tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/beef-eating-40490/articlesBeef-eating – The Conversation2021-08-18T22:53:42Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1660222021-08-18T22:53:42Z2021-08-18T22:53:42ZIndividual dietary choices can add – or take away – minutes, hours and years of life<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416466/original/file-20210817-27-105w4xv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=130%2C74%2C6064%2C3130&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eating more fruits, vegetables and nuts can make a meaningful impact on a person's health – and the planet's too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ingredients-for-the-healthy-foods-selection-the-royalty-free-image/1179272859?adppopup=true">kerdkanno/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Vegetarian and vegan options have become standard fare in the American diet, from upscale restaurants to fast-food chains. And many people know that the food choices they make affect <a href="https://theconversation.com/confused-about-what-to-eat-science-can-help-118745">their own health</a> as well as that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth">of the planet</a>. </p>
<p>But on a daily basis, it’s hard to know how much individual choices, such as buying mixed greens at the grocery store or ordering chicken wings at a sports bar, might translate to overall personal and environmental health. That’s the gap we hope to fill with our research.</p>
<p>We are part of a team of researchers with expertise in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vVPGeT0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">food sustainability and environmental life cycle assessment</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JKdT2e0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">epidemiology and environmental health</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor-Fulgoni">nutrition</a>. We are working to gain a deeper understanding beyond the often overly simplistic animal-versus-plant diet debate and to identify environmentally sustainable foods that also promote human health. </p>
<p>Building on this multi-disciplinary expertise, we combined 15 nutritional health-based dietary risk factors with <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229466">18 environmental indicators</a> to evaluate, classify and prioritize more than 5,800 individual foods.</p>
<p>Ultimately, we wanted to know: Are drastic dietary changes required to improve our individual health and reduce environmental impacts? And <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evL7GvmaQWo">does the entire population need to become vegan</a> to make a meaningful difference for human health and that of the planet?</p>
<h2>Putting hard numbers on food choices</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00343-4">2021 study</a> published in the research journal Nature Food, we provide some of the first concrete numbers for the health burden of various food choices. We analyzed the individual foods based on their composition to calculate each food item’s net benefits or impacts. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://myumi.ch/pdryj">Health Nutritional Index</a> that we developed turns this information into minutes of life lost or gained per serving size of each food item consumed. For instance, we found that eating one hot dog costs a person 36 minutes of “healthy” life. In comparison, we found that eating a serving size of 30 grams of nuts and seeds provides a gain of 25 minutes of healthy life – that is, an increase in good-quality and disease-free life expectancy. </p>
<p>Our study also showed that substituting only 10% of daily caloric intake of beef and processed meats for a diverse mix of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and select seafood could reduce, on average, the dietary carbon footprint of a U.S. consumer by one-third and add 48 healthy minutes of life per day. This is a substantial improvement for such a limited dietary change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Relative positions of select foods on a carbon footprint versus nutritional health map" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Relative positions of select foods, from apples to hot dogs, are shown on a carbon footprint versus nutritional health map. Foods scoring well, shown in green, have beneficial effects on human health and a low environmental footprint.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Austin Thomason/Michigan Photography and University of Michigan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How did we crunch the numbers?</h2>
<p>We based our Health Nutritional Index on a large epidemiological study called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32366-8">Global Burden of Disease</a>, a comprehensive global study and database that was developed with the help of <a href="http://www.healthdata.org/gbd/about">more than 7,000 researchers around the world</a>. The Global Burden of Disease determines the risks and benefits associated with multiple environmental, metabolic and behavioral factors – including 15 dietary risk factors. </p>
<p>Our team took that population-level epidemiological data and adapted it down to the level of individual foods. Taking into account more than 6,000 risk estimates specific to each age, gender, disease and risk, and the fact that there are about a half-million minutes in a year, we calculated the health burden that comes with consuming one gram’s worth of food for each of the dietary risk factors.</p>
