All language subtitles for Cowspiracy.The.Sustainability.Secret.2014.1080p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

BRUCE HAMILTON: The world's
climate scientists tell us that

the highest safe level of emissions
would be around 350 parts

per million of carbon dioxide
and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

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-degree Celsius
increase in temperature.

We're rapidly approaching that,

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

we're easily going to exceed that.

So, 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 underwater
because of sea-level rise,

when whole countries find that

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're gonna have
climate wars in the future.

KIP ANDERSEN: And what about
livestock and animal agriculture?

Uh...

Well, what about it? I mean...

ANDERSEN: My name's 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 I
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 Earth is in peril.

Climate change stands to affect
all life on this planet.

From monster storms, raging wildfires,
record droughts, ice caps melting,

acidification of the oceans,
to entire countries going underwater,

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

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 recycling,
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 crisis facing the planet,

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

was this really gonna
be enough to save the world?

It just seemed that
there was something more to the story.

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

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

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

stating that raising livestock
produces more greenhouse gases

than the emissions
of the entire transportation sector.

This means that the meat and dairy
industry produces more greenhouse gases

than the exhaust of all cars, trucks,
trains, boats, planes combined.

Cows and other farmed animals

produce a substantial amount of methane
from their digestive process.

Methane gas from livestock

is 86 times more destructive
than carbon dioxide from vehicles.

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

But it turns out, there's more
to climate change than just fossil fuels.

I started doing more research.
The UN, along with other agencies,

reported 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 is 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 organization's 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 wouldn't they
have this information on their main page?

It seemed the main focus for many of these
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 100 billion gallons of water
is used every year in the United States.

But when I compared this
with animal agriculture,

raising livestock just in the US
consumes 34 trillion gallons 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.

The average Californian uses
about 1,500 gallons per person per day.

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

So, meat and dairy products
are incredibly water-intensive,

in part because the animals
are using very water-intensive grains.

That's what they eat.

And so, all of the water embedded
in the grain and that the animal eats

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

ANDERSEN: I found out that
one quarter-pound hamburger

requires over
660 gallons of water to produce.

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

and to find out just eating one hamburger

is the equivalent of
showering two entire months.

So much 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.

That's because it takes
upwards of 2,500 gallons of water

to produce one pound of beef.

I went on the government's

Department of Water Resources'
Save Our Water campaign,

where it outlines behavioral 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 the government's recommendations,

I was saving 47 gallons a day.

But still, that's not even close to the
660 gallons of water for just one burger.

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

I'm just calling to see
if we could schedule an interview.

MAN: (ON PHONE) Yeah, that would be good.

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

Um, tomorrow afternoon could be good.

For the urban environment, a lot
of things that can be done indoors, um,

using low-flow showerheads,

low-flow faucets,

efficient toilets,

efficient, um, water-using appliances,

all those are really good areas
that can help quite a lot.

But the biggest water savings
is from outdoors.

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

We have to use it
as efficiently as possible.

We have to protect its quality.

And we have to be good stewards
of the environment that depend on water.

And checking the sprinklers.

A lot of time, you get
a lot of leaks and broken sprinklers

and things like that that wastes water.

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

ANDERSEN: What kept on coming up a lot
was animal agriculture.

Can you comment on that at all,

about how much that plays a role
in water consumption and pollution?

That's... I mean, that's not my area.

ANDERSEN: There's one study that found
that one pound of beef,

2,500 gallons of water.

-Yeah.
-Yeah.

ANDERSEN: Eggs is 477 gallons of water,
and cheese almost 900 gallons.

I guess one simple...
Why isn't it on Save Our Water?

Just... It's kind of like
if you went to someone's house

and my neighbor has a faucet dripping,

and then you see this giant hose
turned full-blast

until 660 gallons of water
are shooting out into the street,

flooding the entire street.

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

Seems like it's a huge thing that we could
be doing by far more than anything else.

Just, like, if that is really the case.

I think that the water footprint
of animal husbandry

is greater than other activities.

There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

ANDERSEN: That would be really powerful.

Rather than waiting
till we're in a drought,

what do you think about just starting now,

and say to whoever's in charge
of Save Our Water,

"Hey, let's start encouraging people
to eat less meat now

"because these studies are coming out"?

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

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

Because of the way
government is set up here.

ANDERSEN: That's interesting, though.
Why, though?

One is water management,
and the other one is behavior change.

ANDERSEN: Behavior of taking showers

and not watering your lawn
and doing all that,

that's behavior.

Yeah.

ANDERSEN: Wow.

Clearly, the government
did not want to talk about this issue.

Their inability to answer, along with

the environmental organization's silence
on the topic of animal agriculture,

made it seem something more was going on.

I started doing more investigating
on the impacts of livestock

and found out the situation
was actually worse than I'd thought.

The transportation and energy sectors are
understandably given a lot of attention

because of the terrible impact
carbon dioxide is having on our climate.

But animal agriculture produces
65% of the world's nitrous oxide,

a gas with a global warming potential
296 times greater than CO2 per pound.

Yet all we hear about is fossil fuels.

Energy-related CO2 emissions are
expected to increase 20% by the year 2040.

Yet emissions from agriculture
are predicted to increase 80% by 2050.

This devastating figure is mostly due to

a projected global increase
in meat and dairy consumption.

According to two environmental specialists
at the World Bank Group,

using the global standard
for measuring greenhouse gases,

concluded that animal agriculture

was responsible for 51%
of human-caused climate change

when the loss of carbon sinks, respiration
and methane are properly accounted for,

which the UN study failed to address.

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

is responsible for
30% of the world's water consumption,

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

is responsible for up to 91%
of Brazilian Amazon destruction,

is a leading cause of ocean dead zones,

habitat destruction,

and species extinction.

Yet the largest environmental groups
that are supposed to be saving our world

didn't have this as their main focus?

I had to speak with
environmental organizations

and 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 organizations
for so long, and now was met with silence.

I was, however,
able to connect with a handful of

environmental 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 or oil or fuel
ever again from this day forward

that we would still exceed

our maximum carbon-equivalent,
greenhouse gas emissions,

now the 565 gigatons, by the year 2030,

without the electricity sector even

or energy sector
even factored 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 100 years or so.

