tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/meat-production-6484/articlesMeat production – The Conversation2024-01-02T10:58:21Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2192652024-01-02T10:58:21Z2024-01-02T10:58:21ZSwitching to plant-based diets means cleaner air – and it could save more than 200,000 lives around the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565996/original/file-20231215-17-e10ab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4500%2C2923&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fresh-raw-vegetable-ingredients-healthy-cooking-420828667">Foxys Forest Manufacture/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Adopting a healthier diet will probably feature prominently in many of our new year’s resolutions. But it’s often <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120301100">challenging</a> for people to live up to their intentions. </p>
<p>But there are good reasons to persist in making deliberate choices about what’s on your plate. These choices not only impact your own health, they affect the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13959">health of the planet</a> too. </p>
<p>Food systems represent <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9">one-third</a> of global greenhouse gas emissions. If left unchecked, these emissions would probably add enough extra warming to take Earth’s average temperature <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-food-system-emissions-alone-threaten-warming-beyond-1-5-c-but-we-can-act-now-to-stop-it-149312">beyond a 1.5°C rise</a> in the 2060s. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2013637118">Research</a> is now also establishing air pollution on the list of problems caused by agriculture. Animal farming, in particular, is a major source of ammonia emissions. These emissions react with other pollutants to form fine particulate matter, which can cause health issues like cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and diabetes. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41789-3">recent study</a> reveals that shifting from current diets to healthier, more plant-based ones could prevent up to 236,000 premature deaths around the world and boost global GDP – simply by improving air quality.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/global-food-system-emissions-alone-threaten-warming-beyond-1-5-c-but-we-can-act-now-to-stop-it-149312">Global food system emissions alone threaten warming beyond 1.5°C – but we can act now to stop it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Healthier diets, cleaner air</h2>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health">World Health Organization</a>, there were 4 million premature deaths linked to outdoor air pollution in 2019. Agriculture is responsible for roughly <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15371">one-fifth</a> of these deaths. </p>
<p>We studied what would happen to air quality if people around the world shifted towards diets that are healthier and better for the environment. This includes flexitarian diets with less meat, vegetarian diets with no meat and vegan diets with no animal products. </p>
<p>Our results show that shifting towards plant-based diets could significantly reduce air pollution. Areas with lots of livestock, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, northern Italy, southern China and the mid-west US (in <a href="https://cjones.iihr.uiowa.edu/blog/2019/03/iowas-real-population">Iowa</a>, there are eight pigs for every person), would see particularly pronounced reductions in the concentration of fine particulate matter.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Pigs in an outdoor pen." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/566005/original/file-20231215-23-fim9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/566005/original/file-20231215-23-fim9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566005/original/file-20231215-23-fim9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566005/original/file-20231215-23-fim9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566005/original/file-20231215-23-fim9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566005/original/file-20231215-23-fim9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566005/original/file-20231215-23-fim9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are more pigs in Iowa than there are people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pigs-play-1127934242">Shelly Hauschel/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Better air quality leads to better health. We found that over 100,000 premature deaths could be prevented globally by adopting flexitarian diets. The health gains from cleaner air add to the benefits obtained from eating a more balanced diet.</p>
<p>These health benefits increase as people eat fewer animal products. For example, if everyone went vegan, the number of premature deaths from air pollution could fall by more than 200,000. In Europe and North America, adopting vegan diets could reduce premature deaths from all air pollution by about 20%.</p>
<p>Clean air is an often overlooked but important aspect of the work environment. <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aap7711">Research</a> has found that air pollution lowers the productivity of workers in many different jobs, from farms to factories. For instance, studies have shown that air pollution affects the productivity of <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.7.3652">blueberry pickers</a> and <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20150085">pear packers</a>. </p>
<p>Our estimates suggest that cleaner air can have a positive impact on the economy. We found that a shift to vegan diets could increase global GDP by more than 1% – a gain of US$1.3 trillion. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/vegan-vegetarian-and-flexitarian-diets-could-save-you-money-new-research-171559">Vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian diets could save you money – new research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Closeup of blueberry hand picker." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567231/original/file-20231222-21-8zh5ow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567231/original/file-20231222-21-8zh5ow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567231/original/file-20231222-21-8zh5ow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567231/original/file-20231222-21-8zh5ow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567231/original/file-20231222-21-8zh5ow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567231/original/file-20231222-21-8zh5ow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567231/original/file-20231222-21-8zh5ow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Air pollution lowers worker productivity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-blueberries-hand-picker-old-wooden-1493085140">catalina.m/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Enabling change</h2>
<p>Improving air quality is undoubtedly beneficial for our health and the economy. We argue that dietary changes should thus be placed firmly on the policy menu. </p>
<p>Embracing more plant-based diets is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/vegan-vegetarian-and-flexitarian-diets-could-save-you-money-new-research-171559">cost-effective</a> strategy for tackling emissions. But it also lowers the need for expensive <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abf8623">investments</a> in emission-reducing equipment for livestock systems, such as <a href="https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/the-benefits-of-using-air-scrubbers-in-pig-buildings">scrubbers</a> that remove ammonia from the air.</p>
<p>Eating less meat would also diminish the need for other, more drastic, measures to curb pollution. For instance, researchers have previously <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00453-z">suggested</a> moving 10 billion animals away from southern and eastern China to reduce ammonia exposure for people in these regions.</p>
<p>Shifting to healthier and more plant-based diets offers a wide range of benefits beyond clean air. These benefits include a lower risk of diet-related diseases, bringing down greenhouse gas emissions and lowering the use of land, water and fertilisers for agriculture. </p>
<p>Achieving ambitious progress in all these areas at the same time will be challenging if we rely on technological solutions alone.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A farmer feeding cows on a farm." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/566011/original/file-20231215-23-c6l5hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/566011/original/file-20231215-23-c6l5hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566011/original/file-20231215-23-c6l5hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566011/original/file-20231215-23-c6l5hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566011/original/file-20231215-23-c6l5hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566011/original/file-20231215-23-c6l5hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/566011/original/file-20231215-23-c6l5hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Farmed cattle in Luannan County, Hebei Province, China.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/luannan-county-august-28-breeder-cleaning-321377315">Yuangeng Zhang/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the summer of 2023, the German supermarket chain Penny carried out a week-long <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/31/german-supermarket-penny-trial-climate-cost-food-meat-cheese">experiment</a> to raise awareness of the real cost of food products on people’s health and the environment. The prices charged to customers factored in the impact of food products on soil, water use, health and the climate.</p>
<p>This concept could be applied more broadly. But to make this policy fair and acceptable, it needs to be coupled with ways to use tax revenues to ensure consumers are not left worse off, such as reducing <a href="https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=6924">VAT on fruit and vegetable products</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3155">compensating vulnerable households</a>. In this way, overall food expenditure would be kept in check and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00849-z">low-income households</a> would be protected. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-true-cost-of-food-high-grocery-prices-are-not-the-root-issue-207702">The true cost of food: High grocery prices are not the root issue</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Together with measures to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27645-2">guide farmers in the transition</a>, our food systems can be steered towards sustainability, helping people deliver on their New Year’s resolutions.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 30,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marco Springmann receives funding from the Wellcome Trust and Horizon Europe.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Toon Vandyck does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Switching to a plant-based diet could save lives.Toon Vandyck, Research Fellow in Economics, KU LeuvenMarco Springmann, Senior Researcher on Environment and Health, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2092342023-07-16T20:00:36Z2023-07-16T20:00:36ZTalking about eating less red and processed meat provokes strong feelings. That’s why this new evidence-based report is welcome<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537222/original/file-20230713-24-5i48tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C4813%2C3216&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Emotions can <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34588091">run high</a> when the topic of how much red and processed meat to eat is raised. For many of us, eating these foods is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666315001166?casa_token=VNY4M7HKk9cAAAAA:dNNXkbFr6wo5Q8gb1EG7J2kB379GhNJVZ23ArvxhFLlsm-_2K_mEacVE8PLUr-UZRIX7EGmBaBw">culturally important</a> – often tied to specific dishes and traditions.</p>
<p>That’s why this week’s landmark <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240074828">new report</a> from the World Health Organization (WHO) is welcome. The report focuses explicitly on what the science says about how red and processed meat affects our health – and the health of the ecosystems on which we depend. </p>
<p>What does it say? Moderation is important. In high-income countries, we tend to eat too much red meat, which boosts the risk of some cancers and heart disease. We should treat processed meat, such as salami, with even greater caution, as the link to cancer risk is even clearer.</p>
<p>If you want a quick take-home, it’s this: eat less red meat, avoid processed meat and choose meat farmed under better conditions. But this is not always easy or affordable for everyone. So most importantly, we need changes to the policies that affect how our food systems operate so that our well-being and the health of the planet are prioritised.</p>
<h2>What does the evidence say about red meat and our health?</h2>
<p>Red meat is a rich source of many <a href="https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/61245">important nutrients</a>, including iron, B-vitamins and all essential amino acids. These are compounds essential for human growth, development and good health.</p>
<p>Importantly, these nutrients are not exclusively found in red meat. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.806566/full">Beans and legumes</a> are also high in iron and B-vitamins, though in less easily absorbed form. Many cultures have developed healthy diets without an over-reliance on red meat by including beans and legumes. </p>
<p>In populations that experience food insecurity, red meat can be an important source of nutrition. In these contexts, it doesn’t make sense to advise people to avoid red meat.</p>
<p>But in other parts of the world, red meat intake is too high. Australians are some of the world’s biggest <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352550922002147?via%3Dihub">red meat eaters</a>, which puts us at higher risk of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35291893/">chronic diseases</a> such as bowel cancer and cardiovascular disease. Both of these are amongst Australia’s top killers. </p>
<p>Processed and ultra-processed meats such as ham and chicken nuggets come with even greater health risks, especially when consumed in excess. The WHO considers processed meat a <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat">Group 1 carcinogen</a>. That means there’s strong evidence linking consumption to cancer risk.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cc0639en/cc0639en.pdf">way we produce</a> red and processed meat comes with a host of other health issues, such as antimicrobial resistance due to overuse of antibiotics, as well as the risk of new zoonotic animal-to-human diseases. Intensive farming done on industrial scales poses <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090904">particular risks</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="processed meats" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Processed meat consumption has a clear link to cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does the evidence tell us about red meat and the environment?</h2>
<p>Ruminant livestock need grass, which often means farmers chop down the trees or shrubs previously there, making pasture inhospitable for native species. In feedlots, these animals are often fed on grains or soy. Producing the volumes needed - of both animal feed and livestock - means felling more forests. That’s why we can clearly link increased livestock farming to <a href="https://www.unnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-Paper-EN_WEB.pdf">damaged biodiversity</a>. </p>
<p>There are issues on the climate front, too. Livestock production accounts for <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf">up to 78%</a> of all greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Of this, cattle farming <a href="https://academic.oup.com/af/article/10/4/14/5943514">contributes 80%</a>. </p>
<p>In Australia, livestock farming is generally less intensive compared to the United States. Even so, deforestation to make room for cattle is still a major issue in Australia. In the last five years, <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/12/15/australia-beef-deforestation-climate-brexit-trade-deal/">13,500 hectares</a> have been cleared for beef cattle operations in Queensland alone.</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be so destructive. Mixed farming systems, where <a href="https://theconversation.com/intensive-farming-is-eating-up-the-australian-continent-but-theres-another-way-130877">cattle graze</a> on land covered by trees and native grasses, is less destructive. </p>
<p>So are farming methods built around <a href="https://theconversation.com/regenerative-agriculture-is-all-the-rage-but-its-not-going-to-fix-our-food-system-203922">agro-ecological principles</a> where the health of the land and fairness <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z#:%7E:text=FAO%20(2018d)%20first%20described%20the,2020">are prioritised</a>. </p>
<p>As global heating escalates, it will pose increasing challenges for livestock farmers (and livestock animals). Increases in extreme weather have <a href="https://academic.oup.com/af/article/9/1/3/5272569">major implications</a> for animal welfare, farmer livelihoods and food security. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="grassy woodlands cattle" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Grassy eucalypt woodlands used for cattle farming in subtropical Queensland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tara Martin</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does the evidence say about industrial farming?</h2>
<p>Many farmers care greatly about the welfare of their animals and the environment. </p>
<p>But meat production in many parts of the world is now <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901122002490">dominated by large corporations</a>. To maximise production, these companies rely on intensive farming techniques such as feedlots and extensive use of antibiotics. These techniques are spreading as low- and middle-income countries such as China and Brazil gain more appetite for meat. </p>
<p>Industrial scale farming comes with real costs. If we can make meat production better, we will lower the risk of antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, and improve the lives of workers and the animals themselves.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/organic-grass-fed-and-hormone-free-does-this-make-red-meat-any-healthier-92119">Organic, grass fed and hormone-free: does this make red meat any healthier?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Knowing this, what should we do?</h2>
<p>If we leave the situation as it is, intensive farming and red and processed meat consumption will continue to increase. </p>
<p>But this is not sustainable. To improve the health of people and the planet we need to change how we produce meat. And we need to consume more diverse diets. These changes have to be sensitive to the local context.</p>
<p>Changing what we eat must involve governments. Just as governments have a role in encouraging food manufacturers to avoid carcinogens or dangerous chemical additives, they have a role in promoting healthy diets from food systems that are sustainable over the long term. </p>
<p>What does that look like? It could be investing in agro-ecological farming practices, tackling corporate concentration of meat production, penalising <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-017-9660-0">antibiotic overuse</a> and subsidising healthy options like beans and legumes. Taxing the riskiest meat-based foods, such as heavily processed meat, is <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204139">another option</a>. </p>
<p>Sensible policy-making may also help shift <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329319300394?via%3Dihub">cultural norms</a> in which meat is so highly valued.</p>
<p>Could we just swap red meat for different meat? It’s not that simple. The majority of chickens are <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/%20environmental-impacts-of-food#dairy-vs-plant-based-milk-what-are-the-environmental-impacts">intensively farmed</a>, too, meaning antibiotic resistance remains a risk. Ultra-processed plant-based meats may <a href="https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.834285620056561">also pose problems</a> for human health. </p>
<p>A better option is to focus on minimally-processed whole foods (think brown rice, nuts and pulses) and sustainably-produced foods from animals. But we need action from the government to make these options affordable and convenient.</p>
<p>Importantly, the WHO report does not say stop eating red meat – it simply lays out the evidence about what it does to your health. It also points to ways of farming livestock that are less destructive and outlines ways to reduce our habitual consumption.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="mediterranean diet" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wholefoods, fresh fruit and vegetables and moderate quantities of sustainably produced meat offer a better path for us and for the environment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/intensive-farming-is-eating-up-the-australian-continent-but-theres-another-way-130877">Intensive farming is eating up the Australian continent – but there's another way</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209234/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Sievert received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for previous work related to this topic. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sacks receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and VicHealth.</span></em></p>Too much red meat – and especially processed meat – is linked to cancer and heart disease. But moderation is the key – alongside better farming practicesKatherine Sievert, Research Fellow in Food Systems, Deakin UniversityGary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1511932021-02-08T13:37:55Z2021-02-08T13:37:55ZCorporate concentration in the US food system makes food more expensive and less accessible for many Americans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381811/original/file-20210201-23-sw9ipn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C0%2C2500%2C1654&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Volunteers prepare boxes at the Greater Boston Food Bank on Oct. 1, 2020.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/volunteers-quality-check-and-prepare-boxes-to-load-for-news-photo/1229827185?adppopup=true">Iaritza Menjivar, The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Agribusiness executives and government policymakers often praise the U.S. food system for producing <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/meat-industry-responds-the-meat-racket-msna270286">abundant and affordable food</a>. In fact, however, food costs are rising, and shoppers in many parts of the U.S. have limited access to fresh, healthy products. </p>
<p>This isn’t just an academic argument. Even before the current pandemic, millions of people in the U.S. went hungry. In 2019 the U.S. Department of Agriculture <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics/#householdtype">estimated</a> that <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics/">over 35 million people were “food insecure</a>,” meaning they did not have reliable access to affordable, nutritious food. Now <a href="https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-hunger-coronavirus-pandemic-4c7f1705c6d8ef5bac241e6cc8e331bb">food banks</a> are struggling to feed people who have lost jobs and income thanks to COVID-19. </p>
<p>As rural sociologists, we study <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=V_pXnRUAAAAJ&hl=en">changes in food systems</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X8JjxZEAAAAJ&hl=en">sustainability</a>. We’ve closely followed corporate consolidation of food production, processing and distribution in the U.S. over the past 40 years. In our view, this process is making food less available or affordable for many Americans. </p>
<h2>Fewer, larger companies</h2>
<p>Consolidation has placed key decisions about our nation’s food system in the hands of a few large companies, giving them <a href="http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Concentration_FullReport.pdf">outsized influence</a> to lobby policymakers, direct food and industry research and influence media coverage. These corporations also have enormous power to make decisions about what food is produced how, where and by whom, and who gets to eat it. We’ve tracked this trend <a href="https://www.globalagriculture.org/transformation-of-our-food-systems/book/updates/howard-hendrickson.html">across the globe</a>.</p>
<p>It began in the 1980s with mergers and acquisitions that left a few large firms <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/concentration-and-power-in-the-food-system-9781472581112/">dominating nearly every step of the food chain</a>. Among the largest are retailer <a href="https://corporate.walmart.com">Walmart</a>, food processor <a href="https://www.nestle.com/aboutus/overview">Nestlé</a> and seed/chemical firm <a href="https://www.bayer.com/en/crop-science/crop-science-division">Bayer</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphic showing consolidation in the global seed industry" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382364/original/file-20210203-17-1lokhn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Between 1996 and 2013 Monsanto acquired more than 70 seed companies, before the firm was itself acquired by competing seed/chemical firm Bayer in 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Philip Howard</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some corporate leaders have abused their power – for example, by allying with their few competitors to fix prices. In 2020 Christopher Lischewski, the former president and CEO of Bumblebee Foods, was convicted of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/business/bumble-bee-tuna-price-fixing.html">conspiracy to fix prices of canned tuna</a>. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison and fined US$100,000. </p>
<p>In the same year, chicken processor <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/pilgrim-s-pride-reaches-plea-agreement-with-justice-department-on-chicken-price-fixing-allegations-11602649655">Pilgrim’s Pride</a> pleaded guilty to price-fixing charges and was fined $110.5 million. Meatpacking company <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/jbs-settlement-of-pork-price-fixing-suit-is-worth-24-5-million">JBS</a> settled a $24.5 million pork price-fixing lawsuit, and farmers won a class action settlement against peanut-shelling companies <a href="https://thecounter.org/price-fixing-peanut-farmers-lawsuit-georgia-antitrust-adm/">Olam and Birdsong</a>. </p>
<p>Industry consolidation is hard to track. Many subsidiary firms often are <a href="https://philhoward.net/2020/09/24/organic-processing-industry-structure-2020/">controlled by one parent corporation</a> and engage in “contract packing,” in which a single processing plant produces identical foods that are then sold under dozens of different brands – including labels that compete directly against each other.</p>
<p>Recalls ordered in response to food-borne disease outbreaks have revealed the broad scope of contracting relationships. Shutdowns at meatpacking plants due to COVID-19 infections among workers have shown how much of the U.S. food supply flows through <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/13-us-meat-plants-are-down-25percent-of-pork-and-10percent-of-beef/ar-BB1396Ys">a small number of facilities</a>.</p>
<p>With consolidation, large supermarket chains have closed many <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2010.510583">urban</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2016.1145006">rural</a> stores. This process has left numerous communities with limited food selections and high prices – especially neighborhoods with many <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.005">low-income</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302113">Black or Latino</a> households.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0dCgGGdSCU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">In 2006, the Community Grocery Store in the small town of Walsh, Colorado, avoided going out of business by selling stock to residents. The store is still in business in 2021.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Widespread hunger</h2>
<p>As unemployment has risen during the pandemic, so has the number of hungry Americans. <a href="https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us">Feeding America</a>, a nationwide network of food banks, estimates that <a href="https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/coronavirus-hunger-research">up to 50 million people</a> – including 17 million children – may currently be experiencing food insecurity. Nationwide, demand at food banks <a href="https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/12/10/unprecedented-need-san-antonio-food-bank-has-seen-30-increase-in-demand-since-onset-of-covid-19-pandemic/">grew by over 48%</a> during the first half of 2020. </p>