<p>For example, we found that, on average, 0.45 minutes are lost per gram of any processed meat that a person eats in the U.S. We then multiplied this number by the corresponding <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10101441">food profiles</a> that we previously developed. Going back to the example of a hot dog, the 61 grams of processed meat in a hot dog sandwich results in 27 minutes of healthy life lost due to this amount of processed meat alone. Then, when considering the other risk factors, like the sodium and trans fatty acids inside the hot dog – counterbalanced by the benefit of its polyunsaturated fat and fibers – we arrived at the final value of 36 minutes of healthy life lost per hot dog. </p>
<p>We repeated this calculation for more than 5,800 foods and mixed dishes. We then compared scores from the health indices with 18 different environmental metrics, including carbon footprint, water use and air pollution-induced human health impacts. Finally, using this health and environmental nexus, we color-coded each food item as green, yellow or red. Like a traffic light, green foods have beneficial effects on health and a low environmental impact and should be increased in the diet, while red foods should be reduced.</p>
<h2>Where do we go from here?</h2>
<p>Our study allowed us to identify certain priority actions that people can take to both improve their health and reduce their environmental footprint. </p>
<p>When it comes to environmental sustainability, we found striking variations both within and between animal-based and plant-based foods. For the “red” foods, beef has the largest carbon footprint across its <a href="https://doi.org/10.1201/b19138">entire life cycle</a> – twice as high as pork or lamb and four times that of poultry and dairy. From a health standpoint, eliminating processed meat and reducing overall sodium consumption provides the largest gain in healthy life compared with all other food types. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cattle in feedlot or feed yard" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beef consumption had the highest negative environmental impacts, and processed meat had the most important overall adverse health effects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/feedlot-cattle-29-royalty-free-image/1303979847?adppopup=true">Clinton Austin/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Therefore, people might consider eating less of foods that are high in processed meat and beef, followed by pork and lamb. And notably, among plant-based foods, greenhouse-grown vegetables scored poorly on environmental impacts due to the combustion emissions from heating.</p>
<p>Foods that people might consider increasing are those that have high beneficial effects on health and low environmental impacts. We observed a lot of flexibility among these “green” choices, including whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and low-environmental impact fish and seafood. These items also offer options for all income levels, tastes and cultures.</p>
<p>Our study also shows that when it comes to food sustainability, it is not sufficient to only consider the amount of greenhouse gases emitted – the so-called carbon footprint. Water-saving techniques, such as drip irrigation and the reuse of gray water – or domestic wastewater such as that from sinks and showers – can also make important steps toward lowering the water footprint of food production.</p>
<p>A limitation of our study is that the epidemiological data does not enable us to differentiate within the same food group, such as the health benefits of a watermelon versus an apple. In addition, individual foods always need to be considered within the context of one’s individual diet, considering the maximum level above which foods are not any more beneficial – one cannot live forever by just increasing fruit consumption. </p>
<p>At the same time, our Health Nutrient Index has the potential to be regularly adapted, incorporating new knowledge and data as they become available. And it can be customized worldwide, as has already <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12092745">been done in Switzerland</a>.</p>
<p>It was encouraging to see how small, targeted changes could make such a meaningful difference for both health and environmental sustainability – one meal at a time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166022/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the National Dairy Council and the University of Michigan Dow Sustainability Fellowship. Olivier Jolliet. has received funding on unrelated projects from US EPA, USDA, American Chemistry Council Long-Range Research Initiative, and Unilever, and became part, after submission of the present manuscript of the Sustainable Nutrition Scientific Board created with the unrestricted support from Nutella. The funding organizations did not have a role in the manuscript development.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the National Dairy Council and the University of Michigan Dow Sustainability Fellowship.