It's an environmental disaster
that's being ignored by the very people

who should be championing.
Deforestation, land use, water scarcity,

the destabilization of communities,
world hunger...

The list doesn't stop.

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

And human beings,
we only made up 1% of the biomass.

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

we human beings
and the animals that we own as property

make up 98% of the biomass.

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

We've basically completely stolen the
world, the Earth from free-living animals

to use for ourselves,
in our cows and pigs and chicken,

and factory-farmed fish, and the oceans
have been even more devastated.

Concerned researchers
of the loss of species

agree that the primary cause of loss of
species on our Earth that we're witnessing

is due to overgrazing and habitat loss

from livestock production on land
and by overfishing,

which I call fishing in our oceans.

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

The rainforest is being cut down
at the rate of an acre per second.

And the driving force behind all of this
is animal agriculture.

Cutting down the forests
to graze animals and to grow soybeans.

Genetically-engineered soybeans

to feed to the cows and pigs
and chickens and factory-farmed fish.

Ninety-one percent of
the loss of rainforest

in the Amazon area thus far, to date,

91% that's been destroyed
is due to raising livestock.

The leading cause of environmental
destruction is animal agriculture.

ANDERSEN: I just couldn't understand why

the world's largest environmental
organizations were not addressing this

when their entire mission
is to help protect the environment.

That's the thing, too, is 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.

In terms of... Yeah, because they're
membership organizations, a lot of them.

They're looking to maximize
the number of people making contributions.

And if they get identified
as being anti-meat

or challenging people
on their everyday habits,

that's something that's so dear to people,
that it will hurt with their fundraising.

They do not want to address

the primary driving cause
of environmental devastation,

which is animal agriculture,
because they're businesses.

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

I had an invite to a meeting with Al Gore,
some years ago, now,

and made these methane arguments,
and 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 organizations

that are focused and have a laser focus

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 organizations,

they're not telling you to do much,

besides live your life
the way you've been living it,

but change a 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
and the father's an alcoholic,

that's the one thing no one talks about.

Everybody goes around that,
and yet it's the one thing

that's causing the devastation
in the relationships in the family,

because no one wants to talk about it.

How could these organizations not know?

The issue is right in front of them.
It's unmistakable at this point.

And just like these organizations,
they're falling over themselves

to show the general public
that climate change is human-caused.

And in doing so, they 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.

ANDERSEN: That was it.

No more emails, no more phone calls.
I had enough.

I realized if I wanted answers,
I would have to

go to these organizations' headquarters
in person.

ANDERSEN: Hi, how's it going?
WOMAN: Good.

ANDERSEN: We're doing
a full-length feature documentary,

and it's on sustainability
and how animal agriculture plays a role.

And we're seeing if
we could talk to David Barre.

WOMAN: David Barre? Okay.
ANDERSEN: Barre. Yeah.

WOMAN: Do you have
an appointment with him?

ANDERSEN: Uh, we've been trying for...

It's almost two months, and we haven't
even had one receptive email or anything.

-Sure.
-So, just seeing if

-we could just set something up.
-Uh... Let me... So, let me just...

ANDERSEN: They sent out
their PR person instead.

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

someone from their rainforest,
ocean and climate change departments

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.

-Hey, how's it going?
-MAN: Good.

ANDERSEN: With the climate change,
what's the leading cause of that?

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

Uh...

So, coal, natural gas, oil,

tar sands, oil shale.

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

But that's basically
what is loading up the atmosphere,

so we have this greenhouse effect
where the heat is getting trapped,

and the temperatures are soaring

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

ANDERSEN: And what about
livestock and animal agriculture?

Uh...

Well, what about it?
I mean... Do you wanna...

ANDERSEN: We're doing this research. We...

A couple of the UN reports say

livestock accounts for more than
all transportation put together.

A recent 2009 Worldwatch report,

livestock causes 51%
of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Yeah, well, um...

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

But there's just so many
different potential sources

of methane and carbon emissions.

ANDERSEN: If the number one leading cause

is animal agriculture
and meat consumption,

then doesn't that need to be the
number one focus, if not the number two?

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

ANDERSEN: That was bizarre.

So, Greenpeace got back to me today,
and said,

(READING) "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 we wish you the best of luck."

Greenpeace's response
reminded me of the statistic that

116,000 pounds of farm animal excrement

is produced every second
in the United States 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.

(ALL SCREAMING)

Livestock operations on land
has caused, or created,

more than 500 nitrogen-flooded dead zones
around the world in our oceans,

comprise more than 95,000 square miles
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
right now, the most influential,

as well as others...

That's not what is at
the apex of their discussions.

ANDERSEN: I went on my favorite
ocean-protection organization'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?

(STAMMERS)

Yeah. I mean, a lot of it...
There's a... It's actually...

I call it...
We call it the "toxic cocktail."

Because it really is
this sort of diffused source.

So it's, um, heavy metal from tires
and brakes and cars, heavy metals...

It is these herbicides and pesticides.

It's kind of picking up
everything we leave on the ground

and collecting it together
and pushing it out into the ocean.

So, it's hard
to actually target one thing.

When we were doing our research
on this particular one, and run-off...

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

it keeps coming up.

Animal agriculture, as being...

And we read animal agriculture
as being the number one water polluter.

-Considerably, by more than any other...
-Yeah, that's interesting.

I guess it depends
on the regions that you focus on.

Like the urban areas,
where we are here in Southern California,

we don't see that because
there's not a lot of agricultural farms.

But if you look in the Mid-Atlantic,

Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, that region,

I know there's a lot of poultry farms
and a lot of hog farms,

and it's a huge waste issue.

ANDERSEN: I was surprised that not only
did they not focus on farm run-off,

but they also didn't mention any campaigns
about how our oceans are in near collapse.

The UN reported that
three-quarters of the 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.

And if we don't wake up
and do something about it,

we're gonna see fishless oceans
by the year 2048.

That's the prediction from scientists.

The fact that when people look at fishing,
sometimes they're only looking at

the fact of the animals
who are actually consumed by humans,

so we're not necessarily looking at

all the animals
who are caught in the drift nets,

all the other animals
who are killed in the industry.