<p>Simultaneously, disruptions in food supply chains forced farmers to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-farmers-are-dumping-milk-down-the-drain-and-letting-produce-rot-in-fields-136567">dump milk down the drain</a>, leave produce rotting in fields and euthanize livestock that could not be processed at slaughterhouses. We <a href="https://farmactionalliance.org/concentrationreport/">estimate</a> that between March and May of 2020, farmers disposed of somewhere between 300,000 and 800,000 hogs and 2 million chickens – more than 30,000 tons of meat. </p>
<p>What role does concentration play in this situation? Research shows that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jby026">retail concentration</a> correlates with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20058">higher prices for consumers</a>. It also shows that when food systems have fewer production and processing sites, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0292-2">disruptions can have major impacts on supply</a>. </p>
<p>Consolidation makes it easier for any industry to maintain high prices. With few players, companies simply match each other’s price increases rather than competing with them. Concentration in the U.S. food system has raised the costs of everything from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200530152228/http:/www.zwickcenter.uconn.edu/documents/issuepapers/ip6.pdf">breakfast cereal</a> and <a href="https://www.ceoafterlife.com/marketing/why-price-fixing-continues/">coffee</a> to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486606/download">beer</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphs showing concentration in U.S. food markets" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374610/original/file-20201213-18-par9e7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The combined share of sales for the top four firms (CR4) for selected U.S. commodities, food processing/manufacturing and distribution/retail channels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://farmactionalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FFAAConcentrationUS.pdf">Family Farm Action Alliance</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the pandemic roiled the nation’s food system through 2020, consumer food costs <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings.aspx">rose by 3.4%</a>, compared to 0.4% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019. We expect retail prices to remain high because they are “<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R41224.pdf">sticky</a>,” with a tendency to increase rapidly but to decline more slowly and only partially.</p>
<p>We also believe there could be further supply disruptions. A few months into the pandemic, meat shelves in some U.S. stores sat empty, while some of the nation’s largest processors were <a href="https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-booker-open-investigation-into-meatpackers-manipulation-of-covid-19-crisis-to-raise-prices-and-exploit-workers">exporting record amounts of meat to China</a>. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., cited this imbalance as evidence of the need to crack down on what they called “<a href="https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-booker-release-information-from-their-investigation-into-giant-meatpackers-exploiting-workers-and-consumers-during-covid-19">monopolistic practices</a>” by Tyson Foods, Cargill, JBS and Smithfield, which dominate the U.S. meatpacking industry. </p>
<p>Tyson Foods <a href="https://thefeed.blog/2020/07/21/sharing-our-commitment-to-team-member-safety-with-elected-officials-leaders/">responded</a> that a large portion of its exports were “cuts of meat or portions of the animal that are not desired by” Americans. Store shelves are no longer empty for most cuts of meat, but processing plants remain <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2020/12/29/beef-market-still-feeling-the-effects-of-covid-19/">overbooked</a>, with many scheduling well into 2021.</p>
<h2>Toward a more equitable food system</h2>
<p>In our view, a resilient food system that feeds everyone can be achieved only through a more <a href="http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Concentration_FullReport.pdf">equitable distribution of power</a>. This in turn will require action in areas ranging from contract law and antitrust policy to workers’ rights and economic development. Farmers, workers, elected officials and communities will have to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10092-y">work together</a> to fashion alternatives and change policies.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1354861566777294853"}"></div></p>
<p>The goal should be to produce more locally sourced food with shorter and less-centralized supply chains. Detroit offers an example. Over the past <a href="https://tostadamagazine.com/2018/02/28/history-in-photos-detroits-farm-a-lot-program-set-the-stage-for-urban-gardening-movement/">50 years</a>, food producers there have established <a href="https://visitdetroit.com/urban-farming-detroit/">more than 1,900 urban farms and gardens</a>. A planned <a href="https://detroitpeoplesfoodcoop.com/about-us/">community-owned food co-op</a> will serve the city’s North End, whose residents are predominantly low- and moderate-income and African American. </p>
<p>The federal government can help by <a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/en/Policy-and-Procedure/Insurance-Plans/Whole-Farm-Revenue-Protection">adapting farm support programs</a> to target farms and businesses that <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants">serve local and regional markets</a>. State and federal incentives can build community- or cooperative-owned farms and processing and distribution businesses. Ventures like these could provide economic development opportunities while <a href="https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/Baltimore%20City%20Food%20Resilience.pdf">making the food system more resilient</a>. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>In our view, the best solutions will come from listening to and working with the people most affected: sustainable farmers, farm and food service workers, entrepreneurs and cooperators – and ultimately, the people whom they feed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151193/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip H. Howard is a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, and a member of the Rural Sociological Society. He has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the US Department of Agriculture. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Hendrickson is a member of the Rural Sociological Society, Agriculture Food and Human Values Society, and serves on the North Central Region SARE Administrative Council. She has received funding from USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA's Sustainable Agriculture and Research Program and various foundations. </span></em></p>Food production in the US is heavily concentrated in the hands of a small number of large agribusiness companies. That’s been good for shareholders, but not for consumers.Philip H. Howard, Associate Professor of Community Sustainability, Michigan State UniversityMary Hendrickson, Associate Professor of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri-ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1454442020-10-14T01:23:32Z2020-10-14T01:23:32ZTreating workers like meat: what we’ve learnt from COVID-19 outbreaks in abattoirs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361761/original/file-20201006-24-1i50xk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=250%2C112%2C5259%2C3181&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>From the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-understand-the-danger-of-covid-19-outbreaks-in-meatpacking-plants-look-at-the-industrys-history-137367">United States</a> to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/15/brazil-meat-plants-linked-to-spread-of-covid-19">Brazil</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-54011880">Britain</a>, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/europes-meat-industry-is-a-coronavirus-hot-spot/a-53961438">Germany</a> and Australia, meat-processing plants have played a peculiar role in spreading COVID-19. </p>
<p>In Brazil, <a href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/a-fifth-of-meat-workers-caught-covid-in-biggest-chicken-supplier">union officials</a> allege one-fifth of the industry’s employees – about 100,000 meat plant workers – have been infected. In the US, meat-processing facilities have been linked to more than <a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19s-impact-on-meatpacking-workers-and-industry/">38,500 cases and at least 180 deaths</a>. Meat works made up <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/us-coronavirus-meat-packing-plants-food">almost half </a> of US COVID-19 hotspots in May. They were also the major initial source of infections in Australia’s June “second wave” outbreak in the state of Victoria.</p>
<p>One reason for these transmissions is that meat processing takes place in confined refrigerated spaces. But the fact the industry has not been linked with large viral outbreaks in all countries and regions suggests other, controllable factors have also been instrumental.</p>
<p>The fundamental lesson from these outbreaks is that unhealthy working conditions and precarious work need to be addressed to stop the meat industry acting as an incubator of COVID-19.</p>
<h2>Unhealthy work conditions</h2>
<p>Past studies have shown influenza and other coronaviruses (SARS and MERS) are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224420305094?casa_token=f1bZv6N98HwAAAAA:jC3oO_yfrC9ygC6EcmqsEvZgt4DpvcqLzM2Mz_Ku0k6NcCD1xbQiMRSCUlSgxeWQi7WoYxZ5xkk#bib64">more stable</a> and therefore spread more easily <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7114921/">in lower temperatures</a>. Though lower temperatures have not yet been conclusively proven to increase COVID-19 transmissions, Australian researchers have identified <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/tbed.13631">an association with lower humidity</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Meat-processing production line." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356678/original/file-20200907-16-da80lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356678/original/file-20200907-16-da80lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356678/original/file-20200907-16-da80lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356678/original/file-20200907-16-da80lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356678/original/file-20200907-16-da80lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356678/original/file-20200907-16-da80lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356678/original/file-20200907-16-da80lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This alone increases the risk to meat-processing workers, who perform strenuous manual labour on a production line in relatively close proximity to others. But that risk is compounded by other factors – particularly poor air quality contributing to respiratory illness, which makes <a href="https://hmri.org.au/news-article/why-covid-19-worse-those-respiratory-conditions">any COVID-19 infection</a> more severe.</p>
<p>As noted by the <a href="https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/meatpacking/">US Occupational Safety and Health Administration</a>, among the “many serious safety and health hazards” long associated with meat-processing work are “biological hazards associated with handling live animals or exposures to faeces and blood which can increase their risk for many diseases”.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5355534/">2017 study</a> found respiratory disorders such as coughing, breathlessness and wheezing three to four times more prevalent among slaughterhouse workers than office workers. Among poultry workers, a 2013 study found more than 40% had asthmatic symptoms (compared with about <a href="https://www.aafa.org/asthma-facts/">10% of all adults</a>). This was attributed to “poultry dust”, a biologically active combination of chicken residue, feathers and moulds.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Chickens in poultry factory." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361771/original/file-20201006-24-125o85d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361771/original/file-20201006-24-125o85d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361771/original/file-20201006-24-125o85d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361771/original/file-20201006-24-125o85d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361771/original/file-20201006-24-125o85d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361771/original/file-20201006-24-125o85d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361771/original/file-20201006-24-125o85d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Insufficient ventilation makes the spread of the coronavirus 20 times more likely, according to <a href="https://effat.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/EFFAT-Report-Covid-19-outbreaks-in-slaughterhouses-and-meat-packing-plants-State-of-affairs-and-proposals-for-policy-action-at-EU-level.pdf">a report</a> published by the <a href="https://effat.org/">European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions</a> in June.</p>
<p>That report lists other factors too, such as inadequate social distancing and a dearth of appropriate personal protective equipment. But ultimately, poor air-quality is symptomatic of the lack of a healthy and safe workplace for many meat-processing workers.</p>
<p>It is also pertinent to the rest of us. The American Society for Heating, Refrigeration, and Air‐Conditioning Engineers, for example, has recommended ventilation air intake in all buildings should now be <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/alr.22661">three air changes an hour</a>. That’s three to five times higher than the minimum standard for offices. </p>
<p>What this all comes down to is a critical need to improve health and safety standards in abattoirs and meat processing facilities across the board. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-death-of-the-open-plan-office-not-quite-but-a-revolution-is-in-the-air-140724">The death of the open-plan office? Not quite, but a revolution is in the air</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Increase job security and sick leave entitlements</h2>
<p>The other main lesson to be drawn from the meat-processing industry is the risk posed by “precarious work”, where workers lack the rights and protections of being an employee.</p>
<p>It is no coincidence, as the European Federation Union report argues, that the vast majority of meat workers testing positive in Europe have been migrant workers, hired through subcontractors, with few employment rights and often living in overcrowded accommodation.</p>
<p>An estimated <a href="https://effat.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/EFFAT-Report-Covid-19-outbreaks-in-slaughterhouses-and-meat-packing-plants-State-of-affairs-and-proposals-for-policy-action-at-EU-level.pdf">80% of meat workers</a> in the Netherlands, for example, are from central and eastern Europe, employed through temporary agencies.</p>
<p>Workers are typically employed as casuals, or “daily hires” (meaning their jobs technically terminate at the end of every shift) or through subcontracting arrangements that deem them “self-employed”. As the report notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Employment conditions for many meat workers are extremely precarious. Moreover, the level of sick pay allowances can be very low. This may have determined the fact that in case of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms some workers have not reported the status of their health conditions for fear of losing their job or for not being able to afford a decent living with sick pay allowances.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Beef carcasses hanging in abattoir" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361759/original/file-20201006-16-1l0peev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C10%2C1000%2C655&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361759/original/file-20201006-16-1l0peev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361759/original/file-20201006-16-1l0peev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361759/original/file-20201006-16-1l0peev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361759/original/file-20201006-16-1l0peev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361759/original/file-20201006-16-1l0peev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361759/original/file-20201006-16-1l0peev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>These things can be fixed</h2>
<p>Evidence from a number of countries shows these things can be fixed.</p>
<p>Denmark is the poster-child for the <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-makes-the-case-for-more-meatpacking-robots/">automation of meat processing and decent pay</a>, allowing for social distancing within factories and thus low COVID-19 outbreaks. </p>
<p>In Spain, a <a href="https://effat.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PROTOCOLO-COVID-19-SECTOR-ALIMENTACION-Y-BEBIDAS.pdf">collective agreement</a> that guarantees subcontracted workers the same conditions as other employees has been credited with controlling COVID-19 transmissions.</p>
<p>In Germany, transmissions linked to meat processing slowed after abattoirs were banned from <a href="https://www.bmas.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2020/mehr-arbeitsschutz-und-hygiene-in-der-fleischwirtschaft.html">hiring temporary workers</a> in May.</p>
<p>In Victoria, Australia, ensuring all workers have access to paid pandemic leave (along with other measures including the government mandating strict physical distancing and safety protocols in plants) appears to have proven successful. </p>
<p>But many of these responses are only temporary emergency responses. The global pandemic has brought global attention to the longer-term need for systemic reform to eliminate the dangers of unhealthy workplaces and disempowered workers, and ensure that workers can afford to stay home when they are sick. </p>
<p>In a sense we are all complicit in a system that has seen working conditions worsen over the last decade. We’ve accepted the rise of complex subcontracting and fake “phoenix” companies designed to strip workers of employee status, and supermarket and fast-food chains pushing cost pressures down supply chains, simply because we like cheap meat.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/workplace-transmissions-a-predictable-result-of-the-class-divide-in-worker-rights-143896">Workplace transmissions: a predictable result of the class divide in worker rights</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are moves in Europe to address this lack of accountability through
extending legal liability <a href="https://effat.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/EFFAT-Report-Covid-19-outbreaks-in-slaughterhouses-and-meat-packing-plants-State-of-affairs-and-proposals-for-policy-action-at-EU-level.pdf">throughout the whole subcontracting chain</a>. Other countries would do well to learn from these examples.</p>
<p>One way or the other, our love of cheap prices shouldn’t see workers getting treated like meat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shelley Marshall receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carla Chan Unger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the dangers of unhealthy workplaces and disempowered workers.Shelley Marshall, Associate Professor and Director of the RMIT Business and Human Rights Centre, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1373672020-05-06T12:22:16Z2020-05-06T12:22:16ZTo understand the danger of COVID-19 outbreaks in meatpacking plants, look at the industry’s history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332828/original/file-20200505-83751-u4g5sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C4%2C1035%2C691&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Workers in a pork processing plant, 2016.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Figure_7-_Workers_in_a_Hog_Slaughter_and_Processing_Plant_Use_Hooks_and_Other_Tools_(27007559560).jpg">USGAO/Wikipedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Large meatpacking plants have become <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/5/1/21239396/covid-19-meatpacking-prison-jail-moral">hotspots for coronavirus infection</a>, along with jails and nursing homes. As of May 1, nearly <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6918e3.htm?s_cid=mm6918e3_x">5,000 packing plant workers in 19 states</a> had fallen ill, and 20 had died. </p>
<p>Packing plants from Washington state to Iowa to Georgia have <a href="https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/22993-covid-19-meat-plant-map">temporarily suspended operations</a>, although President Trump has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-delegating-authority-dpa-respect-food-supply-chain-resources-national-emergency-caused-outbreak-covid-19/">invoked the Defense Production Act</a> in an effort to quickly restart these facilities.</p>
<p>As Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds put it in a press conference, virus outbreaks in packing plants are “<a href="https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/gov-reynolds-says-meatpacking-plants-will-stay-open-even-as-hundreds-of-workers-infected">very difficult to contain</a>.” But what makes these plants so dangerous? As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=W7VMrUkAAAAJ&hl=en">sociologist</a> who has studied <a href="https://www.academia.edu/15364925/From_Collective_Bargaining_to_Social_Justice_Certification_Workers_Rights_in_the_American_Meatpacking_Industry">food system labor issues</a>, I see two answers. </p>
<p>First, working conditions experienced in meatpacking plants, which are shaped by the pressures of efficient production, contribute to the spread of COVID-19. Second, this industry has evolved since the mid-20th century in ways that make it hard for workers to advocate for safe conditions even in good times, let alone during a pandemic.</p>
<p>Together, these factors help to explain why U.S. meatpacking plants are so dangerous now – and why this problem will be difficult to solve.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cZOT9YOtl0U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Employees at large meatpacking plants say they don’t feel safe from COVID-19.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A hard job in good times</h2>
<p>The meatpacking industry is an important job source for thousands of people. In 2019 it employed nearly 200,000 people in <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/naics4_311600.htm">direct meat processing jobs</a> at wages averaging US$14.13 per hour or $29,400 yearly.</p>
<p>Even in normal conditions, meatpacking plants are <a href="https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/meatpacking/">risky places to work</a>. The job requires using knives, saws and other cutting tools, as well as operating industrial meat grinders and other heavy machinery. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10599240801985373">Traumatic injuries</a> due to workplace accidents are common, and mistakes can have <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/exploitation-and-abuse-at-the-chicken-plant">gruesome consequences</a>. Government researchers have also documented <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-03-27-14_b.html">chronic injuries</a>, such as repetitive motion strains, among packing plant workers. </p>
<p>The same conditions that lead to these accidents and injuries during normal times also contribute to the spread of coronavirus. To understand this connection, it is first important to know that meatpacking is a volume industry. The higher a plant’s daily throughput – that is, the more animals it turns into meat – the more lucrative it is.</p>
<p>For instance, one Smithfield plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which shut down indefinitely in April after <a href="https://www.dglobe.com/newsmd/coronavirus/5382800-Sioux-Falls-pork-plant-COVID-19-cases-near-900-as-officials-prep-re-opening">hundreds of workers</a> tested positive for COVID-19, employed 3,700 people and produced <a href="https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/press-room/company-news/smithfield-foods-to-close-sioux-falls-sd-plant-indefinitely-amid-covid-19">18 million servings of pork daily</a>.</p>
<p>To maximize efficiency, production takes place on an assembly line – or more accurately, a disassembly line. Workers stand close together and perform simple, repetitive tasks on animal parts as the parts stream by. </p>
<p>Production lines move quickly, with industry averages ranging from <a href="https://thecounter.org/usda-final-approval-faster-hog-line-speeds-pork-processing/">1,000 animals per hour in pork processing</a> to over <a href="https://thecounter.org/usda-approves-poultry-slaughterhouse-increase-line-speed-food-safety/">8,000 per hour in chicken plants</a>. In October 2019 the Trump administration <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/72fa69e6-5e16-4347-83b4-4e3361317272/2016-0017+.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&useDefaultText=0&useDefaultDesc=0">eliminated limits on production line speed</a> in pork processing plants, and it has also <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/04/24/usda-let-poultry-plants-move-faster-crowd-lines-covid-coronavirus-spread-meat-packing-workers/3013615001/">waived limits for individual chicken processing plants</a>.</p>
<p>The speed and organization of meatpacking both promote the spread of coronavirus. Employees labor alongside one another, working at a rate that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to practice protective behaviors such as covering sneezes and coughs. </p>
<p>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/meat-poultry-processing-workers-employers.html">guidelines</a> to allow meatpacking workers to continue working during the pandemic. They include spacing workers at least six feet apart and installing barriers between them. Some plants have <a href="https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/23006-shielding-line-workers-during-a-pandemic">adopted these controls</a>, but the pressures of rapid production may well limit their effectiveness. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332819/original/file-20200505-83730-15dv0bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Meat processing stations at the JBS Beef Plant in Greeley, Colo., equipped with new sheet-metal partitions, April 23, 2020. As of early May 2020 the plant had recorded more than 200 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6 employee deaths.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/meat-processing-stations-at-the-jbs-greeley-beef-plant-news-photo/1220671197?adppopup=true">Andy Cross via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Unionizing the industry</h2>
<p>Understanding why meatpacking workers tolerate these difficult and dangerous conditions requires a look at the industry’s history. </p>
<p>Many people assume that jobs in packing plants have always been as difficult and dangerous as those depicted in journalist Upton Sinclair’s famed 1906 novel “<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/140/140-h/140-h.htm">The Jungle</a>.” That book described meatpacking workers in early 20th-century Chicago facing <a href="https://talkpoverty.org/2019/01/10/sinclair-jungle-immigrant-narrative/">similar conditions to those in the modern industry</a>.</p>
<p>But this assumption conceals an important story. For several decades after World War II, conditions in meatpacking plants steadily improved as a result of pressure from workers themselves. </p>
<p>Starting in 1943, the United Packinghouse Workers of America, a labor union, <a href="http://www.ufcw.org/about/ufcw-history/">organized meatpacking employees in major cities</a>. At the height of its influence, this union secured “<a href="https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/bls/bls_1063_1952.pdf">master agreements</a>” with the largest firms, such as Armour and Swift, ensuring standard wages and working conditions across the industry.</p>
<p>One source of the UPWA’s influence was its ability to build <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/ohr/26.1.23">interracial alliances</a>. Racial antagonism between black and white workers, linked to job discrimination and the use of black workers to break strikes in the early 20th century, had historically undermined union efforts in meatpacking plants. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332835/original/file-20200505-83779-1pabj9w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">UPWA District Area 5 Members Parade float, circa 1960, Chicago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post/labor-of-love-revs-addie-and-claude-wyatt-photographs/">Source: Chicago Public Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRP5mNYn1fucFAR86LZAobFtvUzWm6ykOPeqZ-kdod_d-rgjBRa&usqp=CAU">union’s logo</a>, which depicted clasped black and white hands, symbolized its ability to bridge these differences. Its <a href="https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/united-packinghouse-workers-america-upwa">support for the civil rights movement</a> in the 1960s also revealed its commitment to racial equality.</p>
<h2>A changing labor force</h2>
<p>But by the 1970s, the union was in decline. A key factor was industry leaders’ <a href="https://doi.org/10.1526/003601107782638701">decision to shift production</a> from cities with a strong union tradition, like Chicago and Kansas City, to small towns scattered across the Great Plains and the southeastern United States. </p>