</span></em></p>A new study puts numbers to the health and environmental benefits – or impacts – of individual foods and shows how small changes can make a significant difference.Olivier Jolliet, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of MichiganKaterina S. Stylianou, Research Associate in Environmental Health Sciences, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/858602017-10-20T15:35:52Z2017-10-20T15:35:52ZThe burger apocalypse: low carbon eating and avoiding food waste<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190636/original/file-20171017-30417-zrr3wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-girl-holding-female-hands-fast-481598221">MariaSavenko/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/594361/NDNS_Y1_to_4_UK_report_full_text_revised_February_2017.pdf">More than 95%</a> of people still eat meat and don’t like being told that it is wrong and bad for the planet to do so. But it is now well established that <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/">meat production</a> is responsible for a substantial proportion of human greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention issues around animal welfare. Perhaps more worrying is the increasing problem of massive food wastage. However, people can significantly address these challenges – and an impending “burger apocalypse” – by following a few simple steps toward low carbon eating.</p>
<p>Switching to a low carbon diet has three major benefits: it reduces your impact on the environment, it <a href="https://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/why-save-food">saves you money</a>, and it’s very likely to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/healthy-diet-healthier-planet-26152">healthier for you</a>. So what’s all this talk of a burger apocalypse, then? The fact is the now common choice to “grab a burger” is a significant part of human-caused climate change. Food accounts for <a href="https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss4/art8/">up to 30%</a> of greenhouse gas emissions and – gram for gram – beef is the highest carbon food.</p>
<p>Mass producing beef comes with all sorts of unintended consequences. Animal welfare is a long running issue and there have been numerous <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-25778826">cases of cruelty</a> uncovered over the years. Excessive red meat <a href="http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/">contributes to disease</a> and obesity, and the huge amount of land needed for cattle <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/livestock-farming-artificial-meat-industry-animals">farming</a> could be used much more efficiently to produce other foods.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191080/original/file-20171019-1075-ic1bec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191080/original/file-20171019-1075-ic1bec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191080/original/file-20171019-1075-ic1bec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191080/original/file-20171019-1075-ic1bec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191080/original/file-20171019-1075-ic1bec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191080/original/file-20171019-1075-ic1bec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191080/original/file-20171019-1075-ic1bec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cattle on a farm.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cows-on-farm-black-white-eating-424459801?src=G-M3xIgk4Yd-WfkRuquFsg-1-17">StudioPeace/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a result, the whole planet suffers. For cows, like lambs, produce methane – a greenhouse gas 34 times as potent as CO₂. Cows need huge amounts more water than other foods and are the leading cause of deforestation, reducing how much CO₂ can be absorbed instead of going into the atmosphere. The <a href="http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Shifting_Diets_for_a_Sustainable_Food_Future_0.pdf">World Resources Institute</a> says that compared to 2006, global demand for beef is projected to increase by 95% by 2050.</p>
<p>Government and business have to play their part, but rather than absolving themselves of responsibility by laying blame on others, individuals can make simple changes to their diet and cut tonnes off their annual carbon footprint.</p>
<h2>Avoid waste</h2>
<p>People are quick to blame the supermarkets for food waste, but in developed countries <a href="http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_waste_in_the_UK_2015_Report.pdf">much more is wasted in the home</a> than along the whole of the supply chain. The amount of food we throw away is so staggeringly high the numbers become meaningless to most people. You could think of it this way: <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/196402/icode/">28% of our agricultural land</a> and a big proportion of our precious fresh water is used to grow food that never reaches a human stomach. The best way to reduce your food waste is to plan your meals before going to the supermarket, so you only buy what you will use.</p>
<h2>Buy in-season, low carbon food</h2>
<p>People get preoccupied with whether food is local. But whether it’s in-season is more important for it’s carbon footprint. In his book <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004E3X9ZC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">How Bad Are Bananas?</a>, Mike Berners-Lee tells us bananas bought in the UK are low carbon as they come from central or south America by boat. Conversely, you might get UK-grown strawberries in the winter, but they’ll be grown in a hot-house, using fossil-fuel energy, so they could be responsible for 12 times the amount of carbon than between May to September when they’re in season.</p>
