Here are their responses to some of what you're saying. I'm not saying you're wrong. I have to be honest with you, trying to piece together the validity of the research behind the film is kind of over my head. I would not be surprised if you're very right that many things are blown out of proportion in the film in order to get the shock factor. Again I'm not saying you're wrong, but the main thing for me is that it obviously takes many more resources to eat meat than it does to eat plants that seems like a no brainier. Like eating local is lower impact than eating food from across the country. If that's something I can do for the environment that also personally benefits me, then why not do it? Not to mention all the other ethical reasons to be vegan. I throughly believe that in 100 years raising animals just to eat them will be looked back on as unthinkable and barbaric, as all meat will be lab grown. Anyways I'm not trying to argue with you, I just thought you might be interested.
Response to Criticism of Cowspiracy Facts
Cowspiracy co-director Keegan Kuhn responds to criticisms given to the film.
"The experts interviewed in the film seem to be vegan and have little knowledge or understanding of agriculture or the environment, especially with regards to raising cattle. The film is not unbiased."
Dr. Richard Oppenlander has been studying and researching agriculture for close to 40 years. He has written two highly acclaimed and award-winning books on the subject. He is absolutely an expert in the field of agriculture.
Howard Lyman is a fourth generation cattle rancher. He spent the first 40 years of his life involved in animal husbandry. There are few people in the world better suited to discuss the honest implications of raising livestock on the planet.
David Simon, is an attorney and Will Tuttle is a writer who make no claim to be experts in agriculture.
The simple fact that their dietary choices would be used against their credibility is laughable. I would not consider them credible if they didn't respond to their research and experiences and make the necessary changes for living more sustainably.
"There is erroneous data regarding the Food Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Livestock's Long Shadow report. The figure that says that animal agriculture is responsible for 18 % of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), but the FAO has since corrected their calculations to 14.5 % "
The updated version of the film on Netflix does not use the 18% or 14.5% figure. It simply states that animal agriculture produces more GHGs than the combined exhaust of all the world's vehicles.
On our website we have a lengthy explanation written by Dr. Oppenlander about the difference between the 18% and 14.5% reports: www.cowspiracy.com/facts
"The most astonishing number in the film – 51 % of the GHGs are created by livestock – comes from a non-peer-reviewed article (Goodland and Anhang, 2009). Why did you use this report without mentioning the criticism against it?"
The Goodland/Anhang analysis was peer-reviewed. In order for employees of the World Bank to do any press or have articles published they must have it cleared by the World Bank first. Goodland and Anhang used the global standard for measuring GHGs http://www.ghgprotocol.org/city-accounting, something that the FAO report did not even do.
"Goodland and Anhang did not acknowledge the mitigation-factors of the natural cycles of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, etc. They also includes respiration from livestock which usually is not included. "
Goodland and Anhang used the global standard for measuring GHGs: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/city-accounting, something that the FAO report did not. Goodland/Anhang responded to criticism of their analysis here: http://www.animalfeedscience.com/article/S0377-8401(11)00517-7/abstract which explains their methodology.