SUSAN HARTLAND:
We're at over 28 billion animals

were pulled out of the ocean last year.

They're not ever
given a chance to recover.

They can't recover,
they don't multiply that quickly.

They don't come back.
We're not giving them an opportunity.

ANDERSEN: The way fishing is done today,

to feed the demand
for 90 million tons of fish

is primarily through massive fish nets.

For every single pound of fish caught,

there is up to five pounds
of untargeted species trapped,

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

If we're to imagine this same sort of
practice happening on the African savanna,

targeting gazelle, but in the process,

scooping up every single lion,
giraffe, ostrich and elephant,

nobody would stand for it.

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

DR. OPPENLANDER:
Between 40 and 50 million sharks each year

are killed in fishing lines
and fishing nets as bi-kill.

Then their fins
might be cut off or not cut off,

but they're caught initially as bi-kill,
and it's from fishing.

It's from fishing in a sustainable manner,
in many cases,

for fish that are labeled "sustainable"

by, for instance, Oceana and
the sustainable-certified organizations.

So my thought is, "Why would we
want to stop at banning shark-fin soup

"if you're concerned about sharks?"

Which all these organizations are,
and most of the public at large is now.

If we really are concerned about sharks,
we would ban fishing.

ANDERSEN: I went on the world's largest
ocean-conservation group's website,

Oceana, to see
what they were doing about this.

On their site, along with a 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

the best way to help endangered pandas
is to eat pandas.

I couldn't understand how Oceana could say

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

and that could somehow be
sustainable and good for our oceans.

DR. OPPENLANDER: Many of the species

that are nearing extinction have done so

are being ravaged and becoming
nearly extinct in a declining fashion,

and haven't recovered
on the watch of Oceana

and on the watch
of Marine Stewardship Council,

and very much on the watch of
Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch,

which, I mention in one of my lectures,

they're aptly named
because that's what they're doing.

They're watching this happen
instead of aggressively halting it.

According to the United Nations'
Food and Agriculture Organization,

roughly three-quarters
of all the fisheries out there

are either
fully exploited or overexploited.

So there's really not
a whole lot of fish stocks out there

that you might consider
at healthy levels for the ecosystem.

ANDERSEN: Watching Andy's TED Talk
about feeding the world...

In 1988, fish catch, as you mention,
peaked at 85 million tons.

How is it possible that we can
sustainably catch 100 million tons by 2050

regardless if it's in a farm
or if it's in the ocean?

If for every pound of fish
you're taking out,

you're essentially taking out
five pounds of wild fish,

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

how can that be sustainable?

The ultimate question, right,

is that there is a tremendous amount
of natural production

that is basically
coming out of the oceans all the time.

So we have a massive amount of
upwelling from our ocean conveyer belt

that's bringing up ancient,
1,000-year-old 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 and take some out,
and next year, there will be more.

And if we do that right,

without ultimately hitting
the fundamental driver,

it's sort of like
living off the interest, right?

As long as you don't
bring your principal down, right...

If you're investing in something,

as long as you're not
hitting into that principal

and your principal remains high,

you could potentially
live off the interest forever.

And that's the basic idea with fish.

ANDERSEN: With our population right now,
what we're doing,

if it's 75% depleted,
the fish is now depleted.

And it's a good analogy with money.

We're not living off our interest,
we're in extreme debt.

And if our population,

who's trying to live as a family
on the same amount of money,

-and it's increasing 35%
-(CHUCKLES)

to 9 billion people...

Right.

ANDERSEN: Isn't it just,
"Hey, we gotta stop spending money"?

-Yeah.
-"We need to stop eating fish."

Well, if you could
bring the principal back.

Fishing of any type
is depleting not only the species,

but you get into this serial depletion
where one fish species will be minimized

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

It's called serial depletion.
It's aptly named.

In the process...
So the fish are being lost.

Not only the species is being lost,
but the next in line is being lost.

And then the mechanism
is still extremely destructive.

So they're losing the fish species,

but it needs to be kept in mind
they're also destroying habitat.

I think they came up with this term
"sustainable fishing"

to make ourselves feel good about

eating fish and continuing to
take fish out of the oceans,

when, in fact, really,
it's Sea Shepherd's position

that there is no such thing
as sustainable fishing.

Seafood is not
a sustainable protein source

for the feeding of the planet.

For the people on the planet,
it's just not.

People don't wanna hear it.
Because that makes them feel like

they have to take action,
they have to stop doing something,

and a lot of people don't want to.
And people don't wanna...

They don't want to put it out there,
because it's uncomfortable.

They don't want to propose
to tell people what to do.

But we're at a point
where we all have to be cognizant.

And we have to realize
and we have to take an action.

Our founder, Captain Watson, likes to say,
"If the oceans die, we die."

That's not a tag line. That's the truth.

ANDERSEN: Perhaps the only other ecosystem

that is being destroyed
at such a rapid rate

are the world's rainforests.

Our global rainforests
are essentially the planet's lungs.

They breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen.

An acre of rainforest is cleared
every second.

And the leading cause is to
graze animals and grow their feed crops.

That is essentially an entire football
field cleared every single second.

And it is estimated that every day,

close to 100 plant, animal,
and insect species are lost

due to rainforest destruction.

(MOOING)

ANDERSEN:
What is the absolute leading cause

of rainforest destruction?

Human intervention into rainforests
is the leading cause.

And so, it's either for logging
or it's for agribusiness.

And that's when you're looking at
the top global drivers,

it will vary a bit by
the rainforest that you're talking about.

But the way that we're choosing to

use these natural resources on a large
industrial scale is the leading driver.

ANDERSEN: When I went on
Rainforest Action Network's website,

I couldn't believe
I didn't see anything about cattle.

But I did see they had
a large campaign against palm oil.

Palm oil plantations
are causing tremendous deforestation

in the Indonesian rainforest.

It is estimated that

palm oil is responsible
for 26 million acres being cleared.

Though, compared to livestock
and their feed crops,

they were responsible for 136 million
acres of rainforest lost to date.

