All language subtitles for Cowspiracy.The.Sustainability.Secret.720p.x264.AAC.MVGroup.Forum

Please support this film
www.COWSPIRACY.com

Advertise your product or brand here
contact www.OpenSubtitles.org today

The world's climate scientists tell us that

the highest save level of emissions
would be around 350 ppm CO2

of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and we're already at 400.

They tell us that the safest we could hope to do
without having perilous implications,

as far as drought, famine, human
conflict, major species extinction

would be about a 2°C
increase in temperature.

We are rapidly approaching that

and with the all the built-in carbon
dioxide that's already in the atmosphere,

we're easily going to exceed that.

On our watch we are facing the
next major extinction of species on the earth

that we haven't seen since
the time of the dinosaurs disappearing.

When whole countries go under water
because of sea level rise,

when whole countries find there's so much drought
that they can't feed their population,

and as a result they need to

desperately migrate to another country
or invade another country...

We are gonna have climate
wars in the future.

What about…

what about livestock
and animal agriculture?

Well, what about it.. I mean...

My name is Kip.

This is me.

I had a cliché
US American childhood.

My mom was a teacher,

my dad was in the military,

and I have one sister.

I played all the sports growing up but
always loved the outdoors and camping.

Life was simple.

Not a care in the world.

And then this guy showed up.

Like so many of us, I saw his film
"An Inconvenient Truth"

about the impacts of global
warming and it scared the emojis out of me.

In Al Gore's film he describes
how our earth is in peril.

Climate change stands for the fact
that all life on this planet,

from monster storms,

raging wild-fires,

record droughts,

icecaps melting,

acidification
of the oceans,

to entire countries
going underwater,

that could all be caused by
human's demands on the Earth.

With scientists warning that unless
we take drastic measures

to correct our
environmental footprint

our time on this planet

may be limited to
only 50 more years.

I wanted to do everything
I could to help.

I made up my mind right then
and there to change how I lived

and to do whatever I
possibly could to find

a way for all of us to live together,

in balance with the planet

sustainably,

forever.

I started to do all the things
Al told us to do.

I became an OCE.

"Obsessive-Compulsive Environmentalist"

I separated the trash and recycled,

I composted,

changed all the light bulbs,

took short showers,

turned the water off when
I brushed my teeth,

turned off lights
when leaving the room,

and rode my bike instead
of driving, everywhere.

But as the years went by it seemed
as if things were getting worse.

I had to wonder:

with all the continuing ecological
crises facing the planet,

even if every single one of us
adopted these conservation habits,

was this really going to be
enough to save the world?

It just seemed there
was something more to the story.

I thought I was doing everything
I could to help the planet.

But then, with one friend's
post, everything changed.

The post sent me to a report online,
published by the United Nations

stating that cows produce
more greenhouse gases

than the entire transportation sector.

This means that raising cattle
produces more greenhouse gases

than all cars, trucks, trains,
boats, planes combined.

13% compared to 18%
from livestock.

This is because cows produce
a substantial amount of methane

from their digestive process.

Methane gas from livestock
is 25-100 times more destructive

than carbon dioxide
from vehicles.

I'd been riding my bike everywhere
to help reduce emissions

but it turns out there is more
to climate change than just fossil fuels.

I started doing more research.

The UN along with other
agencies recorded that

not only did livestock play a
major role in global warming,

it is also the leading cause
of resource consumption

and environmental degradation
destroying the planet today.

How was it possible I wasn't aware of this?

I thought this information would be plastered
everywhere in the environmental community.

I went to the nation's largest
environmental organisations' websites.

350.org, Greenpeace,

Sierra Club, Climate Reality,
Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch…

and was shocked to see they
had virtually nothing on animal agriculture.

What was going on?

Why would they not have this
information on there?

It seemed the main focus for many of
those groups was natural gas and oil production,

with fracking being the latest hot issue,
due to water usage and contamination.

Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas
uses an incredible amount of water.

A staggering 375 billion litres of water is
consumed each year in the US.

But when I compare this with animal agriculture

raising livestock just in the
US consumes 130 trillion litres of water.

And it turns out the methane emissions
from both industries are nearly equal.

Living in California, a state
plagued by drought and water shortages,

water use is a major
concern for many of us.

(PACIFIC INSTITUTE)
The average Californian uses about
5700 litres per person, per day.

About half of that is related
to consuming meat and dairy products.

Meat and dairy products
are incredibly water-intensive,

in part because the animals
use very water-intensive grains,

that's what they eat.

So all of the water embedded
in grain, and that the animals eats

is essentially considered part of the virtual
water footprint of that product.

I found out a one 110 gram hamburger

requires over 2500 litres
of water to produce.

Here I'd been taking these short
showers trying to save water,

to find out that
eating just one hamburger

is the equivalent of showering
two entire months.

So much is attention is given
to lowering our home water use,

yet domestic water use is only
5% of what is consumed in the US

versus 55% for animal agriculture.

This is because it takes
upwards to 9500 litres of water

to produce 450 grams of beef.

I went on the government's department of water
resources' "Save Our Water" campaign,

where it outlines behaviour changes
to help conserve our water.

Like using low-flow shower
heads, efficient toilets,

water-saving appliances and
fix leaky faucets and sprinkler heads

but nothing about animal agriculture.

When I added up all governments' recommendations,
I was saving 180 litres a day.

Still that's not even close to the
2500 litres for just one burger.

I wanted to see if I could somehow talk
with the government about this.

Just calling to see if we
could schedule an interview.

Yeah, that would be good.

What does your schedule look like this afternoon
or tomorrow afternoon?

Tomorrow afternoon could be good.

(Chief Water Use and Efficiency Branch)
For the urban environment there are a lot of things that can be done.

Indoors, using low-flow shower heads,

low-flow faucets, efficient toilets,

efficient water-using appliances.

All those are really good areas can help quite a lot.

But the biggest water
savings is from outdoors.

We have to be mindful
about the way we use water.

We have to use it as
efficiently as possible.

We have to protect its quality and have to be
good stewards of the environment that depends on water.

And checking the sprinkler. A lot of times
we get leaks and broken sprinklers…

Things like that
wastes water.

Those are the areas where
there is a lot of room for conservation.

It kept on coming up a
lot was about animal agriculture…

Can you comment on that
at all about how much that

plays a role in water
consumption and pollution.

That's not my area…

There's one study that found that
producing a pound of beef...

9500 litres of water.

- Yes.
- Yes.

Eggs 1800 litres of water.
Cheese almost 3400 litres.

Isn't it simple, why isn't it on "Save Our Water"?

It's kind if you went
to someone's house

and my neighbour
has a faucet dripping

and then you see a giant
hose turned full blast

until 2500 litres of water
shout out in the street

flooding the entire street.

I think I would say:
"Hey, you know, turn that off, please."

Seems it could be a huge
thing that we could be doing,

by far more than anything else.

If that is really the case.

I think that the water footprint

of animal husbandry is greater
than other activities.

Without a doubt.

That would be really powerful.

Rather than waiting until we really
are in a drought, just start now

and tell whoever is in charge of
"Save Our Water", say

"Let's start to encourage people
to eat less meat

because these studies
are coming up."

- I don't think that will happen.
- Why?

- I don't think that'll happen.
- Why?

Because the way government
is organised here.

It's interesting, why though?

One is water management,
the other behaviour change.

Behaviour of taking showers

and not watering your
lawn, that is behaviour.

Yes.

Clearly the government did
not want talk about this issue.

