Meat - Facing the Dilemmas

Where next?Meat consumptionIf government can take on flying it can take on meatRussell MarshMeat and dairy consumption accounts foraround eight percent of UK greenhouse gasemissions – not far off the contribution fromaviation. But, in the debate about climatechange we don’t hear much about meat’scarbon impact; it doesn’t make headlines orform part of policy proposals.Yet this will change. The climate changebill, announced in the Queen’s Speechin November, will lock this and futuregovernments into legally binding emissionreduction targets to 2020 and 2050. Giventhat UK CO2 emissions are currently rising,meeting these targets for a 26-32 percentreduction by 2020 and a 60 percent reductionby 2050 is going to be very challenging.Reaching these targets is going to requireaction in every sector of the economy. Bothaviation and farming will have to be a partof this.Despite a similar level of emissions, aviationgets more attention than meat and dairy.Though the UK government was initiallyhesitant to tackle people’s ‘freedom to fly’,it is now leading European efforts to bringaviation into the EU Emissions TradingScheme and it has recently announced thatit will levy a ‘carbon tax’ on planes leavingthe UK. And industry is responding. Airlinesare falling over themselves to be seen asthe greenest, while the Soil Association andmajor supermarkets are grappling with theenvironmental and social footprint of airfreightingfood.There are precedents forintervening in peoples’lifestyles where there is aclear public benefitBy contrast, there has been little fuss aboutmeat and dairy. Why? Because it is highlysensitive. Diet is an emotive, personal issueand most people don’t want the governmenttelling them what they should and shouldn’teat. The worry is that the only way to tacklethis issue is to try and persuade people to bevegetarian or vegan. This would be politicallyimpossible.But, as the recent actions on obesity andsmoking have shown, and indeed theaction on aviation, there is a precedent forintervening in people’s lifestyles where thereis a clear public benefit.So what can we learn from action in these twoareas that may help in developing appropriateinterventions for the meat and diary sectors?The smoking and obesity debates show ustwo things. First, that the links to health areimportant, and may, for food, be a strongerdriver for action than climate change. There isplenty of evidence that a more balanced dietcontaining less animal protein is better foryou. A communications initiative linked tothe health benefits of a diet lower in animalprotein is likely to have more resonance thanone purely focussed on the carbon impacts.The second thing they show us is theimportance of information and evidence.If the government is going to take action itneeds a robust evidence base to justify anyintervention. For obesity and smoking thisevidence was readily available and is nowbroadly accepted by the public. The samecannot be said for the carbon impacts of ourfood, although this is starting to change:research in this area is starting to providesome compelling figures.Likewise, if the government wantsindividuals to take a particular action – eathealthier food for example – they need toprovide us with the information that enablesus to make the right choices. This in turn willhelp drive the market in the right direction.In nutrition this is happening though foodlabelling. Retailers and producers are nowproducing, selling, and advertising morenutritionally balanced products.Labels are being introduced specifying thecarbon footprint of food under an initiativeby the Carbon Trust. A number of retailersand individual food companies are startingto calculate the carbon footprint of theproducts they produce and sell. This is givingthe industry much better information aboutthe carbon emissions associated with theirproducts and where in the supply chain thoseemissions arise. Not surprisingly, severalhave discovered that the big carbon impactscome from producing the raw materials.Often this means meat and dairy. As thisevidence base develops it will increase thefocus on the need to tackle greenhouse gasemissions from the livestock sector.So, things are starting to happen. It islikely that the combination of the ClimateChange Bill and carbon footprinting foodproducts will increase pressure to takeaction in farming. Yet this is unlikely to beenough. Look again at the aviation industry.Information on the carbon implications offlights alone does not change the frequencywith which people fly. The question for meatand dairy is whether the government will bebold enough, as it has been in other areas,to respond to the evidence and intervenefurther.Will government be boldenough to intervene overmeat and dairy?It could start with the food provided throughits own institutions and on the public estate,and commit to reducing the animal proteincontent (or the carbon emissions) of themeals served. And perhaps the time has cometo consider how to introduce a carbon priceinto this market to focus the industry ondeveloping low-carbon solutions. Whateverthe government chooses to do, it will have todo something – it cannot ignore this sectorany longer.Russell Marsh is Head of Policyat Green Alliance, which workswith senior people ingovernment, parliament,business and NGOs to makeenvironmental solutions apriority in British politics.rmarsh@green-alliance.org.ukwww.foodethicscouncil.org | Volume 2 Issue 4 | Winter 2007 17