<p>Rural work forces are more difficult to organize than their urban counterparts for many reasons. Most small towns do not have a history of union activity, and anti-union sentiment is often strong – as shown by the prevalence of <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx#chart">right-to-work laws</a> in many rural states. </p>
<p>Moreover, packing plants are often small towns’ only major employers. Workers and municipal authorities alike <a href="https://www.thehawkeye.com/news/20200427/if-we-lost-tyson-we-lost-everything">depend on plants</a> for jobs and tax revenue. This relationship creates enormous pressure to treat meat processing companies with deference.</p>
<p>Additionally, meatpacking <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=41120">consolidated</a> in the late 20th century. Plants grew larger, and a relative handful of firms such as <a href="https://www.cargill.com/meat-poultry/beef-business">Cargill</a> and <a href="https://www.tysonsustainability.com/food">Tyson</a> came to dominate processing of <a href="https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-giant-meatpackers-and-economic-squeezes">beef</a>, <a href="https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/26925-top-5-broiler-producers-dominate-us-production">poultry</a> and other meats. Consolidation gives these firms greater ability to control working conditions and wages.</p>
<p>Finally, today’s plants often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2005.00079.x">recruit workers from Mexico and Central America</a>, some of whom may lack legal authorization to work in the U.S. They also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-019-00694-9">hire refugees</a> who may be unfamiliar with U.S. labor protections and have few other employment possibilities.</p>
<p>These workers’ precarious legal and economic standing makes it hard for them to challenge employers. Cultural differences, language gaps and racial prejudice can also pose obstacles to collective action.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1256330283432828929"}"></div></p>
<h2>The challenge of coronavirus</h2>
<p>Workers’ organizations have not disappeared. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has <a href="http://www.ufcw.org/2020/04/28/order/">called on the Trump administration</a> to ensure safety during the pandemic, but it is fighting an uphill battle.</p>
<p>Despite <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-action-ensure-safety-nations-food-supply-chain/">President Trump’s reassurances</a> that closed plants will reopen safely, I expect that the pressures of efficiency and limits on workers’ ability to advocate for themselves will cause infections to persist. </p>
<p>In meatpacking as in other industries, the pandemic has revealed how people who do “essential” work for Americans can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-call-workers-essential-but-is-that-just-referring-to-the-work-not-the-people-137460">treated as if they are expendable</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/??utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137367/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Haedicke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred at more than 100 US meatpacking plants. Geography, workforce demographics and economic concentration make it hard for workers to fight for better conditions.Michael Haedicke, Associate Professor of Sociology, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1371522020-04-27T17:54:38Z2020-04-27T17:54:38ZCoronavirus impact: Meat processing plants weigh risks of prosecution if they’re blamed for spreading infection<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330768/original/file-20200427-145544-4f141y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=71%2C62%2C5919%2C3305&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">While there's no evidence COVID-19 can be spread through food, companies must weigh the risks all the same. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kryssia Campos/Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tyson Foods <a href="https://apnews.com/d21fe9a4864971427d40fd2caa61ad34">recently suspended production</a> at its Waterloo, Iowa, pork processing plant due to a growing coronavirus outbreak among employees. The plant was Tyson’s largest, employing some 2,800 workers and processing 19,500 pigs a day. At least 180 confirmed infections originated from the plant, about half of all cases in the county.</p>
<p>It wasn’t the first meat processing plant to close. In the U.S., <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/business/economy/coronavirus-trump-meat-food-supply.html">at least 13 have halted at some point in recent weeks</a>, affecting over 25% of the nation’s pork processing capacity. As a result, pig farmers have <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-23/some-canada-hog-farmers-have-culled-pigs-with-prices-in-freefall?sref=Hjm5biAW">begun euthanizing hundreds and potentially tens of thousands</a> of animals that can’t be processed – raising <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/26/business/tyson-foods-nyt-ad/index.html">fears of a meat shortage</a> on grocery shelves. </p>
<p>President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-delegating-authority-dpa-respect-food-supply-chain-resources-national-emergency-caused-outbreak-covid-19/">aims to reopen</a> the meat processing plants – and keep them open – by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/business/economy/coronavirus-trump-meat-food-supply.html">declaring such businesses “critical infrastructure”</a> under the Defense Production Act.</p>
<p>When deciding whether to close or reopen a plant, managers at essential companies have been weighing a variety of factors, from <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/exp/eyJjdHh0IjoiQ1ZOVyIsImlkIjoiMDAwMDAxNzEtYWJmZi1kYzVlLWFmZjUtYWZmZmNjOTUwMDAxIiwic2lnIjoiNFlmTldObmdmeStLSW5XRFhKR05tUHpFN1dvPSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNTg3NzUzNDE4IiwidXVpZCI6IldvYlA4Y3lNRHpLU2xIVW4zUTI4bUE9PXZvcGk0ZC95R1dxWGYydHBkNDgwSmc9PSIsInYiOiIxIn0">worker safety</a> and profits to keeping afloat a <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/meat-beef-poultry-processing-united-states">US$230 billion segment</a> of the U.S. economy that <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2020/04/22/meat-packing-plants-covid-may-force-choice-worker-health-food/2995232001">supplies food</a> for hundreds of millions of Americans.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1899294">corporate and white-collar crime scholar</a>, I believe there’s another variable they’re weighing: criminal liability. </p>
<h2>Coronavirus crime</h2>
<p>Put simply, executives at food companies like Tyson face a heightened risk of criminal prosecution for the decisions they make. </p>
<p>This is due to a quirk in American law, known as the “<a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/07/05/the-responsible-corporate-officer-doctrine-survives-to-perplex-corporate-boards/">responsible corporate officer doctrine</a>,” that allows senior executives in certain industries to be held criminally responsible for wrongdoing at their companies – even if they’ve never set foot in a plant or factory.</p>
<p>In the case of the coronavirus pandemic, potential criminal liability stems from a meatpacking facility sending out a contaminated product and knowing there was an outbreak among employees. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html">has not found evidence</a> that COVID-19 has been transmitted through meat or poultry, public health officials have said that coronavirus strains can live at <a href="https://covid19.nj.gov/faqs/coronavirus-information/about-novel-coronavirus-2019/will-the-coronavirus-survive-in-the-refrigerator-or-freezer-u21gz2n7br">low and freezing temperatures</a> and on food packaging. And so much about the risks of COVID-19 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-detected-particles-air-pollution">are uncertain and evolving</a> that companies need to be on their toes. </p>
<p>In addition, there’s the danger that if plants stay in operation without enough workers, there’s a greater risk for <a href="https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Most-Common-Foodborne-Illnesses-%28PDF%29.pdf">other types of food contamination</a>, like of <em>E. coli</em> or salmonella. And while the Food and Drug Administration <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/conversations-experts-food-topics/fdas-perspective-food-safety-and-availability-during-and-beyond-covid-19">has reduced the number of inspections</a> during the outbreak, that doesn’t limit the criminal liability of executives if tainted food reaches a consumer. </p>
<p>This means food safety procedures are paramount to keeping the public safe. Executives that don’t take steps to ensure those procedures are in place – for example, by keeping processing lines going as usual while employee infections spike – are at risk of ignoring their legal duties and becoming a “responsible corporate officer.”</p>
<p>Normally, criminal law insists that a defendant must be aware that he’s doing something wrong to be held liable. But <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/07/05/the-responsible-corporate-officer-doctrine-survives-to-perplex-corporate-boards/#4">courts have decided</a> that this element of intent can be ignored in limited situations where the public’s health and welfare are at stake – namely, in the making of drugs and in food production. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330769/original/file-20200427-145503-16qh86y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330769/original/file-20200427-145503-16qh86y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330769/original/file-20200427-145503-16qh86y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330769/original/file-20200427-145503-16qh86y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330769/original/file-20200427-145503-16qh86y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330769/original/file-20200427-145503-16qh86y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330769/original/file-20200427-145503-16qh86y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This Tyson facility in Logansport, Indiana, closed after several employees tested positive for COVID-19.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Darron Cummings</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Strict liability’</h2>
<p>Although the responsible corporate officer doctrine is an anomaly in the criminal law, it has a lengthy history. </p>
<p>In 1943, the Supreme Court in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/320/277/">United States v. Dotterweich</a> found that the president and general manager of a pharmaceutical company was liable for the misbranding of the company’s drugs that were later distributed across state lines. In upholding his conviction under the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/laws-enforced-fda/federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act-fdc-act">Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act</a>, the court stated that there need not be a showing that Joseph Dotterweich knew of the illegal activity. </p>
<p>The court reasoned that Congress had balanced the relative hardships that came from imposing “strict liability” on corporate executives who had a “responsible share” in the illegal conduct and those imposed on the innocent public “who are wholly helpless.” Dotterweich was found guilty by a jury and had to pay a small fine. </p>
<p>Thirty years later, in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/658/">United States v. Park</a>, the Supreme Court again considered the responsible corporate officer doctrine, this time specific to food distribution. John Park, president and CEO of a national food chain, was charged with violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for allowing food to be shipped from company warehouses infested with rats.</p>
<p>Although the contamination occurred in locations Park did not personally oversee, the court found him responsible. The court held that the food act imposes not only a positive duty to seek out and remedy violations but also a duty to “implement measures that will insure that violations will not occur.” While this standard is demanding, the court conceded, the public has a right to expect executives to assume such a standard when taking positions of authority that affect the health and well-being of the public. He was required to pay a small fine. </p>
<p>While the penalties in responsible corporate officer cases have mostly been minor, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-greenbaum#p438">some</a> have involved <a href="https://casetext.com/case/us-v-higgins-3#p10">months of jail time</a>. </p>
<p>For example, in 2016, the Eighth Circuit not only upheld the conviction of two executive owners of a large Iowa egg production company for not preventing a salmonella outbreak, but also their three-month jail sentences. Relying on the previous Supreme Court rulings, the court in <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/15-1890/15-1890-2016-07-06.html">United States v. DeCoster</a> brushed aside arguments that jailing the the owner and his son for a strict liability crime violated the Constitution. </p>
<p>The punishment was proportionate and reasonable, the court found, for those overseeing “egregious” safety and sanitation procedures that allowed salmonella-contaminated eggs to enter the market and sicken consumers. </p>
<p>The president said his executive order will protect the plants from liability, but I haven’t seen anything in the Defense Production Act that would create a “safe harbor” for food producers. And the Supreme Court <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fedcb6&div=15&g_sent=1&casa_token=X5-4XcGphCcAAAAA:MGsD20wvZToL0i3tVF4sS2J07i0KQmnXCQFSETbiRqARKWkEwpkjoX9F7-7BF0lF3XT5zOI&collection=journals">has ruled</a> that being forced by the government to produce something doesn’t entirely remove its liability over consumer safety.</p>
<h2>Executive duties</h2>
<p>While it would be easy for those executives with responsibility over our nation’s food supply to defer to others, such as governors or the president, that thinking ignores their own duties – legal and ethical – as well as their own criminal risk.</p>
<p>The law is clear that even if an executive is not involved in the day-to-day operations of production, he or she could be held criminally responsible for the distribution of contaminated food. </p>
<p>That’s one more risk to weigh in the decision to keep the plant doors open. Let’s see if it tips the balance. </p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to reflect new information.</em></p>
<p>[<em>Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=upper-coronavirus-facts">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.</a>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137152/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Todd Haugh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While there’s no evidence the coronavirus is spread through food or packaging, company executives could be prosecuted if that changes – and they chose to keep a plant open despite a factory outbreak.Todd Haugh, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1186752019-06-27T22:44:06Z2019-06-27T22:44:06ZEating insects is good for you — and the planet!<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279438/original/file-20190613-32361-3ygq8i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It is vital to find alternative and sustainable sources of protein to meet the considerable challenge of ensuring food security for the future.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Does the idea of eating insects bug you? </p>
<p>Well, think about this: the United Nations predicts that by 2050, if current trends continue, the <a href="https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/">world’s population will reach 9.8 billion</a>. As a result, <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf">global demand for food and feed is expected to increase by 70 per cent</a>, putting additional pressure on already overexploited agricultural resources. </p>
<p>Global demand for meat in particular will continue to increase as dietary habits in developing countries change, due to rapid urbanization and economic growth.</p>
<p>The oceans are already over-exploited and climate change will have a profound impact on food production. Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/">nearly one billion people worldwide suffer from chronic food deprivation</a>. </p>
<p>Among the possible solutions, one is quietly making its way into the public’s attention: eating insects.</p>
<h2>Alternatives to animal protein</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.fao.org/edible-insects/en/">To meet current and future food challenges</a>, the agri-food sector needs to be rethought. We need to find new ways to grow food, address inefficiencies and develop new approaches to production methods. </p>
<p>In addition to population growth, urbanization and the rise of the middle class in developing countries are increasing global demand for food, especially animal protein. The production of traditional feed ingredients such as cereals, fish meal and oilseeds must be reduced and substitutes found to make more efficient use of resources.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277433/original/file-20190531-69059-16sw0fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277433/original/file-20190531-69059-16sw0fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277433/original/file-20190531-69059-16sw0fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277433/original/file-20190531-69059-16sw0fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277433/original/file-20190531-69059-16sw0fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277433/original/file-20190531-69059-16sw0fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277433/original/file-20190531-69059-16sw0fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some of the protein produced for livestock feed comes from sources that may be unsustainable and harmful to the environment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The billions of animals raised each year for food are putting increasing pressure on land and water resources and contributing to climate change and <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html">other negative environmental impacts</a>.</p>
<p>Livestock farming for meat production puts considerable pressure on global land and water use. At present, a large proportion of the protein produced for livestock feed comes from sources that are sometimes unsustainable and harmful to the environment.</p>
<h2>Eating insects</h2>
<p>To meet the considerable challenge of ensuring food security for the future, it is imperative to find alternative and sustainable sources of protein, both for direct human consumption and for animal feed. Insect-derived proteins are one possible solution. Insects, especially fly larvae, have many qualities that make them well adapted to animal feed. </p>
<p>For example, insects are already a natural source of food for pigs and poultry as well as for many fish species. In addition, insect larvae are generally high in protein and are rich in other beneficial nutrients such as fats, minerals and vitamins. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277104/original/file-20190529-192440-1na0we5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277104/original/file-20190529-192440-1na0we5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277104/original/file-20190529-192440-1na0we5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277104/original/file-20190529-192440-1na0we5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277104/original/file-20190529-192440-1na0we5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277104/original/file-20190529-192440-1na0we5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277104/original/file-20190529-192440-1na0we5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sushi served with fried grasshoppers is popular in Thailand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a source of protein for direct human consumption, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150609124315.htm">insects offer several advantages</a> over traditional sources of meat. They have a significantly higher feed conversion rate than other livestock, which means they are more effective at converting the ingredients used to feed them into nutrients. </p>
<p>In addition, insect production is more environmentally friendly than conventional livestock production. Insects release much lower amounts of greenhouse gases and ammonia into the atmosphere per kilogram of meat than cattle or pigs.</p>
<h2>Larvae that recycle</h2>
<p>Insect larvae, in particular, are efficient consumers of a wide range of organic materials. They have the ability to “over-cycle” relatively low quality organic residues as feedstock into valuable proteins and lipids. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277103/original/file-20190529-192372-1w35ric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277103/original/file-20190529-192372-1w35ric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277103/original/file-20190529-192372-1w35ric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277103/original/file-20190529-192372-1w35ric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277103/original/file-20190529-192372-1w35ric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277103/original/file-20190529-192372-1w35ric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277103/original/file-20190529-192372-1w35ric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fried insects in a street kitchen in Bangkok, Thailand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although direct human consumption of insects is not widespread in Western countries, raising insects to transform organic waste streams offers an interesting opportunity to produce food ingredients for animal production. In particular, the larvae of the <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/3/98">black soldier fly</a> has a nutritional profile that makes them a potential ingredient to replace traditional food ingredients intended for human consumption.</p>
<h2>Multinational munching</h2>
<p>The cultivation of insects raised specifically for domestic animals and fish has been the subject of sporadic assessments for several decades. However, the widespread adoption and commercialization of these approaches remains difficult. The methods are still artisanal and have been mainly developed and deployed in emerging countries with limited resources.</p>
<p>However, a convergence of factors has revived interest in this area, particularly from a number of multinationals in the agri-food sector. A combination of new municipal regulations limiting organic waste disposal and the need to find sustainable ingredients for animal feed have led to renewed interest in insects and their ability to transform organic waste into valuable food resources.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118675/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Vandenberg has received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Fonds de recherche du Québec, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, MAPAQ, the Consortium de recherche et innovations en bioprocédés industriels au Québec, agri-food companies and industrial partners. </span></em></p>Insects are high in protein and rich in other nutrients and, unlike beef and other livestock, have little impact on climate.Grant Vandenberg, Professeur titulaire – Groupe de recherche en recyclage biologique et aquaculture, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Université Laval, Université LavalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1127142019-03-05T14:28:34Z2019-03-05T14:28:34ZWhy the meat industry could win big from the switch to veggie lifestyles<p>One of the largest meat processors in the UK, supplying supermarkets across the country with beef, pork, and lamb, has <a href="https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2019/02/22/ABP-UK-launches-plant-based-range">launched a plant-based meat alternative</a>. ABP is the first UK meat producer to do so and its decision marks a significant shift for the industry. Before long, the meat producers could take over this growing market for meat-free alternatives.</p>
<p>What is worrying to meat companies is that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/01/third-of-britons-have-stopped-or-reduced-meat-eating-vegan-vegetarian-report">around one in eight</a> people do not eat meat anymore, and <a href="http://academic.mintel.com/display/918590/">one in three</a> are seeking to reduce or eliminate meat consumption.</p>
<p>And yet, compared to a lot of other countries, the UK meat industry has been surprisingly complacent when it comes to these developments. There have only been small efforts to develop meat-free products. </p>
<h2>Global industry</h2>
<p>In other countries, it seems that the meat industry is far ahead.
For example, a <a href="https://www.vivera.com/en/home">Dutch meat-free company</a> was bought in the early 2000s by a Dutch meat processor; now they want to <a href="https://www.vleesmagazine.nl/nieuws/nieuws/2019/02/van-loon-group-neemt-vleestak-enkco-over-10149143">focus their business</a> entirely on meat-free products.</p>
<p>In the United States and Canada, many large <a href="https://www.livekindly.co/tyson-foods-ceo-says-investing-in-vegan-meat-is-necessary/">meat</a> <a href="https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/maple-leaf-foods-acquires-field-roast/">processors</a>, <a href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/08/10/Poultry-group-PHW-invests-in-fish-free-seafood-start-up-Good-Catch">including foreign ones</a>, <a href="https://www.cbinsights.com/research/future-of-meat-industrial-farming/">have invested</a> stakes in meat-free start ups. They are developing products based on plants, <a href="https://plainmagazine.com/space10-bug-burger-algae-future-of-fast-food/">algae, or insects</a>, and in some instances <a href="https://theconversation.com/meat-grown-in-labs-is-the-next-logical-step-for-food-production-16092">lab-grown meat</a>. And in Germany, some large meat processors <a href="https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/damit-haben-nicht-traum-gerechnet-11063271.html">launched their own meat-free versions</a> in the same brands as their meat products.</p>
<p>This reflects the global trend to reduce meat consumption for a number of reasons. One German brand, Rügenwalder Mühle, <a href="https://www.ruegenwalder.de/en/faq">acknowledges</a> that a balanced diet does not need to contain meat, and that many people are reducing their meat consumption. In 2016 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160714233101/http://www.ruegenwalder.de/unsere-produkte/fragen-vegetarisch/">they even acknowledged</a> that current levels of meat consumption could not be extended to the world population, although this statement has now disappeared from the site.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261956/original/file-20190304-92286-h0u9t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261956/original/file-20190304-92286-h0u9t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261956/original/file-20190304-92286-h0u9t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261956/original/file-20190304-92286-h0u9t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261956/original/file-20190304-92286-h0u9t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261956/original/file-20190304-92286-h0u9t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261956/original/file-20190304-92286-h0u9t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spot the difference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rügenwalder Mühle argues that “if anyone has the competence to produce vegetarian alternatives so that they taste like meat and sausage, then it should be us.” This sends a clear message: consumers can trust their preferred brand, whether meat-based or meat-free. The brands carry consumer trust and convey the message that they are best positioned to make the best tasting alternatives to meat. Similarly, ABP is using the slogan “No meat. No compromise”, which suggests it has the skills to produce a better product than purely vegetarian or vegan producers.</p>
<p>Established producers of meat alternatives in the UK – like Quorn and Linda McCartney’s – have long shared <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/sector-insight-meat-free-foods-meat-substitutes-dabblers-spur-meat-free-sales/626500">the larger part of the market</a>. Their strength has likely made investment more uncertain and stopped foreign companies and meat businesses from investing in the UK.</p>
<p>But, while they have built consumer awareness and market demand, they sometimes suffer a bad reputation, particularly with more traditional meat eaters who may be new to reducing their meat intake. Market research shows how some critics accuse them of <a href="http://academic.mintel.com/display/796253/#">tasting bland</a> or question the view of them as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/12/quorn-revolution-rise-ultra-processed-fake-meat">natural</a>. So there’s room for the traditional meat industry to present itself as solving these problems.</p>
<h2>Meat-free muscle</h2>
<p>Further to this, existing meat producers have money to back investment and conduct expensive research. They have facilities and people to quickly scale up production.