<p>With global trade and supermarkets selling most foods year-round it can be hard to know when fruits and vegetables are in-season. You can check this <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/4f16d9_c91250b0242e47b4a4b85f05704a2713.pdf">seasonality chart</a> before making the trip to the supermarket. Note on the chart, asparagus, when bought outside the UK’s short growing season of April to June, is responsible for is around 30 times higher carbon as it has to be air-freighted from Peru.</p>
<p>Even people who don’t want to reduce how much meat they eat can switch from beef or lamb to pork or chicken and cut around two-thirds off the associated carbon footprint. Vegetarians need to be careful here too. Cheddar cheese is high carbon so maybe have small portions and consider soft cheeses, which need a lot less milk.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_1VRJAuTy4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Low carbon meat substitutes in supermarkets have exploded in the last couple of years and restaurants are catching up, with most now providing at least one or two meat-free options. <a href="http://example.com/">The Impossible Burger</a>, which launched in the US last year after five years of research, is aimed at meat lovers. Yet it’s a plant-based burger. The “magic ingredient” is heme, which is what makes meat “meaty”. But you can get it from plants as well as animals. It has an eighth the greenhouse gas emissions as a beef burger but it smells, sizzles, and, apparently, tastes like beef. </p>
<p>Meat-eaters and burger lovers are trying it and giving it <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/impossible-burger-new-york-veggie-momofuku-david-chang">positive reviews</a>. It might just persuade people to switch. How something tastes is a bigger factor for the average person than the ethical or environmental argument. </p>
<p>Another way to reduce your food’s impact on you and the earth is eat less – especially protein. As the <a href="http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/16_Shifting-Diets-Blog-Graphics_03v3.png">World Resources Institute</a> points out, people now consume far more than the recommended 50 grams of protein a day, especially in wealthy countries. This excess protein is often the expensive, unhealthy, high carbon kind. An astounding <a href="http://eatforum.org/article/more-than-two-billion-people-overweight-or-obese/">2.2 billion people</a> – almost one in three – are now overweight or obese.</p>
<p>So how can you do your bit to fight The Burger Apocalypse? By following the ABC of low carbon eating: Avoid wasting food, Buy in-season food, and Choose low carbon food more.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85860/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Curran delivers The Burger Apocalypse talk at Manchester Science Festival on Saturday, 21 October 2017 (<a href="http://www.manchestersciencefestival.com/event/the-burger-apocalypse/">www.manchestersciencefestival.com/event/the-burger-apocalypse/</a>).</span></em></p>Consumers need to educate themselves on costs of eating beef and start thinking about choosing low-carbon foods instead.Tony Curran, Senior Public Engagement Fellow, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/810612017-07-17T23:10:08Z2017-07-17T23:10:08ZHow changing your diet could save animals from extinction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178513/original/file-20170717-6069-118ptx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C5%2C3329%2C2562&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nearly one-third of tropical animal species face extinction if humans do not curb our growing appetites for beef, pork and other land-intensive meats. The Panamanian golden frog bred by the Vancouver Aquarium in this 2014 file photo may be extinct in its natural habitat.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/cpimages_details.pop.fwx?position=4&archiveType=ImageFolder&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=golden%20and%20frog&fileId=7ED4E565C8CEED275AEAE4A023E6F0DBFE75CC55B6586039AFA3A4A9FE951D3F22B34ACC50499F0099000C676EF56B79FD8133928F397B4233BD2F0B4AD858FA1638DDC87EBA9DB8E94B0839D79C227DF75A92B14A2B5F1A1225BCBD55DF59F06EB5BD7C5D2616EF6A9A1C79CADDD85732C9D97DC19FAC898908539CF52E943D">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Transforming large swaths of the tropics into farmland could render almost one-third of wildlife there extinct, new research suggests. </p>
<p>From the Amazon rain forests to the Zambezi floodplains, intensive <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0234-3.epdf?author_access_token=b6E1O0fG6Z2pt7i17O5LcdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Pk8s5ohTQBT5s50rsawiGLYGm5dBnXDBv1BU9t-BbojU0HQHmSIi7-KmQMAcQb1FgkSHgkdZLVFDTFxUt1byLe-6By_qDh-GymAFfpKHOMSA%3D%3D">monoculture farming could have a severe adverse impact on wildlife</a> around the world. </p>
<p>Wildlife would disappear most dramatically in the remaining forests and grasslands of Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The greatest species loss would occur in the Peruvian Amazon basin where as many as 317 species could vanish as a result of agricultural development. </p>
<p>As a doctoral researcher at Humboldt University Berlin, I studied human food consumption, land use and how they affect wildlife. Our research was published July 17 in Nature Ecology and Evolution.</p>