Their inability to answer

along with the environmental
organisations' silence

on animal agriculture,

made it seem something
more was going on.

I started investigating more about
the impact of livestock

and found that the situation
was worse than I had thought.

In 2009, two advisors from the
World Bank released an analysis

on human-induced
greenhouse gases,

finding that animal agriculture

was responsible not for 18%
as the UN stated,

but for 51% of all
greenhouse gases.

51%.

Yet all we hear about
is burning fossil fuels.

This devastating figure is due to
clear-cutting rainforest for grazing,

respiration and all the
waste animals produced.

This makes animal agriculture the number one

contributor to human-caused climate change.

But not only that, I found
that raising animals for food

consumes 1/3 of all the planet's fresh water,

occupies up to 45%
of the Earth's land.

Is responsible for up to 91%
of the Amazon destruction,

Is the leading cause of
species extinction,

ocean "dead zones",

and habitat destruction.

Yet the world's largest
environmental groups

that are suppoed be saving our world
didn't mention this anywhere.

I had to speak with environmental organisations to find out
why they weren't addressing this issue.

I sent off dozens of emails,
made call after call.

Spent hours on hold.

Days became weeks and
weeks became months

and for some reason, no-one
wanted to talk to me about this.

So bizarre.

I supported these organisations
so long and now I was met with silence.

I was however able to connect with a handful
of environmentalist authors

and advocates that were
willing to address this issue.

I took my old trusty van Super Blue out
of retirement and hit the road.

So my calculations are that

without using any gas, oil
or fuel, ever again, from this day forward,

that we would still exceed our
maximum carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions,

565 gigatons, by
the year 2030.

Without the electricity sector or the
energy sector even factoring in the equation,

all simply by raising and
eating livestock.

If you reduce the amount of methane emissions,
the level in the atmosphere goes down fairly quickly.

Within decades.

As opposed to CO2, if you reduce
the emissions to the atmosphere

you don't really see a signal in the atmosphere
for a 100 years or so.

The single largest contributor to every
known environmental ill known to human kind:

deforestation, land use,
water scarcity,

destabilisation of communities, world hunger…
The list doesn't stop.

It's an environmental
disaster that's being ignored

by the very people who
should be championing.

Free-living animals 10,000 years
ago made up 99% of the biomass.

Human beings made up only
1% of the biomass.

Today, only 10,000 years later,
which is only a fraction of time,

we human beings and
the animals we own as property,

make up 98% of the biomass.

And wild free-living
animals make up only 2%.

We basically have completely
stolen the world, Earth,

from free-living animals
to use for ourselves,

and our cows, pigs, chickens
and factory-farmed fish

and the oceans are
even more devastated.

Concerned researchers of
the loss of species agree

that the primary cause of loss of
species on our earth that we are witnessing,

is due to overgrazing and habitat loss
from livestock production on land

and by overfishing, which I
call fishing in our oceans.

We are in the middle of the largest mass
extinction of species in 65 million years.

The rain forest is being cut down
at 4000 m2 per second.

The driving force behind all of
this is animal agriculture.

Cutting down the forest to graze animals
and to grow soya beans.

Genetically engineered soya beans to feed to the cows, pigs,
factory-farmed chickens and fish.

91% of loss of rainforest in
the Amazon area thus far to date

91% that has been destroyed
is due to raising livestock.

The leading cause of environmental
destruction is animal agriculture.

I just couldn't understand why the

world's largest environmental organisations
weren't addressing this

when their entire mission is
to help protect the environment.

That's the thing too, they say:

"Use less coal, ride your bike…"

- What about "eat less meat"?
- Yeah.

I think they focus-grouped it
and it's a political loser.

They are membership
organisations.

They want to maximise the number
of people making contributions

and if they are getting
identified as anti-meat

or challenging people on their everyday habits,
something that is so dear to people,

it will hurt with their fundraising.

They don't want to address the primary driving
cause of environmental devastation,

which is animal agriculture,
because they're businesses.

They want to make sure that they have
a reliable source of funding.

I got invited to a meeting with
Al Gore some years ago now

and met his methane arguments
but he was really push-back.

That's just his argument:

"It's hard enough to get
people to think about CO2."

"Don't confuse them."

I think that the problem with a lot
of the organisations is that they're focused

and have a laser focus, they don't go
off-message because they don't want to piss off

another whole group of people that will
make their lives difficult.

If you listen to the majority of the major environmental
organisations, they're not telling you to do much,

besides "live life the way you've been living it, but
change the light bulb from time to time,

drive less, use less
plastic, recycle more…"

It's better for their
fundraising and better for their profile

to create a victim-
and-perpetrator sort of plotline.

It's like when we talk about the fact
that when we have a dysfunctional family.

The father is an alcoholic. It's
the one thing no one talks about.

Everyone goes around that,

yet it's the one thing that causes the
devastation in the relationships in the family.

Because nobody wants
talk about it.

How can these organisations not know?

The issue is right in front of them,
unmistakable at this point.

And just like these organisations fall over
themselves to show the general public

that climate change is human-caused

and in doing so completely fail to see
what's right in front of them:

that animal agriculture, raising
and killing animals for food

is really what's killing the planet.

That was it. No more e-mails, no more
phone calls, I had enough.

I realised that if I wanted answers,

I would have to go to these
organisations headquarters in person.

GREENPEACE
San Francisco Headquarters

- Hi, how's it going?
- Good.

We're doing a full-feature documentary.

It's on sustainability
and animal agriculture.

And we're here to talk
with David Barre.

- With Barre?
- Yeah.

- OK. Do you have an appointment with him?
- We've been trying for almost two months.

- We didn't even have one
receptive email, or anything.

- Sure.
- .. to see if we can set something up.

- Let me... So..
They sent out their PR person instead.

She refused to be filmed and
told us to turn off the camera,

but promised someone
from the rainforest, ocean

and climate change department who
would all speak with us. Finally.

Next stop was to give Sierra Club a visit.

Turns out they were a bit more receptive
to me showing up at their doorstep.

How's it going?

With climate change, what is
the leading cause of that?

Well, it's basically burning
too many fossil fuels.

Coal, natural gas, oil, tar sands.

Oil shale…

All new fuel exotic fuels
that are kind of hybrids between them.

That's basically what is
loading up the atmosphere,

we have this greenhouse effect
where the heat is trapped

and the temperatures are soaring

at a rate that never existed
in the history of the Earth.

What about ...

what about livestock
and animal agriculture?

Well, what about it.. I mean...

We ...

... did research

A couple of UN reports say animal
livestock accounts for more emissions

than all transportation put together.

A recent 2009 Worldwatch report:

"Livestock causes 51%
of all greenhouse gas emissions…"

Well...

It is a big issue and we need
to address that as well

but, you know, there are so many potential
sources of methane and carbon emissions…

If the number one leading cause is animal
agriculture and meat consumption

then doesn't it mean to be the number one
focus, if not, the number two?

Well, that's your assessment,
our assessment is different.

That was bizarre.

Greenpeace got back to
me today and said:

"It was great to meet with you yesterday."

"I've spoken with various people here at
Greenpeace about your request,

but I'm afraid we're not going to
be able to help this time."

"Thanks again, and best of luck."

Greenpeace's response
reminded me of the statistic

that 53.000 kilograms
of farm animal excrement

is produced every
second in the US alone.

That is enough waste per year to cover
every square foot of San Francisco,

New York City, Tokyo, Paris,

New Delhi, Berlin,
Hong Kong, London,

Rio de Janeiro, Delaware, Bali,
Costa Rica and Denmark combined.