And they have existing contracts with retailers for their meat products. They therefore have a strong negotiating position through the large revenues they make here and it’s easier for them to convince retailers to stock their new meat-free products, and to stock them in the meat aisle.</p>
<p>In contrast, new companies may have the best ideas and the best products, but they still need to secure contracts with retailers. Plus, their lack of experience in the food industry may provide further barriers to expansion.</p>
<p>The existing infrastructure and financial muscle of the meat industry means it is well-positioned to take over the meat-free replica market. In many ways, it is only a matter of time before they catch up. So, while the future might be meat-free, the future will be dominated by the same big companies as the meat market was.</p>
<p>Unlike only a year ago, now there are some meat-free <a href="https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/future-of-meat/vegan-hit-beyond-burger-finally-lands-at-tesco/573680.article">burger patties</a>, <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/consumer/sainsburys-vegan-mince-stocked-with-meat/">mince</a> and <a href="https://www.livekindly.co/tescos-vegan-steak-vivera-ireland/">steaks</a> sold on shelves right next to the meat. This can radically reshape the market for these products. It conveys the message that there is little difference between these products and, as technology improves, the differences left are certainly decreasing.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-meat-on-your-plate-is-killing-the-planet-76128">sustainability</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/meat-tax-why-taxing-sausages-and-bacon-could-save-hundreds-of-thousands-of-lives-every-year-106399">health challenges</a> of excessive meat consumption become more obvious, it is about time meat producers like ABP moved more squarely into the meat-free market.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malte Rödl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of the largest UK meat processors has launched a new vegan meat product. This was long overdue.Malte Rödl, Doctoral Researcher in Sustainable Consumption, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1057892018-11-05T11:43:58Z2018-11-05T11:43:58ZStrict Amazon protections made Brazilian farmers more productive, new research shows<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/la-proteccion-estricta-del-amazonas-fomenta-la-productividad-agricola-en-brasil-106488">Leer en español</a></em>.</p>
<p>Jair Bolsonaro, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-bolsonaros-presidency-means-for-brazil-5-essential-reads-105894">Brazil’s new president</a>, will make many decisions during his four-year term, from combating violence to stimulating a stagnant economy. </p>
<p>Those decisions will have large impacts on Brazilians, who remain deeply divided over the controversial election of this <a href="https://theconversation.com/bolsonaro-wins-brazil-election-promises-to-purge-leftists-from-country-105481">far-right populist</a>.</p>
<p>But some of Bolsonaro’s decisions will affect the entire world, namely his promises to cut environmental protections in the Brazilian Amazon.</p>
<h2>The Amazon’s uncertain fate</h2>
<p>The Amazon is the world’s largest tropical rainforest and a <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_commodities_boom_fuels_new_assault_on_amazon">major global food exporter</a>. </p>
<p>The Amazon Basin also provides the rains that nourish Brazil’s productive croplands to the south, a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-farming-factbox-idUSTRE78M5HS20110923">breadbasket for the world</a>. The rainforest’s destruction could cause large-scale droughts in Brazil, leading to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917306468">nationwide crop losses</a>.</p>
<p>An estimated 9 percent of Amazonian forests disappeared between 1985 and 2017, reducing the rainforest’s ability to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source">absorb the carbon emissions</a> that drive climate change.</p>
<p>Deforestation is <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/361/6407/1108.full.pdf">largely due to land clearing for agricultural purposes</a>, particularly cattle ranching. </p>
<p>Cattle production has an extremely <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-cattle-farmers-in-the-brazilian-amazon-money-cant-buy-happiness-85349">low profit margin</a> in the Brazilian Amazon. It also requires a massive amount of land for grazing. Both factors drive Amazonian farmers to continuously clear forest – illegally – to expand pastureland.</p>
<p>Today, <a href="http://mapbiomas.org/">12 percent of the Brazilian Amazon</a>, or 93 million acres – an area roughly the size of Montana – is used for agriculture, primarily cattle ranching but also soybean production. </p>
<p>Deforestation decreased substantially from 2004 to 2014 thanks to <a href="https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2014/06/05/cutting-down-on-cutting-down">strict environmental protections</a> passed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2004. His Workers Party cracked down on illegal land clearing in the Amazon, making Brazil a world leader in rainforest protection.</p>
<p>But deforestation in the Amazon has <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2016/12/brazilian-government-announces-29-percent-rise-deforestation-2016">begun to climb</a> again recently. </p>
<p>Brazilian President Michel Temer, a conservative who entered office in 2016 during a deep recession, has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-environment/brazil-home-of-amazon-rolls-back-environmental-protection-idUSKCN18B21P">loosened enforcement of federal anti-deforestation laws</a>, slashed the environmental ministry’s budget and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-world-protests-as-amazon-forests-are-opened-to-mining-83034">opened the Amazon to mining</a>.</p>
<p>Satellite data reveal that between August 2017 to 2018, 1.1 million acres of Brazilian Amazonian forest were cleared – the <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2018/09/ahead-of-election-deforestation-continues-to-climb-in-the-brazilian-amazon/">highest deforestation rate since 2007</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242635/original/file-20181028-7068-mxzwnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242635/original/file-20181028-7068-mxzwnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242635/original/file-20181028-7068-mxzwnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242635/original/file-20181028-7068-mxzwnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242635/original/file-20181028-7068-mxzwnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242635/original/file-20181028-7068-mxzwnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242635/original/file-20181028-7068-mxzwnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brazil’s next president.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Brazil-Elections/efee31dae3e24db782c3da83aef19893/4/0">AP Photo/Silvia izquierdo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>President-elect Bolsonaro has promised to further slash environmental protections in Brazil, saying that federal conservation zones and hefty fines for cutting down trees <a href="http://news.trust.org//item/20181026090106-r6vs5/">hinder economic growth</a>. </p>
<p>Specific plans include <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/climate/brazil-election-amazon-environment.html">eliminating protections for indigenous territories</a> that safeguard forests from private developers and <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-brazil-apos-leading-candidate-232002196.html?guccounter=1">reducing fines</a> for illegally clearing land. </p>
<p>Bolsonaro also wants to <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2018/10/jair-bolsonaro-looming-threat-to-the-amazon-and-global-climate/">dismantle Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment</a>, which enforces environmental laws.</p>
<h2>Brazil’s agricultural innovations</h2>
<p>The president-elect’s deregulatory agenda is supported by the Bancada Ruralista, a powerful congressional caucus that <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2016/12/temer-government-set-to-overthrow-brazils-environmental-agenda/">defends Brazilian agribusiness interests</a>. </p>
<p>Despite the lobby’s stance that regulation hurts business, Brazil’s strict environmental laws have actually helped Amazonian farmers, my <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378017312669#.W8yp0HPwe_0.twitter">recent research</a> shows.</p>
<p>From 2004 to 2014, Brazil’s federal government employed a host of tactics to <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/53a5/9c0ef21a0a748f02e26969df1ff9dbc249f2.pdf">reduce Amazonian farmers’ incentives</a> to clear land. It increased penalties for deforestation, making it far more expensive to create new grazing land. Simultaneously, it <a href="http://www.agricultura.gov.br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/historico">offered state-subsidized, low-interest financing</a> for farmers who adopted more sustainable practices.</p>
<p>Those policies encouraged innovations that have made Amazon farmland much more productive. In a co-authored study <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378017312669#.W8yp0HPwe_0.twitter">published in October in the journal Global Environmental Change</a>, my colleagues and I found that food production in the Amazon has substantially increased since 2004.</p>
<p>Amazonian farmers are now planting and harvesting two crops – mostly soybean and corn – each year, rather than just one. This is called “double cropping.” </p>
<p>Our study found that land in double cropping in Brazil’s most important agricultural state, Mato Grosso, increased from 840,000 acres in 2001 to more than 10.6 million acres in 2013, boosted by improved environmental laws. </p>
<h2>Farmers are getting richer</h2>
<p>Environmental regulation of the Brazilian Amazon has helped farmers improve business in other ways too, our research found. </p>
<p>Improved pasture management in Mato Grosso state led the number of cattle slaughtered annually per acre to double, meaning farmers are producing more meat – and therefore earning <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4d1/meta">more money</a> – with their land. </p>
<p>Ranchers who add crops into pasture areas can <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4d1/meta">more than quadruple</a> the amount of beef produced because cattle raised in integrated crop and livestock systems gain weight more quickly. That spares remaining Amazonian forests from deforestation.</p>
<p>These sustainable ranching practices also reduce the greenhouse gases associated with beef and leather production. Better nourished cows are slaughtered sooner, meaning <a href="https://theconversation.com/seaweed-could-hold-the-key-to-cutting-methane-emissions-from-cow-burps-66498">fewer burps per cow</a> per lifetime, leading to lower methane emissions. </p>
<p>Brazil’s progressive environmental protections have even pushed corporations that operate in the Amazon to adopt more sustainable practices. </p>
<p>Since 2006, hundreds of multinational food and timber companies, including Cargill and Nestle, have adopted “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0061-1">zero-deforestation commitments</a>” – pledges that they will never again source products from farmers who continue to deforest their land.</p>
<p>The commitments started in the Brazilian Amazon and have since extended to <a href="http://forestdeclaration.org/goal/goal-2/">all forests on the planet</a>, including the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/drivers-of-deforestation-2016-palm-oil#.W9ujHxNKjdQ">Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests</a>.</p>
<p>Brazilian law, which restricts Amazonian farmers from clearing more than 20 percent of their land and requires them to federally register their property for monitoring, has made it easier for zero-deforestation companies to drop producers who cut down trees.</p>
<h2>Saving the Amazon</h2>
<p>Strong environmental protections are necessary to save the Amazon, protecting Brazil and the world from the loss of this <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917306468">critical, fragile habitat</a>.</p>
<p>If Brazil’s next president dismantles its environmental laws, corporations could abandon their zero-deforestation standards in the Amazon. That could have ripple effects in other threatened habitats worldwide.</p>
<p>Far from being bad for business, Brazil’s Amazonian protections help sustain the country as a global breadbasket. </p>
<p>If Bolsonaro scraps them, he won’t just imperil a legendary rainforest. He’ll hurt Brazilian farmers, too – and the consumers worldwide who depend on them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105789/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachael Garrett has received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the US National Science Foundation, and the US National Aeronautics and Space Agency.</span></em></p>Brazil’s president-elect wants to roll back environmental laws, saying they hurt rural growth. But preventing Amazonian deforestation has actually made farmland more productive.Rachael Garrett, Assistant Professor of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/914752018-02-11T22:18:36Z2018-02-11T22:18:36ZHow we can prevent more Listeria deaths<p>The <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-02-06-deaths-from-listeriosis-outbreak-now-top-100/">largest Listeria food-borne outbreak ever recorded in human history</a> is now taking place in South Africa. </p>
<p>According to the latest figures, 852 cases have been confirmed — 42 per cent of them in babies less than one month old — and 107 people have died. </p>
<p>Listeria is a scary bacterium because it can be found in your fridge. The most famous listeriosis outbreak in Canada occurred <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/listeriosis-outbreak-timeline-1.694467">in 2008, when contaminated deli meat caused 57 illnesses and led to the deaths of 24 people</a>.</p>
<p>The full name of the bacterium is Listeria monocytogenes and it <a href="https://theconversation.com/spike-in-listeria-infections-in-south-africa-why-it-matters-85852">causes foodborne illness and death mainly in at-risk individuals</a>. These usually include pregnant women, individuals over 65 years of age, people like cancer patients who take medication to suppress their immune systems and those who are HIV-positive. </p>
<p>As director of the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety, I am exploring the potential of microbiome research to combat Listeria outbreaks like the one occurring in South Africa right now. </p>
<p>There are also lessons that both individual consumers and the food industry in Canada can learn from previous outbreaks to prevent them from occurring in the future.</p>
<h2>A widespread and hardy bacterium</h2>
<p>There are a number of things that make Listeria monocytogenes unique and differentiate it from other foodborne pathogens. </p>
<p>First, this bacterium can actually grow at refrigeration temperatures, so refrigerating foods cannot be used as a strategy to combat this organism. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205415/original/file-20180208-74509-siepnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205415/original/file-20180208-74509-siepnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205415/original/file-20180208-74509-siepnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205415/original/file-20180208-74509-siepnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205415/original/file-20180208-74509-siepnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205415/original/file-20180208-74509-siepnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205415/original/file-20180208-74509-siepnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More than 100 people have already died in South Africa’s listeria outbreak.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, it’s a very hardy organism and can resist chemicals such as salt much better than other food-borne pathogenic bacteria. </p>
<p>As a result of its hardiness, it can survive for months and even years in an environment such as a meat-processing plant. It can then go on to contaminate meat as it’s moving through the various steps in the manufacturing facility. </p>
<p>Third, it’s very widespread in the environment and can be found in many different places. </p>
<p>Finally, it can be a very deadly bacterium. </p>
<p>In fact, among all the food-borne pathogens, Listeria monocytogenes has the highest number of deaths that occur during a particular period of time, such as in an outbreak. The deli-meat outbreak in Canada had a fatality rate among confirmed cases of 42 per cent.</p>
<h2>Food and other sources of Listeria</h2>
<p>Foods commonly identified as sources of Listeria infection include cheeses (particularly soft-ripened varieties, such as traditional Mexican cheeses, Brie/Camembert and ricotta), ice cream, raw fruits and vegetables such as cantaloupe, packaged lettuce, bean sprouts, peaches and caramel apples, pâtés, and cooked, ready-to-eat sliced deli meats.</p>
<p>Species of Listeria can also be found in water, soil, infected animals, human and animal feces, raw and treated sewage, leafy vegetables, effluent from poultry and meat processing facilities, and raw (unpasteurized) milk. </p>
<p>According to some studies, <a href="http://www.sochinf.cl/documentos/infectologia/listeria.pdf">one to 10 per cent of humans may be intestinal carriers of Listeria in their stools</a>. </p>
<p>When a listeriosis outbreak occurs, it can be tough for epidemiologists to identify the food source. This is because the period between exposure to the Listeria bacteria and the appearance of the first symptoms (better known as the incubation period) <a href="https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-13-11">ranges from about one to 70 days</a>. </p>
<p>Many of us can recall what we ate in the last two or three days, but to go back two or three weeks or as far back as over two months can be a daunting task.</p>
<h2>The promise of microbiome research</h2>
<p>Listeria monocytogenes can be very hard to eradicate from processing plants. But there may be novel ways for us to tackle this bacterium.</p>
<p>Take the body of research referred to as “microbiome research.” The microbiome of a food, for example, refers to all the microorganisms that are present in that food at a particular point in time. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.uoguelph.ca/foodscience/people/jeff-farber">My lab</a> is trying to isolate different bacteria from the microbiome of unique and/or exotic foods, to see if any of them will have the ability to stop Listeria in its tracks. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205416/original/file-20180208-74509-1nc69sx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205416/original/file-20180208-74509-1nc69sx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205416/original/file-20180208-74509-1nc69sx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205416/original/file-20180208-74509-1nc69sx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205416/original/file-20180208-74509-1nc69sx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205416/original/file-20180208-74509-1nc69sx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205416/original/file-20180208-74509-1nc69sx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Soft cheeses are a common source of Listeria infection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition, <a href="https://www.uoguelph.ca/foodscience/people/gis%C3%A8le-lapointe">my colleague Dr. Gisèle LaPointe</a> and I will soon <a href="http://www.prodigest.eu/en/technology/shime-and-m-shime">purchase a special instrument</a> that will enable us to simulate the human gastrointestinal tract, including the large intestine. </p>
<p>This machine will allow us to study in great detail how pathogenic bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes interact with the microbiome that is present in human intestines. Studying the interaction between the bacteria naturally present in the large intestine and Listeria may help us to develop new ways of fighting this dangerous food-borne pathogen. </p>
<p>Since Listeria is so hardy, and it’s so difficult to eliminate it from the environment of processing plants, adding good bacteria to foods to kill off the dangerous ones may be an ideal solution.</p>
<h2>How at-risk individuals can avoid Listeria</h2>
<p>Foods that are contaminated with the Listeria bacteria will look, smell and taste normal. To avoid contracting listeriosis, here are some tips:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Pay attention to the best-before date on a ready-to-eat food. Remember that once you open, for example, a package of deli meats, the best-before date no longer applies and you should consume the food within two or three days. </p></li>
<li><p>Remember to periodically check to make sure that your refrigerator is kept at 4°C or lower. This is because as the temperature increases above four degrees, Listeria is able to grow more quickly.</p></li>
<li><p>People who are at-risk for listeriosis should avoid the following foods: Deli meats (unless they are dried and salted or heated until steaming hot), pâté and meat spreads (unless they are frozen, canned or shelf-stable), hot dogs (unless they are heated until steaming hot), raw or unpasteurized dairy products, including soft and semi-soft cheeses such Brie and Camembert and refrigerated smoked salmon. Avoidance of pasteurized soft and semi-soft cheeses is also recommended as these can be as contaminated as raw milk cheeses. </p></li>
</ol>
<h2>Recommendations for the food industry globally</h2>
<p>The food industry has made tremendous advances in controlling Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods. However, outbreaks still occur. </p>
<p>Special attention needs to be paid to cleaning and sanitizing in food processing areas, especially of conveyor belts and equipment. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2015.1939">Continuous sampling of food plant environments for Listeria is also necessary</a> — to give facilities an early warning that there may be a problem. </p>
<p>Retail deli areas have also been pinpointed as a source of the organism. Much of the food contamination with Listeria monocytogenes occurs after a particular food has been heat processed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey M. Farber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the death count in South Africa’s listeriosis outbreak rises, Canadian researchers are isolating bacteria from the microbiome of exotic foods to try to develop a solution.Jeffrey M. Farber, Professor of Food Safety, University of GuelphLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/800882017-06-28T12:54:53Z2017-06-28T12:54:53ZOkja: a film that provides food for thought on ‘sustainable’ meat production<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176031/original/file-20170628-24675-18n0tmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Netflix</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What if we could meet the challenges of the ongoing environmental crisis without changing our behaviour and practices in any way? What if, rather than revising our way of life, we could instead propose a few technical fixes that would reduce our environmental impacts while allowing us to go on living as before? Would this really settle the ethical and political questions that are posed by our current moment of climate catastrophe, mass extinction, resource scarcity and industrialised animal slaughter? These are some of the questions that are posed by Netflix’s latest original movie, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjCebKn4iic">Okja</a>.</p>
<p>The story centres on the eponymous Okja, an animal belonging to a new species that has been genetically engineered to fulfil the developed world’s boundless appetite for meat, while minimising the environmental impact of its production. In the words of CEO Lucy Mirando (played by the always wonderful Tilda Swinton):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This beautiful and special little creature will be a revolution in the livestock industry. Our super pigs will not only be big and beautiful; they will also leave a minimal footprint on the environment, consume less feed, and produce less excretions; and most importantly – they need to taste fucking good.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The film follows Okja and her young keeper Mija as agribusiness interests compete with animal activists to decide her fate.</p>
<p>Okja is a timely intervention into debates about the environmental costs of meat production. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet">For some years now</a>, the United Nations has been suggesting that we need to cut back on meat and dairy production for the sake of the planet – and, more recently, the wildly successful activist documentary <a href="http://www.cowspiracy.com/">Cowspiracy</a> brought this argument to a wider public. </p>
<p>As a consequence, there has been a recognition that livestock production needs to make a case for itself in terms that are <a href="http://www.beefmagazine.com/blog/my-response-cowspiracy-8-ways-cattle-grazing-supports-wildlife">more compatible</a> with recent environmentalist thinking – often by drawing on emerging technologies to reduce environmental impact. </p>
<p>Recently, <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/11/scientists-might-reprogram-cow-guts-cattle-burp-less/">adjustments to cows’ gut flora</a> were proposed as a way to cut methane emissions. More radically, new developments in tissue engineering promise to bypass the living animal altogether by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/05/world-first-synthetic-hamburger-mouth-feel">growing real animal flesh</a> through cell culture in the laboratory.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AjCebKn4iic?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Okja deftly satirises this turn from shameless profiteering to an (at least ostensibly) ethically and environmentally responsible agribusiness. Swinton’s CEO is more Steve Jobs than Henry Ford – and her vision for agribusiness owes more to tech-industry utopianism than it does to 20th-century industrial capitalism. Having wrested control of the company from her father (who developed military technology) and her sister (whose tenure as CEO was marred by industrial-ecological catastrophe), Mirando aims to turn “the most hated agrochemical company in the world” into a seemingly beneficent force for good.</p>
<h2>Killer question</h2>
<p>But in creating Okja’s species as an ecologically sustainable alternative to cattle, has Mirando finally reconciled animal agriculture to its ethical and environmental obligations? Animal activists in the film – and in wider society – would strenuously disagree. It’s worth noting here that the director is sympathetic to these claims, having <a href="http://www.indiewire.com/2017/06/okja-bong-joon-ho-vegan-1201839076/">become vegan</a> during the filming of Okja – and having borrowed much of the film’s visual rhetoric from footage taken by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFdHAnpTYI">undercover activist documentarians</a>. In order to settle this question, we need to more carefully explore how sustainability functions as an ethical and political ideal.</p>
<p>Sustainability is a deeply ambivalent concept. On the one hand, it names a broad desire to take more responsibility for our impact on the planet – and this is clearly a good thing. On the other hand, unless it is directed by an ethical analysis which isn’t easily reduced to technical tinkering, it can quickly become a kind of cynical calculation. In this context, consider the strange paradox of new, more sustainable fishing practices: we save species from extinction in order to better kill them in the future.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nV04zyfLyN4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The shift to thinking about the sustainability of meat production in merely technical terms (“how should we reduce emissions?”) entirely bypasses the question of animal ethics. Instead of asking “should we kill?”, we find ourselves asking “how should we kill with maximum efficiency?” By translating an ethical question into a technical one, this model of sustainability lets animal agriculture off the hook for the violence that it does.</p>
<p>Okja pushes back against this by foregrounding the relationship between a little girl and her animal friend. So, yes, Okja is a well-engineered beast who contributes to lower environmental impact, but she’s also an individual animal who loves and is loved – and she has an ethically significant interest in her own well-being. </p>
<p>As Okja and Cowspiracy make clear, the technical debate into the environmental impact of eating meat is critically important. But even if animal agribusiness could be made thoroughly sustainable, routine practices of confinement, forcible reproduction and slaughter remain highly ethically questionable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80088/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seán McCorry is a co-founder of the Sheffield Animals Research Centre, and a member of the Vegan Society's Research Advisory Committee.</span></em></p>Netflix’s new film is a timely intervention into discussions on whether it can ever be ethically sound to eat meat.Seán McCorry, Postdoctoral researcher in English Literature, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/761282017-04-26T09:31:09Z2017-04-26T09:31:09ZFive ways the meat on your plate is killing the planet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166509/original/file-20170424-12658-ccjxef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When we hear about the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question">horrors</a> of industrial livestock farming – the pollution, the waste, the miserable lives of billions of animals – it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt and conclude that we should eat less meat. </p>
