1jjtwKx

36384042444648RANCHERS IN THE RAINFORESTIn Brazil’s Amazon region, the world’ssecond-largest herd of cattle meets theworld’s biggest rainforest. This is bad newsfor the forest. First come the loggers,then come the ranchers.THE GLYPHOSATE IN YOUR BURGERIf pesticides, herbicides or medicines leaveunwanted residues in meat, milk andeggs, we end up consuming them too. Gapsin research leave uncertainty aboutwhat glyphosate – a weedkiller used whengrowing genetically modified soybeans –does to our bodies. Legal loopholes mean wemay be eating it without knowing it.A PLETHORA OF POULTRY: CHICKENSTAKE THE LEADIn developed countries, consumptionof chicken is surpassing that of beef,and chicken production is nowhighly industrialized. Demand in Asia isrising fast, and people who refusepork and beef are happy to eat chicken.WHERE KEEPING CHICKENSIS WOMEN’S WORKMany women in Africa and Asia are forcedto be dependent on their husbands for bigdecisions. A few hens, chicks and eggs canbuild their confidence and self-reliance.Their contribution to the meat supply is oftenunderestimated.IMPORTED CHICKEN WINGS DESTROYWEST AFRICAN BUSINESSESEuropean poultry firms are not permittedto turn slaughter by-products into animalfeed. So they export them to developingcountries and sell them cheap. Broiler farmsin Ghana and Benin have gone bankrupt.DISQUIET IN THE DEVELOPED WORLDDemand for meat in the developed worldhas peaked, and is beginning to declineslowly. Consumers’ worries about food safetyare reinforced by scandals in theindustry. The industry is trying to improveits image with marketing ploys, butconsumers are confused and the product isnot necessarily any better.HALF A BILLION NEW MIDDLE-CLASS CONSUMERS FROM RIO TOSHANGHAIBrazil, Russia, India, China and SouthAfrica – the BRICS – are five big developingcountries that are setting out fromdifferent starting points. They may notend up with the food consumption patternsof the industrialized West.MEAT ATLAS505254565860626466URBAN LIVESTOCK KEEPINGFor many, urban livestock is acontradiction in terms. Isn’t livestock-raisinga rural activity, and don’t cities banlivestock because of the smell, noise andpollution? Yet urban livestock arecrucial for the livelihoods of many poor citydwellers. And they provide nutritiousfood at lower prices than their country cousins.TURNING SCRUB INTO PROTEINMuch of the world’s livestock, and much of itsmeat, milk and eggs, are raised bynon-industrial producers. Many of themmanage their animals on land that isunsuited for crops, optimizing the use oflocal resources. But the existence ofthese producers is under increasing threat.IN SEARCH OF GOOD FOODConcerned consumers in the rich world facea dilemma. They want good-quality meatthat is produced in an environmentallyfriendly, ethical manner. How best to ensurethis? Here we look at some alternatives.VEGETARIANISM: MANY ROOTS,MANY SHOOTSOnly a small percentage of the populationin the industrialized world describethemselves as vegetarians or vegans. Suchlifestyles are more common in partsof the world where religions play a majorrole. In most faiths, followers areexpected to abstain from meat in one wayor another.WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT:INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPSGiven all the problems with livestockproduction and meat consumption,is there anything that normal people cando? Yes: individuals can makechoices about their consumption patterns,and groups can push for change.A GREENER POLICY FOR EUROPEThe EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)has for decades supported, and distorted,farm production. It has evolved fromsupporting large-scale production to takingthe environment increasingly intoaccount. But problems remain. A greenerCAP could promote socially and ecologicallysound livestock production.AUTHORS AND SOURCESFOR DATA AND GRAPHICSRESOURCESAbout US26 topicsand 80 graphicson how we produceand consumemeat5

