The original article can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
It's poor journalism to base an entire article on one person's views, but George Monbiot's recent Guardian article about the ethics of eating animal produce seems to do just that.
We have not yet had the opportunity to read "Meat: A Benign Extravagance", but Fairlie is a well-known apologist for the meat-eating habit and his articles are often distinguished by their lack of sound scientific references. "Fairlie shows", "Fairlie calculates" etc. is meaningless. There seems to be no mention in the article of the abuse and killing of animals, an issue which cannot be left out of any rational debate about the livestock industry.
Of course vegans have relevant views in the debate about intensive farming and animal welfare, but would never argue that any kind of milk, meat or eggs can be eaten "with a clear conscience". Monbiot's tongue-in-cheek choice of language "slaughters the claims", "butcher a herd of sacred cows", "an abattoir for deadly arguments" makes light of animal exploitation.
A sane, compassionate society would not go to such lengths to try to justify a failing practice which is clearly causing enormous environmental damage worldwide. Why bother? Why not aim instead to grow locally more crops for direct human consumption? A healthy vegan diet is composed of pulses, grains, fruits, vegetables and herbs, all of which can be grown in the UK. The current situation whereby a huge amount of of agricultural land in Britain is taken up with growing crops to feed to livestock in the meat and dairy industry is intolerable.
The Vegan-Organic Network, an educational charity, promotes stockfree organic agriculture by demonstrating that it is both possible and desirable. Stockfree Organic Services advises commercial growers on technical issues. Monbiot should be looking to organisations such as these if he really wants to eat an ethical diet.