<p>While human population has doubled since 1970, the number of <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/lpr_2016/">birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians have dropped by more than half</a>. At its root, this widespread environmental destruction is a result of our growth as a species and increasing food consumption to sustain ourselves.</p>
<p>Although climate change casts a shadow over future conservation efforts, farming is the <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7656/full/nature22900.html">No. 1 threat to wildlife</a>. We have already <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/070062/abstract">altered some 75 per cent of the ice-free land</a> on this planet. If we continue along our current course, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/108/50/20260">we will need to double our crop production</a> to feed a growing world population that demands more resource-intensive foods such as meat and dairy.</p>
<h2>Africa at risk</h2>
<p>Our research shows that Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly at risk of harmful agricultural development. This region is at the crossroads of economic, demographic and agricultural growth, and minimizing potential effects of agricultural change there is an urgent challenge.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=181&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=181&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=181&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=228&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=228&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178522/original/file-20170717-6046-18tdj36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=228&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The potential biodiversity loss due to agricultural expansion and intensification worldwide could be as high as 317 species in some locales (left), reaching 31 per cent of known vertebrate animals (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Laura Kehoe)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This becomes more worrying when considering the percentage of land that is currently at risk (i.e. natural but arable) and not protected against future development. Four-fifths of the regions we identify at risk of farmland expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa are unprotected. This is less than half of the 43 per cent protected in Latin America.</p>
<p>Some may mistakenly believe that protecting land from farming is about preserving wildlife habitat while local people go hungry. But it’s not a binary choice. Instead, the goal is to ensure an ample supply of nutritious food while at the same time conserving the most biodiverse and unique places on Earth. This is possible if we try. Knowing in advance what areas are most at risk allows us to better plan for a more sustainable future.</p>
<p>Aside from protecting land, food can be grown at little to no cost to biodiversity. For example, small-holder agro-ecological farming, which uses diverse cropping techniques along with fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides, can produce <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712000821">large quantities of nutritious food at little to no cost</a> to wildlife. </p>
<p>We need to increase awareness of agro-ecological farming methods and secure local people’s land-holder rights — a crucial step to preventing large foreign corporations from buying up land for monoculture farming. </p>
<p>Communities adopting agro-ecological techniques is a win-win solution that goes a long way towards sustainably feeding the world without pushing wildlife towards extinction.</p>
<h2>What can policy makers do?</h2>
<p>Current large-scale <a href="http://www.conservation.org/How/Pages/Hotspots.aspx">conservation schemes</a> are based on factors that include past habitat loss and the threatened status of species, but none include the potential for future land-use change. We need to do a better job of predicting future pressures on wildlife habitat, especially because timely conservation action is cheaper and more effective than trying to fix the damage caused by farming. Our research takes a step in this direction.</p>
<p>We also show which countries could do with more support for conservation initiatives to protect land and find ways to sustainably grow food. Suriname, Guyana and the Republic of the Congo are just a few examples, as well as a number of countries in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa that are at the centre of high agricultural growth, low conservation investment and very high numbers of species that could be lost due to agricultural development. </p>
<p>Since most agricultural demand comes from richer nations, those countries should provide education and support for sustainable farming methods and locally led conservation efforts. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=741&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=741&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178526/original/file-20170717-27512-dd5mjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=741&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Map shows countries at risk of high species loss from agricultural development (yellow, bear icon), rapid agricultural growth 2009 to 2013 (orange, tractor symbol), and differing levels of conservation spending. Red represents low spending, high growth, and high species loss. Purple shows high spending, high growth, and low species loss. Green is high spending, low growth, and high species loss. Low values for all three factors are in grey. White represents no data. Dollar figures per square kilometre.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Laura Kehoe</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What can you do?</h2>