Livestock operations on land has caused more
than 500 nitrogen-flooded dead zones

around the world and our oceans.

It comprises more than 245.000 km2
of areas completely devoid of life.

So any meaningful discussion
about the state of our oceans

has to always begin by frank discussions

about land-based animal agriculture,

which is not what our conservation
groups, Oceana being the largest one in the world,

and the most influential,

and others - at the apex of their discussions.

I went on my favourite oceans protection
organisation's website,

Surfrider Foundation, to see
what they were doing about this.

Mostly what I found were campaigns about
plastic bags and trash

but nothing about
animal agriculture.

What is the number one
coastal water quality issue polluter?

A lot of it...

We call it the "toxic cocktail."

Because it really is
this diffuse source.

It's heavy metal from tyres, brakes
and cars, heavy metals,

herbicides and pesticides.

Really picking up everything
we leave on the ground,

collecting it together and
pushing it out into the ocean.

It's hard to actually target one thing.

We're doing research on this
particular one, and run-off

and increasingly, as we're
interviewing more and more people,

what keeps coming up,
is animal agriculture

as being the number
one water polluter.

Considerably far more
than any other…

Yeah, interesting, I guess it depends
on the regions you focus on.

Like the urban areas, like where
we are in southern California where we are,

we don't see that, because there are
not a lot of agricultural farms

but look in the mid-Atlantic

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,

I know there are many poultry
farms, a lot of hog farms

and it's a huge waste issue.

I was surprised that they not only
not focus on farm run-off

they also didn't
mention in any campaigns

about how our oceans
are in near collapse.

The UN reporterd that the 3/4
of world's fisheries

are overexploited, fully
exploited or significantly depleted,

due to overfishing.

The oceans are under siege like never
before and marine environments are in trouble.

If we don't wake up and
do something about it

we have fishless oceans
by the year 2048.

That's the prediction
of scientists.

The fact that when people
look at fishing sometimes,

they look only at the animals
that are consumed by humans,

not necessarily looking at all the animals
who are caught in the drift nets

All the others animals
killed in the industry,

Even the shrimping industry has done
a lot to devastate the planet as well,

breaking down natural barriers
that we have to protect the islands.

We're at over 28 billion animals that
were pulled out of the oceans last year.

They are never given
a chance to recover.

They don't multiply that quickly,
we don't give them the opportunity.

The oceans are in complete collapse,

the large fish specie
are near extinction.

The way fishing is done today, to feed the deman dfor 90 million tonnes of fish,

fishing is primarily done with massive fish nets.

For every pound
of fish caught,

up to 2,2 kg of untargeted
species become trapped,

such as dolphins, whales, sea turtles
and sharks, known as by-kill.

If we imagine the same happening
on the African savannah,

targeting the gazelle

but in the process scooping up every
single lion, giraffe, ostriche and elephant

nobody would stand for it.

Yet, this is what's happening
in our oceans every single day.

Between 40-50 million sharks
are killed every year

in fishing lines
and fishing nets as by-kill.

Then their fins may b
cut off or not cut off

but they're caught
initially as by-kill.

And it's from fishing.
From fishing in a sustainable manner

in many cases for fish that are labelled
'sustainable', by for instance Oceana

and these sustainable
certified organisations.

So my thought is why would we stop
at banning shark fin soup

if you're concerned
about sharks?

Which these organisations
are, and most of the public is now.

If we're really concerned about
sharks, we would ban fishing.

I went on the world's largest
ocean conservation's groups website,

Oceana to see what
they do about this.

On their site, along the TED Talk
by CEO Andy Sharpless,

I was astounded to read they actually recommend
that one of the best ways to help fish

is to eat fish.

With the world's fish
population in near collapse,

this seems like saying that the best way
to help endangered pandas

is to eat pandas.

I couldn't understand how
Oceana could say

we could remove close to a
100 million tons of fish per year

and this could be sustainable
and good for our oceans.

In many species that
are near extinction,

have done so and

haven't recovered on
the watch of Oceana

and on the watch of Marine
Stewardship Council,

and on the watch of
Monterey Bay Sea Food.

I mentioned in one of my lectures
they are aptly named, because

they are watching this happen, instead
of aggressively halting it.

According to the UN Food and
Agricultural Organisation

three-quarters of all the fisheries

are either "fully exploited
or overexploited".

So there are not many
fish stocks out there

that you might consider at healthy
levels for the ecosystem.

Watching Andy's TED Talk
about feeding the world…

In 1988, the fishery peaked
at 85 million tonnes.

How can we sustainably catch
100 million tons in 2050?

Regardless if it's
in a farm or in an ocean, if

for every pound
of fish you take out

you essentially take out
2,2 kg of wild fish,

no matter whether it's a
pond or if it's in the ocean.

How can that be sustainable?

The ultimate question is that there
is a tremendous amount of natural

production that comes out of
the oceans all the time.

We have a massive upwelling
from our ocean conveyor belt

that brings ancient nutrients

and our ecosystems
are turning that into fish.

Yes, they're eating each other and
you're losing some of that production

every step up in the food chain,
but you get more every year.

You can fish, take some out and
next year there will be more.

And if we do that right, without
hitting the fundamental driver…

It's like living off the interest, right?

As long as you don't
bring the principle down

if you invest in something,

and the principle remains high,
you can live off the interest forever.

That's the basic
idea with fish.

With our population right now…

75% of the fish is depleted.

It's a good analogy with money,

We are not living off interest,
we are in extreme debt.

And if our population
is trying to live as a family

on the same amount of money

and it's increasing by 35 percent
to 9 billion people.

Isn't it just: "Hey, we have to
stop spending money"?

- Yes.
- "Let's not eat fish."

If you can bring the principle back…

Fishing of any type is depleting
not only the species,

you get into this serial depletion,
where one fish species will be minimised

and the fishing industry for that fishery
will move on to the next species.

It's called serial
depletion, aptly named.

In the process fish is lost,

but the next in line is lost,

the mechanism is still
extremely destructive.

They lose the fish species,

but they also destroy habitats.

They came up with the term "sustainable fishing" to
make ourselves feel good about eating fish

and continue to take
fish from the oceans.

In fact, Sea Shepherd says

that there is no such thing
as "sustainable fishing".

Sea food is not a protein
source for the planet.

Nobody wants to hear it because it

makes them feel
they have to act.

Many people don't want to

disclose because it's uncomfortable
to tell others what to do.

But we are at a point where
we must all be rational,

and have to realise we
have to take action.

Our founder captain Watson says:

"If the oceans die, we die."
It's not a tagline, it's the truth.

Perhaps the only ecosystem that is
being destroyed at such a rapid rate

are the rainforests.

Our global rainforests are
the planet's lungs.

They absorb CO2 and release oxygen.

4000 m2 of rainforest
is cleared every second.

To create pastures and
cultivate animal feed.

The equivalent of a football
field cleared every second.

It is estimated that every day

over 100 plant, animal and
insect species are lost

due to rainforest destruction.

Rainforest Action Network
Headquarters, San Francisco

What is the main cause of
rainforest destruction?

(Executive Director)
Human intervention,

either by logging
or agribusiness.

The top global drivers

varies somewhat depending
on the forest

but the way we use these
natural resources,

on an industrial scale
is the main cause.

When I went to the Rainforest
Action website

I couldn't believe there was
nothing about cattle.

