A Hidden Issue:

The Harmful Effects of the Beef Industry

Research Proposal Paper

31 July 2017

Natalie LaRowe

Prof. Thomas Bundenthal

 Table of Contents
Abstract..2

Introduction....3

Discussion

Figure 1 (ewg.org).......................................................................................4

Figure 5 (NRDC).........................................................................................6

Figure 2 (WRI).............................................................................................7

Figure 3 (Miller).........................................................................................10

Figure 4 (Fox)............................................................................................11

Conclusion...12

Works Cited.14

1
 Abstract
The production of beef is a major contributor to the decline in the environment.
Studies have shown that Americans eat more beef than any other country in the world,
with the average yearly consumption per person being around 60 pounds. Beef is the
next most consumed meat in America, a close second to chicken, but is the most
harmful to the environment. Cows are a leading contributor to greenhouse gases as a
result of their flatulences. Furthermore, the environmental costs of the production of
beef significantly outweigh the benefits, since the amount of water and grain used to
produce just one pound of beef is extremely high and disproportionate compared to the
results. In the past, sin taxes have been implemented onto products such as alcohol,
cigarettes, and marijuana in an effort to reduce consumption. Therefore, I propose a
1% tax on the purchase of all beef and beef products in America.
In order to support this proposal, I will present and analyze data regarding the
environmental cost of beef. Many Americans are unaware of how environmentally
harmful beef production is, and raising awareness is just the first step in improving the
issue. Furthermore, I will explore and present studies regarding the effectiveness of sin
taxes, in order to prove that this is the best possible compromise for the nation in order
to reduce our harmful impact on the earth and its resources.
This proposal will not only raise awareness regarding the environmental cost of
beef, but will also encourage Americans to reduce their purchases and consumption of
beef. Americans may even be encouraged to substitute other meats such as poultry and
pork into their diet, or even give up meat altogether. This will also cause a reduction of
greenhouse gases and the overuse of resources that can be put to better use in another
area, both of which will significantly benefit the earth. Implementation of this tax will also
produce more money for environmental projects, since the money from the tax will go to
the Environmental Protection Agency.

2
 Introduction
Many Americans are aware that the environment is in severe decline. However,

many attribute this issue to the burning of coal, the driving of cars, and the usage of

nonrenewable resources. What many Americans are not aware of is that what they eat

has a large effect on the environment. A short video gives a summary of just how

harmful the production of beef is to our environment. This video gives proposals of what

Americans can do to help reduce this problem, but I believe that this is an issue that

needs national government attention. The solutions produced in the video are not things

that can be implemented governmentally, as they are too intrusive on the personal lives

and decisions of Americans. However, a tax on all beef and beef products would give

incentive for Americans to learn more about the harms of the beef industry on our

environment and resources, along with giving citizens an incentive to reduce their beef

consumption. This proposal will go into detail about how the process of producing beef

costs more than it is worth, both in resources and in the environmental cost. It will also

address arguments against the reduction of beef in America, and will show how these

can be combatted with strong data and analysis that proves the need for a change,

specifically in the area of the beef industry.

3
 Discussion
One of the most environmentally costly aspects of the production of beef in the

United States is the amount of greenhouse gases that result from the entire process of

producing beef. Greenhouse gases are a concerning threat to our environment. Many

people believe that they are entirely caused by driving cars, burning coal, and other

harmful processes. While those are certainly contributors, the livestock industry is a

large contributor as well, with cows and other livestock contributing 37% of the worlds

methane, a harmful form of greenhouse gas (Hickman 1). A study done by the

Environmental Working Group produced results that show the varying levels of

greenhouse gas emissions produced by different types of food. In Figure 1, the graph

shows that, besides lamb, beef produces the greatest amount of carbon emissions, a

form of greenhouse gas, per kilogram, by a large factor (ewg.org 1). In fact, the amount

of emissions caused by the production of beef is more than double the amount of

emissions caused by its runner-up, cheese (1). Furthermore, the amount of carbon

emissions produced by beef is twenty-seven times the amount of food gained from the

process (1). This means that greenhouse gases, a leading cause of global warming, are

being emitted at an alarming rate, just to produce a small portion of consumable food.

Greenhouse gases are extremely harmful to the earth, causing global warming and

threatening ecosystems and biodiversity, along with causing a potential harm to the

lifestyle and livelihoods of people. While many foods and processes cause increased

carbon emissions, beef is one of the major contributors, causing more than double the

amount of emissions of most other foods. Not only is beef one of the top greenhouse

gas causing foods, but it is also one of the most consumed meats in the United States.

4
A study done in 2014 showed that beef was responsible for 34 percent of the

average Americans diet-related climate-warming pollution (NRDC 3). So not only is

beef one of the worst foods for the environment, but it is also one of the most highly

consumed. This is a striking issue because it shows that American citizens are

furthering the decline in the

environment with their everyday

lifestyle. This is not just a result of

post farming emissions; rather,

49% of emissions are emitted

directly from the cows in the form

of methane, as a result of their

digestion (ethicurean.com 1).