But on their website,
I was shocked to find

cattle was not included
as one of their four main key issues.

Instead they focused on palm,
pulp and paper, coal, and tar sands?

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

I had to wonder, "Why focus on
fossil fuels and not cattle?"

ANDERSEN: Is it more fossil fuels,
or is it more animal agriculture?

I don't know why we would ever
do a one-or-the-other.

ANDERSEN: I'm just wondering,
what more is it?

I don't necessarily know what it is.

ANDERSEN: Could the executive director

of one of the world's largest
rainforest protection groups

honestly not know what was going on?

Or even worse,
were they hiding it on purpose?

And if so, why?

I immediately went to Amazon Watch
to see if

they would say what the leading cause
of rainforest destruction truly is.

The most biologically
and culturally diverse place on the planet

is under massive attack right now.

The Amazon rainforest itself could be
gone in the matter of the next 10 years.

ANDERSEN: What is the leading cause
of rainforest destruction?

The leading cause (EXHALES)
of rainforest destruction,

um...

I would say,

well, just to put it in the context
of what Amazon Watch works on,

um,

there's many, many drivers
of deforestation, as we call them.

Many different reasons and ways
that rainforests are destroyed.

The ones that cause the most damage
and are the most widespread

are mega projects,
such as oil and gas pipelines,

such as mining projects,
such as mega dam projects.

We're not talking about...

ANDERSEN: I felt like I was
going in circles with all these groups.

As if I were stuck in some strange
cowspiracy twilight zone

where no one could talk about cows.

I couldn't believe
these organizations 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 is a leading cause
of deforestation of the Amazon

because they're all destructive,
oil and gas, mining, dams, agriculture.

But in terms of land use,

in terms of the amount of land
that, um, is destroyed by...

Um...

When we talk about, in comparison, all
those different causes of deforestation,

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

um,

I think it would definitely
be agriculture.

Unfortunately one of
the biggest causes of deforestation,

um,

definitely in the Brazilian Amazon,
is agribusiness.

Cattle grazing and soy production
in particular.

ANDERSEN: This is really what's going on.

-Mmm-hmm.
-ANDERSEN: Why do you think

no one at Greenpeace,
or no one's really saying the whole story?

The whole story about
the main cause of deforestation?

ANDERSEN: Yeah.

I think you've brought up
some really good points about,

"Why isn't anybody
doing anything about this?"

And I think in Brazil, in particular,

I think when we look at what happened
after the Forest Code was passed,

and people who were standing up

against the lobbyists and the interests,
the special interests,

the cattle industry, the agribusiness
industry, what was happening to them.

A lot of people who were speaking out
got killed.

If you look at José Carlos,
you look at Claudio...

There's people who were
putting themselves out there

and saying cattle ranching
is destroying the Amazon.

A lot of those people who are really
putting themselves out there.

And look at Dorothy Stang, the nun
who lived out in Pará who was killed.

A lot of people will speak up,

but a lot of people
just keep their mouths shut

'cause they don't wanna be the next one
with the bullet to their head.

ANDERSEN: Sister Dorothy Stang
was a US-born nun

living in the heart
of the Brazilian rainforest.

Her life's work was to protect the Amazon.

She spoke out openly

against the destruction of rainforest
from cattle ranching for years.

Walking home one night,
she was brutally gunned down

-at point-blank range
-(GUNSHOT)

by a hired gun from the cattle industry.

After Greenpeace's
initial denial for an interview,

I wrote again, begging they reconsider.

Greenpeace got back again,

and said again,

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

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

"You mentioned
you were also speaking to Oceana.

"I'm sure they'll be able to give you some
great quotes about ocean-related issues.

"Thanks again for thinking of us."

Unbelievable.

With Greenpeace
unwilling to be interviewed,

I had to find
a different avenue for answers.

There's something really fishy
going on over there.

Fortunately, l found
a former Greenpeace Board of Director

who now speaks openly about the industry.

Environmental organizations,
like other organizations,

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 papers and journals.

It's there for everybody to see.

But the environmental organizations
are refusing to act.

Nowhere do you find in their policies

and nowhere do you find
in the Greenpeace mission

that diet is important,
that animal agriculture is the problem.

They are refusing,
like other environmental organizations,

to look at the issue.

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

And it's so frustrating
to see them do this.

"NRDC, the Earth's best defense."

All right, so here they actually do have
a few things on animal agriculture.

The leading cause of environmental
degradation is too much pollution

and too many engines churning too fast

in too many places around the globe.

ANDERSEN: Lately, in 2009,
Worldwatch reported that

livestock causes 51%
of greenhouse gas emissions,

and transportation's around 13%.

And on the low end,
the UN was around 18% to 30%,

which is more than
all transportation all put together.

-Internationally? Or nationally?
-ANDERSEN: The entire globe. Yeah.

I think energy production and
transportation are still major sources,

so I think, um...

I guess I'm not gonna comment on that

because I'm not familiar
with those numbers.

So it's... (CHUCKLES)

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

That's, I think, what that is.

-ANDERSEN: It's...
-(LAUGHS)

I think that's cow farts.

(WOMAN LAUGHING)

(LAUGHING)

ANDERSEN: Well, that's part of the story.

Methane production from cows
and other livestock's flatulence

is a major contributor.

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

which is 130 times more waste
than the entire human population.

Virtually all without the benefit
of any waste treatment.

NRDC absolutely, as I said,
has a big food program.

In fact, every year we do
the Growing Green Awards,

and we recognize food innovators.

And this last year,

one of the awardees was
a sustainable pork producer, actually,

that doesn't use any antibiotics.

And also the antibiotic use

that industrial food production
in the United States uses right now is...

We're giving...

The majority of antibiotics
in the United States

are administered to healthy livestock.

ANDERSEN: I wanted to visit
one of these sustainable farms.

I found the Markegard Grass-Fed beef farm
on the lush, misty California coast.

I met Erik and Doniga Markegard
and their four children.

DONIGA: Lea and Larry
are usually up at 6:00

and out milking the cows,
slopping the hogs.

All together, we graze about 4,500 acres.

And this is our home ranch.

And this is 952 acres of that.

On average, it's about one cow,
or a cow and a calf, per every 10 acres.