But there was a big
campaign against palm oil.

Palm oil plantations cause tremendous
deforestation in the Indonesian rainforest.

It is estimated that palm
oil is responsible for

10 million hectares
of being cleared.

Though, livestock feed crops

are responsible for 56 million
hectares of lost rainforest today.

But I was shocked to find that
on their website cattle was not included

as one of their
four main issues.

Instead, they
focused on palm,

pulp and paper, coal
and tar sands?

How can can they not have the
leading cause of rainforest destruction?

I had to wonder: why focus on fossil
fuels and not cattle?

Is it more more fuel fossils
or is it more animal agriculture?

I don't know why
we have to choose.

I just want to know
which one is it?

I don't necessarily
know what it is.

Could the executive director of
one of the largest rainforest

protection groups really
did not know what is happening?

Or even worse, hid something?
If so, why?

I immediately went to Amazon Watch
to see what they would say

what the leading cause of
rainforest destruction.

The most biologically and culturally
diverse place on the planet,

is under massive attack right now.

The Amazon forest could
be gone in the next ten years.

What is the leading cause
rainforest destruction?

The main cause of
rainforest destruction…

Say ...

To put Amazon Watch
in context ...

There are many drivers
of deforestation.

Many reasons and ways
to destroy forests.

The main cause that
cause the most damage

are mega projects.

Such as oil and gas pipelines.
Mining projects,

such as mega dam projects.
We're not talking about ...

I felt like walking in circles
with all of these groups.

As if caught in some
"Cowspiracy" Twilight Zone

where nobody could
talk about cows.

I couldn't believe these
organisations just wouldn't say

what the leading cause of
rainforest destruction truly is.

I had to ask one more time.

It's hard to say what the leading
cause of deforestation in the Amazon

because they are all destructive: oil and gas,
mineral mining, dams, agriculture,

But in terms of land use, in terms of
the amount of land destroyed…

When we talk about in comparison
to all the causes of deforestation

what is causing the most
trees to fall, for example...

It think it would
definitely be agriculture.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest
causes of deforestation

definitely in the Brazilian Amazon,
is agribusiness.

Cattle grazing and soy
production in particular.

This is what really is going on.

Why do you think ...

Nobody, like Greenpeace, will

say the whole story?

Yes.

I think you raised
very good points,

why is anyone doing
anything about it.

I think in Brazil, especially
when we look at

what happened after
Forest law was passed

people stood up against the
lobbyists and private interests:

the cattle industry,
agribusiness…

what happened to them, many of
those who spoke out were killed.

If you look at Ze Carlos, Claudio

People who put
themselves out there

and said cattle ranching
destroys the Amazon

a lot of people who
put themselves out there

like Dorothy Stang, a nun
who lived in Para

... was killed.

Many people will speak up,
many people stay silent

because they don't want to be the next
to end up with a bullet to their head.

Sister Dorothy Stang
was an American nun

who lived in the heart of the
Brazilian rainforest.

She dedicated her life
to protect the Amazon.

She spoke out openly against
the destruction of the rainforest

and cattle ranching for years.

Walking home one night she was
brutally gunned down at point blank range

by a hired gun of
the cattle industry.

After Greenpeace initial denial
for the interview

I wrote again, begging
they reconsider.

Greenpeace got back again
and said again:

"I'm afraid we explored the
options in terms of helping you

and are not going to be able
to help this time."

You mentioned you would
also speak with Oceana,

I'm sure they will be
able to give you some great quotes

about the ocean-related issues.

Thanks again for thinking of us."

Unbelievable.

With Greenpeace
unwilling to be interviewed

I had to find a different
avenue to get answers.

There's something
really fishy going on over there.

Fortunately, I found a former Greenpeace
board of director

who now speaks openly
about the industry.

Environmental organisations like other
organisations are not telling you the truth

about what the world needs
from us as a species.

It's so frustrating when the information
is right before their eyes.

It's documented in peer-reviewed journals,

it's there for everybody to see,

but the environmental organisations
are refusing to act.

Nowhere you find in the policies

or Greenpeace mission,

that diet is important.

That animal agriculture
is the problem.

They refuse, like other
environmental organisations,

to look at the issue.

The environmental community is failing
us and they're failing the ecosystems.

It's so frustrating to
see them do this.

"NRDC, the Earth's best defense"

Alright, they actually do have a
few things on animal agriculture.

The leading cause of environmental
degradation is too much pollution.

Too many engines churning too fast
The main cause of environmental
degradation is too much pollution.

Too many engines churning too fast

in too many places
around the globe.

In late 2009, a Worldwatch report:

livestock causes 51%
of greenhouse gas emissions

and transportation is about 13%.

On the low end there's the
UN between 18 and 30%,

which is more than all
transportation together.

Nationally ... or internationally?

- Or nationally?
- Worldwide, yes.

I think energy production
and transportation

are still the major
sources so I think ...

I'm guess I'm not going to comment on that,
because I'm not familiar with those numbers.

So don't quote me on this,
but that's cow farts.

I think what that is.

I think that's cow fart.

Well, that's part
of the story.

Methane production from cows
and other livestock flatulence

is a major contributor.

But mostly it is due to deforestation
and the waste they produce.

Which exceeds 130 times more than
the waste of all humans.

Almost all without the benefit
any waste treatment.

The NRDC absolutely has
a big food programme.

In fact, every year, we
do the "Going Green Awards"

and we recognise
food innovators.

Last year, one of the awardees was
a sustainable pork producer

that doesn't use antibiotics.

The antibiotic use that
industrial food production

in the US uses…

We're getting the majority
of antibiotics in the US

are administered to healthy livestock.

I wanted to visit one of
these sustainable farms.

I found the Markegard beef farm

on the lush misty
California coast.

I met Erik and Doniga Markegard
and their four children.

Lea and Larry are usually
up and out at 6 milking,

feeding the pigs...

Altogether, we graze 1800 hectares

and this is our home ranch,

and this is 380 hectares.

On average it's one cow or a cow and
a calf for every four hectares.

Annually we produce almost
36,000 kg plate-ready meat.

We keep about 10 pigs
in a 20 hectare area.

and move them in
4 acre pastures.

(Daughter)
Some say pigs are dirty and
gross, but I like them.

They know people and they will
be friends and real nice.

They could be your best
friend or like a sister.

See.

They know you and we
get to know them.

I shouldn't be bonding
but we have to have nice pigs.

Why shouldn't you bond with them?

Because they will turn into bacon.

These pigs are 7 months old now.

These bigger ones are getting ready to be killed.

The two smaller ones can
grow for a few more months.

I love, I love animals and that's
why I'm in the meat business.

What society needs
to see more

is that that packaged piece
of meat is a living animal

living, breathing creature.

Yes, it's hard, it's hard,
but what Doniga said earlier,

we do it because
we love them.

With the land use

that is between 1 to 1,5 hectare per cow ...

all the way up to, depending on, not as
lush as this, up to 14 acres.

Yes, we have a ranch in
South Dakota that is

20 hectares ...
Yes, it's 20 ha, yes.

Why is that?

The same thing, it was farmed
and robbed of the nitrogens.

- Abused the land…
- It's also seasonal, right?

It's also seasonal.

Is it possible and practical
for the whole world to say:

"Grow grass-fed cattle"?

Like say in Brazil, where

80% of the rainforest
was destroyed for cattle.

What are your thoughts on that?

They shouldn't eat beef.

If their environment wasn't
designed to raise beef

- they shouldn't be eating it.
- Yeah.

