A Field Guide to "Cowspiracy"
The Bias of Cowspiracy
Cowspiracy frequently brings up facts from empirical sources that support their message of a “no animal product” lifestyle (like those shown here ). Most of the film is spent citing these studies and explaining why and how they prove animal agriculture is not sustainable. The bias becomes very apparent when less than 7 minutes of the film are actually dedicated at explaining how the world could feasibly adopt an absolute vegan diet. While the meat, egg, and dairy industry are brutally dissected for any and all flaws, all arguments against the film’s absolute vegan approach are oversimplified, and constructed to be quickly shot down. Cowspiracy oversimplifies both the animal agricultural industry practices, as well as the proposed radical change to become 100% reliant on plant based products. The film is meant to shock their intended audience, and it succeeds at doing so, however the ultimate impression the documentary gives off is one of propoganda. Their agenda is very transparent, to promote veganism, even going so far as to claiming all fishing is overfishing.
"Concerned researchers of the loss of species agree that the primary cause of loss of species on earth that we are witnessing is due to over grazing and habitat loss from livestock production on land, and by over fishing, which I call fishing, in our oceans." [-Dr. Richard Oppenlander 0:14:32-48]
Analysis of the Controversial Claims
"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." [-Kip Andersen 1:26:55]
Kip Anderson, Cowspiracy’s narrator, brings up major claims through the documentary that aim to cripple the argument for animal agriculture, but actually end up hurting his credibility in the process. This is first seen after a visit to a small pasture ranch, “Markegard Family Grass Fed” where Kip brings up his desire to shoot down not only factory farm grain raised cattle, but also the grass fed alternative. He uses this single ranch as a basepoint to determine “exactly” how much of the United State’s land would be required to switch over to grazed beef, without taking into consideration the other aspects of this “baseline” farm. No rebuttal or constraint is given in the film (I do not think I am alone in questioning the logic behind taking statistics from a single farm and applying it to the entire USA). Kip uses this logic to further exaggerate on the unsustainability of cow grazing at a large level (seemingly oblivious to the fact that ¾ of all cattle is already grazed on grass, with the other 22 million divided up into feedlots, like those used in the dairy industry). In addition, no benefits of cattle grazing, such as how they fertilize and keep land growing naturally, are brought up.
Another questionable point of the film is the initial argument of a conspiracy to hide livestock’s impact on climate change, which is heavily based on a 2006 FAO Long Shadow Report. This report estimated livestock related emissions 18%. The film never mentions the revisions made in 2013 that show a 3.5% decrease in emissions, and how an additional 30% can be reduced by changing some of the management practices in the industry. While the 2013 revisions do not warrant their claim invalid, it does bring about a question on how correlated or accurate the study was. However, this discussion is not brought up in the documentary (all supporting studies are never interrogated in the film). It is a reasonable possibility that those they interviewed chose to not talk of the subject of animal agriculture's environmental impact for multiple other reasons other than that there is a conspiracy behind it all, but these reasons are not addressed or hypothesized... it can only be a "cowspiracy".
The film also references and interviews several vegan activists, such as Robert Goodland, whose credibility seems to derive from the sole fact that they are vegan. Robert published a 2009 World Watch report, generating statistics and estimations of how animal agriculture is becoming the greatest threat to our world. This report has been rejected by most of the scientific community for its “extrusion” of facts and radical instances. His credibility was never questioned in the film.
Perhaps the most radical instance of the film’s bias occurs when Dr. Oppenlander makes his unquestioned argument to remove all animal agriculture and replace it with plant based agriculture. The film does not include excerpts from Dr. Oppenlander’s book “Food Choice and Sustainability” where he suggests that humans convert modern animal feed (mostly corn and soy) into vegan energy bars. The film also never analyzed the effects that large scale agriculture would also have on the environment, and fails to bring up the fact that if Dr. Oppenlander had his way, most of the world would have to abandon most all food and consume protein bars.
Ultimately, Cowspiracy is a very aesthetically pleasing documentary that pulls out many facts in visually appealing charts and graphs. However, the film does not analyze any of the facts and figures plugged into the pro vegan argument, and instead seems to simply be focused on attacking the modern meat, dairy, and egg industry through any means possible.
Counter-Claims and an Analysis of “Vegan-Utopia”
The most indigestible part of Cowspiracy is the oversimplification it provides the audience with. Most pressing is the stance that the documentary is calling for, involving regulation and placing extreme limitations on the animal agricultural industry. Their claim is very transparent. The members they interview from prestigious organizations and coalitions seemingly lose all credibility when they don’t mention the animal agricultural effects on the environment. They use this to their advantage, skewing the audience into thinking that these evil corporations are determined to keep this “under the table” and the film infers several times that these industries are not sustainable in a free market. What made me especially queasy as a viewer, was the lack of a “vote with your plate” call to action, and instead a very broad and radical “our world is dying and we need to regulate food ASAP” call to action.
What the documentary doesn’t explain is the process in which the fishing, dairy, meat and egg industry’s would become regulated. This is the film’s third underlying factor, government ultimately controlling all aspects of the food industry. In order for this proposed “Vegan-Utopia” to become a reality, the government would have to set extreme limitations on the animal agricultural businesses, and also motivate (but most likely force) them to sell their land, which would be converted into plant based products to make human feed. The incentives towards farmers and their products would be tremendously altered as well, and given that the country would no longer support expensive meat consumption, it is likely the price of vegetables would inflate with a lack of government subsidies.
In Review
Cowspiracy is an interesting film that pitches environmentalism as an umbrella which encompasses an adherence to the vegan lifestyle. It promotes an absolutist point of view regarding the food industry, and also asserts somewhat of an “ethical monopoly” in the process. The documentary thrives off of facts, interviews, and instances that present the “conspiracy” that animal agriculture is the greatest contributing factor towards climate change, and is never talked about because these companies, people, and charities are being influenced by the industry. Cowspiracy thrives off of generalized oppositions to their claim(s), and it through this utlilizes an easy mean to cripple their oppositionists/critics of their credentials. While the film calls for several good and justified measures, like debunking animal dairy reliance, showing unethical animal agriculture practices, and promoting less red meat consumption, it relies too heavily on “cherry picked” instances and facts that back their radical agenda. The documentary also promotes an extremely controversial claim (one that would alter every single human life) and ultimately presents this claim in a very irresponsible, bias, and overgeneralizing way.