<p>All of this raises the question: How can we eat well without harming wildlife? One simple step we can all take right now that would have a far greater impact than any other (aside from having fewer children): Cut out the grain-fed beef. </p>
<p>The inefficiency of feeding livestock grain to turn them into meals for humans makes a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697">diet heavy in animals particularly harsh on the Earth’s</a> resources. For example, in the United States, it takes <a href="https://books.google.ca/books/about/Should_We_Eat_Meat_Evolution_and_Consequ.html">25 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef</a>. Pigs have a grain-to-meat-ratio of 9:1, and chickens are 3:1. </p>
<p>Imagine throwing away 25 plates of perfectly good food to get one plate of beef — the idea is absurd and would likely be news if done en masse. But that is precisely what we are all unknowingly doing by eating resource-intensive meat. Articles on food waste seem half-baked when keeping in mind the bizarre grain-to-meat ratio of many of our most popular meats. </p>
<p>There are ways in which farmers can raise livestock with little to no environmental damage, particularly when land is not overgrazed and trees remain on the landscape. Indeed, in some remote areas grazing cattle are a crucial source of food and nourishment. Unfortunately, the industrialized feedlot model that relies heavily on grain makes up the overwhelming majority of the meat in your supermarket. That is the kind of farming that our research investigates.</p>
<h2>Livestock and deforestation</h2>
<p>To make matters worse, the grain we feed animals is the leading driver of deforestation in the tropics. And it’s a hungry beast: our <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7369/full/nature10452.html">cows, pigs, and poultry devour over one-third of all crops</a> we grow. Indeed, the grain we feed to animals in the U.S. alone <a href="http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat">could feed an additional 800 million people</a> if it were eaten by us directly — more than the number of <a href="http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/">people currently living in hunger</a>. </p>
<p>Livestock quietly causes <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/whats-driving-deforestation#.WSsT8e1tnIU">10 times more deforestation</a> than the palm oil industry but seems to get about 10 times less media attention. While it’s certainly true that avoiding unsustainable palm oil is a good idea, avoiding eating animals that were raised on grain is an even more effective conservation tactic.</p>
<p>Feeding the world without damaging nature is one of the greatest challenges humanity faces. But with a little foresight, better land governance and some simple meal changes, many of the solutions are at arm’s length. </p>
<p>For wildlife’s sake, go forth and enjoy your veggie burgers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81061/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Kehoe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As much as one-third of animal species in the tropics could be eradicated if their habitats continue to be converted for monoculture farming. We can all do something to make a difference.Laura Kehoe, Researcher in Conservation Decision Science and Land Use, University of VictoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/805862017-07-17T00:38:51Z2017-07-17T00:38:51ZHinduism and its complicated history with cows (and people who eat them)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177211/original/file-20170706-26461-mfgsrl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are cows sacred to all Hindus?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/incandopolis/12148626453/in/photolist-jvwToM-ocvh2o-7gJaQU-e3CTXm-54axnt-54eMeE-tHysJ-pmd5jd-zQ3ZV-faR6Cq-6FNN1C-8t26jm-pKiaCX-dwzPQt-5rBhiM-6UB5gD-nVbxhF-9HBZMP-fiufiL-g6HS4t-7LtWwK-ocE6KV-75KjJX-du1k9T-rYemwB-nuiaTX-47vqt6-e6JB5r-qbzuCX-dXSuEr-faiyyw-dHHaDG-cPivkY-edNyiQ-aqmNTP-ekXDV9-4rbMnh-bDCSmM-51Tpuf-aqput5-9aqn9f-nVbbG2-pg4nBb-S6dHjT-stTaFJ-fXBxYU-mMgwH-i1efbZ-c7GrCA-mQxGT8">PRODaniel Incandela</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Just this past June, at a national meeting of various Hindu organizations in India, a popular preacher, Sadhvi Saraswati, <a href="http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/hang-those-who-eat-beef-as-status-symbol-sadhvi-saraswati/422764.html">suggested that</a> those who consumed beef should be publicly hanged. Later, at the same conclave, an animal rights activist, Chetan Sharma, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/all-india-hindu-conclave-at-goa-event-gaumutra-drives-purification-ride-4709422/">said</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Cow is also the reason for global warming. When she is slaughtered, something called EPW is released, which is directly responsible for global warming. It’s what is called emotional pain waves.