This goes to show that the gases

emitted by processing are not all

to blame - a large part of the issue lies in the beginning, with the raising of the cows

themselves. While some may argue that cows cant change the way they are, we can

most definitely change how cows are raised. If the amount of beef consumed in America

were to diminish, there would not be as much of a need for so many cow farms, which

would also mean that there would not be a need for so many cows. Therefore, the

amount of greenhouse gases emitted would be reduced because there would be less

cows emitting them.

In recent years, the American consumption of beef has decreased, but even that

has not been enough to resolve the issue. A study done by the NRDC showed that, out

5
of the top ten foods in which consumption was decreased from 2005-2014, the amount

of reduction of carbon emissions was the greatest from beef (NRDC 4). This is

illustrated in Figure 5. The graph shows that, when Americans reduced their intake of

many different types of food, the reduction of carbon emissions from beef was nearly

double the reduction of its runner-up,

orange juice (4). This goes to show

that beef has much higher amounts

of greenhouse gas emissions than

any other foods, by an extremely

large factor. Furthermore, the same

study showed that, even after that

decrease, beefs emissions factor, in

kilograms of carbon dioxide

equivalent per kilogram of

consumable meat produced, was 26.45, which is an alarmingly large number

considering that the succeeding factor was only 1.03 (5). This study further supports the

argument that beef is a major contributing food to greenhouse gas emissions by

showing that the reduction of its consumption cause the greatest amount of greenhouse

gas emission reduction among other foods in which the consumption was reduced;

furthermore, even with this great reduction, the resulting amount of emissions was still

very high. This proves that a further reduction of beef consumption over a longer period

of time would be extremely beneficial to the environment, considering the amount of

greenhouse gases that could be reduced.

6
 Not only does the production of beef harm the environment through

production of greenhouse gases, but it takes up resources that could be put to much

better use elsewhere. One thing the production of beef makes unnecessary use of is

resources such as grain and water. According to a study done by Dr. Robert Lawrence,

seven pounds of grain and 7,000 pounds of water must be used in order to produce just

one pound of beef (Avery 95). This is an extreme waste of resources, especially when it

is taken into consideration that nine kilograms of grain offers the same amount of

protein and nutrition as one kilogram of animal protein (95). America is not only using an

unnecessary amount of resources to produce this unnecessary and environmentally

harmful food, but is also trading in a larger amount of product for a smaller amount that

results in the same amount of nutrition. The World Resources Institute performed a

study on the resource uses of the productions of different types of food. The results,

shown in Figure 2, demonstrate that beef is by far the highest resource-intensive food

among meat and plant-based foods (Magill 2). The largest resource consumed by beef

production is water (2). This is extremely concerning since water is used for everything

on earth, from drinking to producing food to keeping things clean in order to prevent

diseases, along with many more uses. Water is one of the most necessary resources on

the planet, and the production of beef uses up far more of it than the production of any

other food. The second largest consequence of beef production is its high emission of

greenhouse gases, which was previously discussed in detail (2). What is alarming,

however, is that more water is used to produce a small amount of beef than gases are

emitted, which basically means that not only is the industry misusing our water supply,

but we are using more of it than the amount of harmful gases being produced, which I

7
have already established is a large amount. Not far behind the amount of greenhouse

gas emissions is the amount of land being used in order to support this industry (2).

This poses an issue of deforestation, which is harmful to the environment, along with

waste of space that could be used for plants or other food production scenarios that

could feed the global population without cutting down more forests in the name of the

beef industry (1). Cattle farms use up a large amount of land and space, while the

amount of land used to produce other foods, both animal-based and plant-based, is a

significantly smaller amount. In another study done by Industrial Research

Organizations on the production of beef worldwide, it was discovered that in North

America or Europe, a cow consumes about 75 kg to 300 kg of dry matter [such as grain]

to produce a kilogram of protein (Walsh 2). This is a very unequal trade off, and I am

certain that if more Americans were aware of this wastefulness, many more citizens

would be more mindful of their food choices regarding beef and other resource-wasting

foods. This study also shows that it is not only Americans who are to blame - the whole

8
world is involved. However, this is an issue that can begin to be resolved by citizens just

being more mindful of their everyday actions and food choices, which may eventually

grow to a nationwide and even worldwide movement to reduce the stress we are putting

on our environment and resources in order to conserve our earth.