<p>Yet most of us probably won’t. Instead, we will mumble something about meat being tasty, that “everyone” eats it, and that we only buy “grass fed” beef. </p>
<p>Over the next year, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/#b14-ehp0116-000578">more than 50 billion land animals</a> will be raised and slaughtered for food around the world. Most of them will be reared in conditions that cause them to suffer unnecessarily while also harming people and the environment in significant ways. </p>
<p>This raises serious <a href="http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/">ethical problems</a>. We’ve compiled a list of arguments against eating meat to help you decide for yourself what to put on your plate.</p>
<h2>1. The environmental impact is huge</h2>
<p>Livestock farming has a <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM">vast environmental footprint</a>. It contributes to land and water degradation, biodiversity loss, acid rain, coral reef degeneration and deforestation. </p>
<p>Nowhere is this impact more apparent than climate change – livestock farming <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html">contributes 18% of human produced greenhouse gas</a> emissions worldwide. This is <a href="https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/livestock-climate-change-forgotten-sector-global-public-opinion-meat-and-dairy?dm_i=1TY5%2C30JL0%2CBHZILT%2CAUGSP%2C1">more than all emissions</a> from ships, planes, trucks, cars and all other transport put together. </p>
<p>Climate change alone poses multiple risks to health and well-being through increased risk of extreme weather events – such as floods, droughts and heatwaves – and has been described as the <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960935-1/fulltext">greatest threat</a> to human health in the 21st century.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/eating-less-meat-curb-climate-change">Reducing consumption of animal products</a> is essential if we are to meet global greenhouse gas <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/paris-climate-change-agreement-enters-into-force">emissions reduction targets</a> – which are necessary to mitigate the worst effects of <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">climate change</a>. </p>
<h2>2. It requires masses of grain, water and land</h2>
<p>Meat production is highly inefficient – this is particularly true when it comes to red meat. To produce one kilogram of beef requires <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-we-feed-the-world-and-stop-deforestation-depends-whats-for-dinner-58091">25 kilograms of grain</a> – to feed the animal – and roughly <a href="http://www.unwater.org/topics/water-and-food/en/">15,000 litres of water</a>. Pork is a little less intensive and chicken less still. </p>
<p>The scale of the problem can also be seen in land use: around <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM">30% of the earth’s land surface</a> is currently used for livestock farming. Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166511/original/file-20170424-22270-1virqjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166511/original/file-20170424-22270-1virqjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166511/original/file-20170424-22270-1virqjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166511/original/file-20170424-22270-1virqjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166511/original/file-20170424-22270-1virqjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166511/original/file-20170424-22270-1virqjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166511/original/file-20170424-22270-1virqjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Inside the milk machine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. It hurts the global poor</h2>
<p>Feeding grain to livestock increases global demand and drives up grain prices, making it harder for the world’s poor to feed themselves. Grain could instead be used to feed people, and water used to irrigate crops. </p>
<p>If all grain were fed to humans instead of animals, we could <a href="http://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-animal-feed.html">feed an extra 3.5 billion people</a>. In short, industrial livestock farming is not only inefficient but also not equitable.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166510/original/file-20170424-27254-14hdxh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166510/original/file-20170424-27254-14hdxh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166510/original/file-20170424-27254-14hdxh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166510/original/file-20170424-27254-14hdxh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166510/original/file-20170424-27254-14hdxh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166510/original/file-20170424-27254-14hdxh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166510/original/file-20170424-27254-14hdxh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. It causes unnecessary animal suffering</h2>
<p>If we accept, as many people do, that <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836-200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such/">animals are sentient creatures</a> whose <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/moral-concern-moral-impulse-and-logical-argument-in-animal-rights-advocacy/#.VyzAVEfRvn1">needs and interests matter</a>, then we should ensure these needs and interests are at least minimally met and that we do not cause them to suffer unnecessarily. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question">Industrial livestock farming falls well short</a> of this minimal standard. Most meat, dairy and eggs are produced in ways that largely or <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/19/chicken-welfare-human-health-meat">completely ignore animal welfare</a> – failing to provide sufficient space to move around, contact with other animals, and access to the outdoors. </p>
<p>In short, industrial farming causes animals to suffer without good justification.</p>
<h2>5. It is making us ill</h2>
<p>At the production level, industrial livestock farming relies heavily on antibiotic use to accelerate weight gain and control infection – in the US, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjwnceG4sXMAhUnJsAKHSgRBxEQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2FForIndustry%2FUserFees%2FAnimalDrugUserFeeActADUFA%2FUCM231851.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGzkHx8zoJADYenN1Jv4uaGix9B6Q&sig2=DcDTdgd-XABCPJJHU5bcIQ">80% of all antibiotics are consumed by the livestock industry</a>. </p>
<p>This contributes to the growing public health problem of <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html">antibiotic resistance</a>. Already, more than 23,000 people are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/how-to-avoid-a-post-antibiotic-world.html?_r=0">estimated to die every year in the US alone</a> from resistant bacteria. As this figure continues to rise, it becomes hard to overstate the threat of this emerging crisis. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166512/original/file-20170424-25594-g1f65k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166512/original/file-20170424-25594-g1f65k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166512/original/file-20170424-25594-g1f65k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166512/original/file-20170424-25594-g1f65k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166512/original/file-20170424-25594-g1f65k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166512/original/file-20170424-25594-g1f65k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166512/original/file-20170424-25594-g1f65k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The meat industry also poses a threat to global food security.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.abstract">High meat consumption</a> – especially of red and processed meat – typical of most rich industrialised countries is linked with <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961256-2/fulltext">poor health outcomes</a>, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and various cancers. </p>
<p>These diseases represent a major portion of the global disease burden so reducing consumption could offer substantial public <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961256-2/fulltext">health benefits</a>. </p>
<p>Currently, the <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961256-2/fulltext">average meat intake</a> for someone living in a high-income country is 200-250g a day, far higher than the 80-90g <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-as842e.pdf">recommended by the United Nations</a>. Switching to a more <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146.abstract">plant-based diet</a> could save up to 8m lives a year worldwide by 2050 and lead to healthcare related savings and avoided climate change damages of up to $1.5 trillion. </p>
<h2>Ultimately, it’s unethical</h2>
<p>Most people agree that as a basic rule an action that promotes the overall happiness of others is morally good, while an action that causes harm or suffering without good justification is morally wrong. </p>
<p>Meat eating is wrong not because there is something special about pigs or chickens or <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/hell-south-korean-dog-meat-9392807">dogs</a> or <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39577557/the-countries-where-people-still-eat-cats-and-dogs-for-dinner">cats</a>, but because of the harm it causes, whether that harm is caused to animals, humans, or the wider environment. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166513/original/file-20170424-25594-w91sz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166513/original/file-20170424-25594-w91sz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166513/original/file-20170424-25594-w91sz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166513/original/file-20170424-25594-w91sz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166513/original/file-20170424-25594-w91sz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166513/original/file-20170424-25594-w91sz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166513/original/file-20170424-25594-w91sz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Love animals, don’t eat them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most people living in industrialised countries have historically unprecedented dietary choice. And if our nutritional needs can now be met by consuming foods that are less harmful, then we ought to choose these over foods that are known to cause more harm. </p>
<p>Eating less meat and animal products is one of the easiest things we can do to live more ethically.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76128/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julian Savulescu receives funding from the Oxford Martin School for the Oxford Martin Programme on Collective Responsibility for Infectious Disease, and the Uehiro Foundation for Ethics and Education. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francis Vergunst does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Eat less meat, save the worldFrancis Vergunst, Postdoctoral Fellow in Developmental Public Health, Université de MontréalJulian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/723722017-02-21T19:11:57Z2017-02-21T19:11:57ZNo animal required, but would people eat artificial meat?<p>Futurists <a href="https://futurism.com/grow-groceries-test-tube/">tell us</a> that we will be eating in vitro meat (IVM) – meat grown in a laboratory rather than on a farm – within five to ten years. </p>
<p>IVM was first investigated in the early years of this <a href="https://theconversation.com/worlds-first-lab-grown-burger-dont-forget-the-semi-living-steak-16941">century</a> and since then criticisms of farm animal production systems, particularly intensive ones, have escalated.</p>
<p>They <a href="http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook/20103000595">include</a> the excessive use of land, energy and water resources; local and global pollution; poor animal welfare; a contribution to <a href="https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20141203LivestockClimateChangeForgottenSectorBaileyFroggattWellesleyFinal.pdf">climate change</a>; and a <a href="http://www.livescience.com/21426-global-zoonoses-diseases-hotspots.html">unhealthy eating habits and disease in humans</a>. </p>
<p>At the same time, human (and livestock) <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466531a.html">population growth continues</a>, farming land is requisitioned for urban expansion and meat consumption per person is rising. </p>
<p>So we want a new source of meat – or do we?</p>
<h2>Reaction to artificial meat</h2>
<p>Growing meat artificially, under laboratory-type conditions, is not impossible on a large scale. But people’s concerns about eating IVM have rarely been explored. </p>
<p>In a recent survey, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904">published this month in PLOS One</a>, we investigated the views of people in the United States, a country with <a href="https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm">one of the largest appetites for meat</a> and an equally large appetite for adopting new technologies.</p>
<p>A total of 673 people responded to the survey, done online via <a href="https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome">Amazon Mechanical Turk</a>, in which they were given information about IVM and asked questions about their attitudes to it.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/41Rnp/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="300"></iframe>
<p>Although most people (65%), and particularly males, were willing to try IVM, only about a third said they would use it regularly or as a replacement for farmed meat.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EaRic/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="300"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SGKWp/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="300"></iframe>
<p>But many people were undecided: 26% were unsure if they would use it as a replacement for farmed meat and 31% unsure if they would eat it regularly. This suggests there is scope to persuade consumers that they should convert to IVM if a suitable product is available. As an indication of this potential, 53% said it was seen as preferable to soy substitutes. </p>
<h2>The pros and cons of IVM</h2>
<p>The biggest concerns were about IVM’s taste and lack of appeal, particularly in the case of meats seen as healthy, such as fish and chicken, where only two-thirds of people that normally ate them said that they would if it was produced by <em>in vitro</em> methods. </p>
<p>By contrast, 72% of people who normally eat beef and pig products would still do so if they were produced as IVM. Interestingly, about 4% of people said they would try IVM products of horse, dog or cat – despite these being meats that they would not currently eat.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/r0BLs/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="300"></iframe>
<p>The perceived advantages of IVM were that it was environmentally and animal-welfare friendly, ethical, and less likely to carry diseases. It could increase the proportion of happy animals on Earth if it replaced intensive farm animal production. By happy, we mean well nourished, comfortable, healthy, free from pain, and able to perform. </p>
<p>The disadvantages were that IVM was perceived as unnatural, potentially less tasty and likely to have a negative impact on farmers, by putting them out of business. </p>
<h2>The IVM consumer</h2>
<p>So who would be most likely to use IVM, and hence dictate the focus of advertisers’ pitch? </p>
<p>Gender was the biggest predicting factor, with men more likely on average to say they would try IVM, whereas women were less sure. Men also had more positive views of its benefits. </p>
<p>Recognising that meat-eating men are often viewed as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018">more masculine</a>, it is not clear whether this prevailing attitude would change if men converted to eating IVM. </p>
<p>Those with liberal political views rather than conservative ones were also much more receptive to the idea, confirming their more progressive viewpoints generally, as well as their traditionally stronger focus on fairness and avoiding harm to others. </p>
<p>Vegetarians and vegans were more likely to support the benefits of IVM but least likely to try it. People who ate little meat were also more supportive, compared with big meat eaters. </p>
<h2>IVM on the menu</h2>
<p>While a reasonably large proportion of the sample reported willingness to try IVM in the future, there appears to be hesitation around the idea of incorporating it into a daily diet. </p>
<p>Resistance came primarily from practical concerns, such as taste and price. But these are factors that are largely under the control of the manufacturers.</p>
<p>The concerns – about taste, price and impact on farmers – could all be effectively dealt with if there was sufficient financial advantage in producing IVM. </p>
<p>As tissue engineering techniques improve, culturing meat <em>in vitro</em> also brings the opportunity to introduce health-promoting ingredients, such as polyunsaturated fats, more easily than in living animals. </p>
<p>Another commonly cited concern was the perception that the product was unnatural. This may be similar to people’s concerns about genetically modified (GM) foods – some of those who oppose GM foods are <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691615621275">moral absolutists</a> who would not be influenced by any argument in favour. </p>
<p>By expressing concern about the naturalness of IVM, some people were suggesting that there are fundamental issues that would cause them to reject it.</p>
<p>But with a little investigation into the processing and production of some meat products today, they might soften their attitudes towards IVM. </p>
<p>If IVM doesn’t take your fancy, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tissue-engineered-leather-could-be-mass-produced-by-2017/">lab-grown leather</a> is actively being developed by a company that was dissuaded from producing IVM because it thought only 40% of people would even try it. </p>
<p>That was back in 2012 and now our survey has found that 65% of people surveyed in the United States said that they would definitely or probably try IVM. So maybe people are becoming more responsive to the idea as opposition to conventional animal farming grows. </p>
<p>Although ours was a relatively small survey in a developed country (with a huge appetite for meat!), one can speculate that people in developing countries might be less concerned about issues like the taste and natural appeal of IVM. They might view it as a valuable source of protein they would not otherwise get. </p>
<p>Perhaps the futurists are right and IVM will be what fills our dinner plates in the near future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips has received funding from a variety of government, industry and not-for-profit organisations, including Meat and Livestock Australia (Livecorp), Australian and New Zealand Government, Open Philanthropy and the Morris Animal Foundation, He is on the scientific panel for the Voiceless not-for-profit organisation and a director of Minding Animals. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matti Wilks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We might be able to grow artificial meat but are people really prepared to eat such produce over meat from farmed animals?Clive Phillips, Professor of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandMatti Wilks, PhD Candidate in psychology, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/718202017-02-09T15:12:35Z2017-02-09T15:12:35ZFrom farm to table: poor hygiene in slaughterhouses in rural Kenya<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155652/original/image-20170206-18980-gzgsdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Slaughterhouses in parts of rural Kenya don't adhere to basic hygiene standards.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Stafford Ondego</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>-Most people in the world never see the inside of a slaughterhouse. This is true in Kenya where concerns have been raised about the health risks associated with slaughterhouses, particularly in rural parts of the country.
The Conversation Africa’s Health and Medicine Editor Joy Wanja Muraya spoke to Veterinary Epidemiologist Elizabeth Cook about the condition of slaughterhouses in rural Kenya and the risks they pose to public health.</em></p>
<p><strong>What are the working conditions and practices in rural Kenya’s slaughterhouses?</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3923-y">Research</a> we conducted in western Kenya in the <a href="https://www.maji.go.tz/?q=en/content/lake-victoria-basin">Lake Victoria Basin</a> area bordering Uganda showed that most slaughterhouses had poor working conditions and practices. </p>
<p>We interviewed 738 workers in 142 slaughterhouses in Busia, Bungoma, Kakamega and Siaya counties. Slaughterhouses were located close to market centres where animals could be transported by foot or bicycle and meat supplied to the surrounding area. The facilities were small with an average of seven workers and had low throughput, slaughtering an average of five animals per week.</p>
<p>The majority of slaughterhouses lacked adequate infrastructure. Almost a third of buildings didn’t have a roof. Workers and carcasses were exposed to the sun, rain and other elements. Only four slaughterhouses had piped water, suggesting these facilities were not effectively cleaned. </p>
<p>Almost half the slaughterhouses didn’t have appropriate sanitation amenities, such as latrines and hand-washing facilities.</p>
<p>Personal hygiene practices among workers were also poor: only half said they wore protective aprons and shoes. Almost 20% admitted to slaughtering sick animals, potentially exposing them and consumers to diseases transmitted from animals to man. These are known as <a href="http://zdukenya.org/">zoonotic diseases</a>. Workers also ate and smoked at the slaughterhouse, which increased the risk of transmitting disease causing germs.</p>
<p><strong>What public health concerns emerged in your study?</strong></p>
<p>The biggest public health concern was the potential spread of disease to people consuming meat. Animals were slaughtered on the ground. This increased the risk of meat being contaminated with faecal pathogens such as <a href="http://www.about-ecoli.com/">E. coli</a>, <a href="http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/tc/salmonellosis-topic-overview">Salmonella</a> and <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs255/en/">Campylobacter</a>.</p>
<p>Inspection of the animal before slaughtering was practised at less than 10% of slaughterhouses. Sick animals weren’t removed from the slaughter process, increasing the risk of passing on the diseases to the community and placing workers at risk of zoonotic diseases, such as, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/brucellosis/">brucellosis </a>, <a href="http://www.who.int/zoonoses/diseases/leptospirosis/en/">leptospirosis</a>, and <a href="http://waddl.vetmed.wsu.edu/animal-disease-faq/q-fever">Q fever</a>. </p>
<p>There were also risks associated with sick workers at the slaughterhouses. 10% reported having stomach disorders in the 12 months preceding the survey. Additionally, 4% reported breathing difficulties. When handling carcasses, the workers didn’t wear gloves or masks thus increasing their risk of contracting infections and passing the germs to other people.</p>
<p>Injuries in workers were due to physically strenuous work: for example carcasses were hoisted onto beams using ropes, resulting in about half of the workers complaining of backaches. A quarter reported receiving <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/11/489468205/working-the-chain-slaughterhouse-workers-face-lifelong-injuries">other injuries</a> at work every month. 8% of workers had a wound at the time of interview. </p>
<p><strong>What are the challenges in adhering to regulations?</strong></p>
<p>The national standards were defined by the Kenyan government in the <a href="http://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/meat-control-local-slaughterhouses-licensing-regulations-2011-cap-356-lex-faoc106272/">Meat Control Act of 2012</a>. It calls for proper infrastructure to be put in place, including observing hygiene practices in slaughterhouses. Our study found that slaughterhouses didn’t meet these requirements because of ignorance about the health risks.</p>
<p>Only a third of workers were aware that animals can be a source of disease and less than half of them understood that meat could be a source of disease.</p>
<p>The inadequate facilities and poor infrastructure result from a lack of investment in the industry. The region has a large number of households living on less than <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/02/29/reviving-lake-victoria-by-restoring-livelihoods">a dollar a day</a>. Households can’t afford to purchase animal proteins like meat. </p>
<p>Improving facilities would lead to increased meat prices, which might make this important protein source unaffordable. This might increase the amount of backyard slaughter that cannot be regulated by the veterinary department.</p>
<p>Regulations require that every animal and all meat should be inspected before sale. But we found there was only one inspector for every five slaughterhouses. And they were forced to travel long distances by public transport or motorbike, delaying their ability to inspect the animals.</p>
<p><strong>How can these concerns be addressed? What would be the expected health benefits?</strong></p>
<p>Educating workers, butchers and inspectors about the risks of meat contamination and other health hazards at work is the <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6557e/X6557E01.htm">first step</a> towards improving the public health status of the slaughterhouses.</p>
<p>This would require training in <a href="http://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=198&printable=1">safe food handling practices</a> such as clean removal of the animal’s abdominal contents, appropriate meat storage and hand washing. Workers and inspectors should understand the importance of animal inspection. Inspectors also need to be empowered to enforce regulations.</p>
<p>Investment in infrastructure could lead to phasing out the smaller substandard facilities and focusing on centralised bigger facilities where the economies of scale might keep meat prices from escalating. </p>
<p>But centralising the industry would also require improvements to <a href="http://www.wpsa-foodsafety.com/?item=199">transport networks</a> and refrigeration for the delivery of meat to remote areas.</p>
<p>Mechanisation could resolve some of the challenges related to carcass handling and reduce the physical strain on workers.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/multimedia_pub_fsf_126_02.html">One Health approach</a> to disease surveillance could be implemented to monitor zoonotic diseases in slaughterhouses. Public health workers should be made aware of the potential for slaughterhouse workers to be sentinels of diseases in animals and people. </p>
<p>Monitoring slaughterhouse workers might be a cost effective method of detecting diseases that are transmitted from animals to man.</p>
<p>Improvements to the meat industry could improve occupational and food safety in the region.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71820/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Cook received funding from the Medical Research Council and support was also received from the The Wellcome Trust and the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). We acknowledge the CGIAR Fund Donors (<a href="http://www.cgiar.org/who-we-are/cgiar-fund/fund-donors-2">http://www.cgiar.org/who-we-are/cgiar-fund/fund-donors-2</a>). </span></em></p>Slaughterhouses are an essential step in meat production. Hygiene standards need to be maintained to prevent the spread of diseases.Elizabeth Cook, Veterinary epidemiologist, International Livestock Research Institute Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/699042016-12-11T06:18:10Z2016-12-11T06:18:10ZWhy cutting meat from your diet could be a revolutionary act<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148642/original/image-20161205-19367-1qbqmfv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Meat is a popular food choice all over the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Akintunde Akinleye</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Controversy erupted at the University of Cape Town in 2016 when some academics suggested that only <a href="http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-07-13-fanon-meets-biko-meets-jm-coetzee-as-uct-academic-row-over-food-highlights-racial-fault-lines/#.WEVS1ov_rIU">meat-free meals</a> should be served on parts of the campus. The debates and opposition were couched in arguments around ethics and choice. They did not make connections between multiple forms of oppression, power and privilege. </p>
<p>This meant a vital opportunity for a serious debate about animal agriculture and its impact on all South Africans was lost in the controversy. The debate about killing animals for food often gets bogged down in discourses relating to the “rights” of animals and the “ethics” of humans. But what is abundantly clear is that animal agriculture is having a devastating effect on the environment and on human health. </p>