INTRODUCTIONFood is very personal. It is not just a need. Foodoften embodies certain feelings: familiarity,relaxation, routine, or even stress. We eat indifferent types of situations and have our own,very personal preferences.At the same time, however, we are more andmore alienated from what is on our plates, on thetable and in our hands. Do you sometimes wonderwhere the steak, sausage or burger you are eatingcomes from? Personal satisfaction reflects ethicaldecisions, and private concerns can be very politicalin nature. Each of us ought to decide whatwe want to eat. But responsible consumption issomething that an increasing number of peopledemand. Then again, they need information onwhich to base their decisions.How can normal consumers understand theglobal impact caused by their meat consumption?How many people realize that our demand formeat is directly responsible for clearing the Amazonrainforest? Who is aware of the consequencesof industrial livestock production for poverty andhunger, displacement and migration, animal welfare,or on climate change and biodiversity?None of these concerns are visible on themeat and sausage packages in the supermarket.On the contrary, big agribusinessestry to play down the adverse effects of our highmeat consumption. Advertising and packagingin developed countries convey an image of happyanimals on happy farms. In reality, the sufferingthe animals endure, the ecological damage andthe social impacts are swept under the carpet.„There are alternativesIn many countries, consumers arefed up with being deluded by theagribusiness. Instead of using publicmoney to subsidize factory farms – as inthe United States and European Union –,consumers want reasonable policiesthat promote ecologically, socially andethically sound livestock production.One in every seven people in the world doesnot have adequate access to food. We are a longway from realizing the internationally recognizedright to quantitatively and qualitatively sufficientfood. On the contrary, almost a billion people inthe world go hungry, largely because the middleclasses’ craving for meat creates large-scale, intensivelivestock and food industries.In many countries, consumers are fed up withbeing deluded by the agribusiness. Instead of usingpublic money to subsidize factory farms – asin the United States and European Union – consumerswant reasonable policies that promoteecologically, socially and ethically sound livestockproduction. As a result, a central concern of theHeinrich Böll Foundation is to provide informationabout the effects of meat production and tooffer alternatives.While governments in the developed worldhave to radically change course and struggleagainst the power of the agriculturallobby, developing countries can avoid repeatingthe mistakes made elsewhere. If they know aboutthe effects of intensive meat production, they canplan for a future-oriented form of production thatis socially, ethically and environmentally responsible.Instead of trying to export their failed model,Europe and the United States should attempt toshow that change is both necessary and possible.There are alternatives. Meat can be producedby keeping animals on pasture instead of in buildings,and by producing feed locally rather thanshipping it thousands of kilometres. Manure doesnot have to burden nature and the health of thelocal population; it can be spread on the farmer’sown fields to enrich the soil.Our atlas invites you to take a trip around theworld. It gives you insights into the global connectionsmade when we eat meat. Only informed, criticalconsumers can make the right decisions anddemand the political changes needed.Barbara UnmüßigPresident, Heinrich Böll Foundation6MEAT ATLAS

Food is a necessity, an art, an indulgence.But the global system for producing food isbroken. While people in some parts of theworld do not have enough to eat, others sufferfrom obesity. Millions of tonnes of food are wastedand thrown away, and perversely, crops are convertedinto biofuels to feed cars in Europe and theAmericas.At the same time, the natural world uponwhich we all depend is being damaged and destroyed.Ecological limits are being stretched asour demand for ever more resources takes precedenceover the need to protect biodiversity andthe Earth’s vital ecosystems. Forests and precioushabitats are being cleared to make way for vastmonocultures to supply industrialized countries.Farming is being intensified and wildlife wipedout at unprecedented rates.Over the past 50 years, the global food systemhas become heavily dependent oncheap resources, chemical sprays anddrugs. It is increasingly controlled by a handful ofmultinational corporations. The social impacts ofthis system are devastating: small-scale farmersworldwide are driven off their land, both obesityand food poverty are rife, and taxpayers