How do you offset the carbon
footprint of livestock?

We don't feel that livestock
have a carbon footprint.

I left feeling confused.

As far as grass-fed beef
not having a carbon footprint

sounded like it could make sense.

Until I added up the numbers
on land use and population.

If we use the Markegard model
for raising animals

which requires about 1800 ha
to produce 36,300 kg of meat.

The average American eats
95 kg of meat per year.

If that was all grass-fed beef

only 382 people could
be fed on the land.

That's 5 ha per person, times
314 million Americans,

which equals 1,3 billion ha
grazing land.

Unfortunately, there are only
809 million ha in 48 US lower states.

Currently, nearly half of US land is
already dedicated to animal agriculture.

If we switch to grass-fed beef

it would require every
cm2 in the US.

Up to Canada, all of Central America
and well into South America.

And this is just to feed
US demand on meat.

But that figure does not even
take into consideration

that much of the land is
not suited for livestock.

We would have to convert all
mountain ranges to grass lands.

Clear ancient forests and
national parks for grazing.

And demolish every city
to make room to graze cows.

Just like Brazil, the US is not
suited to meet demands for meat.

It takes 23 months for a
grass-fed animal to

grow and reach
slaughter age.

A grain-fed cow takes 15 months.

That's an additional eight months of
water use, land use, feed, waste.

In terms of the carbon foot print,
it's a huge difference.

Turns out, due
to land use

grass-fed beef is more unsustainable
than even factory farming.

I had to come to terms
with the fact that there are not

enough animals for the
world's demand for meat

and had my doubts
on dairy as well.

But I wanted to talk with
a premier organic dairy company.

to see if their product was sustainable
for the world's population.

It requires a lot of inputs.

Feed, water, land.

It may not be practical to expect that there can

be enough dairy produced
sustainably to feed the entire world.

I think that's not necessarily a given.

I think maybe it's
too much to expect

that the world can be fed
with sustainable dairy.

I don't know the answer,
but common sense would say,

that's a long shot.

I was shocked to hear
such an honest answer.

If this is what the dairy CEO would say,
what would the farmer claim?

Based on their marketing
their farms are an oasis for cows.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE
Drink Clover Milk

It was not what I expected.

Normally a cow consumes
64-70 kg of feed a day.

- Between 64 ...
- Between 64 and 70 kg a day.

She also drinks between
114-151 litres of water.

My God.

We use about 20 tons per week.

- 20 tonnes of grain per week.
- 20 tonnes.

Primarily for milking cows,
so about 250 cows.

The biggest part of
sustainability, to me,

the number one thing on
the list should be profitability

How the process completely
works from start to finish:

The cow needs to have a
baby in order to give milk.

So she have the baby, the baby is going to
stay with the mother for at least two days.

The babies will go off to a
calve-raising facility.

They are raised in
an individual hutch.

Since we are a dairy, only the
girl cows give us milk, so the boys

on typical dairies are sold
off to beef-raising facilities.

But we keep half of
them for two years

and sell them as organic
grass-fed beef.

So all dairy cows eventually
go to the beef industry?

At some point in time
she will drop off

and you have to
make a business decision.

Do you keep investing in
her to give milk

or sell her off to another dairy
or to the beef industry.

Only a few places on the planet
have this type of environment.

But the demand for dairy-based
protein will increase in the world.

There is not enough
land on the planet

for this type of dairying.

The land is not there.

On a global scale the conclusion
would be it's not sustainable

Unless we dig up houses
and put pastures back.

For this to happen, there
have to be less people.

But we know the population
continues to grow.

That means more commercial
dairy, I'm sure.

That or lower the demand ...

Yes, or another
product will take its place.

We see all sorts of soy
and almond milks

other products and different blends.

Juices and proteins.

I think we'll see more of that.

He was right. How could
cow's milk be sustainable?

1 litre of milk it takes a 1000 litres of water to produce.

Doing research on
grass-fed livestock

I kept coming across
the work of Allan Savory.

Almost a third of the planet
is becoming desert,

with the vast majority
due to livestock grazing.

Savory claims that the best
way to reverse this desertification

is to actually graze more animals.

This reminded me of Oceana saying

that the best way to
help fish is to eat fish.

This is the same man

who in the 1950s, working
as a research officer

for the Game Department
of what is now Zimbabwe,

came up with the theory, in spite
of scientific evidence

that elephants caused
the desertification.

His solution was to convince the
government to kill 40,000 elephants.

Yet, after 14 years of relentless
slaughter the conditions got worse.

His theory was wrong.

The culling finally ended,

but not before tens of thousands of
elephants and their families were killed.

This is not someone I would
ever take ecological advice from.

It turns out the cattle
industry has the same effect

on wild life in the US.

The government is rounding
up horses in mass.

We have now more wild horses
and donkeys in state farms.

50.000 horses and burros more
than free on the range.

Basically, rangers get to
graze on our public lands

for a a fraction of
the going rate.

They enjoy tax subsidies,
about 1/15 of the going rate.

What the Bureau's Land Management
has to do is say:

"How much forage and
water is on the land?"

Then they divide,

a part for the cows,
other to "wildlife".

and to wild horses and burros.

What we see is that
most forage and water

goes to the livestock industry.

They scapegoat the horses
and burros and say:

"There are too many horses
and burros, let's remove them."

I always tell people that the wild horses
and donkeys are just victims

of the management of public
lands for livestock

because we also see
the predator killing going on.

We now know wolves
are targeted by ranchers.

The Department of Agriculture has air-craft
and do aerial gunning of predators.

All a rancher needs to say:
"I've got a coyote here."

They come over and shoot the coyote.

Or shoot the mountain
lion or shoot the bobcat.

And this is all for ranching.

In Washington State, after
cattle was attacked

on public lands where it was grazing

Washington state decided to
kill an entire pack of wolves.

Those wolves were not introduced,
they had immigrated from Canada.

But they're no longer there.

It starts at the local level, with
the Bureau of Land Management

but then it goes to Congress.

And we see that Congress allows

this type of mismanagement
of public land to continue.

It is the insistence and lobbying power
of the agriculture industry

that continues to see wolves killed.

and insists on predators being maintained at

a low level that does not
benefit the ecosystems.

I've seen so many pieces of land, so many
environmental assessments

from the Bureau of Land
Management that say

the range land does
not meet the standards.

They say straight up
livestock-raising is a cause

for not meeting range standards.

Yet they allow livestock grazing.

They are at the core of making sure that
cougars are hunted by hounds,

that wolf packs
are run down,

that hunting seasons
are opened up year-round,

that traps are set
so that they suffer.

If anyone cares for horses,
wildlife and public land

and the environment, you
can't ignore livestock,

the negative impact of livestock
grazing on public lands in the West.

I added up the cost of
animal food production

that producers don't
bear themselves.

The hidden or externalised costs

that they impose on society.

Those are categories like
health care, environmental damage,

subsidies, damage to
fisheries and even cruelty.

Those external costs are
about 332 billion euros.

If the dairy and meat industry
would internalise these costs,

if they had to bear the costs themselves,

the price of meat and
dairy would skyrocket.

A 5 euro carton of eggs
would go to 10 euros.

A 3,50 euro Big Mac
would go to 9 euros.

The problem with these external
costs imposed on society

is whether you
eat meat or not

whether you're an
omnivore or an herbivore

you pay part of the costs of
someone else's consumption.

