The world's industrial meat systems result in more problems than we expect, even some that could have far-reaching and serious repercussions for many people around the world. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4999304-103681,00.html
This is just another good newspaper story.The topic is getting to be old hat.Unless connected by a river or canal, in most cases it is simply impracticle to transport water from one area that has a surplus to another area that has a deficiency. Also it compares the amount of water required for beef production to that of wheat.The article fails to mention that these figures are for beef grown on irrigation land.In Australia at least most beef is raised on dryland that is completly unsuitable fro horticulture.Actually wheat production in some places in some places is worse for the environment than raising beef, due the the very large tonage of topsoil that is blown away during harvesting.
I think it's fair to say that food and water scaracy are driven by complex environmental, political, and economic issues and conditions and changing one's diet won't immediately end hunger. The treatment of animals is the most obvious and imminent reason to move away from a meat-centered society. However, I also think it's fair to say that livestock farming requires a great deal of resources--resources that could go farther if they weren't used in the process of raising, slaughtering, and preparing huge numbers of large animals. When you have a factory hog farm putting out as much waste as a large city, there are definately some environmental and contamination concerns. It should also be noted that factory-style farming practices are spreading throughout the world, including third-world nations. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the adoption of Western-style farming practices could threaten the environmental resources even more in countries that do not have the laws or funds to enable environmental protection and clean-up.