We would produce annually

roughly 80,000 pounds
of finished, plate-ready meat.

We keep about 10 pigs
in roughly a 50-acre area,

and we move them around
in 10-acre pastures.

Some people think that
pigs are dirty and gross,

but I really like them.

They know people,
and they'll be friends and really nice.

And they could be like your best friend,
or could be like a sister.

See?

They know you when you get to know them.

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

Why shouldn't you bond with them?

Well, because they're
gonna turn into bacon.

Oh.

These pigs are about seven months old now.

That's it? Wow.

So these bigger ones
are getting ready to be killed.

Those two smaller ones there,
they could grow up a few more months.

I love animals. And I...

That's why I'm in the meat business.

It's what more of society needs to see,

is that that packaged piece of meat
is a living animal.

(CHUCKLES)

Living and breathing creature that...

Yeah, it's hard, it's hard.

But like what Doniga said earlier,

we do it because we love them.

ANDERSEN: With the land use,
there's anywhere between...

With industrial, as low as
2 to 2.5 acres per cow,

all the way up to some, depending...
It's not as lush as this, up to 35 acres.

Yeah, we have a ranch in South Dakota
that's 50 acres.

ANDERSEN: Fifty acres per...

(CHUCKLING) Yeah,
it's about 50 acres, yeah.

-ANDERSEN: And why is that?
-Uh...

Same thing. It was just farmed
and robbed of all the nitrogen.

-The land was abused.
-It's also seasonal, right?

And it's also seasonal.

ANDERSEN: Is it possible
and is it practical

for the whole world to say,

"Have grass-fed cattle"?

Say Brazil,

where supposedly 80% of the rainforest
was destroyed for cattle.

What are your thoughts on that?

They shouldn't be eating beef.

If their environment
wasn't designed to raise beef,

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

ANDERSEN: How do you offset
the carbon footprint of livestock?

Uh...

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

ANDERSEN: I left there feeling confused.

And as far as grass-fed beef
not having a carbon footprint,

it actually sounded like
it could make sense,

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

If we're to use
the Markegard model of raising animals,

which requires 4,500 acres
producing 80,000 pounds of meat,

the average American eats
209 pounds of meat per year.

If that was all grass-fed beef, only
382 people could be fed on their land.

That equates to 11.7 acres per person
times 314 million Americans,

which equals 3.7 billion acres
of grazing land.

Unfortunately, there are only 1.9 billion
acres in the US's lower 48 states.

Currently nearly half
of all United States' land

is already dedicated
to animal agriculture.

If we're to switch over to grass-fed beef,

it would require clearing
every square inch of the United States,

up into Canada, all of Central America,
and well into South America.

And this is just to feed
the United States' demand on meat.

But that figure doesn't even
take into consideration

that much of that land
isn't suited to graze livestock.

We would have to convert
all mountain ranges to grassland,

clear ancient forests
and national parks to grazing,

and demolish every city
just to make room to graze cows.

Just like Brazil, the United States
isn't suited to meet the demands for meat.

It takes 23 months for a grass-fed animal

to grow to the point,
to the size and age that it's slaughtered,

whereas a grain-fed takes 15 months.

So that's an additional eight months
of water use, land use, feed, waste,

and in terms of a carbon footprint,
that's a huge difference.

ANDERSEN: 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
there was no way to sustainably raise

enough animals to feed
the world's current demand on meat,

and had my doubts on dairy as well.

But I did want to talk
with a premier organic dairy company

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

It requires a lot of inputs
to produce milk.

The feed, the water, the land. It does.

And it may not be practical to expect that

there can be enough dairy production
produced in a sustainable way

to feed the entire world.

I just don't think that
that's necessarily a given.

I think it's maybe too much to expect

that the world can be fed with dairy
in a sustainable way.

I don't know the answer, but
common sense would say that's a long shot.

ANDERSEN: I was shocked
to hear such an honest answer.

If this is what the dairy CEO would say,
I wondered what the farmer would claim.

Based on their marketing, it seemed
their farms were an oasis for cows.

It was not what I expected.

(AIR HISSING)

Typically, a cow will eat
140 to 150 pounds of feed a day.

ANDERSEN: A hundred and...

A hundred and forty to 150 pounds
of feed every day.

And then she's also gonna drink
between 30 and 40 gallons of water.

ANDERSEN: Oh, my Lord.

TAYLOR: Probably go through
about probably 20 tons per week.

ANDERSEN: Twenty tons of...
TAYLOR: Twenty tons of grain per week.

ANDERSEN: For?

TAYLOR: Primarily for our milking cows,
so about 250 cows.

Yeah, so the biggest part
of sustainability, to me,

the number one thing on the list
should be profitability.

So how the process completely works,
from start to finish,

is the cow needs to have a baby
in order to give milk.

And so she'll have her baby,

that baby's gonna stay
with the mother for at least two days.

The babies will go off
to our calf-raising facility,

so they have an individual hutch
that they'll be raised in.

Since we're a dairy,
it's only the girl cows that give us milk.

So the boys, on typical dairies, they're
sold off to beef-raising facilities.

But we do keep approximately half,

and we raise them for two years
and sell them as organic grass-fed beef.

So all dairy cows
eventually go to the beef industry?

Mmm-hmm.

TAYLOR: At some point in time,
she's really gonna drop off.

And so you have to make
a business decision at that point.

Are you gonna keep
investing in her to give milk,

or are you gonna sell her off again to
another dairy, or into the beef industry?

There's very few places on this planet
that have this type of environment.

But the demand on dairy-based protein
in the world is only gonna increase.

And there's not enough land on the planet

to do this type of dairying
around the world. It's just...

The environment is not gonna be that way.
The land's not there.

So, I guess on a global scale,

the conclusion would be
dairy's not sustainable.

Unless we start digging up houses
and putting pastures back. (CHUCKLES)

And the only way to start
digging up houses and development

is to have less people.

But we only know that the population
is gonna continue to grow.

Um...

So that means more
commercial dairying, I'm sure.

Either that, or somehow
lower demand by the people?

Yeah, or some other product
is gonna take its place.