and citizensare increasingly footing the bill for one foodcrisis after another. In this corporate-controlledfood system, profits always come before peopleand planet.Nothing epitomizes what is wrong with ourfood and farming more than the livestock sectorand the quest for cheap and plentiful meat. Manyof the world’s health pandemics in the past yearshave stemmed from factory farms. Livestock raisingis one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters,and is responsible for the use of huge amounts ofthe world’s grain and water. Worldwide, livestockare increasingly raised in cruel, cramped conditions,where animals spend their short lives underartificial light, pumped full of antibiotics andgrowth hormones, until the day they are slaughtered.What is truly scandalous is that it doesn’t haveto be like this. We produce enough calories in theworld to feed everyone, even with an increasingglobal population. We know how to farm withoutdestroying the environment and without imposingcruel conditions on the animals we breed,without corporate-owned and controlled seedsand chemicals. Sustainable farming exists inwhich farmers produce meat and dairy productsfrom numerous smaller farms, grow their owncrops to feed their animals, and allow animals tograze freely.There are millions of local markets, and numeroussmall, innovative food companies. Thereis huge public support for sustainable farming:people are building an alternative global food systemthat is based on food sovereignty, and ensureseveryone’s right to safe, nutritious, sustainableand culturally appropriate food.There is increasing international recognitionthat the current industrialized and corporate-ledsystem is unsustainable and doomed to fail. Weneed a radical overhaul of food and farming if wewant to feed a growing world population withoutdestroying the planet. This system needs to havefood sovereignty at its heart.This publication sheds light on the impactsof meat and dairy production, and aims tocatalyse the debate over the need for better,safer and more sustainable food and farming. Wehope to inspire people to look at their own consumption,and politicians at all levels to take actionto support those farmers, processors, retailersand networks who are working to achieve change.As a species, we need to be smarter. It is time toacknowledge that the corporate-controlled foodsystem is broken. It is time to curtail the power ofthose vested interests that want to keep it. Revolutionizingthe way we produce and consume meatis just the start. We need to create a world wherewe use natural resources in a more efficient way.We need to ensure these resources are fairly distributed,and that everyone on this planet, bothtoday and tomorrow, has access to safe, sufficient,sustainable and nutritious food.Magda StoczkiewiczDirector, Friends of the Earth Europe„Catalyzing the debateThe current industrialized andcorporate-led system is doomedto fail. We need a radical overhaul offood and farming if we want to feed agrowing world population withoutdestroying the planet.MEAT ATLAS7

Lessons to learnAbout Meat and THe World1Diet is not just aprivate matter. Each mealhas very real effects on the lives ofpeople around the world, on theenvironment, biodiversity and theclimate that are not taken intoaccount when tucking into a pieceof meat.2Water, forests, land use, climate and biodiversity:The environment could easily be protectedby eating less meat, produced in a different way.High meat consumptionleads to industrializedagriculture. A fewinternational corporationsbenefit and furtherexpand their marketpower.43The middle classes aroundthe world eat too much meat.Not only in America and Europe, butincreasingly in China, India and otheremerging countries as well.5Consumption is rising mainly becausecity dwellers are eatingmore meat. Population growthplays a minor role.8MEAT ATLAS