<p>Despite growing evidence, research shows that people are less willing to change their diet than make other changes to mitigate climate change. We would argue, however, that in common with many current South African debates around power and privilege, turning away from a meat-based diet has great emancipatory potential. </p>
<h2>Meat consumption is soaring</h2>
<p>An overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that animal agriculture contributes at <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/">least 15%</a> of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. It also <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283353207_The_Hidden_Cost_of_Eating_Meat_in_South_Africa_What_Every_Responsible_Consumer_Should_Know">contributes significantly</a> to deforestation, leads to biodiversity loss, degrades arable land, consumes vast quantities of water and pollutes water sources.</p>
<p>The industrial production of plant crops is not without its problems, as the <a href="http://www.saynotopalmoil.com/Whats_the_issue.php">multiple concerns</a> associated with palm oil production demonstrate. But these are strikingly less significant than those of animal agriculture when it comes to the environment and climate change in particular. </p>
<p>Despite the urgency of the climate crisis, meat consumption is soaring. In 2003 <a href="http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/The%20South%20African%20meat%20market_Pretoria_South%20Africa%20-%20Republic%20of_9-15-2015.pdf">South Africans</a> spent R46 billion on meat, by 2013 they spent R165 billion. In 2000 South Africans ate 41kg of meat each on average per year. By 2014 this figure had risen to 65kg. This rapid growth in per capita meat consumption is matched – and even exceeded – in other countries of the global south. In China, meat consumption has <a href="http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/10/13/china-meat-consumption">increased 25%</a> since 2003. The average Chinese consumer now eats 60kg of meat a year. </p>
<p>Meat consumption has stabilised in many countries of the global north, but average levels still dwarf those of the south. <a href="https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/InFocus/International/MeatConsumption.html">For example</a>, Americans eat 127kg per year while Germans eat 89kg.</p>
<p>The global rate of meat consumption is accelerating. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf">estimates</a> that global demand for meat will increase by 20% by 2050. The UN’s Environment Programme has responded by <a href="http://www.unep.org/climatechange/News/PressRelease/tabid/416/language/en-US/Default.aspx?DocumentId=628&ArticleId=6595">calling for</a> “substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products”. </p>
<p>One of the ways to avoid global temperate rises of less than 4°c is to reduce our consumption of meat. This “our” is an inclusive one, encompassing South Africans and all other global citizens.</p>
<p>This is not to imply that all meat eaters in South Africa eat meat excessively. Economic factors determine if meat is affordable, what type of meat is affordable (organic or processed for example) and therefore what attendant burdens of disease are likely to result from its consumption. Some people are compelled to eat various forms of meat, such as fish, as part of subsistence diets, and meat eaters who cannot afford to buy meat are experiencing significant price increases in plant food sources because of animal agriculture.</p>
<p>The known impact of climate change on food security, rising food inflation, and growing undernourishment and malnourishment in South Africa mean it’s time to urgently find fruitful ways to talk about eating less meat. This won’t be easy.</p>
<h2>Why people eat meat</h2>
<p>A burgeoning field of literature in recent years <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282944974_Eating_like_there%27s_no_tomorrow_public_awareness_of_the_environmental_impact_of_food_and_reluctance_to_eating_less_meat_as_part_of_a_sustainable_diet">demonstrates</a> how simply calling on people in a mechanistic, technocratic fashion to eat less meat is not very useful. The consumption of meat, after all, is embedded within numerous social practices. </p>
<p>This research shows there are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315001518">four typical rationalisations</a>, known as the 4Ns, for eating meat. </p>
<p><strong>Natural:</strong> Some evolutionary biologists claim humans are “hard-wired” by a “meat hunger”; a craving for meat to satisfy basic physiological needs for densely packed proteins and energy. This argument fails to explain, however, the existence of hundreds of millions of vegetarians and vegans who do not eat meat. Their existence suggests that social factors can overcome
“meat hunger”, if it indeed exists.</p>
<p><strong>Normal:</strong> In an evolutionary sense, eating has played a number of important social roles relating to survival, sharing, bonding, identity and power. These roles remain deeply embedded in social spheres, and in many contexts eating meat has become the normative manifestation of consumption against which other forms of eating are judged.</p>
<p><strong>Necessary:</strong> Despite both anecdotal and scientific evidence that a human can live a full, healthy life abstaining from meat, many rationalise their continued meat-eating by claiming they need to do so to remain healthy. </p>
<p><strong>Nice:</strong> There is a simple hedonistic reason for meat-eating: people like doing so.</p>
<p>Researchers <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-014-9488-9">argue</a> that these rationalisations are strategies of “moral disengagement”. These strategies obscure personal responsibility, disregard the consequences of actions and construct fictitious counter-narratives that ignore established facts. “Moral disengagement” takes place in other spheres relating to the environment, such as driving an SUV despite the harm it does.</p>
<h2>A revolutionary approach</h2>
<p>It is hard to get people to eat less meat. But could it also be revolutionary? Feminist scholar and activist Angela Davis, who is a vegan, thinks so. She has <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/24/vegan-angela-davis-connects-human-and-animal-liberation/">described</a> how giving up meat engenders a “revolutionary perspective” because it explicitly links the oppression of humans with the oppression of animals in a capitalist system which commodifies both. </p>
<p>Eco-feminist Carol Adams has convincingly <a href="http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-sexual-politics-of-meat-9781501312830/">shown</a> how the treatment of animals mirrors the treatment of women in many contemporary patriarchal discourses and practices of consumption. Critical race feminist Breeze Harper has <a href="http://www.abreezeharper.com/booksabreezeharper">championed</a> the need to “decolonise” what we eat by moving away from meat eating because of its traditional links to institutionalised forms of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPWTRh4nng0">racism</a>, classism, sexism and speciesism . </p>
<p>So talking about the significance of eating less meat, or even giving up meat entirely, needs to be about more than discussions of “rights” and ethics, as it is about intersections of oppression. It is a vital discussion directly linked to humans’ commitments to the environment, social justice, food justice, and wider freedoms for all species.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69904/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Simply calling on people to eat less meat is not very useful. The consumption of meat, after all, is embedded within numerous social and cultural practices. But changing diets can benefit the planet.Carla Tsampiras, Senior Lecturer in Medical Humanities, University of Cape TownNeil Overy, Environmental ResearcherLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/573492016-05-22T20:07:04Z2016-05-22T20:07:04ZEat locals: swapping sheep and cows for kangaroos and camels could help our environment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123149/original/image-20160519-22290-fmjlp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kangaroos are much lighter on the land than sheep and cows. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kangaroo image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We may be what we eat, but our dietary choices also affect the health of the environment, and farmers’ back pockets. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM">Energy and water use</a>, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12084/abstract">native habitat cut down for crops and grazing</a>, and emissions that <a href="http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/eating-less-meat-essential-to-curb-climate-change-says-report">exacerbate climate change</a>, are just some of the profound effects agriculture has on Earth. And, there are more and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-going-to-need-50-more-food-by-2050-2016-4?IR=T">more mouths to feed</a>. </p>
<p>Perversely, both starvation and obesity are severe health issues across the world. With agriculture confronted by economic and environmental uncertainties, society faces enormous challenges. </p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/diet-key-to-feeding-the-world-in-2050-without-destroying-forests/7339644?section=environment">challenges also offer great opportunities</a>. Drastically rethinking what we eat, and where and how food is produced, could help our health, the planet, and our farming businesses.</p>
<p>That means eating fewer sheep and cows, and more kangaroos, feral animals, and insects. </p>
<h2>Unsustainable farming</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/land/rangelands">Australia’s rangelands</a> - the drier regions of the country predominantly used for livestock and grazing - cover about 80% of the country. They are often in poor condition and economically unviable. In part, this is due to the fact we still farm many animals, mostly in ways that are <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-we-be-australian-without-eating-indigenous-food-53742">unsuited to the Australian climate and environment</a>. </p>
<p>Hard-hoofed animals contribute to soil compaction and erosion, and have even been linked to the spread of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-fences-could-stop-cane-toads-in-their-tracks-37092">invasive cane toad</a>. But the environmental impact of intensive stock farming extends much further. </p>
<p>Continuing to farm using a European-derived, intensive system is a recipe for land degradation and environmental collapse, especially with the compounding impacts of climate change (severe weather events, more frequent and intense droughts, and fires). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122058/original/image-20160511-18150-1fkikhx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122058/original/image-20160511-18150-1fkikhx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122058/original/image-20160511-18150-1fkikhx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122058/original/image-20160511-18150-1fkikhx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122058/original/image-20160511-18150-1fkikhx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122058/original/image-20160511-18150-1fkikhx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122058/original/image-20160511-18150-1fkikhx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Starving stock in Julia Creek, Qld (1952).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Queensland State Archives, Digital Image ID 4413</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Past and current agricultural practices have also profoundly altered our environment. It may be impossible to restore these lands to their original condition, so we must learn to operate in the new environment we’ve created. </p>
<p>More broadly, many experts have identified our <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-eat-red-meat-the-nutrition-and-the-ethics-47934">meat consumption</a> and intensive farming as a significant driver of global problems. </p>
<h2>Treading lightly</h2>
<p>To address these issues, we need a cultural shift away from intensive agriculture. The days of riding and relying on the sheep’s back, cattle’s hoof, or the more recent, and increasingly popular, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/australia-is-the-meateating-capital-of-the-world-20151027-gkjhp4.html">chicken’s wing</a>, may need to pass. </p>
<p>Native wildlife and some feral animals <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00023.x/abstract">tread more lightly</a> on the environment than intensively produced livestock do, and thus provide more sustainable options for food production on Australia’s arid lands. <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO08063.htm">Kangaroos</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1095643311003011">goats</a> place one-third of the pressure on grazing lands compared with sheep. </p>
<p>We already eat some of these animals, but could arguably eat more of them, including <a href="http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-13/goat-saviours-new-south-wales/7412542">feral goats</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-07/camel-meat-halal-butcher-sold-here/6663716">camels</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/oh-deer-a-tricky-conservation-problem-for-tasmania-43702">deer</a>, rabbits, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-14/wild-boar-market-hit-by-dropping-hunter-numbers/6383368">pigs</a>, and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/nlc-expects-more-buffalo-to-be-exported-from-indigenous-lands/7202400">buffalo</a>, as well as native emus and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/cluster-fence-kangaroos-goats-pests/7417222?utm_content=buffer69221&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer">kangaroos</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123148/original/image-20160519-22302-11lkoz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Camels are already on the menu.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Camel image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet more <a href="http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/eat/the-compelling-argument-for-why-we-should-be-eating-cane-toads-and-feral-cats/news-story/bd37a259586baa0fbd4a809dc7863a49">extreme proposals</a> could include feral donkeys, cats, horses; and even cane toads. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/09/eating-wild-horsemeat-america">Horses are already consumed in Europe</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencewa.net.au/topics/aboriginal-science-a-knowledge/item/3840-desert-cat-hunters-cut-wildlife-protection-costs">cats in central Australia</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/taja.12141/abstract">Eating more feral</a> and native animals, and relying less on chicken, sheep, domestic pigs, and cattle would help meet <a href="https://theconversation.com/bans-on-kangaroo-products-are-a-case-of-emotion-trumping-science-47924">ethical concerns</a> too. Wild animals such as kangaroos are killed quickly, without the extended stress associated with industrialised farming, containment, and transportation to abattoirs. </p>
<p>And by harvesting sometimes overabundant wild native animals (such as kangaroos) and feral species, we may be able to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12070/epdf">reduce their impacts on ecosystems</a>, which include <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-grim-story-of-the-snowy-mountains-cannibal-horses-31691">overgrazing</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-protected-pest-deer-in-australia-11452">damage to waterways</a>. </p>
<p>An even greater leap would be to eat fewer four-limbed animals and more <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/eating-insects">six-legged</a> creatures. Insects are often high in protein and low in fat, and can be produced in large numbers, efficiently and quickly. They are already consumed in large numbers in some regions, including Asia. </p>
<p>Evidence that a market for such a food revolution exists is that <a href="http://www.ediblebugshop.com.au/">shops are already popping up</a> selling mealworm flour, ant seasoning salt, and cricket protein powder, among other delicacies.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123150/original/image-20160519-22302-14ao9yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A six-legged diet is even better.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Insect image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Boom and bust</h2>
<p>Thanks to Australia’s variable climate, swinging between drought and flood, many farms are also tied to a boom-and-bust cycle of debt and credit. </p>
<p>As the climate becomes increasingly unpredictable, this economic strategy must be <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-09/queensland-rural-debt-and-drought-taskforce-recommendations/7396624">detrimental to the farmers</a>, and is shown by many farm buy-backs or sell-offs. </p>
<p>It makes sense to use species that are naturally more resilient and able to respond to boom-and-bust cycles. Kangaroos and other species can forage on our ancient and typically nutrient-poor soils without the need for nutritional supplements (such as salt licks), and are physiologically more efficient at <a href="https://conservationbytes.com/2016/05/09/australia-pisses-away-the-little-water-it-has/">conserving water</a>. This could lead to a more sustainable supply of food and <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-pests-to-profits-making-kangaroos-valuable-to-farmers-9">income for farmers</a>, without the dizzying economic highs but also without the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-10/pat-hegarty-destocking-selling/7400056">inevitable prolonged and despairing lows</a>. </p>
<h2>Future-proofing</h2>
<p>To be clear, we are not suggesting completely replacing livestock, but diversifying and tailoring enterprises to better suit Australia’s environment. </p>
<p>To support more diverse agricultural enterprises we will need to overcome many obstacles, such as licences to hunt, what we’re <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174016301061">comfortable consuming</a>, and <a href="http://www.lands.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Rangelands_Reform_fact_sheet.pdf">land use regulation</a>. But we shouldn’t shy away from these challenges. There are tremendous opportunities for rural, regional and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/indigenous-communities-earn-profit-from-camel-meat/6934300">Indigenous communities</a>, and indeed cities too. </p>
<p>We need a more diverse mix of meat to adapt to the pressures of a growing population and climate change. Supermarket aisles that display beef, chicken, pork and lamb, alongside kangaroo, camel, deer, goat, and insects, could be just what the environmental, health and economic doctors ordered.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Euan Ritchie is affiliated with the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Munn has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and National Geographic Society. Adam Munn has been associated with projects recieving funding from Meat and Livestock Australia. Adam Munn is a member of the Australian Mammal Society and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry.</span></em></p>Eating cows and sheep is unsustainable. Here are some better alternatives.Euan Ritchie, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin UniversityAdam Munn, Adjunct lecturer, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/548862016-03-07T01:33:53Z2016-03-07T01:33:53ZDone like a chicken dinner: city fringes locked in battles over broiler farms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111886/original/image-20160218-1240-1diievu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=191%2C370%2C3374%2C1532&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Chook farms ruin lives!'. Australians consume a lot of cheap chicken, but not all of them appreciate an intensive chicken factory as a neighbour. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marco Amati</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Once upon a time, chicken was a luxury few could regularly afford. It was a rare meal reserved for special occasions. Yet since 1965 the per-capita annual consumption of chicken meat in Australia has <a href="http://www.chicken.org.au/files/_system/Image/Graphs/Consumption%20of%20meat.jpg?Production=Per+Capita+Consumption+of+Meats">increased ten-fold</a> from 4.6 kilograms per person in 1965 to 44.6 kilograms in 2012. </p>
<p>The retail price of chicken per kilogram has <a href="http://www.chicken.org.au/files/_system/Image/Graphs/Retail%20Price%20of%20Meat%20in%202010%20dollars.jpg?Production=Retail+Price+in+2010+Dollars">decreased steadily</a> in real terms from around A$9.67 in 1986 to A$5.67 in 2009. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMQrtLRjOV0">arrival of Kentucky Fried Chicken in Australia in 1968</a> coincided with rapid increases in consumption. Today, Australians consume <a href="http://www.chicken.org.au/files/_system/Image/Graphs/Chicken%20Meat%20Production%20-%20detailed.jpg?Production=Production">more than 600 million chickens per year</a>. </p>
<p>The vast majority is produced in intensive “broiler” farms. How does chicken production and consumption on such a scale affect the foodbowls on the outskirts of our cities? </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113513/original/image-20160302-25866-1twp1rj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113513/original/image-20160302-25866-1twp1rj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113513/original/image-20160302-25866-1twp1rj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113513/original/image-20160302-25866-1twp1rj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113513/original/image-20160302-25866-1twp1rj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113513/original/image-20160302-25866-1twp1rj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113513/original/image-20160302-25866-1twp1rj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australians consume over 600 million chickens each year, with the price of chicken having fallen steadily since the 1960s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrew Butt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Intensive chicken farms need to be within about one hour of processing sites. Farms also need to be close to feed supplies and hatcheries, as they are run as highly integrated systems.</p>
<p>Partly because of this, the chicken meat industry in Victoria is concentrated within about 200 kilometres of Melbourne. Similar patterns occur in other Australian regions. </p>
<p>As the industry has sought efficiencies of scale, the size of farms has increased. Whereas farms of the 1970s might have housed 10,000 chickens, they now routinely hold 80,000 to more than one million chickens, producing five batches of chickens per year. Yet as producers have grown, the numbers of suitable urban fringe spaces – close enough to processing plants, but far enough from neighbours and sensitive land uses – are dwindling.</p>
<p>One reason is the growth in popularity of peri-urban areas to live in. “Counter-urbanisation” or “tree-changing” has been underway since the 1970s. Whether in Germany, the US or the Netherlands, it seems rural and peri-urban residents have little desire to live near a “<a href="https://saynomoolortchook.wordpress.com/">monster chicken factory</a>”. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2015.1028252">In a recent paper</a> we analysed 59 planning appeals related to broiler farms in Victoria between 1969 and 2013. Concerns about the farms have included odour, noise, dust, vermin, truck traffic, impacts on tourism, and water use and pollution.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112826/original/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The size of intensive chicken farm proposals has increased in Victoria since the 1960s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Authors</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Broiler farm planning disputes appear to channel more intractable issues than odour control. It is possible that, on some level, having one million chickens <em>not</em> smell is unsettling in its own way. </p>
<p>As more chicken meat is produced, and in ever more technologically intensive ways, conflicts over farm applications inevitably unlock community disquiet about factory farming. The allowable forum for legitimate opposition, however, is narrow. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=718&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=718&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113978/original/image-20160307-17734-s8xbk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=718&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Images promoting chicken products are more likely to evoke rural scenes like the one above than remind us of the broiler farm (below).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotthessphoto/17083758332/in/photolist-4pgadE-6UvuL6-9w56Dj-6UvqPX-6Uvjd4-6Uzxk1-6UziVb-53Ro1j-6Uzmnh-6UvxCx-6Uviav-8Kr7WX-6Uvr2k-6Uzupm-53M1o6-wPruwd-53M6EZ-6UzkRJ-9GwgyH-6UvuvB-AwqoT2-C8zY48-6UzAr9-a3tVFZ-6UvtWp-6UvtfF-rZsTp5-xY83Pi-6UzzXG-5g53aU-6UzxwG-6UvhSD-ziqTyk-tgsKa5-6UvhPg-t2cahG-wyEHUS-m3aWw-vrokoL-uZhMXH-s2CJas-s2Lpz8-s2CJgu-rwho8p-tNAevG-tNAnus-uKBj4i-tNL3gB-uHhBHh-AEZDtn">flickr/Scott Hess</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113685/original/image-20160303-9496-96pibe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ugacommunications/16555376156/in/photolist-rdWCxW-7e9T9Q-59gQRS-7e61Cg-7X8nb9-yj1yR-7e9TuE-faW5gV-7e9TmU-fbbfxy-fbbfP7-fbbmys-7e61Hg-faW67D-7DxN3c-5YHx2W-5LsWVn-7DxNbZ-5LxcK5-7DBAZj-5YDiD2-fbbjZj-faNp6B-8KdrXi-fgjG13-faMCmZ-7yxxN8-7yBkM5-8Xm3A8-fKAeWU-fKAeU1-eQniQY-faMCQn-7fieFX-4PfyWc-jQY6WZ-7yBkPm-gSfxum-7yBkRf-b3MobX-faW29M-8frnAx-fbbjyy-faW18D-fbbgWN-faW5CK-faVZMz-fbbm7C-7e614t-ebMEg5">flickr/Michael Czarick</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Intensive farming is often simply inconsistent with community expectations. The “unknowns” of industrialised agriculture are normally hidden from view in bucolic images on food packaging, and in the marketing of rural real estate as a “lifestyle” choice. Responses to the reality of broiler proposals – however technically well planned – sometimes seem rooted in the loss of this comforting, romanticised view. </p>
<p>In Victoria, the solution has been to regulate away the noise, smell and dust of a farm, mandate separation distances and even set aside areas with clear “rights to farm” and those with rights to “the good life”. The recent announcement of an inquiry in Victoria into the industry has a strong focus on resolving conflicts through siting and separation. </p>
<p>Yet the use of such an approach in Victoria has raised concerns about creating <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/PPV/2013/148">“sterilised” regions</a> where no uses but industrial farms are permitted. Opponents to industrial farms also express concerns that proponents exploit loopholes and that a codified buffer distance privileges intensive farms rather than resolving conflicting land use issues. </p>
<p>On the other hand, less control arguably generates more conflict, as in parts of <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13549830500203246">Canada</a> and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/cag.2005.27.1.45/full">Texas</a>. There, industrial, corporate-run farming operations dominate vast, generally lower socioeconomic areas. But as farms expand, divisive neighbourhood battles are still fought out. </p>
<p>Our research indicates that the use of buffer spaces around farms, guidelines and rights can achieve only so much. Despite the presence of clear guidelines, a recent proposal for a 1.2 million-bird farm in Baringhup, near Castlemaine, has led to more than two years of planning dispute and may result in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-05/baringhup-chicken-broiler-farms/7067956">Supreme Court action</a>. </p>
<p>Conflicts between opponents and proponents of intensive farming will continue in rural areas. Fanning the flames is the growing demand for low-priced chicken (and an ongoing <a href="http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/radio/hamish-and-andy-launch-war-on-nuggets-with-nugraid/news-story/149965fc085e5248be8d939c2ab6a24d">chicken nugget price “war”</a>). </p>
<p>Local governments and decision-makers in Australia remain under-resourced to deal with opposition to the increasing scale of broiler farms. By advocating for a new understanding of what a rural and an urban area “means”, planning is at the coal face for negotiating politically acceptable outcomes to such conflicts. Yet a look at the images used to market farm products reveals what an uphill struggle this is.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54886/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Taylor has received funding from AHURI, the Henry Halloran Trust, and Carlton Connect. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Butt and Marco Amati do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As consumption has soared and prices have fallen, the realities of industrial chicken farming often clash with the values of people who live on the urban fringes where broiler farms are sited.Elizabeth Taylor, Vice Chancellor's Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, RMIT UniversityAndrew Butt, Senior Lecturer in Community Planning and Development, La Trobe UniversityMarco Amati, Associate Professor of International Planning, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/451602015-07-30T23:11:56Z2015-07-30T23:11:56ZHere’s an idea to chew over: GST reform should add meat to the tax buffet<p>Reform of Australia’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) is <a href="https://theconversation.com/leaders-debate-the-gst-what-you-need-to-know-44958">firmly back on the political agenda</a>. There has been plenty of focus on whether the tax rate should be lifted, but less on whether it could be made more sophisticated in its social effects as well as its economic ones. Here is one suggestion: adding GST to meat.</p>