When someone goes
to McDonald's

and buys a 3,50 euro Big Mac.

there's another 6,35 euro of
costs are imposed on society.

I'm paying that paying that, you're
paying that whether you eat meat or not.

When we look at who benefits and
lobbies for this system of agriculture

it's the largest food and meat

producers in the country.

And once they become so large
and wealthy they

can dictate federal policies
around producing food.

because they have so
much political power.

Was this why Al Gore,
even as vice-president,

never addressed the question
of animal agriculture

and failed to mention it his film
"An Inconvenient Truth"

or in his organisation the
Climate Reality Project?

Was this truth just too
inconvenient, for even him?

I felt let down by the man who
inspired me in on this path.

I had to speak with an
animal agriculture lobbyist

to see what they would say.

If they can silence
the government, can they

influence environmental
groups as well?

Agriculture Animal Alliance, one of
biggest animal agriculture lobby groups

agreed to an interview.
Greenpeace won't give us an interview

but Animal Agriculture Alliance
has agreed to an interview.

Now that...

That is saying something.

People hear the word GMOs
and it's a scary term.

and agriculture struggles
to explain what that means.

In reality we use
technology to make advancements

in how we grow
and raise animals.

We're not going to feed the world
on how it was 100 years ago

where all animals
were pasture-fed.

We not just move animals
inside and implemented

large vertically integrated systems.
Because of sustainability

it certainly reduces the
environmental impact,

while improving animal
welfare and food safety.

So that animals like it
inside just as much as

say the chickens and cows,
fond of being inside

they like the ones pasture-fed?

In many cases it
improved their wellbeing,

in terms of the care
they can get, individually.

Does the meat and dairy
industry ever support

or donate to environmental non-profits?

I don't know if I want
to comment on that.

(Voice of the President Kay Smith
Animal Agriculture Alliance)
Yeah, I…

I don't know.

(Voice of the President Kay Smith
Animal Agriculture Alliance)
[?] They don't need to know who
we donate to or not donate to.

Does the meat and dairy industry ever
support or donate to Greenpeace?

Again, I don't know if
I feel comfortable ...

Hi, sorry we didn't contact earlier.

I have some bad news.

(call from film backer)
Unfortunately, we are not longer able to
continue to fund your film project.

We had a meeting and due to the
growing controversial subject matter

we have some concerns
and have to pull out.

Why was this subject
so controversial?

The first person I could think
to speak with, was Howard Lyman

who was sued by cattlemen
for speaking the truth about

animal agriculture on
The Oprah Winfrey Show.

I was born on the largest
dairy farm of Montana in 1938.

Grew up and lived on
a livestock farm.

I graduated on Agriculture at
Montana State University.

Came back and developed a mega
venture in agriculture

with 4046 ha in crops,

7000 head of cattle

and about 30 employees.

I spent 45 years of my life
in animal agriculture.

I've been there, done that.

When I was on the Oprah show we
had the Food-Disparagement Law

In my opinion the law
was unconstitutional.

What it basically
said, it was illegal

to state something that was known to
be false about a perishable product.

I didn't say anything on the
show that I thought was false.

I went there and told the truth.

It took five years and
hundreds of thousands of dollars

to get rid of the suits
from the cattle industry.

But if was to go on
the Oprah Show today

I'd say exactly the same thing
I said back then,

I would be guilty.

For me, when they were talking
about the Food-Disparagement Law

was about whether I
told the truth or not.

You can go today and tell the truth

and you will be guilty.

Because if you
cause a disruption

in the profits of
the animal industry,

you're guilty under the Patriot Act.

Do you think there should be any concerns of
us making this documentary?

Of course!

If you don't realise

that you're putting your neck
on the chopping block,

you better take that
camera and throw it away.

The animal and agriculture industry is one
of the most powerful on the planet.

I think most people in this
country are aware of the influence

of the money and industry on
politics, and we see it clearly

with this industry in particular.

Most people would be shocked

to learn that animal rights
and environmental activists

are the number one domestic terrorism
threat according to the FBI.

- Why is that?
- Difficult to answer

why the these groups are on the
top of the FBI's priorities.

I think a big part of it is that

that they more than any
other social movement,

directly threaten
corporate profits.

When we try to find out
how factory farms,

how animal agriculture is
pulling the environment,

they try to claim exemptions
to that information

either under national security
terms or public safety,

trade mark issues, it's a business secret.

We've seen all these attempts to
keep people in the dark

about what they're actually doing.

One of the biggest
industries on the planet

with the biggest
environmental impact,

trying to keep us in the
dark on how it's operating.

Through the Freedom of Information
Act we got documents from

the antiterrorism unit,

that show they
monitor my lectures,

media interviews like this
one, my website, my book...

Are we at risk filming
and showing this?

You're going up against people that
have massive legal resources.

The amount of money at
their disposal is overwhelming

And you have nothing.

I think that fear is
a big part of the tactic as well.

Will was right, I was scared.

When I learned about
activists killed in Brazil

I was disturbed,
but it was far away.

But learn about American
activists and journalists

being targets of the animal
agriculture industry and the FBI?

My funding being dropped?

I was genuinely worried when
it hit me directly.

Was this why noone was willing
to talk about the issue?

I decided to take precautionary measures
with all the footage we shot.

I was beyond frightened to
imagine what could possibly happen

if I would pursue
this project any further?

It seemed the only decision to make was to
put down the cameras and walk away.

Then I realised that
this issue was way bigger

than any personal concern
I could ever have for myself.

This was about all life on earth hanging
in the balance of our actions.

Either you live for
something or die for nothing.

I actually had no choice all along.

I decided then to surrender not
to fear from a secret

but rather to a cause to its truth.

I couldn't be like the
environmental NGOs,

when the planet was being
eaten alive in front of our eyes.

I had to stand
up and continue on.

Some people would say the problem
isn't really animal agriculture

but human over-population.

In 1812 there were 1 billion
people on the planet.

In 1912, 1,5 billion.

Just 100 years later, our
population exploded to 7 billion.

This number gets much attention

but a more important figure

are the 70 billion farm
animals humans raise.

The human population drinks 20
billion litres of water per day

and eats 4,3 billion
kilos of food.

But the 1,5 billion
cows in the world,

drink 170 billion litres
of water per day.

and eat 60 billion
pounds of food.

This less of a human
population issue

but more a "human eating animals"
population issue.

Environmental organisations
not addressing this

is like health organisations
fighting lung cancer and

not speaking about
cigarette smoking.

But instead of passive smoking,
it's second-hand eating

which affects the entire planet.

(Environmental and Ethics Author)
We grow enough food to feed
between 12 and 15 billion people.

We have 7 billion people.

We have roughly a billion people
starving every day.

Worldwide, 50% of the grain and
legumes we're growing,

are to feed the animals.

They're eating huge
amounts of grain and legumes.

In the US it's close to 70-80%,
depending on the grain

90% ... 90% of the soya beans.

82% of the world's starving
children live

in countries where food is fed
to animals in the livestock systems

and are killed and eaten
by more well-off individuals

in developed countries,
such as US, UK and Europe,

The fact is today we could feed
every human being on the planet today

with an adequate diet,

if we take the feed
we're feeding to animals

and turn it into food for humans.

Someone trying to justify GMOs

is like trying to give a
drowning man a drink of water.

You can produce on average,
15 times more protein

from plant-based sources
than from meat on any given area of land.

Whether it's a very fertile area

or on a depleted area.

