Not eating meat could prevent world hunger

Question: Should you go vegan?
Position‹2 of 2: Eating animal products is unethical
Argument1 of 5›: Not eating meat could prevent world hunger

There is enough food to feed the world population. World hunger is still a huge issue because rich countries demand meat, and therefore it is more lucrative to sell this luxury to them. If less people ate meat, more efficient crops would take their place and be able to feed the entire world.

The argument

The argument turns on how much of the world's land and harvest is spent producing a comparatively small amount of food. Raising animals for food, counting both the land for grazing and the land used to grow feed crops, uses over one-third of the planet's landmass. That share is not a measure of how many calories livestock supply but of how much territory the system requires, and it is territory that could otherwise be planted. If the land was used instead for farming crops, we could potentially end world hunger, because crops are much more land efficient than animals in regards to the amount of calories produced: the same acreage yields far more human food when it grows food for people directly than when it grows food for animals that people then eat. The conversion ratio is what makes the gap so wide. About seven pounds of crops are used to make one pound of beef, which means most of the nutritional value of the harvest is consumed by the animal rather than passed on to the person eating it. Every pound of meat therefore represents a much larger quantity of edible crops already spent. By redirecting the feed that goes to animals for meat and dairy to humans, that lost value would be released back into the human food supply. According to PETA - 'We produce enough calories globally to feed 10 to 11 billion people, yet the majority of this food is directed to animals of farms, not humans in need.' On that accounting the shortfall is one of allocation rather than production. The three billion people in need of food today would be accounted for if the world went vegetarian, because the calories required to feed them are already being grown and are simply being routed through livestock. If hunger persists while enough food already exists, eating animal products is unethical.

Premises

[P1]Raising animals for food uses over a third of the planet's landmass, and crops are far more calorie-efficient per acre than animals—about seven pounds of feed crops produce just one pound of beef. [P2] We already grow enough calories to feed 10–11 billion people, so redirecting feed crops from livestock to people could account for the three billion in need today. [C] Therefore, because not eating meat could prevent world hunger, eating animal products is unethical.

Counter-arguments

Distribution is arguably the biggest challenge that needs to be solved in order to prevent World Hunger. While we produce enough food to feed the entire planet, global distribution methods are not yet effective enough to ensure everyone is well fed.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Simply producing more food is not enough to solve world hunger.