We see there's all sorts of
soy milks and almond milk

and a lot of other products
that are coming out,

and different blends
where you take juices and proteins.

And I think you'll see a lot more of that.

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

For in one gallon of milk,

it takes upwards of
1,000 gallons of water to produce.

Almost a third of the planet's land
is becoming desert,

with a vast majority
due to livestock grazing.

Doing research on grass-fed livestock,

I kept coming across
the work of Allan Savory.

Savory claims that the best way
to reverse this desertification

is to actually graze more animals.

This reminded me of Oceana saying,

"The best way to help fish
is to eat fish."

This is the same man, during the 1950s,

working as a research officer for the
game department of what is now Zimbabwe,

came up with a theory

that actually elephants
were the cause of desertification there.

And his solution was convincing
the government to kill 40,000 elephants.

Yet, after 14 years
of relentless slaughter,

the conditions only got worse.

His theory was wrong.

The culling finally ended,

but not until 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

is having the same effect
on wildlife in the United States.

DENIZE BOLBOL: The government has been
rounding up horses en masse,

and we now have more wild horses and
burros in government holding facilities,

50,000 wild horses and burros
in government holding facilities,

than we have free on the range.

Basically, you have ranchers

who get to graze on our public lands
for a fraction of the going rate.

So they're getting this huge tax subsidy

that's about one-fifteenth
of the going rate.

And what the Bureau of Land Management
has to do is say,

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

And then they divvy it up.

They give so much to the cows,
so much to "wildlife,"

and so much to the wild horses and burros.

And what we see is

the lion's share of the forage and water
is going to the livestock industry.

And then they scapegoat
the horses and burros and say,

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

I always tell people that wild horses
and burros are just one of the victims

of the management
of our public lands for livestock

because we also see
the predator killing going on.

We know wolves are now being targeted
by ranchers, to get rid of wolves.

USDA has aircraft, and all they do
is aerial gunning of predators.

So, all a rancher does is call up and say,
"I've got coyote here."

They'll come over
and they'll shoot the coyote,

or they'll shoot the mountain lion,
or they'll shoot the bobcat.

And this is all for ranching.

In Washington state, after cattle
were found to be attacked on public lands,

where they were grazing under permit,

Washington state decided to
kill the entire Wedge pack of wolves.

And those wolves were not introduced.

They had in-migrated from Canada,

but they're no longer there.

BOLBOL: It starts at the local level,
with the Bureau of Land Managements,

but then it goes all the way to Congress.

And we see Congress,
sitting there, willing to allow

this type of mismanagement
of our public lands to continue.

It is the insistence of
and the lobbying power of

the animal agriculture industry

that continues to see wolves killed,

continues to see an insistence

that predators be maintained at a low
level that does not benefit ecosystems.

I've seen so many pieces of land.

I've looked at
so many environmental assessments

from the Bureau of Land Management

where they say the range lands
are not meeting standards.

And they say, straight-up,

livestock grazing is a cause
for not meeting range standards.

And yet, they will continue
to allow livestock grazing.

They're at the very core of

making sure that
cougars are treed by hounds,

and that wolf packs are run down,

and that hunting seasons
are opened up year-round,

and that traps are set
so that they can suffer.

BOLBOL: If anyone cares about

wild horses and wildlife
and public lands and the environment,

you can't ignore the impact,
the negative impact,

that livestock grazing is having
on our public lands in the West.

DAVID SIMON: I've added up
the costs of animal food production

that the producers
don't actually bear themselves.

These are the hidden costs,
or the externalized costs,

that they impose on society.

And those are in categories like
health care, environmental damage,

subsidies, damage to fisheries,
and even cruelty.

If you take those externalized costs,
which are about $414 billion...

If the meat and dairy industries
were required to internalize those costs,

if they had to
bear those costs themselves,

the costs of the retail prices
of meat and dairy would skyrocket.

So a $5 carton of eggs would go to $13.

A $4 Big Mac would go to $11.

Whether you eat meat or not,

whether you're
an omnivore or an herbivore,

you are paying part of the costs
of somebody else's consumption.

So that when somebody goes into
a McDonald's and buys a Big Mac for $4,

there's another $7 of costs
that's imposed on society.

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

When you really look at who's benefiting,

and who lobbied
for this system of agriculture,

it's the largest food producers in the
country and the largest meat producers.

And once they become so large and wealthy,

then they can dictate
the federal policies around producing food

because they have so much political power.

ANDERSEN: I knew I needed to talk to
an animal agriculture lobby group

to see what they had to say.

If they could silence the government,

are they influencing
and possibly have connections to

these environmental groups as well?

Animal Agriculture Alliance, one of the
biggest livestock lobby groups in America,

has agreed to an interview.

Greenpeace won't give us an interview,

but Animal Agriculture Alliance
has agreed to an interview.

Now, that...

Now, that is saying something.

People hear the word GMOs,
and that's a really scary term.

And again, I think Agriculture's
struggled to explain what that means,

but in reality,
what we've done is to use technology

to make advancements in how we
raise crops and how we raise animals.

We're not gonna feed the world

going back to how it was 100 years ago
where all the animals were pasture-fed.

We didn't just move animals inside

and just implement
these large vertically-integrated systems

because of sustainability.

It certainly reduces
the environmental impact

while improving
animal well-being and food safety.

ANDERSEN: So you're saying that animals
like it just as much being inside...

Say the chickens and the cows
like being just as much inside

as pasture grass-fed?

In a lot of cases, it's been a significant
improvement in their well-being,

just in terms of the amount of care
they can get, individualized care.

ANDERSEN: Does the meat and dairy industry

ever support or donate to
environmental non-profits?

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

KAY SMITH: Yeah, l... I don't...

I don't know. (CHUCKLES)

SMITH: I don't know that we would know
what they donate to or don't donate to.

ANDERSEN: Does meat and dairy industry

ever support or donate to,
say, Greenpeace?

Again, I don't know
that I would feel comfortable...

WOMAN: (ON PHONE) Hey, sorry we didn't
get back to you earlier.

I have some bad news.

Unfortunately, we are no longer
able 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.

ANDERSEN: Why was
this subject so controversial?