If we would reduce the amount of
meat we're eating, dairy and eggs.

we could allow all those mono-crop fields

with genetically engineered
corn and soya beans

to revert back to forest again
to be habitat for animals.

Anytime someone tells you "we
can't grow food for humans on

land that we're growing
feed for animals,"

this is somebody that is moking the number one crop out of California.

The fact of is, if you can grow
grow corn to stuff down on an animal,

we can grow corn
and feed it to a human.

You encourage people to eat
less meat, for the tremendous resources required

and the toll on the environment.

- And on the animals.
- And on the animals.

And the workers in the system. It's
a brutal system at every level.

As the world population
grows to 9 billion

do you foresee that one day we will have
to stop eating meat altogether?

I don't know if we
will completely stop.

I think the amount of meat
eating will decline.

There is no way to support
255 gr meat per person per day,

what Americans are eating now.

If the Chinese alone decide to
eat that much,

and they decided they want
eat the same amount.

We don't have enough world

to produce the grain to
generate that much meat.

I think a plant-based diet
is the most sustainable.

What do you recommend the
9 billion people to eat,

not only to sustain,
but also to thrive?

Would you throw a number ...
Like 30 grams?

- For meat?
- Including dairy.

I don't know enough.

It would be at the order of
a couple of ounces a week.

Not how we're eating it now.

We are gorging on meat,
eating huge amounts.

- Does that include cheese?
- Yeah, yeah.

- Some 60 grams in total?
- Yes, cheese and milk.

Only 60 grams per
week seems nothing.

People could probably
produce that at home.

Maybe backyard farming
was a sustainable solution.

I have 42 ducks.

I started with three ducks
three years ago.

Those burdened into
a population.

I buy a 70-pound seed bag.

That seed bag will
last about two weeks.

The ducks that we're gonna be
culling are about two years old.

When you're living with them,
they get used to you.

They're not intimidated or whatever.

And so they make all their
vocal sounds, like natural.

Slow down.

Easy, easy, easy.

Okay.

No, we're gonna keep you.

Run. These two go first.

Being smart-wise?

Compared to a chicken,
they're probably the same.

-That one's nice, see?
-Yeah, he is.

Alrighty.

Okay.

Right there.

That's gonna be a little gruesome.

How could that still be alive?

They're not.

That's eh nerves.

A nerve reaction.

Five years old or something
like that, I think it was

the first time my dad came
out and made us watch

as we did rabbits.

We'd raise probably a couple
dozen rabbits each year.

Then we would take those
rabbits and skin them

and clean them up and
keep them for food.

As a young kid,
I was kind of…

I don't want to say it was hard,
but it was kind of, from my memory…

some of the rabbits
I had named.

So I was kind of
like going hmm

After doing it a couple times,
you kind of just learned

it's just something
that has to be done.

Not the fingers.

l just can't do it.

I don't think I could have someone
else do it for me, if I can't do it.

If l can't do it, I don't want
someone else doing it for me.

And then sustainability --

For sustainability,
32 kg is 900 gr per…

So it's a 450 gr per week per duck.

52 weeks, 50 kg.

So it's 50 kg of food

for 450-700 grams of meat.

So on a sustainability
issue, it's 100 to 1.

And that grain gets.. you know
who knows where the grain comes from?

But I mean, when it gets to this point,
it's not even about sustainability...

it was just…

You know, I don't feel real good inside.

It's the first time
I've ever seen that.

So kind of....

Yeah.

I'd been so caught up in the destruction
caused by animal agriculture

I realised I'd never truly dwelled
on the obvious reality

that every one of these
animals was killed.

It was always a disconnected,
abstract fact of eating meat.

But when it became personal,
face to face, the story changed.

I had scheduled weeks in advance
to film another backyard slaughter

of a chicken that
stopped producing eggs.

I didn't know how I was gonna possibly
go through another slaughter.

So I didn't.

Animal Place is a farm animal sanctuary
in Northern California that focuses

on rescuing animals from the
animal agriculture industry.

A lot of people don't realise meat-breed
chickens like this guy behind us

they're generally slaughtered
at about 42 days old.

Whereas chickens that are bred
for egg production are killed

when their productivity
starts to decrease

when they start laying less eggs.

That generally happens
about 18 to 20 months.

It doesn't matter if you buy caged
eggs, eggs from cage-free farms

or free-range or pasture-based farms.

Hi, Carol. It doesn't matter.

Turns out there's a successful movement
of sustainable animal-alternative

food producers based right
here in California

funded by big names like
Bill Gates and Biz Stone.

When egg-laying hens eat
all that soy and corn

you have an energy conversion
ratio at about 38 to 1

whereas alternatively
you can find plants,

you can grow those plants
and convert those plants into food.

The energy conversion ratio
for the plants we're using

to replace the eggs is about 2 to 1,
compared to 38 to 1 for eggs.

So our explicit goal is to have
the maximum amount of impact

by creating this new model that makes
the global egg industry entirely obsolete.

We're making Omega products

proving we make better tasting
food that's great for you

and it takes one-twentieth of the land
and resources that dairy do.

If you could have the fibre structure,
satiating bite, the protein

and the nutritional benefits of meat
without having animal protein itself

and by doing that you
could address climate change,

human health epidemics that
we're seeing, animal welfare

and natural resource conservation.
Would you make the change?

But what if people just ate
less animal products?

Like going meatless on Mondays.

When you go meatless on Monday,
you essentially contribute

to climate change, pollution

depletion of our planet's
resources and your own health

then only six days of
the week, instead of seven.

You're creating a false justification,
clearly a false justification

for what you're doing
on those other six days.

So in other words, we really shouldn't
be resting on our laurels

of what you do right only
one-seventh of the time.

You can't be an environmentalist
and eat animal products, period.

Kid yourself if you want, if you want
to feed your addiction, so be it.

But don't call yourself
an environmentalist.

I knew I had to stop eating
all animal products.

I wanted to help the planet be sustainable,
but I needed to sustain myself.

I had doubts about being healthy
and not eating meat, dairy and eggs.

All I knew was the standard
American diet I grew up on.

Is it even possible to be
a healthy vegetarian or vegan?

(Physician True North Health Center)
I became vegan 32 years ago now.

I run several miles every day.

I go biking 60 km
through the countryside.

I work long hours.

I feel great. It's nice waking up
in a light, trim body everyday.

And so many of my vegan
friends and patients

are thriving since their
transition to a vegan diet.

So yes. I've seen vegan moms
go through healthy vegan pregnancies

and deliver healthy vegan children

and raise them to tall, full-sized,
intelligent vegan adults.

And yes, certainly all the nutrients are
there in the plant kingdom to do this,

that is correct.

Think anyone should be
consuming dairy?

I really don't.

When you think about it,
the purpose of cows' milk--

I grew on a dairy farm in Wisconsin.

The purpose of cows' milk is
to turn a 65-pound calf

into a 200 kilo cow
as rapidly as possible.

Cows' milk is baby-calf growth fluid.

It's what the stuff is.

Everything in that white liquid,
the hormones, the lipids, the proteins

every one of those is meant to blow
the calf up to a great big cow

or it wouldn't be there.

And whether you pour it
on your cereals as a liquid

whether you clot it into yogurt

whether you ferment it into cheese

whether you freeze it into ice cream

it's baby-calf growth fluid.

And women eat it and it
stimulates their tissues...

and gives women breast lumps,
it makes the uterus get big

and they get fibroids and they bleed
and they get hysterectomies

and they need mammograms
and gives guys man boobs.