Compared to other agriculturalsectors, poultry production hasthe strongest international links, ismost dominated by large producers,and has the highest growth rates.small-scale producers,the poultry and theenvironment suffer.67Intensively produced meatis not healthy – through theuse of antibiotics andhormones, as wellas the overuse ofagrochemicals infeed production.Urban and small-scale rurallivestock can make an importantcontribution to povertyreduction, gender equalityand a healthy diet – notonly in developing countries.1089Eating meat does not have to damagethe climate and the environment. Onthe contrary, the appropriate use of agricultural land byanimals may even have environmental benefits.Alternatives exist. Many existinginitiatives and certificationschemes show whata different typeof meat productionmight look like – onethat respects environmentaland health considerationsprovides appropriateconditions for animals.11Change is possible. Somesay that meat consumption patternscannot be changed. But a wholemovement of people are now eatingless meat, or no meat at all. Tothem it is not a sacrifice; it is partof healthy living anda modern lifestyle.MEAT ATLAS9

THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL MARKETThe developed world has fewer and fewer farmers, but they are keeping moreand more animals. Instead of producing for the local market, they supplydistant supermarkets. This same shift is now transforming livestock productionin the developing world.Pig and poultrymarkets aregrowing; beef andsheep markets arestagnatingOverall, the global demand for meat is growing,but at different rates in different regions.In Europe and the United States, thebiggest meat producers in the 20th century, consumptionis growing slowly, or is even stagnating.On the other hand, the booming economies inAsia and elsewhere, will see around 80 percent ofthe growth in the meat sector by 2022. The biggestgrowth will be in China and India because of hugedemand from their new middle classes.The pattern of production is following suit.South and East Asia are undergoing the same rapidtransformation that occurred in many industrializedcountries several decades ago. In the1960s in Europe and the USA, many animalswere kept in small or medium-sized herds ongrazing land. They were slaughtered and processedon the farm or in an abattoir nearby.Meat and sausage were produced in the same localityor region. Today, this mode of livestock productionhas almost died out. In the USA, the numberof pig raisers fell by 70 percent between 1992and 2009, while the pig population remained thesame. During the same period, the number ofpigs sold by a farm rose from 945 to 8,400 a year.And the slaughter weight of an animal has goneup from 67 kilograms in the 1970s, to around 100kilograms today.In China, more than half the pigs are still producedby smallholders. This is changing fast. Thesame technologies and capital investments thatdominate livestock production in the developedworld are penetrating developing countries – andthey are integrated in global value chains. Whena piglet is born, its fate is already sealed: in whichsupermarket, in which town, and with what typeof marketing its pork chops will be sold.But the production conditions are now verydifferent from before. Industrial livestock productionin Europe and the USA began when feed,energy and land were inexpensive. Nowadays, allthree are scarce and costs have gone up. As a result,total meat production is growing less quicklythan before. The market is growing only for pigsand poultry. Both species utilize feed well and canbe kept in a confined space. This means that theycan be used to supply the insatiable demand forcheap meat. By 2022, almost half the additionalmeat consumed will come from poultry.Beef production, on the other hand, is scarcelygrowing. The USA remains the world’s largest beefproducer, but the meat industry describes the situationthere as dramatic. For 2013, it expects a fallof 4-6 percent compared to 2012 and predicts thedecline to continue in 2014. In other traditionalproducing regions including Brazil, Canada andEurope, production is stagnating or falling.The star of the day is India, thanks to its buffalomeat production, which nearly doubled between2010 and 2013. India is forcing its way onto theworld market, where 25 percent of the beef is infact now buffalo meat from the subcontinent. Accordingto the US Department of Agriculture, Indiabecame the world’s biggest exporter of beef in2012 – just ahead of Brazil. Buffaloes are inexpensiveto keep. This makes their meat a dollar a kilocheaper than beef from cattle. In addition, theIndian government has invested heavily in abattoirs.Faced with the high price of feed, Braziliancattle-raisers are switching to growing soybeans.ProductionTradeTradeConsumptionWorld, forecast 2013,million tonnesFAOWorld, forecast 2013,million tonnesFAOWorld, forecast 2013,percentFAOWorld, per capita,forecast 2013, kg per yearFAO13.80.9 9.968.18.67.2114.2 308.2 30.2 10033.343.1106.413.390.179.3beef, vealpoultrypigs othersheep, goatsbeef, vealpoultrypigs othersheep, goatsdomestic consumptionexportdevelopeddevelopingworld10MEAT ATLAS

