Meat - Facing the Dilemmas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Meat: the challengeTara GarnettEnvironmentMeat costs the climate but mitigation isn’t simpleOur growing world is hungry for meat.According to the Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO), demand in thedeveloping world for meat and milk is set todouble between 2002 and 2030. Populationand per capita demand will rise. The rise inthe developed world will be more mutedbut starts from a high base. The averageBrit consumes around 44 grams of animalprotein a day, compared with the developingworld where consumption is less than halfthat, at 21 grams.1Does this matter, environmentally? Yes,according to the FAO. In a major reporton the environmental impacts of livestockfarming it states: “The livestock sectoremerges as one of the top two or three mostsignificant contributors to the most seriousenvironmental problems, at every scale fromglobal to local.”2Livestock’s contribution to climate changeposes particular challenges. In the samereport, the FAO calculates that livestockaccount for 18 percent of total anthropogenicgreenhouse gas emissions. Cows and sheepburp a lot releasing methane, which has aglobal warming potency 21 times greaterthan CO2. Livestock of all kinds also releasenitrous oxide, 300 times more potent thanCO2. The 18 percent also takes into accountcarbon losses from land or forest clearanceto make way for livestock rearing.The FAO figure is global. The figure is highbecause agriculture is a relatively big playerin the economies of many developingcountries. In the developed world, wherethere are greater emissions from transport,manufacturing and domestic energyuse, livestock make a relatively smallercontribution to overall greenhouse gasemissions even though in absolute terms(owing to greater animal numbers) emissionsmay be higher.One EU report draws upon both top-downand bottom-up studies of the environmentalimpacts of products consumed in theEU, including food.3 On the basis ofenvironmental input-output calculations itconcludes that the food sector in its entiretyaccounts for up to 31 percent of the EU-25’sgreenhouse gas emissions. Meat and dairyproducts account for about half of these foodrelated emissions.What about the UK? Using published data,it is possible to calculate that our productionof livestock products in the UK contributesover six percent to the UK’s greenhousegas emissions. When it comes to UKconsumption – taking imports into account– this rises to eight percent.Of course, we also need to take into accountthe emissions that livestock help ‘save.’ Ifwe did not eat meat or drink milk we wouldhave to expend energy and emit greenhousegases to produce substitute foods. Moreover,livestock provide us with leather, wool,manure (soil fertiliser) and other animalbasedproducts; without them, we wouldhave to grow or manufacture substituteswhich again require energy to produce andwill inevitably generate greenhouse gases. Itis important to recognise too that livestockcan and do make use of waste food and byproductsthat may be going spare, and grazeon land that cannot not be used productivelyfor any other form of agriculture. In otherwords, while livestock farming generatesconsiderable volumes of greenhouse gases, itis undoubtedly the case that were livestocknot being reared, greenhouse gases wouldstill be emitted as we go about producingsubstitutes for the goods that livestockcurrently provide.So, what can we do to reduce greenhousegas emissions from livestock? Variousapproaches are being considered and adopted,largely in the developed world. One optionis to modify the feed: for example, cattle fedmore cereals and oilseed cake, and fewerfibrous foods such as by-products or poorquality grass, tend to produce less methane.Other approaches include breeding moreproductive animals (such as higher yieldingdairy cows) meaning that fewer animals needto be reared per given quantity of milk ormeat. More effectively managing the wasteoutputs of livestock rearing, mainly manure,is the focus of further activity. Indeed themanure can be anaerobically digested, withthe resulting methane used as a fuel source.However, some measures may havedamaging consequences for animal welfareand raise the question of what our ‘ethicalnon-negotiables’ might be. Other measuresmay affect biodiversity. There may be‘second order’ impacts to consider too, withnegative consequences for climate changingemissions. For example, to what extentmight livestock consumption of oilseed cakelead to further deforestation to make wayfor, say, soybean plantations?We need to do our thinking with globalpopulation growth in mind. By 2050 theglobal population is projected to top ninebillion. Demand for land, for food and forenergy will grow. If land is used for livestock,however efficiently, it means that therewill be less available to grow other food orbiofuels. As a result, hungry people may beforced to farm on ever more marginal landswith – among other things – damagingconsequences for carbon storage.Bearing in mind the multiple pressures onland use, global increases in population, theimportance of other non-climate-relatedenvironmental issues, the ethical obligationto care well for the animals we use and thelimitation of technological-managerialsolutions, a key conclusion we would drawis that if we are serious about tackling foodrelatedgreenhouse gas emissions, we needto consider making significant reductions inour overall production and consumption oflivestock products, while seeking to maximisethe benefits that livestock can bring.Tara Garnett co-ordinatesthe Food Climate ResearchNetwork (FCRN) at theUniversity of Surrey’s Centrefor Environmental Strategy.She has recently published aworking paper for FCRN onthe climate impacts of themeat and dairy sectors.t.garnett@surrey.ac.uk1 100 grams of chicken contains around 30 grams ofprotein.2 Steinfeld, H. et al. (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. FAO.3 EIPRO (2006) Analysis of the life cycle environmentalimpacts related to the total final consumption of theEU25. European Commission Technical Report EUR 22284.08 Winter 2007 | Volume 2 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org