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

who had been sued by cattlemen

for simply speaking the truth about animal
agriculture on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

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

Uh...

Grew up my entire life
on a livestock farm.

Went to Montana State University,
got a degree in agriculture.

Came back and started

a mega agriculture endeavor

where I had 10,000 acres of crop,

7,000 head of cattle,

and about 30 employees, so...

I spent 45 years of my life
in animal agriculture,

and so, I've been there, done that.

When I was on The Oprah Show,
we had the food disparagement law.

Now, the food disparagement law,
in my opinion, was unconstitutional,

but what it basically said,
that it was against the law

to say something you knew to be false
about a perishable commodity.

I didn't say anything on The Oprah Show
I thought to be false.

I went there and told the truth.

Now, it took five years
and hundreds of thousands of dollars

to end up extricating myself

from the suits from the cattle industry.

But if I was to go on
The Oprah Show today,

say exactly the same thing today
that I said back then,

I would be guilty.

And for me, when they were talking
about the food disparagement law,

it was the fact of 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.

ANDERSEN: Do you think
there should be any concern

of us making this documentary?

Of course.

If you don't realize right now

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

(CLEARS THROAT) you better
take that camera and throw it away.

POTTER: The animal agriculture industry

is one of the most powerful industries
on the planet.

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

of money and industry on politics,

and we really see that clearly on display
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.

-ANDERSEN: And why is that?
-It's a difficult question to answer,

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

I think a big part of it is that

they, more than really
any other social movements today,

are directly
threatening corporate profits.

When we try to find out how

factory farms and how animal agriculture
is polluting the environment,

they try to claim exemptions
to that information,

either under national security terms
or public safety.

Trademark 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 largest industries
on the planet,

with the biggest environmental impact,

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

Through the Freedom of Information Act,

we obtained documents
from the counter-terrorism unit

that show they're monitoring my lectures,

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

ANDERSEN: Are we at risk
filming this and showing it?

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

It's just overwhelming,
the amount of money at their disposal.

And you have nothing.

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

ANDERSEN: Will was right. I was scared.

When I learned about the activists
being killed in Brazil,

I was disturbed, but I felt removed.

But to learn about
American activists and journalists

being targeted by the industry and FBI?

My funding being dropped?

I was genuinely worried
and it hit close to home.

Was this why no one was willing
to talk about the issue?

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

I was beyond frightened to imagine
what could possibly happen

if I pursued this subject any further.

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

But then I realized
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.

Now you either live for something,
or die for nothing.

And I actually had no choice all along.

I decided then to surrender
not to fear from the secret,

but rather to a cause towards truth.

I couldn't be like these
environmental organizations

and sit silently while the planet was

being eaten alive right
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 actually human overpopulation.

In 1812, there were
one billion people on the planet.

In 1912, there were 1.5 billion.

Then, just 100 years later, our population
exploded to seven billion humans.

This number is rightly given
a great deal of attention,

but an even more important figure
when determining world population

is the world's 70 billion
farm animals humans raise.

The human population drinks
5.2 billion gallons of water every day

and eats 21 billion pounds of food.

But just the world's
1.5 billion cows alone

drink 45 billion gallons
of water every day

and eat 135 billion pounds of food.

This isn't so much
a human population issue.

It's a human-eating-animals
population issue.

Environmental organizations
not addressing this

is like health organizations
trying to stop lung cancer

without addressing cigarette smoking.

But instead of secondhand smoking,
it's secondhand eating,

which affects the entire planet.

We have roughly a billion people
starving every single day.

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

we're feeding to animals.

So they're eating huge amounts
of grain and legumes.

And in the United States,
it's more like closer to 70%, 80%,

depending on which grain it is.

About 90% of the soybeans.

Eighty-two percent of the world's starving
children live in countries

where food is fed to animals
in the livestock systems

that are killed and eaten
by more well-off individuals

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

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

an adequate diet

if we did no more than take the feed
that we're feeding to animals

and actually turn it into food for humans.

And so somebody trying to justify GMOs,

that's 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, uh, it's...
Using the same type of land,

whether it's a very fertile area
in one area of the world,

or it's an area that's depleted.

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

we could allow
all these mono-cropped fields

of genetically-engineered
corn and soybeans

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

Anytime somebody tells you
that we can't grow food for humans

on the land that
we're growing feed for animals...

This is somebody that is mocking
the number one crop out in California.

The fact of it is if you can grow corn
to stuff down the throat of an animal,

you can actually grow corn
and feed it to a human.

You encourage people to eat less meat,

and for the tremendous resources required
and the toll on the environment.

-And on the animals.
-ANDERSEN: And on the animals.

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

ANDERSEN: As the world population
continues to grow

to almost nine billion people,

do you foresee someday
that we might just completely

have to stop eating meat altogether?

I don't know that we'll completely stop.

I think that the amount
of meat-eating will decline.

There's no way to support
nine ounces per person per day,

which is what Americans are eating now.

If the Chinese alone decide
they wanna eat that much...

And they've decided
they wanna eat that much.

We just can't...
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 to see
for nine billion people who can eat

for the planet to not only sustain,
but to thrive?

Would you throw out a number...
An ounce, one ounce?

-Oh, per meat?
-ANDERSEN: And including dairy.

Yeah, I don't think...
I don't know enough.

But, yeah, it would be on the order
of a couple ounces a week.

You know, it's not gonna be
the way we're eating it now.

We're gorging on meat.
We're eating huge amounts.

-Does that include cheese, too?
-Yeah, yeah.

-Like, two ounces total?
-Yeah, cheese and milk.

ANDERSEN: Only two ounces a week
seem like nothing.

People could probably
raise that in their own backyard.

Maybe backyard farming
was a sustainable solution.

BILL PHILLIPS: I have 42 ducks.

I started off with three ducks
three years ago.

And then those burdened into a population.

I buy a 75-pound bag of seed

and that seed bag will last me,
right now, about two weeks.

The ducks now 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.

(QUACKING)

PHILLIPS: Slow down.

Easy, easy, easy, easy.

Okay.

No, we're gonna keep you.

Ron, these two go first.

Being smart-wise?