Worldwide meat production11.410.21.819.2USA1.22.80.1MexicoChile23.03.22.12.512.40.61.71.40.4 0.98.11.20.2Russia0.10.60.50.2Canada2.60.31.89.70.1Argentina3.313.1Brazil0.50.1Uruguay0.1EU0.30.2Algeria1.00.20.30.9 1.50.2South AfricaUkraine1.60.3 0.4Million tonnes, average 2010-2012,data for 2012 are estimated1.70.5TurkeyIran 2.9 2.90.80.50.30.90.7 0.1 Saudi ArabiaIndiaEgypt1.5 0.80.5Pakistan0.26.50.20.2Bangladeshbeef, vealpigspoultrysheep, goats50.417.1China4.11.50.2Malaysia0.31.00.7Korea1.30.51.70.70.5 0.1Indonesia2.11.00.30.6Australia0.61.4Japan0.50.2New ZealandFAOThis presents an opportunity – albeit a small one –for Indian buffalo-meat exporters.Africans are also starting to eat more meat,though both supply and demand are still notgrowing as fast as in other parts of the world. Productionhas risen in many countries in Africa, butsignificantly only in populous South Africa, Egypt,Nigeria, Morocco and Ethiopia. A typical Africaneats only 20 kilograms of meat a year – well belowthe world average. Imports of cheap poultry meathave increased, though often at the expense of localproducers.Whereas the developed world still dominates,growth now relies on the developing countries.Nevertheless, only one-tenth of the world’s meatis traded internationally. This is because meat canonly be exported if it meets and can documentthe quality requirements of the importing countries.Importers and consumers fear diseases suchas mad cow disease, foot-and-mouth disease andavian flu. The temporary interruption of the poultrymarket in Southeast Asia and the completecollapse of British beef exports have shown howinternational trade can dry up overnight.Small animals in big groups – poultry take offA stable outlook – only if speculation is limitedMeat production, trends and forecast, in million tonnes14012010080604020beef, vealpoultrypigssheep, goats01995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 20192021OECD/FAOReal meat prices, trends and forecast, in dollars per tonne5,0004,0003,0002,0001,000beef, vealpoultrypigssheep, goats01991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021OECD/FAOMEAT ATLAS11

CONCENTRATION: ECONOMIESOF SCALE BUT LESS DIVERSITYEconomic imperatives are the driving force behind the consolidation of theglobal meat industry. This may mean more efficient production, but it alsoconcentrates market power in the hands of just a few, much to the detrimentof smallholders. And it may be risky for consumers, too.Tight marginsexpose the businessto volatile marketprices and tradetensionsIn September 2013, Shuanghui InternationalHoldings Ltd. – the largest shareholder of China’sbiggest meat processor – completed a 7.1billion-dollar purchase of US-based SmithfieldFoods, Inc., the world’s biggest pork producer. Thesale exemplifies a new kind of consolidation that ishappening across borders. The direction of investmentis changing: it is now heading North fromthe global South. This reflects related shifts ineconomic growth, consumer demand, managementskills and corporate assertiveness over thelast two decades.JBS SA, a beef company based in Brazil, setthe stage in the late 2000s, when it acquiredmeat companies and poultry producers in theUnited States, Australia and Europe, as well asin Brazil. JBS is now the world’s biggest producerof beef. With its 2013 acquisition of Seara Brasil,a unit of rival company Marfrig Alimentos SA, itis also the world’s largest chicken producer. JBS isamong the world’s top ten international food andbeverage companies, with food sales amountingto 38.7 billion dollars in 2012.It also has business units in leather, pet products,collagen and biodiesel. Though JBS is not ahousehold name, its annual food revenues arehigher than those of major global food playerssuch as Unilever, Cargill and Danone. These figuresgive us an idea of what JBS’s size means on theground or at the slaughterhouse: its worldwidecapacities can slaughter 85,000 head of cattle,70,000 pigs, and 12 million birds. Every day. Themeat is distributed in 150 countries as soon as thecarcasses are “disassembled” , i.e. when the flesh isseparated from the bone.Because profit margins are tight