Scribd
Upload
25 views1 page

Letter To The Editor 040310

The letter critiques Professor Peter Singer's arguments against livestock industries, specifically his claims about red meat consumption and its links to bowel cancer and global warming. It argues that scientific evidence does not support Singer's assertions, noting that the Cancer Council of Australia endorses red meat as part of a healthy diet and that the link between livestock and methane production is not as direct as suggested. The author respects Singer's philosophical stance but believes his scientific justification is flawed.

Uploaded by

mwraight3434
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views1 page

Letter To The Editor 040310

The letter critiques Professor Peter Singer's arguments against livestock industries, specifically his claims about red meat consumption and its links to bowel cancer and global warming. It argues that scientific evidence does not support Singer's assertions, noting that the Cancer Council of Australia endorses red meat as part of a healthy diet and that the link between livestock and methane production is not as direct as suggested. The author respects Singer's philosophical stance but believes his scientific justification is flawed.

Uploaded by

mwraight3434
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Letter to the Editor, The Age, 4/3/2010

Professor Peter Singer’s recent attack on livestock industries have been an attempt to justify a
philosophical stance using flawed scientific evidence. He calls for a “Beef Tax” based on the claims
that eating red meat causes bowel cancer and that livestock production contributes to global
warming.

On the first claim, The Cancer Council of Australia lists the consumption of red meat four times per
week as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Only as a part of extremely high fat/ low fibre diets has
meat consumption been experimentally associated with bowel cancer. There is no association with
eating red meat alone.

It is well established that enteric fermentation, or cow burps, produce methane. And methane is
listed as a potent greenhouse gas associated with global warming. But is there a direct link between
agricultural enteric fermentation and global warming? Since 1999, the world ruminant populations
have been increasing at an accelerated rate. In 1999, sheep, cattle and goat populations were
increasing numbers at a rate of 9.15 million head / year. The current rate of increase is 16.96 million
head / year. Prior to 1999, as ruminant levels increased, so too did atmospheric methane
concentrations. This lead scientists to attribute a causal relationship between agricultural enteric
fermentation and greenhouse gas production. However, since 1999, the atmospheric methane
concentration has not increased at all, while ruminant numbers have massively increased. The causal
link is broken leading scientists to believe that sources other than ruminant production play a larger
role in atmospheric methane levels.

Professor Singer claims we should not eat meat because of methane production from enteric
fermentation. What should mankind’s diet consist mainly of? Rice? Agricultural enteric fermentation
has been estimated to result in the production of 80 million tonnes of methane per year. Rice
production produces up to 100 million tonnes. A change in the world’s diet is not the answer for
climate change.

Professor Singer has a philosophical position that mankind should not utilize animals for meat, milk,
fibre, sport or companionship. I do not agree with this philosophy but I respect the right to express
it. Professor Singer’s argument collapses when he attempts to use science to justify his position. It
does not stack up.

You might also like