9
 It is absurd to assume that Americans would be willing to allow the government

to meddle in their dietary habits, even if it were for the good of the nation and,

ultimately, the earth. A bill restricting the eating habits of Americans would be much too

controversial, and would never be passed. The compromise I have proposed is to

implement a tax on all beef products, in order to give Americans an incentive to reduce

their purchases, which will in turn reduce the beef industry, benefiting the situation as a

whole. A tax implemented to discourage people from buying a product is most

commonly referred to as a sin tax, and has been used in the past on products such as

cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. There has been research on these various taxes to

determine their effectiveness. One example of such research is that of the effect of

taxes on alcohol consumption, as shown in Figure 3 (Miller 4). This study shows that the

lower the tax was, the higher the number of gallons of alcohol consumed per capita in

each state (4). This means that taxes were at least moderately effective in curbing the

amount of alcohol consumption, as those states with higher taxes yielded lower

amounts of consumption. In the case of this study, the tax was effective in achieving its

purpose, which goes to show that a sin tax can be successful. Another study yielded

similar results, as shown in Figure 4. This study was done on the consumption of

cigarettes rather than alcohol, but had a similar result: the higher the tax on the product,

the lower the amount of product sold and consumed (Fox 4). Therefore, there are

multiple studies on multiple products which sin taxes have been placed upon that have

yielded results showing that the tax was effective. This promotes the argument that a

sin tax would be an effective compromise in the issue regarding the production of beef.

10
While it does not fully obliterate the issue, as only complete termination of the industry

could do, it provides a healthy compromise.

11
 Conclusion
The production of beef is harmful to the environment and to the nation. The most

effective solution to the issue is to stop all production of beef, but realistically this would

cause an even greater of an issue. Such a bill would never be passed, and even if it

were to be, it would cause an uproar and most likely be repealed soon after. If the beef

industry were to shut down, Americans would feel that the government is impeding their

rights by trying to control what they eat. Many people could take this too far and begin to

worry that if the government was trying to control what citizens eat, what other aspects

of their day-to-day life would the government try to overtake? This could very well turn

into a worry that the government is evolving toward totalitarianism. Furthermore, the

abolishment of the beef industry would send many Americans into turmoil, since it is

such a large industry and would put many people out of jobs. A sufficient and effective-

proven compromise would be to introduce a sin tax of 1% on all beef and beef products.

This would cause an incentive for Americans to reduce their consumption of beef, while

still allowing the workers of the beef industry to have a job and causing a calm solution

to the issue of the beef industry rather than an abrupt burden on those working in the

industry and sudden obliteration of peoples right to eat what they wish. Furthermore, a

bill such as this is more likely to be passed than one that merely destroys the beef

industry. A sin tax would be an effective way to curb consumption and therefore

greenhouse gas emissions, grain and water usage, and land usage, while still giving

Americans the freedom to choose to continue to eat beef if they wish to do so. Finally,

the money made from the tax will go to the Environmental Protection Agency, where it

can be used to further help the environment, rather than going into the hands of

12
government workers or back into the pockets of those in the industry. While some may

argue that there are much bigger problems that we should focus on, the issue of the

beef industry is a large and unique issue. This is one of the only issues in which the

solution can start with citizens. The greatest amount of power to resolve this issue lies

not in the hands of the government, but in the hands of Americans citizens. This

proposal gives incentive for those citizens to take action and make a change in the

decline of our environment, along with promoting awareness of the issue at hand, which

will cause action among citizens. Americans need to be aware of what is going on in

their world in order to begin making a change.

13
 Works Cited
"Climate and Environmental Impacts." Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health.

Environmental Working Group, 2011. Web. 29 July 2017.

"Less Beef, Less Carbon: Americans Shrink Their Diet-Related Carbon Footprint by 10 Percent

Between 2005 and 2014." NRDC (2017): n. pag. EE News. Web. 29 July 2017.

"Taxing Cows to Curb Climate Change." The Ethicurean: Chew the Right Thing. N.p., n.d. Web. 29

July 2017. <http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/01/22/cow-tax/>.

Avery, Dennis. The Folly of Organic Farming. Chemistry and Industry, 15 Dec. 1997. Print.

Fox, Lindsay. "A Guide to Vaping Taxes - Discouraging Quitting; Making Money." E Cigarette

Reviewed. N.p., 29 Jan. 2016. Web. 29 July 2017.

Hickman, Martin. "Study Claims Meat Creates Half of All Greenhouse Gases."The Independent.

Independent Digital News and Media, 31 Oct. 2009. Web. 29 July 2017.

Magill, Bobby. "Studies Show Link Between Red Meat and Climate Change." Climate Central. N.p.,

20 Apr. 2016. Web. 29 July 2017.

Miller, Derek. "Do Sin Taxes Affect Cigarette and Alcohol Consumption?" SmartAsset. N.p., 09 Mar.

2017. Web. 29 July 2017.

The Hidden Cost of Hamburgers. Dir. Carrie Ching. By Arthur Jones. Center for Investigative

Reporting, 1 Aug. 2012. Web. 29 July 2017.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3URdEzlKQ>.

Walsh, Bryan. "The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production." Time. Time,

16 Dec. 2013. Web. 29 July 2017.

14