in the meatbusiness, companies chase after economies ofscale. This means that they try to produce morewith greater efficiency and at a lower cost. For thisreason, the meat sector is concentrating in twosenses. Companies are getting bigger throughmergers and acquisitions – expanding across bordersand across species. And meat production isintensifying, so that more animals are housed togetherand are processed more quickly and withless waste. However, some market analysts pointout that the meat business is inherently risky andthat, based on recent financial performance, themulti-species strategy may be backfiring due todifferent cultures and processes that pose challengesto newcomers. In other words, knowinghow to grow, slaughter, process and transport cattlemay not translate easily into managing poultryoperations.Volatile feed-grain prices add to the financialrisk in the meat sector: higher-priced feed meanshigher production costs and lower profits. Withthe deregulation of commodity markets at theWorld meat prices comparedWorld food prices comparedIndices, 2002–4 = 100FAOIndices, 2002–4 = 100FAObeef, vealpoultrypigssheep, goatsFAO220220190190160130100160130100meatdairy productsfood70702007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201312MEAT ATLAS

The Top Ten of the international meat industryCompanies by total food sales (2011–13), billion dollars7Smithfield Foods.3Founded in 1936; 2012 revenues:13.1 billion dollars. Largest porkCargill. Founded 1865,producer and processor in the USA.33 family-owned business. 2013Sold to Chinese Shuanghuirevenues: 32.5 billion dollars.International Holdings Ltd., with22 percent share in the US meatrevenue of 6.2 billion dollars,market, biggest single33in 2013exporter in Argentina,13 10 Danish Crown AmbAworldwide operationsVion9Cargill1355Smithfield Foods3Tyson Foods 78 Hormel Foods23910Vion. Founded in 2003after several mergers.2011 revenues: 13.2 billiondollars. Largest meat processorin Europe, rapid growth(2002: 1 billiondollars)9Danish Crown AmbA.Founded 1998 after severalmergers. 2012 revenues:10.3 billion dollars. Majorsubsidiaries in USA, Poland andSweden. Europe’s largest meatproducer, world’s biggestpork exporter13Nippon Meat PackersLeatherhead/ETC62TysonFood.Founded 1935; 2012 revenues:33.3 billion dollars. World’slargest meat producer andsecond-largest processor ofchicken, beefand pork10Hormel Foods.Founded 1891; 2012 revenues:8.2 billion dollars.40 manufacturing and distributionfacilities. Owner of “Spam”, aprecooked meat product;focusing on ethnic food15 JBSBRF13 14Marfrig84BRF. Founded in 2009 asBrasil Foods after a mergerof Sadia and Perdigão. 2012revenues: 14.9 billion dollars.60 plants in Brazil, presentin 110 countries1JBS. Founded in 1953;2012 revenues:38.7 billion dollars. World’s largestfood-processing company, leaderin slaughter capacity. Recentlyacquired Smithfield Foods’ beefbusiness and Malfrig’s poultryand pork units 8Marfrig. Foundedin 2000 after several mergers.2012 revenues: 12.8 billion dollars.Company units in 22 countries.World’s fourth largest beefproducer. In 2013, sold poultryand pork units to JBS6Nippon Meat Packers.Founded in 1949;2013 revenues: 12.8 billliondollars. Commonly known asNippon Ham. Operations in59 locations in 12 countries,mostly in Asia andAustraliaturn of the 21st century, feed prices have becomeless dependent on supply and demand, and moredependent on the speculative market manipulationsthat create price spikes. Add to that the rolebiofuels have had on prices for soy and maize, andthe volatility in the price of fertilizers. GoldmanSachs, an investment bank and titan of commoditytrading, was ever-present in the Shuanghui-Smithfielddeal. It had been hired to advise Smithfield onany potential sale, and it owns a 5 percent stake inShuanghui. In 2012, Goldman made an estimated1.25 billion dollars from commodity trading.Why does size matter? The implications of themeat industry’s two-tiered concentration – corporateconsolidation and the intensification of meatproduction – are wide-ranging. It is virtually impossiblefor the consolidated industry to coexistwith small producers. These multinational structuresboth wipe out a critical source of incomefor the global poor, and they radically diminishconsumer choices. Through economies of scale,concentration offers greater profit potential forstockholders and financiers; for other stakeholders,however, it