Editor,
Some days ago your esteemed daily published a letter titled “India a superpower?” (ST Dec 10, 2015). It was heartening to see someone move away from political rhetoric of rights and freedom and using logic and reason in presenting their point of view. The opinion in the letter was quite clear, however, what intrigued me was the correlation between beef and India’s might in the world. Hence, I venture to present my two cents. Before I begin, let me set it straight I am merely presenting facts and it is up to the individuals to use their logic and reasoning in light of the facts to form their own opinion. As a ‘non beef eater’ perhaps my personal opinions are biased. However, my choice although initially cultural was reinforced by logic and reasons.
Firstly, let us take a point wise look at the arguments made:
* Protein deficiency in Indian population:
Given the complexities of the human body, it is unimaginable to even think that there is a single defined benchmark for protein or any other nutrient for that matter. The “right” amount of protein for any one individual depends on many factors… including activity levels, age, gender, muscle mass, physique goals and current state of health. FAO presents a comprehensive study of protein requirements on its website. Personally, I would rather trust an UN agency than an Indian “Marketing” Research Bureau.
The ISIS report on poor performance of Indian recruits is a not even worth talking about. I can safely assume that the recruits were non-vegetarians. So it might be a comment not on the diet but on the motivation, general physical condition, skills, and genetics among many other things. The sample size is far too small even for any conjecture.
* Protein content in Vegetarian items vs that in meat:
o In order to match intake with requirements, the protein content needs to be corrected for digestibility, fibre content of diet and amino acid score. Hence, the need for a balanced diet. The different food categories not only serve as sources of different nutrients but also assist in absorption of other nutrients. While it is true that animal protein contains all the amino acids required by humans and it is a little more arduous for vegetarians to include them in their diet, it is very much doable. Lentils, chickpeas, black beans, nuts, tofu, legumes, grains are affordable, and healthier sources of protein. These food items are not just easier to cook (less cooking time) but also easier to digest and absorb for the body.
* Comparison of sportspersons:
While I do have respect for the Undertaker, a body built on steroids can hardly be ideal. On the contrary, there are many Indian wrestlers from UP, Haryana and Punjab who thrive on a vegetarian diet and have won medals for India in the international stage. If that is not convincing enough Ironman Brendan Brazier, ultra runner Scott Jurek, health writers Tim Ferris and Matt Ruscigno are few of the increasingly growing number of people migrating towards vegetarian diet.
The world is moving towards sustainability. The Paris summit went into overtime in order to figure out an agreeable climate solution. But the responsibility of reducing carbon footprint also lies on our shoulders. One of the ways is by reducing meat consumption. It may not be very obvious but one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas is beef.
Beef requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions. When compared to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more greenhouse gases.
Agriculture is a significant driver of global warming and causes 15% of all emissions, half of which are from livestock. Furthermore, the huge amounts of grain and water needed to raise cattle is a concern to experts worried about feeding an extra 2 billion people by 2050. (The Guardian, Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert. July 21 2014). If you consider the complete product life-cycle, one kg of beef produces 27.0 equivalent kgs of CO2 and ranks second only to lamb. To put it plainly, you need to drive 63 miles to produce the same emissions as eating one kilogram of beef. Moreover, imagine the economic impact of scares such as mad cow disease, avian flu, e-coli have caused over the years.
The call for ban on beef may not have been brought up for the right reasons. It should be the individuals’ choice but we cannot deny the fact that its impact is indeed far reaching. There are far better alternatives available to us if we could only stop and look. Pisci-culture offers a much better energy conversion ratio when compared to beef and therefore would have a lower bearing on grain market. The health benefit of fish over red meat is also well documented and widely accepted. Sure, it would require a significant change in dietary habits and there will be a lot of opposition. Then again, when has change been accepted meekly? Change requires commitment and persistence, and given the gravity of the situation it is the need of the hour.
Lastly, I would like to reiterate that these are merely facts, perhaps biased to a certain extent. It is up to each individual in their wisdom and perception to form their opinion. “To beef or not to beef…” that is still the question.
Yours etc.,
Hari Subedi,
Budapest,
Hungary.