<p>Food has a special tax-exempt status in several countries around the world, including Australia, where it is not included in the GST. Most American jurisdictions <a href="http://www.money-zine.com/financial-planning/tax-shelter/state-sales-tax-rates/">exclude groceries from sales tax</a> and there is zero value-added tax (VAT) on foodstuffs in <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf">Ireland, Malta and United Kingdom</a>, although many other European countries apply VAT to food. </p>
<p>However, regardless of the level of tax charged on food, taxation systems universally fail to distinguish between different types of food (except sometimes in the case of infant foods). Simply put, taxes are blind to the differences between meat and other foods like fruit and vegetables.</p>
<p>This ignores the fact that not all food is created and consumed equally. If we accept that taxes, as well as collect revenue, should also encourage or discourage certain behaviours, then we should question why meat is taxed (or exempted) at the same rate as fruit and veg.</p>
<p>Meat production and consumption impose unduly high <a href="https://theconversation.com/meat-is-a-complex-health-issue-but-a-simple-climate-one-the-world-needs-to-eat-less-of-it-44006">environmental and health burdens</a> on society. Compared with plant-based options, meat has <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1316-8">higher greenhouse gas emissions per unit of nutritional value</a>, as well as <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996">excessively high water and land impacts</a>. Current <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines_130530.pdf">Australian dietary guidelines</a> advocate limiting red meat intake because of clear scientific evidence connected to cancer risks.</p>
<p>Tax revenue is used (among other things) to support public health care and to fund government-backed environmental initiatives. So given that meat compromises both public health and the environment, it surely follows that it should be taxed accordingly. </p>
<h2>Meaty issue</h2>
<p>State premiers who support <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-gst-and-health-test-abbott-in-fractious-federation-40342">raising the GST from 10% to 15% and extending it to cover fresh food</a> should consider the potential revenues purely from meat. We calculate that putting GST on meat (at either 10% or 15%) would generate between A$3 billion and A$4 billion in extra income for the federal coffers.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/gl9Es/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<p>Internationally, calls are increasing for taxing meat on environmental grounds, for instance in <a href="http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/limits_to_green_elements_of_a_green_tax_system/1026">the Netherlands</a>. A reduction in meat consumption encouraged through taxation will have both environmental and public health benefits.</p>
<p>Fruit and vegetables are key components of a healthy, balanced diet, yet Australians are consuming far less than the <a href="http://www.gofor2and5.com.au">healthy guidelines</a>, while eating twice as much meat as the [recommended healthy intake](Australians currently consume almost twice the amount of red meat recommended in dietary guidelines (https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines_130530.pdf). Taxing meat could help nudge Australians in the healthier direction espoused by existing approaches such as <a href="http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1438239672196%7E494&usePid1=true&usePid2=true">flexitarianism</a>.</p>
<p>In contrast, equal taxes on all types of fresh food would maintain the current imbalance of unhealthy overconsumption of meat and underconsumption of fruit and vegetables. From a public health perspective, fruit and vegetables should not be taxed, particularly if those tax revenues are <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/7/20/tax/raise-gst-pay-healthcare">destined for the public health sector</a> – eating vegetables already reduces healthcare costs!</p>
<p>Meat, on the other hand, is a prime candidate for taxation because of its negative impacts. By not taxing meat production and consumption appropriately, governments are in fact subsidising environmental and public health destruction – and meat tax could perhaps be one option on the table for this year’s Paris climate negotiations. </p>
<p>Taxing meat needs to be included on the political agenda as a means for funding climate change mitigation, addressing climate-related health consequences, and supporting agricultural innovation more appropriate for an era of climate change. </p>
<p>Given the positive public health and environmental benefits of taxing meat, not doing so would not only be a lost fiscal opportunity, but we would also be letting down our health and the environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If GST was added to meat, the government could raise billions of dollars in revenue while also encouraging shoppers to eat more veggies - a lipsmacking prospect for public health and the environment.Talia Raphaely, Lecturer, Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin UniversityDora Marinova, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/440062015-07-05T20:18:07Z2015-07-05T20:18:07ZMeat is a complex health issue but a simple climate one: the world needs to eat less of it<p>Climate change is the greatest challenge to human health, according to the recent <a href="http://bit.ly/1NgDF8A">Lancet Commission report</a> which calls for action to protect the global population. The report says that tackling climate change could deliver huge public health benefits, largely through phasing out coal, embracing renewable energy, and moving to a low-carbon economy. There is however one crucial issue the report fails to address: meat.</p>
<p>The commission’s recommendations are all based on solid evidence about the link between greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and human health. Focusing only on energy policy, however, will not be enough to head off climate change successfully. Calls for action that do not include reduction in the world’s livestock production and meat consumption will not be able to protect public health from the effects of climate change. </p>
<p>The livestock sector is a large source of global greenhouse gas emissions, with estimates of its overall contribution varying between <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf">18%</a> and <a href="https://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf">51%</a>. Even in the smallest estimate, the livestock sector emits more greenhouse gas than the world’s transport networks.</p>
<p>According to one <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18371.full.pdf">set of projections</a>, by 2050 this sector will singlehandedly account for 72% of the total “safe operating space” for human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, 88% of the safe operating space for biomass use, and 300% of the safe operating space for the mobilization of nitrogen compounds in soils and elsewhere. This would lead to irreversible changes, irrespective of any efforts to mitigate climate change in other sectors of the economy. </p>
<p>The livestock industry does not just generate carbon dioxide – it adds to the full spectrum of major greenhouse gases. It is the primary (and growing) source of methane and nitrous oxide – gases estimated to have 84 and 264 times respectively the global warming potential of CO<sub>2</sub> on a 20-year horizon (see page 87 <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf">here</a>). </p>
<p>On the positive side, however, methane dissipates the most rapidly of all greenhouse gases, and so changing what we eat would have an also immediate effect on climate change. Moving away from meat would also help farmers to <a href="http://www.initrogen.org/sites/default/files/documents/files/ONW.pdf">use nitrogen more efficiently</a>, which would have the dual impact of causing less pollution while also helping people get more nutrition from the foods they grow.</p>
<h2>Not just about animal welfare</h2>
<p>Since the 1970s, meat has been seen as problematic from an animal welfare perspective. In recent decades however it has transformed into environmental concerns, as we realise the <a href="http://www.igi-global.com/article/flexitarianism-flexible-or-part-time-vegetarianism/101343">huge and unprecedented future impacts</a> of meat consumption on the climate. </p>
<p>The meat issue also now includes questions about international food security, which will become more of a challenge given the impending damage to ecosystem services and the fact that meat is an <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.full">inefficient way to produce calories</a> anyway. Concerns about dependency, distribution and corruption in food supply are justified, but in a world facing rapid global climate change with increasingly stressed ecosystems and a growing human population, the <a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/summary/v016/16.2.henning.html">rationale for eating less meat</a> is clear. </p>
<p>This is just as true in export markets, such as Australia’s sales to China, as it is for domestic consumption. Livestock, like mining, is an industry in which Australia is “offshoring” large amounts of greenhouse emissions. </p>
<h2>Meat and health: a tricky question</h2>
<p>Perhaps the reason the Lancet Commission chose to stay away from the meat issue is because there is not a straightforward, universal relationship between meat and health. Levels of animal protein intake vary significantly across the globe. In poor countries such as Chad or Bangladesh, eating meat might be a question of survival. Meanwhile people in the developed world, including Australians, are consuming meat far beyond healthy levels. Australia’s <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines_130530.pdf">dietary guidelines</a> suggest limiting red meat intake to 455g per week (65g per day) to reduce cancer and cardiovascular risk, but Australians eat <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/detailspage/4364.0.55.0072011-12">42% more than this</a>, and yet more meat is produced but wasted.</p>
<p>While the Food and Agriculture Organization <a href="http://www.fao.org/family-farming-2014/resources/publication-detail/en/item/206835/icode/">rightly says</a> that people should “have access to a diverse range of nutritious foods and to the knowledge and information … to make healthy choices”, many people still choose cheap, meat-based options that increase the burden on both ecosystems and health systems. </p>
<p>Few people consciously consider the planetary impact of the meat products they eat. The evidence however is clear: Earth cannot continue to support a population of 7 billion people and the <a href="http://faostat.fao.org/site/603/default.aspx#ancor">70 billion animals</a> they raise and slaughter each year for food. At the moment the problem is getting worse, not better: meat consumption <a href="http://www.unep.org/pdf/unep-geas_oct_2012.pdf">is growing faster than the overall population</a>. </p>
<p>Whether or not one cares about one’s own personal health and well-being, achieving long-term population health and stabilising climate change require serious reduction in global meat consumption. As ever, the biggest potential for change is among those who can most afford it and are most responsible for the current problem. Cutting down on meat is where the best public health opportunity lies in relation to climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44006/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The recent Lancet Commission report rightly pointed out that climate change is a huge risk to global public health. But it shied away from one of the main issues: the world consumes far too much meat.Dora Marinova, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin UniversityTalia Raphaely, Lecturer, Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/395982015-04-09T13:39:15Z2015-04-09T13:39:15ZManifesto Check: Plaid bites off more than it can chew with ambitious food plans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77334/original/image-20150408-18070-yy3zc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sheep farming would be protected by an Animal Welfare Commissioner</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_farming_in_Wales#/media/File:Springtime_scene_-_geograph.org.uk_-_383776.jpg">from en.wikipedia.org</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Plaid Cymru’s agricultural and food policy contains a mixed bag of EU-wide and domestic policies. The manifesto pledges continued support for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP is an EU policy, which delivers financial support to farmers, as well as helping promote wider rural economic activity. It transfers approximately <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/beneficiaries/shared/index_en.htm">£3 billion each year</a> to the UK. </p>
<p>This is mostly allocated toward <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/financial-reports/index_en.htm">direct payments made to farmers</a> in support of their farming activities, which are called “pillar one” payments. In contrast, “pillar two” directs funds into a range of measures, including the promotion of environmentally-friendly agriculture and rural economic activities, as well as supporting measures to help farmers become more efficient – such as <a href="http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/plaid-cymru-woos-farmers-with-six-day-standstill-pledge.htm">investment into farms</a>.</p>
<p>Pillar one is, in the main, not differentiated locally. Pillar two is very different: each nation must produce a Rural Development Plan (RDP), setting out how the money available will be spent on different measures. The Welsh RDP for 2020 is not yet finalised.</p>
<h2>A gripe with the status quo</h2>
<p>Despite being called “common”, many CAP decisions are delegated to member states. <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/RP14-56/cap-reform-201420-eu-agreement-and-implementation-in-the-uk-and-in-ireland-updated">In the UK</a>, many are then delegated to the separate nations. A key theme in Plaid Cymru’s manifesto is its disagreement with decisions taken in the Welsh Assembly, and how the party would wish to do things differently, if in power. </p>
<p>One of the few local decision related to pillar one concerns “modulation”. This involves top-slicing some of the direct payments – pillar one – and moving the money into rural development – pillar two. Plaid Cymru disagrees with the current approach for two key reasons. </p>
<p>First, because direct payments are so important to Welsh farmers, it opposes the decision to maximise the amount modulated into rural development. Second, it disagrees over the allocation of money to different elements of rural development, wanting more to be spent promoting economic efficiency. These points are broadly consistent – if 80% of Welsh farmers rely on direct payments to keep farming, this raises questions about their efficiency. That said, it is difficult to know exactly how many farmers need the payments to keep farming.</p>
<p>Plaid’s claim that modulation took over <a href="http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/farming-funding-shake-up-set-announced-6506592">£250 million out of Wales’ rural economy</a> is misleading. It is taking money out of direct payments to farmers, but is still available to Wales’ rural economy via rural development measures. The difference is that with direct payments, farmers do not have to do anything extra to receive it; whereas with rural development, bids would have to be made for project funding. </p>
<p>It is clear that Plaid Cymru believe Welsh farmers are largely dependent on direct payments, and that Wales’ rural development money should focus on measures aimed at improving efficiency. Their manifesto indicates that they believe funding for the latter should not come at the expense of the former.</p>
<h2>Welsh meat for Wales!</h2>
<p>Money that is lost from Wales is part of the Red Meat Levy. This is collected from abattoirs and used locally to promote meat. But with much Welsh meat going to English abattoirs, that money does not go back to Meat Promotion Wales but to the English equivalent. Meanwhile, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/groceries-code-adjudicator">Groceries Adjudicator oversees imbalances</a> in economic relationships between (large) supermarkets and (small) farmers. Strengthening their role would also give help to farmers in the marketplace.</p>
<p>The other measures also show Plaid Cymru’s support for Welsh agriculture. The European Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indication schemes <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/schemes/index_en.htm">offer protection and promotion to named products</a> from particular localities. With livestock farming particularly important, support for an Animal Welfare Commissioner – a proposal led by Plaid Cymru – also promotes the values of Welsh agriculture. So too is confronting food fraud (no more <a href="http://theconversation.com/horsemeat-scandal-was-a-damning-indictment-of-the-state-of-our-food-21490">horse meat sold as beef</a>!) and keeping agriculture GMO-free. </p>
<p>Yet it is not just about food producers. Consumers, especially the most vulnerable economically, would benefit from the proposed Food Waste Bill, which seeks to address the amount of food waste at the retail end of the food chain.</p>
<p>Overall, these measures represent a coherent set of goals for the promotion of Welsh agriculture. That said, Plaid Cymru’s ability to deliver on some measures is questionable. The party can continue to lobby for changes to the Red Meat Levy and push for a Food Waste Bill. But its ability to deliver changes to the modulation rate on direct payments – let alone to alter the policy priorities for spending within the next Rural Development Plan – are likely to be limited, within both the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Parliament.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39598/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Ackrill has received funding from The Leverhulme Trust and from the UK Economic and Social Research Council in support of his academic research on the EU Common Agricultural Policy. None of this work involved engagement with partisan party politics, and this article reflects his own expert opinion. </span></em></p>Plaid Cyrmu’s agricultural policies clash with Wales’ current course of action.Robert Ackrill, Professor of European Economics and Policy, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/381762015-03-09T01:58:52Z2015-03-09T01:58:52ZMeat the future: new book sets out the effects of the world’s diet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74037/original/image-20150306-3321-wzaytk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C335%2C3970%2C2622&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Farming makes a huge contribution to global greenhouse emissions, mainly through methane from livestock.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Billy Hathorn/Wikimedia Commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The merits of eating less (or no) meat in a bid to improve environmental sustainability have been frequently debated <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-enough-to-go-vegetarian-to-fight-climate-change-37763">in these pages</a> and elsewhere.</p>
<p>This week saw the launch of a new book, <a href="http://www.ngpf.nl/en/2015/02/18/book-meat-the-future-how-cutting-meat-consumption-can-feed-billions-more/">Meat, The Future: How Cutting Meat Consumption Can Feed Billions More</a>, which delves deep into this question, covering meat-related issues ranging from water and carbon intensity, to health and food security. One chapter, written by us, focuses on the influence of dietary choices on world phosphorus use from fertilisers, and the fate of these nutrients in the ecosphere.</p>
<p>It’s an issue that has already gained plenty of attention. When Al Gore released his influential 2006 movie, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/">An Inconvenient Truth</a>, he focused on how changing our energy systems could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore mitigate climate change. But he was roundly criticised for ignoring another significant source of greenhouse gases: livestock and eating meat. (To his credit, Gore took this critique on board and subsequently <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/25/al-gore-goes-vegan-with-little-fanfare/">adopted a plant-based diet</a>.)</p>
<p>The same year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation released a watershed <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM">report</a> on the environmental impacts of livestock production, finding it responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions – a bigger share than transport (although its analysis was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/24/un-meat-report-climate-change">subsequently debated</a>).</p>
<p>Then, in 2009, the Worldwatch Institute <a href="http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294">estimated</a> that the production of animal-based foods (meat, dairy, eggs) across the whole production chain accounts for 51% of greenhouse emissions. The difference between the two estimates was mainly down to differing assumptions about the lifetime of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. </p>
<p>There can be no doubt that it is a significant and growing contributor. Half of the world’s grain is now used to produce animal feed, and animal consumption is <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM">projected to double between 2000 and 2050</a>. The linkage between food, diet and global sustainability has not had the attention that it deserves.</p>
<h2>Global resource use and dietary choices</h2>
<p>Phosphorus is a unique and critical global resource, essential for growing crops (as for nitrogen) but impossible to substitute or manufacture. The world’s main source of phosphorus fertiliser is <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-010213-113300">highly concentrated geo-politically</a> (more so than oil), and with production likely to peak this century. The use of phosphorus is influenced by changing diets in a major way, with the global growth in per capita consumption being driven by the increase in the consumption of animal products.</p>
<p>Why do animal products have such a disproportionate impact on resource use and waste generation? The main reason is that eating animal products is a very inefficient way of getting the dietary resources we need, including and especially protein. On average, it takes three to ten times the amount of resources to produce a unit of animal protein as it does for plant-based foods. As farming becomes more industrialised, we are feeding animals with food that we could simply eat ourselves.</p>
<p>As it happens, in some high-income countries, people are increasingly losing their appetite for meat and other animal products such as dairy. Consumption is <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000562">plateauing and declining</a>. Certainly a contributor to this is awareness of the health implications of the high levels of meat consumption that are the norm in rich countries. Just in the past fortnight, new <a href="http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015.asp">US government dietary guidelines</a> have recommended a reduction in meat consumption, explicitly linking diet to environmental impact.</p>
<p>However, the consumption of meat and dairy products is increasing rapidly in some emerging economies (including in South America and China), although less rapidly in others (India). This is the key driver for global growth in demand for animal products, leading to increased phosphorus use, greenhouse emissions, land clearing and biodiversity loss and health impacts. </p>
<p>Ultimately this issue will require, at a global level, the kind of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4994296.stm">“contraction and convergence”</a> approach that is being considered as a response to greenhouse gas emissions. Countries with high consumption of animal products will need to reduce their per capita consumption and give everyone the chance to converge on a globally sustainable level. In China alone, there are <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10018-014-0088-8">serious limits</a> to that country’s ability to sustain the phosphorus throughput that would be required if meat consumption levels were to rise as projected. </p>
<h2>The animal cruelty question</h2>
<p>Meat is a complicated issue. Its consumption impacts on resource use (globally critical nutrients, water) and waste generation (agricultural run-off, greenhouse gas emissions), land use and biodiversity, food security, health, international development and animal cruelty. Regarding health impacts, non-communicable diseases are emerging as the <a href="http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS08_Full.pdf">largest cause of premature death</a>, and <a href="http://www.odi.org/future-diets">in 2008 one in three adults in the world, a total of 1.46 billion, was obese or overweight</a>, a 23% increase since 1980.</p>
<p>Yet it is the animal cruelty dimension that generates the most heat in this debate, despite suggestions that it <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-enough-to-go-vegetarian-to-fight-climate-change-37763">should not be raised</a>. What is undeniable is that meat-eating is inefficient, involving far more plant and cereal production to create the same amount of food and thus must be a topic of debate.</p>
<p>The new book does not simply chronicle the problems. There are chapters that discuss the potential for modifying dietary preferences, in the interests of people and the planet. This is a vexed issue because of cultural norms, values, habits and the power of industry lobbies and marketing. The new <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-one-good-reason-for-eating-mainly-plant-foods-38378">US nutrition report</a> starts to provide some balance here.</p>
<p>But the question that the book leaves us with is clear: given that it is possible to have delicious, nutritious, satisfying food without the impact of our current over-reliance on animal products, why wouldn’t we choose that?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38176/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart White has received funding from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the Potter Foundation and CSIRO for his work on phosphorus security.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dana Cordell has received funding from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the Potter Foundation and CSIRO for her work on phosphorus security. She is a non-voting member of the Board of OzHarvest.</span></em></p>Meat uses a lot of resources - between three and ten times as much as plants for the same amount of protein. The rich world might be slowly losing its taste for meat, but the developing world isn’t.Stuart White, Professor, University of Technology SydneyDana Cordell, Research Principal, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/377632015-02-23T19:29:19Z2015-02-23T19:29:19ZIt’s not enough to go vegetarian to fight climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72710/original/image-20150223-21911-16msn82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The face of climate evil, or just a juicy steak? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/96434059@N00/345432322">Sheila/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Could our meat-loving Western diets push climate change over the edge? That was the message of a recent <a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/livestock-%E2%80%93-climate-change%E2%80%99s-forgotten-sector-global-public-opinion-meat-and-dairy">report</a> from UK think tank Chatham House that, even if the world moves away from fossil fuels, growth in meat and dairy consumption could still take global warming beyond the safe threshold of 2C. </p>
<p>The report recommends shifting away from this “<a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org/node/16752">four degree</a>” Western diet in favour of less meat- and emissions-intensive food. </p>
<p>What the evidence shows is that becoming vegetarian might help reduce your personal footprint – but it will be better to focus on a range of solutions if we want to have an impact on climate change. </p>
<h2>How much greenhouse gas do livestock produce?</h2>
<p>The most reliable and accepted estimate is that livestock production contributes <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf">about 14.5%</a> of total greenhouse gases from people, mainly in the form of methane and <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-n2o-the-greenhouse-gas-300-times-worse-than-co2-35204">nitrous oxide</a>. </p>
<p>An ever-expanding number of studies, including <a href="http://www.piccc.org.au/resource/research-publications/357">many of our own</a> at the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, show that emissions from livestock are generally higher than from food crops, based on tonnes of greenhouse gas per unit area and mass of product. </p>
<p>However, it is important to note that, when compared on the basis of greenhouse gas per unit <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377840111001647">protein</a> and per unit <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1316-8">nutrient density</a>, then some livestock products (such as cheese) become comparable with crops. </p>