This is…

Cows' milk is the lactation secretions

of a large bovine mammal
who just had a baby.

It's for baby calves.

I tell my patients,
"Go look in the mirror.

Do you have big ears, a tail,
are you a baby calf?

If you're not, don't be eating
baby-calf growth fluid."

In any level, there's
nothing in it people need.

It was a relief to hear l didn't
have to eat animal products

to be healthy and even thrive

but I still thought you needed animal
manure to grow organic agriculture.

Turns out there's an entire movement

with people growing food
without any animal inputs.

I visited Earthworks
Urban Farm in Detroit.

They work with and grow food
for the low-income community.

We tend to see ourselves
as individuals in a bubble

but forget that we inhabit this land
and this earth with other creatures.

So we have to learn how
to share more, I guess.

Jah here is working on his garden.

You'd be surprised what you can
do with not a lot of space.

About 1,2 by 2,5 yeah.

What's your goal this year? How much
do you think you can maximise?

I would push for 45 at least. At least.
- 45 kilos.

That's amazing.

One full year after
this was constructed

we doubled our yield to
over 6,350 kg of food.

6,350 kilos? On about
how many hectares?

About one.

So as much food as we
produce and we grow

or the earth helps us grow...

We also have to return those
nutrients back to the soil.

We think of our work
as being regenerative.

That we're putting as much
life-giving substance in the ground...

as we're taking out.

So is it just kind of healthier
and safer to use vegetarian

- or vegetable composting stuff?
- That's what we found.

Also because it takes less time
and it's a lot easier to manage.

- A lot easier, yeah.
- Yeah.

- And the soil's just as rich?
- Yeah, absolutely.

Not only is vegan more compassionate,
it's also more efficient.

And in a society with this
many billions of people

we need to be as
efficient as possible.

Some people might go back and say
if we embraced this primitive approach

of only wild animals everywhere

and we go back to a
hunter-gatherer system,

that sounds great.

But that was 10 million people
on the entire continent.

Maybe a little bit more, a little
bit less, no one really knows.

Today, now we have what?

We have 320 million in the US,
25 million in Canada.

Another 100 and so-many-
million in Mexico.

So, North America is up to
almost 450 million people.

Trying to figure out a way
to bring animal agriculture

in balance with 450 million
hungry people is impossible.

This is amazing, I didn't believe
it when I first learned it

but 216,000 people are
born to the planet every day.

Every day.

It's extraordinary.

But what's really extraordinary
is you need, per day

14,000 new hectares of farmable land.

It's not happening.

To feed a person on a
vegan diet for a year

requires just 675 m2 of land.

To feed that same person
on a vegetarian diet

that includes eggs and dairy
requires three times as much land.

To feed an average US citizen's
high-consumption diet

of meat, dairy and eggs
requires 18 times as much land.

This is because you can produce
17,000 kilos of vegetables

on 0,6 ha, but only 170 kilos
of meat on the same plot of land.

The comparison doesn't
end with land use.

A vegan diet produces half as
much CO2 as an American omnivore,

uses one-eleventh the
amount of fossil fuels

one-thirteenth the amount of water
and an eighteenth of the amount of land.

After adding this all up, I realised
I had the choice every single day

to save over 4100 litres
of water, 20 kilos of grain

10 m2 of forested land,
the equivalent of 9 kilos of CO2

and one animal's life
every single day.

If we all did go vegan and
moved away from animal foods

and toward a plant-based
diet, what would happen?

If we didn't kill all
these cows and eat them

then we wouldn't have
to breed all these cows

because we're breeding cows
and chickens and pigs and fish.

We're breeding them over
and over again, relentlessly.

If we didn't breed them,
we wouldn't have to feed them.

Then we wouldn't have
to devote all this land

to grow grains and legumes
and so forth to feed to them.

So the forest
could come back.

Wildlife could come back.

The oceans would come back.
The rivers would run clean again.

The air would come back.
Our health would return.

Renewable energy infrastructure,
such as solar and wind generators

to reduce climate change,
that's a pretty good idea

but it's projected to take
at least 20 years

and at least, minimally,
$18 trillion to develop.

It's important to realise
that we don't have that long.

We just talked about how it might
be a three to four year time frame,

so we don't have 20 years and we don't
have $18 trillion to develop these.

Another solution to climate change:
we could stop eating animals.

It could be done today. It
doesn't have to take 20 years

and it doesn't have to take $18
trillion, because it costs nothing.

Some say, "Fix CO2, then
worry about methane."

It's the other way. Do something about
methane and you get a response right away.

The most powerful thing that someone
can do for the environment,

no other lifestyle choice has
a farther reaching

and more profoundly positive impact
on the planet and all life on Earth

than choosing to stop consuming
animals and live a vegan lifestyle.

Do you realise 75
percent of Americans

consider themselves
to be an environmentalist?

You don't think we couldn't solve
this problem in a heartbeat?

I'll tell you what,
all we would need

is for the environmentalists
to live what they profess

and we'd be on a new
course in the world.

We will not succeed until
we stop animal agriculture.

And by "succeed," I mean

we will not save ecosystems
to the extent necessary,

we will not have enough food
for people around the planet

we will not stop global warming,

we will not stop pollution
in the dead zones that run of

all the fields of corn and soy
that are grown to feed livestock

and we will not stop the hunting
of wolves and other predators.

Organic farming is one step in the right
direction, but we need to keep walking.

We need to get beyond organics.
We need to get to sustainability.

When you take the animal out, you
take the greenhouse gas issue out.

you take the food
safety issues out

you take some other externalities
related to food scarcity out.

But one thing that's amazing is
I think you put our values back in.

Values like compassion
and integrity and kindness

values that are natural to
human beings, you put that in

you build that back into
the story of our food.

I think as this begins to progress,
I think it also helps people to pause.

Before they eat that egg,
before they eat that steak,

before they eat that
chicken nugget

and ask themselves, is
that really what they want?

Or do they actually
want something more?

I had to come to
the full conclusion

the only way to sustainably
and ethically live on this planet

with 7 billion other people is to
live an entirely plant-based vegan diet.

I decided instead of eating
others, to eat for others.

At first, like these environmental groups,
I was afraid of what it'd mean to change.

But now I embrace it.

All this talk about sustainability sounded
like our planet was on life support.

I don't want her to simply
survive or to sustain, but to thrive.

Life today is not about sustainability.
It's about "thrive-ability."

She's given so much to us for so
long, it was time to give back.

A hundred-and-eight percent
of everything we have.

It felt good. It was an alignment.

We see this movement,
not just about providing cheaper

inexpensive food that everyone
can have, but also a spiritual move.

A move towards understanding
who we really are

and how we can
connect to each other.

Do what you can do as
well as you can do it,

every day of your life,

and you will die one of the happiest
individuals that ever died.

We become part of a gathering
momentum of other people.

It's happening. This is really
what's happening. This is the news.

Selflessness is a nice way to be.

It has all these benefits for yourself,
as well as the planet and other people.

It's a beautiful way to live.

Ecologically it
just feels better.

This is about massively transforming

how our society eats,
because it's a necessity.

It's acting on what we know.

And acting kindly and gently
on the whole planet

and with other people to accomplish
the goals of living better.

We can do it, but we
have to choose to do it.

You can change the world.

You must change the world.

Learn more at
WWW.COWSPIRACY.COM

subtitles by 2003ad

For notes, links to studies related to
statistics used in the film, please visit:

Support us and become VIP member
to remove all ads from www.OpenSubtitles.org