of the issues, what ever they are, I am sure we will be told what is best for us, what we need, what we should like and the way it ought to be. I defer to the magnificent geniuses that know best for each of us and have all the right feelings but can't be bothered with science or facts.

Magnifico, I am as close as a disinterested outsider as you can get.

I also don't claim to be an expert, but the effect of the current overfishing on the oceans is well documented and undisputed. The effect of agriculture on the environment is also pretty established.

Although I am a disinterested outsider I have looked into this from time to time and the facts given in this documentary largely agree with my earlier findings. The inaccuracies in it I don't see are resulting from a bias, but from dependance on science that later analysis shows perhaps has some faults. The 660 gallons figure for example is disputed by the beef industry itself. They say:

"In reality, it takes 441 gals. of water to produce 1 lb. of boneless beef. Farmers and ranchers are committed to water conservation and have reduced the amount of water used to raise beef by 12% compared to 30 years ago."

If the first figure was the first ever attempt to calculate the figure, I don't see it as that far off, if that 441 gallons is indeed accurate.

Re: those books, I am not arguing that small scale farming can have positive effects in certain climates. I remember an effort in Africa to try to improve desertified land: they made an enclosure around the land and let cattle roam there for a few days. After they had left the ground was thoroughly broken up and fertilized and things started to grow again. Small scale farming however != current situation.

Re: health. I also have not read the book. That claim goes against a growing body of evidence that shows the opposite.

Geezer, that comment cannot be directed at me - except the genius part perhaps - because my viewpoint is entirely based on science and facts.

A: You can be sure the extent of your genius has definitely made an impression on me. Or, is it arrogance, I dunno, could be, do you think?

From the The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) website: "All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice."

www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

@Magnifico: Thanks for the references - I have no problem believing that the issue is complex.

For a nauseating impact of what seems to be going on with fast-food hamburger patties, watch the film Fast Food Nation - it's fiction, but not science fiction or fantasy. I'm not proposing it as a detailed argument, only as a picture of how/why it's worth paying attention to agribusiness, the power of corporations, international exploitation and mistreatment of international workers, and of what you may be doing by frequenting fast food outlets. Good actors, good story and good direction. Watch it & barf.

@Geezer. I wasn't confused about the issue of concern, but like you ended up confused. I blame Alien.

@Alex: I appreciate that & accept half the blame.