<p>But could the predicted growth in consumption of livestock products make limiting global warming to 2C impossible? No.</p>
<p>Emissions will not necessarily rise in equal proportion to consumption, even without diet change. The world’s rising middle class is <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dev/44457738.pdf">predicted</a> to increase from 1.8 billion people to 3.2 billion by 2020 and to 4.9 billion by 2030. </p>
<p>Almost all of this growth (85%) will be in Asia where the increasing demand for animal-based protein is notably greater in white meat (fish, poultry, pigs) than red meat (cattle and sheep). </p>
<p>Thus the majority of the predicted future growth is in the lower-emitting livestock products. And waste could be used to generate energy, effectively bringing these industries close to carbon-neutral. </p>
<h2>Vegetarianism isn’t for everyone</h2>
<p>Most studies on the impact of changing diets remain theoretically-based and, to my knowledge, there has been no comprehensive global analysis of the political, ethical, moral and socio-economic challenges of changing diets across countries and cultures. </p>
<p>This is where the debate risks running aground: the privilege of choosing a vegetarian diet is limited to the affluent few, who, due to their declining birth rates, are a declining demographic. The majority of the world’s population remain more concerned about from where their next meal comes. </p>
<p>A focus solely on changing diet patterns runs the risk of becoming embroiled in the same moral arguments we’ve witnessed between the developing and developed economies on equitable greenhouse emission reduction targets and contributions to the <a href="http://news.gcfund.org/">Green Climate Fund</a>. </p>
<p>Both these issues have stalled <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-talks-slouch-towards-paris-as-lima-summit-finally-wraps-up-35478">international climate negotiations</a>, with the developed world (wealthy) being accused of dictating to the developing world (poor) that they cannot aspire to the same standard of living as has been enjoyed by the West while we created the climate change problem. </p>
<p>In the rather politically-charged debate on how to deal with climate change, the focus on vegetarianism as a solution to global warming also runs the risk of being dismissed as another line of attack for animal rights activists. </p>
<h2>Don’t put all your eggs in one basket</h2>
<p>Changing diets isn’t the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture – and these alternatives are often missing in the commentary around meat-eating. </p>
<p>Few studies have reported, for example, on how <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1329-y#page-1">diet moderation</a> can be combined with clean energy generation from livestock waste, and greater research efforts into reducing methane produced by livestock.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141310000739">Significant advances</a> have already been made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production systems including via livestock diets, breeding and inhibiting the microbes that produce methane. </p>
<p>There are now also well-established technologies for energy generation from livestock waste. </p>
<p>Compare this to the energy generation sector, where many studies have looked at combinations of solutions to reduce greenhouse has emissions, including reduced energy consumption, geo-sequestration, clean coal technologies and switching to alternative energy sources. </p>
<p>It is not the Western diet, but the Western lifestyle that is a “four degree lifestyle. The rest of the world cannot afford to converge around such levels of excess. We need a range of complementary solutions, rather than putting all our eggs in one basket.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37763/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Eckard receives funding from the Department of Agriculture, Meat and Livestock Australia and Dairy Australia. </span></em></p>Going vegetarian might help reduce your personal footprint - but it won’t save the climate. Richard Eckard explains.Richard Eckard, Associate Professor & Director, Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/343182014-12-03T06:13:22Z2014-12-03T06:13:22ZHard Evidence: meat means emissions – so which countries are doing the most damage?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65932/original/image-20141201-20560-4poxg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C1%2C1020%2C645&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gas trap.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/59860697@N06/5526908445/sizes/l/in/photolist-9qoRjV-9uWPz7-3bxQ56-3bxQ2z-9nVfXF-9uTPLK-9uTPPv-9uTPDk-n86Mg5-98oXBZ-6hQTEH-6hQTQP-6hQT7k-8Rb5uC-5LYyQy-6VXx3Q-6ZM7Md-dHAcLt/">Plasticchef1</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions created by humans are <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/">a primary cause of global warming</a>. While carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use make up the largest share of these emissions, non-CO<sub>2</sub> greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) contribute substantially to overall warming and livestock – and the meat that we eat – is a big contributor. </p>
<p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) <a href="http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html">provides guidelines</a> for estimating livestock emissions on a regional level. Direct emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from livestock worldwide has been recently estimated: they represent <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1197-x#page-1">about 9% of total GHG emissions</a> caused by human activity. The IPCC guidelines offer a relatively simple and robust accounting for estimating GHG emissions produced in each country. </p>
<p>However, producing countries are not the only ones responsible for emissions: the goods and services being produced are exported <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/12/5687">for consumption in other countries</a>. In other words, the responsibility for emissions from meat lies with consumers as much as producers. </p>
<h2>Alternative accounting</h2>
<p>Along with other researchers we have developed alternative accounting systems that re-allocate GHG emissions from producers to consumers. In <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114005/article">a study we recently published</a> in Environmental Research Letters, we estimated the total non-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from beef, pork and chicken consumption in 237 countries between 1990 to 2010, allocating emissions embodied in trade to countries on the basis of consumer demand for meat. </p>
<p>These emissions were attributed to consumer countries after first estimating the livestock emissions produced by the digestive process that leads to methane release in animals, along with manure management and manure left on pasture in the origin country. We then used data from the new <a href="http://faostat.fao.org/">FAOSTAT database</a> to work out emissions from the import and export of meat.</p>
<p>The study highlighted the countries with the largest difference between production and consumption emissions and revealed where fluxes of non-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are greatest. </p>
<p>We found that in 2010, 36.1 Mt (<a href="http://www.dalkia.ie/ireland-energy/ressources/documents/1/20202,Guide-equivalences-CO2.pdf">millions of tonnes</a>) of CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent emissions were related to meat produced in one country but consumed in a different country. Of this total, 72% was methane and 28% was nitrous oxide. In particular, 26.7Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq (74%), 7.3 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq (20%) and 2.1Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq (6%) emissions related to beef, pork and chicken respectively that were produced in one country and consumed in another. </p>
<p>Although the emissions embodied in traded beef were greater than those of pork or chicken, the emissions from traded beef grew at a slower rate (4%) between 1990-2010 than those related to pork and chicken (81% and 360%, respectively). </p>
<h2>Mapping what’s coming and going</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65836/original/image-20141128-20572-ljm4bk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The largest international fluxes of meat-related emissions embodied in trade in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dario Caro/Environmental Research Letters</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The dominant global fluxes are the export of emissions embodied in meat from Brazil and Argentina to Russia (2.8 and 1.4 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq, respectively). Meat exported to Russia embodied 5.2 Mt of CO2-eq emissions; we found that in Russia, 18% of meat-related emissions were traded internationally in 2010. In the same year, emissions embodied in US imports of meat from Canada were equal to emissions embodied in US exports to Mexico: 1.2 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. Australian meat exports to South Korea also embodied substantial emissions: 1.0 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65843/original/image-20141128-20565-4onwef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Meat traded to and from the European region did not embody substantial quantities of GHG emissions in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dario Caro/Environmental Research Letters</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Figure b reveals that trade among European countries was quite substantial. In particular, meat exported from France to Italy and Greece embodied 1.4 Mt and 1.2 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions, respectively. In addition, Italian imports of meat from Poland, Germany and Netherlands embodied 0.7 Mt, 0.6 Mt, and 0.7 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions, respectively. We found that in Italy about 30% of meat-related emissions were traded internationally in 2010. Elsewhere in Europe, meat exported from Ireland to the UK embodied 1.0 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions. </p>
<p>Globally, percent changes in traded emissions from 1990 to 2010 vary by region and type of meat. The graphs below show the emissions from production and consumption of beef, pork and chicken in several countries in 2010, as well as the percentage change under consumption-based accounting in the same year (negative percentages indicate net export of embodied emissions and positive percentages indicate net import of embodied emissions).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65982/original/image-20141201-20591-awdp0l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Non-CO2 emissions due to production and consumption of beef for the largest importing/exporting countries in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114005/article">Dario Caro et al/Environmental Letters Review/Data Wrapper</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65987/original/image-20141201-20576-1s9panv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Non-CO2 emissions due to production and consumption of pork for the largest importing/exporting countries in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114005/article">Dario Caro et al/Environmental Letters Review/Data Wrapper</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65991/original/image-20141201-20572-4qgrnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Non-CO2 emissions due to production and consumption of chicken for the largest importing/exporting countries in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114005/article">Dario Caro et al/Environmental Letters Review/Data Wrapper</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Meat eating and export is going up</h2>
<p>We concluded that long-term growth in the international trade of meat since 1990 means that methane and nitrous oxide emissions from beef, pork and chicken produced in one country are increasingly related to meat consumption in a different country. In particular, we found that large transfers of emissions from meat between North American countries, from South America to Russia, and between European countries.</p>
<p>Our findings are important because they quantify the superimposed effects of three important global trends: the growth of international trade; the industrialisation and intensification of meat production; and the increasing consumption of meat. </p>
<p>The overall growth in emissions from the meat trade indicates that the emissions related to increasing consumption of meat are also increasingly disconnected in space from the point of consumption. This spatial disconnect of production and consumption is a challenge for regional or national policies that regulate livestock emissions, because all existing policies neglect any emissions embodied in trade. </p>
<p>The main drivers of meat-related emissions in international trade are the volume and type of meat traded. The trade of beef is the largest source of livestock-related emissions. This is due to the large volume of beef traded internationally and the emission intensity of non-dairy cattle, which is substantially higher than pork and chicken mainly due to greater GHG emissions released during enteric fermentation.</p>
<p>Consequently, beef releases more emissions than pork and chicken per ton of meat traded. Dietary preferences are a strong driver of livestock emissions, with beef generally related to substantially more GHG emissions per ton of meat traded than pork and chicken, and much more than vegetables. Therefore, substituting pork, chicken or vegetables for beef in the diet could reduce livestock emissions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dario Caro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions created by humans are a primary cause of global warming. While carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use make up the largest share…Dario Caro, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/329842014-10-22T09:27:46Z2014-10-22T09:27:46ZHow to satisfy our appetite for meat without ruining the planet<p><strong>Foundation essay</strong>: <em>This article is part of a series marking the launch of The Conversation in the US. Our foundation essays are longer than our usual comment and analysis articles and take a wider look at key issues affecting society.</em></p>
<p>Ending global hunger, once just a utopian vision, is now a goal within reach. Between 1990 and 2014, despite a so-called “world food crisis,” undernourishment worldwide fell steadily <a href="http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2014/en/">from 18.7% to just 11.3%</a>, according to the United Nations. Dr Jim Kim, the President of the World Bank, now says that extreme poverty around the world can be ended by 2030, if governments <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/video/2013/04/02/jim-kim-world-can-end-extreme-poverty">take proper actions</a>. When extreme poverty disappears, the worst kinds of hunger disappear as well.</p>
<p>We have learned how to attack hunger, even in rural South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa where it remains most persistent. Here, the largest number of undernourished people are actually poor farmers, because their farming systems are unimproved and the productivity of their labor is so low. The proven path toward poverty reduction in these areas is increased government investment in roads, electrical power, irrigation, fertilizer, clinics, schools, and agricultural research. </p>
<p>Yet even if the hunger problem is overcome, a new problem will arise. The human need for food will eventually come to be met in the developing world, but the human appetite for diets that are rich in fish, meat, and animal products may be more difficult to satisfy. This growing demand is driven primarily by income growth. <a href="http://www.ifpri.org/pressrelease/improving-investments-policies-and-productivity-critical-combating-hunger-and-malnutrit">The International Food Policy Research Institute projects</a> that, thanks to income and population growth in combination, the developing world will be consuming more than twice as much meat as it is consuming today by 2050. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61417/original/snjdmsrg-1412948877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61417/original/snjdmsrg-1412948877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61417/original/snjdmsrg-1412948877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61417/original/snjdmsrg-1412948877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61417/original/snjdmsrg-1412948877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61417/original/snjdmsrg-1412948877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61417/original/snjdmsrg-1412948877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ready for market.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-94144309/stock-photo-calves-on-the-field.html?src=pp-photo-94078369-P4SIs5h8OHLysERIkbtyZA">Cow image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A little bit of meat is a good thing</h2>
<p>Among the world’s poorest people, increased meat, milk, egg, and fish consumption will be beneficial to human health, since it will address protein and micronutrient deficiencies that tend to persist even among those who are finally getting enough total calories. </p>
<p>Moderate meat and fish consumption is also good for bolstering human immune systems. In some regions, in fact, we should be hoping for a larger increase in meat consumption than the one now forecast: the projected rise from just 10kg per capita today up to only 12-13kg by 2030 in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa is <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e07.htm#P5_2">far too small to provide adequate benefit</a>. Meat consumption does not become a risk to human health until we reach the average level in today’s rich countries, which is 95kg per capita. </p>
<p>However, increased meat consumption and production in poor countries will pose serious risks of another kind. If developing countries try to satisfy a doubling of demand for meat and fish consumption by simply expanding their traditional livestock and fish catch systems, the result will be an environmental calamity. </p>
<p>Traditional livestock methods, in Africa for example, would require twice as much pasture area and could destroy fragile grazing lands and natural wildlife habitats. If developing countries attempt to double their wild catch of fresh water or ocean fish, wild stocks that are already over-exploited will collapse. Between 1990 and 2009, fish consumption in China <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf">increased at an annual rate of 6%</a>, roughly doubling every decade. To meet this demand, the government recently decided to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324669104578205041179985354">expand its long-range fishing fleet by another 16%</a> between 2013 and 2015 alone, bringing new levels of risk to ocean resources. </p>
<h2>Large-scale farms also bring risks</h2>
<p>Some developing countries may choose to solve their animal and fish production problems by bringing in international companies to set up the industrial-scale systems now pervasive in the United States and Europe. Large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) make clear commercial sense in rich countries, where labor is expensive and investment capital is abundant. In his book <a href="http://www.christopherleonard.biz/the-book.html">The Meat Racket</a>, investigative journalist Christopher Leonard found that in the United States today, a large hog producer with 5,000 pigs can raise a pound of pork with 28% less feed and 70% less human labor than a smaller producer with only 500 pigs. In developing countries, however, conditions are different: investment capital is scarce, labor is more abundant, and livelihoods depend on small to mid-sized operations. </p>
<p>The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that <a href="http://www.ifad.org/rpr2011/report/e/overview.pdf">70% of the world’s 1.4 billion poorest people</a> raise livestock for meat, milk, or eggs. In Kenya 85% of milk sold in the country today comes from small <a>producers with fewer than five cows</a>. If these traditional systems are bypassed or replaced too quickly by industrial scale CAFOs, the livelihoods of the poor will be placed at risk. It makes more sense to begin with upgrades in veterinary medicine, feed quality, and marketing, while postponing investments in highly-specialized, fully automated systems. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61444/original/y7c847xj-1412974200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">No room to move.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-147846674/stock-photo-pig-in-stable.html?src=28ytcefBahbPO1cfftzo-Q-1-6">Pig image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are also significant environmental risks associated with industrial-scale production systems. </p>
<p>Concentrated animal feeding and aquaculture systems result in high concentrations of animal waste, which can foul air and water. This kind of pollution is difficult to control even in countries with strong regulatory capacity. In the United States, for example, river waters in 29 different states have been polluted by the discharge of <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf">untreated animal waste</a>. In 1995, an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River, killing about 10 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/farms.asp">coastal wetlands to shellfishing</a>. </p>
<h2>Is anyone watching?</h2>
<p>Environmental protection is difficult for political as well as technical reasons. As livestock industries grow larger in size and scale, their political influence increases, and they become capable of resisting regulation. </p>
<p>Concentrated animal feeding operations will be even more difficult to regulate in developing countries. As recently as a decade ago, 90% of animal farms in China faced <a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/factory_farms_feb28.pdf">no pollution control at all</a> and the circumstances today are only marginally better. In March 2014, Chinese state media reported that nearly <a href="http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-03/26/content_17380757.htm">500 dead pigs were being removed</a> from a reservoir in Sichuan every month. It is possible that such problems will be eliminated once livestock production moves toward a more concentrated, specialized, and industrialized form, but China’s history of under-regulation makes this uncertain. </p>
<p>The welfare of food animals is a final concern. Industrial-style confinement systems for food animals in the United States are designed to optimize the economic productivity of the animals, not their social or emotional welfare. Some productivity enhancing methods are highly questionable on welfare grounds – for example, when pregnant sow pigs are confined to small crates, unable even to turn around for weeks at a time. If such systems spread into the developing world, where credible regulations to protect farm animal welfare are essentially non-existent, the potential for inhumane treatment will grow exponentially.</p>
<p>Asking those who are newly prosperous to accept a vegetarian diet – something today’s wealthy countries would never tolerate – is not the answer. Paying more attention to the environmental, human livelihood, and animal welfare risks of expanded meat production, and to the regulatory requirements for reducing those risks, will be the place to start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32984/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Paarlberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Foundation essay: This article is part of a series marking the launch of The Conversation in the US. Our foundation essays are longer than our usual comment and analysis articles and take a wider look…Robert Paarlberg, Professor of Political Science, Wellesley CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/294912014-07-21T19:20:44Z2014-07-21T19:20:44ZThe true cost of cattle is much, much higher than you imagine<p>That eating beef is environmentally costly is by now widely appreciated. But little has been done to curtail the amount of cattle farmed for meat consumption. To try and address this, my colleagues and I decided to calculate just how costly beef production is for the environment, and how it stacks up against pork, poultry, dairy and eggs. Our hope is that better knowledge of the environmental costs of raising animals for food will help improve both the dietary choices people make and agricultural policies.</p>
<p>Our research, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, found that raising beef cattle is far more environmentally costly than poultry, pork, dairy or eggs. Per calorie, cattle requires on average <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1402183111">28 times more land and 11 times more water</a> to farm. Farming cattle releases five times more greenhouse gases and uses six times as much nitrogen as the average of other animal products. </p>
<p>When compared with staple plant foods, these ratios roughly double. So, a beef calorie requires about 50 times more land than a wheat calorie. By comparison, pork, poultry and eggs are all roughly on the same level of environmental cost. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use and the levels of nitrogen discharge from fertiliser run-off, dairy is comparable to pork, poultry and eggs. </p>
<p>While it’s long been clear that vegetarian diets produce lower environmental costs than ones involving produce from animals, people are still intent on eating food derived from animals – and with ever-increasing gusto. Taking note of this, we sought to identify the types of animal-based food that are least environmentally harmful.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=231&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=231&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=231&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54472/original/qgwdchwv-1405960421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Environmental costs of animal foods in (l to r) land, water, greenhouse gas, and nitrogen, compared to common plant foods such as wheat, rice and potato (green text).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Eshel/Shepon/Makov/Milo</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The (environmental) cost of food</h2>
<p>Though numerous studies have addressed elements of this issue, they have mostly used data from individual farms, typically one or at most a handful. But farms differ markedly geographically, from season to season and year to year, and are thus not necessarily representative of the big picture. </p>
<p>By contrast, we used the reverse, top-down approach by analysing national level data. While previous studies mostly addressed one environmental burden at a time (typically greenhouse gas emissions, but also water or land use), we simultaneously addressed each of them in order to offer a multi-dimensional view of the environmental performance of the livestock industry in the US. </p>
<p>We measured greenhouse gas emissions, water and land use, and reactive nitrogen discharge levels from manure or fertiliser. <a href="http://www.wired.com/2008/05/reactive-nitrog/">Reactive nitrogen</a> is environmentally important because it is the most common cause of degradation in freshwater ponds, streams and lakes, and around coastlines where fertiliser run-off washed into rivers reaches the sea.</p>
<p>We address the five main animal based products in the American diet: dairy, beef, poultry, pork and eggs, calculating the environmental costs per nutritional unit, calorie or gram protein. Our key challenge was devising accurate values of how much land, water, and reactive nitrogen livestock required, and the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.</p>
<p>Working out these estimates required navigating numerous subtleties. For example, grazing cattle in the arid to semi-arid western US uses an enormous amount of land, but little or no irrigation. Grain-fed feedlot cattle, by contrast, use much less land, but require cultivated grains that depend strongly on nitrogen fertiliser. We needed to fairly account for these differences across the country, while determining figures that reflect, approximately, the true environmental costs.</p>
<h2>Making better decisions</h2>
<p>These findings have a number of implications. First, this research can inform environmentally minded individuals so they can make environmentally better dietary choices. Perhaps more importantly, the paper can also help inform agricultural policy, in the US and worldwide. In a companion paper in the Journal of Agricultural Science (forthcoming) we have laid down a foundation for analysing the environmental costs of any diet, including plant-based diets and those of other nations. </p>
<p>Perhaps our key contribution is to highlight areas in which improvement is most likely, and where a focused effort is likely to yield the most desirable change. Applying these methods to global diets can help improve long term global food security in light of the effects of climate change, water and land shortage, and rising population.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29491/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gidon Eshel is the principal of environmentalCalculations.com
</span></em></p>That eating beef is environmentally costly is by now widely appreciated. But little has been done to curtail the amount of cattle farmed for meat consumption. To try and address this, my colleagues and…Gidon Eshel, Research Professor of Environmental Science , Bard CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.