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These provocative remarks come at a time when vigilante Hindu groups in India are lynching people for eating beef. Such killings have increased since Narendra Modi and his right-wing Bharatiya Janata party came to power in September 2014. In September 2015, a 50-year-old Muslim man, Mohammad Akhlaq, was lynched by a mob in a village near New Delhi on suspicion that he had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/inside-bishari-indian-village-where-mob-killed-man-for-eating-beef">consumed beef</a>. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/asia/india-cow-mob-hindu-vigilantes.html">Since then</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/world/asia/india-lynchings-attacks-on-muslims.html">many attacks</a> by cow vigilante groups have followed. Modi’s government has also prohibited the slaughter of buffalo, thus <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/world/asia/buffalo-meat-industry-india-shutdowns.html?_r=0">destroying the Muslim-dominated buffalo meat industry</a> and causing widespread economic hardship.</p>
<p>Most people seem to assume that no Hindu has ever consumed beef. But is this true? </p>
<p>As a scholar, studying Sanskrit and ancient Indian religion for over 50 years, I know of many texts that offer a clear answer to this question. </p>
<h2>Cows in ancient Indian history</h2>
<p>Scholars have known for centuries that the ancient Indians ate beef. After the fourth century B.C., when the practice of vegetarianism spread throughout India among Buddhists, Jains and Hindus, many Hindus continued to eat beef.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/private/a-burnt-offering/">In the time of the oldest Hindu sacred text</a>, the Rig Veda (c. 1500 B.C.), <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/157-the-myth-of-the-holy-cow">cow meat was consumed</a>. Like most cattle-breeding cultures, the Vedic Indians generally ate the castrated steers, but they would <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Early_India.html?id=-5irrXX0apQC">eat the female of the species</a> during rituals or when welcoming a guest or a person of high status. </p>
<p>Ancient ritual texts known as Brahmanas (c. 900 B.C.) and other texts that taught religious duty (dharma), from the third century B.C., <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/157-the-myth-of-the-holy-cow">say</a> that a bull or cow should be killed to be eaten when a guest arrives. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Dharmasutras_Olivelle_1999.pdf">According to these texts</a>, “the cow is food.” Even when one passage in the “Shatapatha Brahmana” (3.1.2.21) <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe26/sbe2604.htm">forbids</a> the eating of either cow or bull, a revered ancient Hindu sage named Yajnavalkya immediately contradicts it, saying that, nevertheless, he eats the meat of both cow and bull, “as long as it’s tender.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177212/original/file-20170706-9219-1tswjhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177212/original/file-20170706-9219-1tswjhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177212/original/file-20170706-9219-1tswjhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177212/original/file-20170706-9219-1tswjhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177212/original/file-20170706-9219-1tswjhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177212/original/file-20170706-9219-1tswjhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177212/original/file-20170706-9219-1tswjhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cows painted over a door are believed to bring good luck.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rfunnell/15266611124/in/photolist-pg4nBb-S6dHjT-aqpudG-stTaFJ-fXBxYU-mMgwH-dXSsQX-i1efbZ-mQxGT8-6UBgYv-bCgu2-ocuUGj-2adWjN-h2ctz-4Ak4mP-buzDJx-4DuE1V-8s4Ruo-ocvgC7-iBQz3M-nVakcy-2wqP8-ocE6sF-nKidX9-7hFHXs-DLjJr-dxyD8B-e8nJht-8hCNbR-e8toC7-aVM4M8-6TqDYT-6ZunDt-8vYSwW-e8toru-7LpqRh-h2EWm-6Tqy8g-fGBHr-ocuUVf-7RRpFA-oiAVt-7qoyhd-c7GrCA-mQzvx7-8ngWzN-5ifQ6-e8nHHn-oczB4b-aYUxtR">Ross Funnell</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was the Sanskrit epic, the Mahabharata (composed between 300 B.C. and A.D. 300) that explained the transition to the non eating of cows <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520040984">in a famous myth</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Once, when there was a great famine, King Prithu took up his bow and arrow and pursued the Earth to force her to yield nourishment for his people. The Earth assumed the form of a cow and begged him to spare her life; she then allowed him to milk her for all that the people needed.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This myth imagines a transition from hunting wild cattle to preserving their lives, domesticating them, and breeding them for milk, a transition to agriculture and pastoral life. It visualizes the cow as the paradigmatic animal that yields food without being killed.</p>
<h2>Beef-eating and caste</h2>
<p>Some dharma texts composed in this same period insist that cows should not be eaten. Some Hindus who did eat meat made a special exception and did not eat the meat of cow. Such people may have regarded beef-eating in the light of what the historian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romila_Thapar">Romila Thapar</a> describes as a <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Early_India.html?id=-5irrXX0apQC">“matter of status”</a> – the higher the caste, the greater the food restrictions. Various religious sanctions were used to impose prohibition on beef eating, but, as Thapar demonstrates, “only among the upper castes.” </p>
