Sir, – What an excellent article by Kathy Sheridan on Mary Robinson's challenge to us all to eat less meat ("Why Mary Robinson's 'eat less meat' line is tough for farmers to chew on", Opinion & Analysis, October 5th). Your columnist rightly calls out the defensive and touchy nature of many of the reactions to our former president's comments.
We can take cheap shots or we can listen to a wise and committed human rights activist on one of the most pressing issues of our age, climate justice. I, for one, am all for listening to the message and acting on it. – Yours, etc,
CATHERINE MURPHY,
Arklow, Co Wicklow.
A chara, – I am disappointed by The Irish Times's response to Mary Robinson's comments on consuming less meat. Instead of exploring the very real evidence and ideas behind her statement, the views of industry were what made it to your front page, "Calls by ex-president Robinson to 'eat no meat at all' greeted with derision" (September 30th).
Our excessive meat and dairy consumption is not only environmentally unfriendly and unhealthy, it is also inequitable and unsustainable as the world’s population continues to grow. How can we justify the majority of cereal grain going to feed livestock when malnutrition is associated with half of all childhood deaths?
I, for one, would be more inclined to listen to the views of a woman whose primary motivation for speaking out is concern for her fellow human beings and the future of the human race and has an outstanding record in demonstrating these concerns, than the views of industry whose primary concern is the next quarterly profit. – Is mise,
Dr CAROLINE McCARTHY,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Mary Robinson has now joined the group of people who believe that converting to a vegetarian or vegan diet is a solution to climate change.
They present no scientific evidence other than the carbon footprint of farm animals. However, the issue is much more complex. No evidence is presented that it would be possible to feed the world’s population by switching to such diets, let alone the nutritional impact of such a change.
One of the points they make is that a large amount of the production of cereals is used to feed food-producing animals. They forget that some of this is not of sufficient quality to be fed directly to humans and no analysis is available on the possibility of alternate crops. Is there sufficient land? Further, they ignore the nutritional added-value of giving cereals and other inedible crops, such as grass to animals who transform them into valuable protein products, essential to a balanced diet.
They also ignore the enormous contribution the agri-food sector has made to increasing food output to feed the rapidly expanding population of the world. In order to continue with this and feed the projected population, a large increase in food production will be needed, and this problem is not addressed in their pronouncements. Much of this increase has been based on the ability to increase the supply of animal proteins.
Cattle are a particular problem in their contribution to global warming but moving to a vegetarian or vegan diet may not have as much an impact as some might expect. Over 16 per cent of the world’s cattle population is in India, a largely vegetarian society. As cows are sacred in India, such action will have little impact on their carbon footprint. It should be noted that the 190 million head of cattle, of which 45 million are dairy cows, in India produce 60 million tonnes of milk, whereas the 1.2 million dairy cattle in Ireland produce 5.5 million tonnes, almost 3½ times as much per capita. One might also wonder what the rest of the cattle do other than impacting on climate change. A programme of improving milk productivity in India, along with reducing its cattle surplus, would have a far greater impact on climate change than promoting unrealistic, unresearched and nutritionally unsound ideas. – Yours, etc,
OWEN BROOKS,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Steers to you, Mrs Robinson. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN AHERN,
Clonsilla,
Dublin 15.