How should we farmanimals in 2050?What principles should underpin livestock farming in future? Where shouldwe be in 40 years and how will we get there? We asked some of the peoplewho influence how animals are farmed today…The big questionSteven TaitThere will always be consumers who willbuy on price – now and in 2050. But themore consumers are informed about animalwelfare and the more the media continue togive highly effective voice to these concerns,the more the retail sector will react.This is already happening. The growth in ourown farm animal welfare scheme, FreedomFood, from seven million animals to 160million in four years is just one indicator thatretailer strategies are being increasinglydriven by corporate social responsibility.However, the industry will polarise betweenhigh-value, high-quality production,primarily based in this country, and moreintensive systems, primarily based overseas,with cheaper food products imported intothe UK. Again, this will be driven by retailersresponding to the differing demands of theircustomers. In the UK, we need to focus onanimal welfare, environment, quality, andprovenance as our differentiators.I hope that the welfare standards thatlivestock are reared to overseas will alsoimprove, but it is likely that their standardswill lag behind those of the UK. I doubt thiswill cause more consumers to move awayfrom buying on price alone.Continued improvements in the way inwhich we rear our livestock, here or abroad,require food production to be kept at thetop of consumers’ minds.Transport of live animals is likely to beone of the most difficult welfare issues toovercome. It has been driven mainly by theclosure of small abattoirs and it frustratesattempts to provide locally sourced products.The government must put resources intorebuilding and supporting local abattoirs toalleviate this problem.Matt HoweSustainability may be a buzz word for sometoday, however, as we look towards 2050,it is clear that it will become a part of oureveryday lives and govern many of our dayto-daydecisions.In 2050, McDonald’s will have justcelebrated our 75th anniversary in the UK.If Big Macs and milkshakes are to continueas a feature of our menu, it is vital that weassure a sustainable supply chain, and therecent changes that we’ve made to ourcoffee offer are a good example of what Imean.All the coffee we sell is Rainforest Alliancecertified, served with British organic milk,making it one of the most ethical productson the high street. As well as deliveringhigh quality beans, the Rainforest Allianceaddresses both social and environmentalcriteria in their certification process. It is thisholistic approach that sets it apart and makesit a sustainable, long term, platform.The foundation of our business is the 100percent British and Irish beef in our burgers.It is vital we make the same progressivemoves to help establish a sustainable beefsupply chain.So will we see a similar certificationprogramme for beef as we see in coffee?Possibly. What is beyond question is theneed to develop a foundation for economicand ecological efficiency in conjunctionwith strong animal welfare standards. Ecoefficiency,as defined by the World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development,addresses many of these aspects.It is this drive for Eco-Efficiency that I believemust underpin the beef industry as weapproach 2050.Ken LaughlinThe last 40 years have seen rapid changesin world agriculture.This topic can onlybe addressed by making a series ofassumptions about changes to 2050 whichdefine a new ethos. These are:Animals will continue to be farmed formeat and milk and that fundamentalanimal welfare requirements aresatisfied wherever this occurs.The fallacy of growing edible cropsfor biofuel production will havebeen exposed and will have ceased.In the key drivers for meat and milkproduction environmental impact will be amajor component of economic evaluation.Therefore in animal production simplefeed efficiency – food weight in, to saleableyield out – will have been replaced byspecific efficiencies of energy, protein,phosphorous etc. This means that retentionand excretion will be determined, andthe latter has a major impact on globalwarming potential.Feed and energy-intensive meat and milkproduction will have been relocated toclimatically suitable areas of the globecloser to the main grain and proteinmeal producing regions. These regionsalso require less use of primary energy inhusbandry systems in order to maintainthe health and welfare of the animals.Thus food production will be drivenby the need to feed people efficiently.Fundamentally inefficient productionsystems which may give a small minorityof consumers a ‘feel good’ factor willhave been eclipsed by a global productionsystem that addresses the broader ethos ofsustainable food production for all peopleacross the whole planet.Steven Tait is Head of Sales and Marketingat the RSPCA / Freedom Food Ltd.www.rspca.org.ukMatt Howe is Senior Vice President ChiefSupport Officer at McDonald’s Restaurants UK.www.mcdonalds.co.ukDr Ken Laughlin is Vice President of Policy and Strategyfor Aviagen, which breeds poultry. He has providedtechnical advice to poultry farmersin all regions of the worldwww.aviagen.www.foodethicscouncil.org | Volume 2 Issue 4 | Winter 2007 09
Page 2 and 3: Contents050607080913161718192021030
Page 4 and 5: Morecambe Bay- three years on Super
Page 6 and 7: John WibberleyProducersRural liveli
Page 10 and 11: Henry BullerIn 2050, we should be f
Page 12 and 13: Jason MathenyI hope and expect that
Page 14 and 15: e made. But even the most optimisti
Page 16 and 17: Roland BonneyMeat productionWe need
Page 18 and 19: Where next?Steve SuppanMeat tradeFo
Page 20 and 21: Punishing our pinta?We should face
Page 22 and 23: eview readingStuffed and starved: m
Page 24: upcoming events4th - 5th Dec ‘075

Meat - Facing the Dilemmas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?