increases risks to human health(including antibiotic resistance), food safety, animalwelfare, the environment, water security, laboursecurity and innovation.Extreme efficiency itself also carries a risk. Onecattle feedlot operator in the United States saysthat he is unsure where the economies of scaleend, because 100,000-head feedlots for cattle arenow possible. Several exist in the United Statesand their production costs are lower than forsmaller feedlots. Logistics in large productionunits are manageable nowadays, but the largerthe system, the more vulnerable it is. In an intensifiedenvironment, for example, pathogenscan spread more quickly and easily from oneanimal to another, both on the feedlot and duringtransport. The same is true for the slaughterhouseas the speed of processing increases. Furthermore,in the event of a disaster, such as a flood, the systemwill not be able to maintain its capacity. And ifconsumer demand declines, companies run witha low margin of safety may risk collapse. Therefore,insurance companies with custom-tailoredrisk assessments are becoming an important partof the modern meat business.Consumersmay get lowerprices, but therisks to societyare higherMEAT ATLAS13

animals slaughtered worldwideOfficial and estimated data, 2011, heads296000 00024 000 000buffaloescattlegoatssheeppigs1 383000 000430chickensducksturkeysgeese andguinea fowl000 000517000 00058654000 000110000 0002 817000 000Slaughter by countries, four most important, 2011, heads35 108 100USacattle andbuffaloes39 100 000Brazil46 193 000China21 490 0008 954 959 000USa11 080 000 000ChinaIndia5 370 102 000poultry 2 049 445 000BrazilIndonesia649000 000110 956 304USapigs59 735 680Germany661 702 976China44 270 000Vietnamsheep andgoats38 600 000Nigeria273 080 000China84 110 000India28 980 000BangladeshFAOSTATWestern Europe work in the slaughterhouses forshort periods, and are largely defenceless againstthe companies’ demands. Back in the 1960s, labourunions in the meat industry were still strong;in the last two decades they have had a muchharder time. Workers have little say in their workconditions, and collective wage agreements areunknown in most parts of the world.In most industrial countries, the slaughterhouseshave been relocated from the cities to therural periphery. The cruelty of slaughtering andimages of blood and squealing animals have tobe hidden from consumers’ eyes and ears. This reflectsa modern social norm: violence is banishedfrom public view. Slaughtering and butchery aremade invisible for the majority. The connectionbetween the meat and the living animal that istrucked to town and dies in the slaughterhousehas been severed. What most consumers now seeMEaT aTlaSis only a vacuum-packed meat product on a supermarketshelf.Finally, the treatment of animals in slaughterhousesis subject to criticism on two fronts. Theanimal welfare movement objects to frequentviolations of regulations and cruelty to animals,such as long transports, inadequate anaesthesia,or the beating of animals when they are drivenin the slaughterhouse.The animal rights movement, on the otherhand, criticizes the mass-slaughter of animalsas a matter of principle: it says that meat productionis always associated with violenceagainst animals. Animal rights activists do notwant to reform slaughter; they want to abolishit altogether. They say that the meat industry regardsanimals as mere products, whereas societyshould recognize their individuality and capacityfor suffering.we severedthe link betweenliving animals andthe packagedproducts15

BRIGHT PINK IN THE COLD CABINETIt’s goodbye to the neighbourhood butcher and hello to supermarketchains. The shift to Big Retail is now washing over developing countries.The demands of the rising middle classes are setting the agenda.