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

CHILD: That one's nice, see?
PHILLIPS: Yeah, he is.

CHILD: That one goes. That one doesn't.

PHILLIPS: All righty.

Okay.

Right there.

That's gonna be a little gruesome.

CHILD: How could that still be alive?
PHILLIPS: Hmm?

CHILD: How could that still be alive?

PHILLIPS: They're not.

That's nerves.

A nerve reaction.

PHILLIPS: 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.

And we'd raise, probably,
a couple dozen rabbits each year.

And 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...

Because some of the rabbits I had named.
(CHUCKLES)

So I was kind of like going... (GRIMACES)

But after doing it a couple times,
you kind of just learned

it's just something that has to be done.

PHILLIPS: Not the fingers.

(AX BANGS ON WOOD)

ANDERSEN: I 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 I can't do it, I don't want
someone else doing it for me.

And then sustainability.

For sustainability,
75 pounds is two pounds per...

So it's a pound per week, per duck.

Fifty-two weeks, 110...

So it's 110 pounds of food

for one to one and a half pounds of meat.

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

And that grain gets... You know,
who knows where that 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 was the first time I've ever seen that.

So, kind of...

(INHALES DEEPLY)

Yeah.

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

I realized 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 already 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.

DAVID PHINNEY: 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 realize that
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.

And that generally happens
about 18 months to 20 months.

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

or free-range or pasture-based farms.

Hi, Carol. It doesn't matter.

ANDERSEN: It 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 you imagine all those egg-laying hens
eat all that soy and all that corn,

you have an energy conversion ratio
at about 38 to 1,

whereas alternatively,
you can find plants,

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

The energy conversion ratio
for the plants that 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 the Omega products,

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

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

If I could tell you that you could have

the fiber-structure of meat,
the satiating bite of meat, the protein,

and all the nutritional benefits of meat,

without actually
having animal protein itself,

and by doing that,
you could address climate change,

you could address the human health
epidemics that we're seeing,

you could address animal welfare,

and you could address
natural resource conservation,

would you make the change?

ANDERSEN: But what if people
just ate less animal products?

Like going meatless on Mondays.

When you go meatless on Monday,
if you ascribe to that campaign,

you're essentially contributing
to climate change, pollution,

depletion of our planet's resources,
and your own health,

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

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

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

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.

ANDERSEN: 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.

Um, is it even possible
to be a healthy vegetarian or vegan?

Is it possible to be
a healthy vegetarian or vegan?

I became vegan for, let's see,
32 years ago now.

And I run several miles every day.

I go biking 40, 50 miles
through the countryside.

I work long hours.

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

And so many of
my vegan friends and patients are just...

They're thriving since
their transition to a vegan diet.

So, yes, and 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 cow's milk...

I did most of my growing up
on a dairy farm in Wisconsin.

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

into a 400-pound cow
as rapidly as possible.

Cow's milk is baby calf growth fluid.

It's what the stuff is.

Everything in that white liquid,

the hormones, the lipids, the proteins,
the sodium, the growth factors, the IGF,

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

or it wouldn't be there.

And whether you pour it
on your cereal 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 it 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...

Cow's 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? Do you have 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.

ANDERSEN: It was a relief to hear
I didn't have to eat any animal products

to be healthy and even thrive,

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

It turns out there's an entire movement

with people growing food
without any animal inputs.

I visited Earthworks Urban Farm
in Detroit,

where they're working with and growing
food for the low-income community.

We tend to see ourselves
as individuals in a bubble

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

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

Jah is here. He's working on his garden.

You'll be surprised what you can do
with what seems to be not a lot of space.

About a four by eight, yeah.

ANDERSEN: What's your goal this year?
How much do you think you can maximize?

Uh, I would push for 100 at least.

-At least. At least.
-ANDERSEN: A hundred pounds.

That's amazing.

The one full year
after this was constructed,

we doubled our yield
to over 14,000 pounds of food.

Fourteen thousand pounds?
On about how many acres?

Uh, about two and a half.

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.

So we like to 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?
-Yeah, that's what we found.

But 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 veganic 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,
you know, 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 more people are born
to the planet every day.

Every day.

It's extraordinary.

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

34,000 new acres of farmable land.

It's not happening.

ANDERSEN: To feed a person on an
all-plant based vegan diet for a year

requires just one-sixth
of an acre 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

37,000 pounds of vegetables
on one and a half acres,

but only 375 pounds
of meat on that same plot of land.

A high-consuming, meat-eating Californian
saves 1.4 tons of C02 equivalent

per year by removing beef from their diet.

They save 1.6 tons by going vegetarian.

And 1.8 tons by going vegan.

This is more than switching to solar power
for your home, or driving a hybrid car.

Only switching to an electric vehicle
saves more,

which still though, few can afford.

But, unlike an electric vehicle,

the savings don't end
with greenhouse gases.

A vegan diet produces half as much
C02 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 realized
I had the choice every single day

to save over 1,100 gallons of water,
45 pounds of grain,

30 square feet of forested land,
the equivalent of 10 pounds of C02,

and one animal's life. Every single day.

If we all, as a society, did go vegan,
and we moved away from eating 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.

So if we didn't breed them,
then we wouldn't have to feed them.

If we didn't have to feed them,

then we wouldn't have to devote
all this land

to growing grains, and legumes,
and so forth to feed to them.

And so then the forests 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
building solar and wind generators

all over our country
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.

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

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

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

Some people say, "Well, let's fix CO2,
and then we can worry about methane."

Well, that's the wrong... It's the other
way around that actually makes sense.

Do something about methane,
because you'll get a response right away.

Quietly and unmistakably,

the most powerful thing that
someone can do for the environment.

Um, 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.

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 off

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.

Now, organic farming is one major,
positive 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 also
take the greenhouse gas issue out.

And you take the food safety issues out.

And you take some of other externalities
related to food scarcity out.

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

You put 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.

And 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?

ANDERSEN: I had to come
to the full conclusion,

the only way to sustainably
and ethically live on this planet

with seven 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
some sort of life support.

And 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.

And 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 really
connect to each other.

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

every day of your life,

and you will end up dying one of the
happiest individuals that have 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.

So 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.