<p>As I see it, the arguments against eating cows are a combination of a symbolic argument about female purity and docility (symbolized by the cow who generously gives her milk to her calf), a religious argument about Brahmin sanctity (as Brahmins came increasingly to be identified with cows and to be paid by donations of cows) and a way for castes to rise in social ranking. </p>
<p>Sociologist <a href="http://www.sociologyguide.com/indian-thinkers/m-n-srinivas.php">M. N. Srinivas</a> pointed out that the lower castes <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Social_Change_in_Modern_India.html?id=Mf1PtqYBaQAC">gave up beef</a> when they wanted to move up the social ladder through the process known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskritisation">“Sanskritization.”</a> </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177213/original/file-20170706-26461-gfcgli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177213/original/file-20170706-26461-gfcgli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177213/original/file-20170706-26461-gfcgli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177213/original/file-20170706-26461-gfcgli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177213/original/file-20170706-26461-gfcgli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177213/original/file-20170706-26461-gfcgli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177213/original/file-20170706-26461-gfcgli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A central tenet of Gandhi’s teaching was vegetarianism. But he did not call for a beef ban.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By the 19th century, the cow-protection movement had arisen. One of the implicit objects of this movement was the <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/393920">oppression of Muslims</a>. </p>
<p>Famously, Gandhi attempted to make vegetarianism, particularly the taboo against eating beef, a central tenet of Hinduism. Gandhi’s attitude to cows was tied to his idea of nonviolence.</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=9aJyjYuTruAC&q=calf+love#v=snippet&q=calf%20love&f=false">He used the image</a> of the Earth cow (the one that King Prithu milked) as a kind of Mother Earth, to symbolize his imagined Indian nation. His insistence on cow protection was a major factor in his <a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/298258/the-hindus-by-wendy-doniger/9780143116691">failure to attract large-scale Muslim support</a>. </p>
<p>Yet even Gandhi never called for the banning of cow slaughter in India. <a href="https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/cwmg_volume_thumbview/ODg%3D#page/1/mode/2up">He said</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“How can I force anyone not to slaughter cows unless he is himself so disposed? It is not as if there were only Hindus in the Indian Union. There are Muslims, Parsis, Christians and other religious groups here.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Today’s India</h2>
<p>From my perspective, in our day, the nationalist and fundamentalist “Hindutva” (“Hindu-ness”) movement is attempting to use this notion of the sanctity of the cow to disenfranchise Muslims. And it is not only the beef-eating Muslims (and Christians) who are the target of Hindutva’s hate brigade. Lower-caste Hindus are also being attacked. Attacks of this type are not new. This has been going on since <a href="http://www.culturism.us/booksummaries/Hindutva%20Who%20is%20a%20Hindu4Posting.pdf">Hindutva began in 1923</a>. And indeed, in 2002, in a north Indian town, <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/why-i-decided-to-convert-the-dalits-of-jhajjar/217730">five lower-caste Hindus were lynched</a> for skinning a cow. </p>
<p>But, as local analysis shows, the violence has greatly increased under the Modi government. IndiaSpend, a data journalism initiative, <a href="http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/86-dead-in-cow-related-violence-since-2010-are-muslim-97-attacks-after-2014-2014">found that</a> “Muslims were the target of 51 percent of violence centered on bovine issues over nearly eight years (2010 to 2017) and comprised 86 percent of 28 Indians killed in 63 incidents…As many of 97 percent of these attacks were reported after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government came to power in May 2014.”</p>
<p>In 2015, in the western Indian state of Gujarat, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/gujarat-dalit-protests-una-gau-rakshaks-mohammad-akhlaq-modi-govt-2954324/">lower-caste Hindus were flogged</a> for skinning a dead cow, triggering spontaneous street protests and contributing to the resignation of the state’s chief minister. </p>
<p>As these and so many other recent attacks demonstrate, cows – innocent, docile animals – have become in India a lightning rod for human cruelty, in the name of religion.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80586/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wendy Doniger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Vigilante Hindu groups in India have lynched several people for eating beef. A scholar traces the history of beef-eating in ancient India.Wendy Doniger, Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions, University of ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.