Editorials that "Make You Go Hmmm"

I was going to challenge myself this morning and not look first to the New York Times for an article or opinion piece to deconstruct, but I was feeling lazy (drank some wine last night after a crazy day). Never to disappoint, there's an editorial called "The Protein Pyramid," which I was sure was going to be some kind of great sign (despite all of the evidence to the contrary in the NYT as a rule) for sentient nonhumans and the sentient humans who don't eat them. The beginning wasn't promising, but the end was surprisingly almost redeeming. Almost.

Let's deconstruct:

• The set-up:

"Per capita meat consumption more than doubled over the past half-century as the global economy expanded. It is expected to double again by 2050. Which raises the question, what does all that meat eat before it becomes meat?"

I know, the use of "meat" here is probably supposed to be cheeky, but still, it reinforces the notion that animals are not whole beings, but are equal to the chunks of their flesh that are cut up and weighed and packaged (after maybe an injection of carbon monoxide) and sold to omnivores who "love animals."

• The answer?

"Increasingly the answer is very small fish harvested from the ocean and ground into meal and pressed into oil. . . . 37 percent by weight of all the fish taken from the ocean is forage fish: small fish like sardines and menhaden. Nearly half of that is fed to farmed fish; most of the rest is fed to pigs and poultry."

So fish are farmed or caught and fed to cows, chicken and pigs. And I'm assuming that the issue is going to be similar to the one regarding soybeans and corn, where rather than going directly into the food supply, they take a detour and are processed through animals.

• And that is the issue. Sort of. It's actually far more complex and worse for other animals, because:

"forage fish are the feedstock of marine mammals and birds and larger species of fish. In other words, farmed fish, pigs and poultry — and the humans who eat them — are competing for food directly with aquatic species that depend on those forage fish for their existence. It’s as if humans were swimming in schools in the ocean out-eating every other species."

But wait, it gets worse . . .

"When it comes to farmed fish, there is a net protein loss: it takes three pounds of fish feed to produce one pound of farmed salmon. This protein pyramid — small fish fed to farmed fish, pigs and poultry that are then fed to humans — is unsustainable. It threatens the foundation of oceanic life."

Do they not understand that, according to the USDA, it takes 16 pounds of grain and soy to produce one pound of "beef" in a feedlot? Using fish to feed cows isn't the only unsustainable type of feeding we practice.

• The clincher for me is the last paragraph, which begins: 

"The [Pew Institute for Oceanic Science] report’s authors suggest that it would be better if humans ate these small fish, as many cultures once did, instead of using them as feed. That is one way of addressing the problem of net protein loss."

So in order to not completely erase the small fish from the planet, we should eat them? Is that really the answer that scientists came up with?

• The last word, however, comes from the editorial board of the NYT:

"The real answers are support for sustainable agriculture in the developing world and encouraging healthy, less meat-based eating habits as a true sign of affluence everywhere."

First of all, if sustainable agriculture includes the unnecessary slaughter of sentient beings, I beg to differ about the word "real." Second, why not just say the obvious, that "meat," no matter what the animal of origin is fed, is never an efficient use of resources. Ever. Period. Just say it. Finally, what's all this about redefining how we think of affluence? Where did that come from? Thanks for the blog idea, though.

The inability of the NYT to see its own faulty logic while pointing out the faulty logic of the authors of the Pew report is frightening. I'm feeling a letter to the editor (letters@nytimes.com ) coming on.

Comments

[Bea Elliott]

Gosh... I never knew that! Cows eat fish. And plastic, blue jeans, re-cycled manure and newspaper... I get it now: Cows eat fish wrapped in yesterday's NYT newspaper!

[Alex Melonas]

I believe they do recognize the errors in their reasoning; therefore, avoiding the logical conclusion is consciously motivated, not accidental or the result of poor logic. The reason for this is pragmatism and self-interest. Like Al Gore, the evidence is undeniable. However, "the common good" can only compel so much harm to our own interests, no matter how trivial; the bills also have to be paid, which requires mass readership.

[Mary Martin]

Alex,
"I believe they do recognize the errors in their reasoning; therefore, avoiding the logical conclusion is consciously motivated, not accidental or the result of poor logic. The reason for this is pragmatism and self-interest."

I wish it weren't true, but you're probably right.