“Food deserts”:where conveniencestores and fast-foodoutlets are the onlysource of foodRemember those butchers who cut up sidesof beef or pork in a tiled back room, andsold joints and sausages to customers over amarble counter in a room out front? In nearly allthe developed world, they have been consignedto history. Meat today, pre-cooled to 0–4°C, isdelivered to supermarkets from the wholesaleror direct from the abattoir. All the supermarketstaff have to do is put the goods in refrigerateddisplay cabinets, and customers can choose theready-packaged items themselves directly fromthe shelves. To keep self-service items lookingfresh for days on end, pork chops and chickenbreasts are vacuum-packed in an environmentthat is as kept as germ-free as possible. Thepackaging is then filled with an oxygen-rich gas.This gives beef and pork a red colour and suggestsfreshness – even though they may already havebeen in storage for several days.Meat, a luxury in many parts of the world only10 or 20 years ago, is now a part of the daily diet fora growing number of people in developing countries.Big supermarket chains such as Walmartfrom the USA, France’s Carrefour, the UK’s Tescoand Germany’s Metro are conquering the globe.Their expansion has sparked huge investmentsby domestic supermarket companies. The processhas been well researched. The first wave began inthe early 1990s in South America, in East Asian tigereconomies like South Korea and Taiwan, andSouth Africa. Between 1990 and 2005, the marketshare of supermarkets in these countries rosefrom 10, to 50 or 60 percent. The second wave, inthe mid-to-late 1990s, focused on Central Americaand Southeast Asia. By 2005, supermarkets accountedfor 30–50 percent of the market sharethere. The third wave began in 2000 and washedover China and India, as well as big latecomerssuch as Vietnam. In only a few years, supermarketsales in these countries were growing by 30 to 50percent a year.Why this huge shift? It is not only due to therising purchasing power of the middle classes,but also to more fundamental changes in society.In Pakistan, for example, cities are expanding soquickly that traditional methods of supplyingmeat and dairy products cannot keep up with thedemand. The city of Lahore is growing by 300,000people a year. The result is product shortages andpoor quality, factors that drive the middle classesinto the supermarkets, says the Express Tribune,a Pakistani daily. Working women, who are stillresponsible for cooking for their families, have notime to go from shop to shop to check the meatquality or haggle over prices.Investing in spacious stores is worthwhile inplaces with thousands of potential customers. Inlocations where mobility is high, such as the carfriendlysuburbs of US cities, poor people cannotfind a grocery store within walking distance thatsells fresh produce they can prepare themselves.The only food they can buy is ready-to-eat mealsSlowing down in ChinaExpansion mode in IndiaAnnual percentage change in store growth, 2010–14, and market shares, 2012, percent121110987654321independentchain02010 2011 2012 2013 2014(estimate)84.1Yum!*McDonald’sTing Hsinother fast-food chainsindependent fast food6.52.31.54.3Hua Lai ShiShigemitsuKungfuEuromonitor0.60.40.3Food retail chains, stores and planned additionsexisting, 2012/13planned, 2013/14+ 125602*Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell+38–50166+ 250500Domino’s McDonald’s Yum!*Business Standard16MEAT ATLAS

from fast-food outlets. Researchers call these areas“food deserts”. At the same time, the contents ofshoppers’ trolleys come from further and furtheraway. Products come from central warehousesand big abattoirs that supply all the retail branchesin a region or even a whole country. The huge volumesand secure cold chains ensure that the itemsare usually fresh, despite long transport distances.Selling standardized products simplifies advertisingand gives the supermarket chains enormousmarket power, enabling them to dictateprices to their suppliers. At the same time, the supermarketchains compete with each other. Thispushes prices down, and means that locally producedproducts are relegated to particular niches.With the opening of global markets, millions ofsmall-scale retailers have gone under becausethey do not handle the volumes needed to justifysuitable cold rooms or to ensure the continuouscooling of meat, eggs and milk.Price wars and price dumping result in periodicscandals involving meat that is sold past itssell-by date, produced using hormones, or mislabelled.Global supply chains are particularly complexfor processed products. They have resultedin donkey, water buffalo and goat meat endingup on plates instead of beef in South Africa, andhorsemeat being sold as beef in Europe. In India,meat labelled as buffalo in fact came from the illegalslaughter of cattle.In China, the world’s biggest producer andconsumer of meat, pork is the most popular typeof meat. Most pigs are still raised by smallholdersrather than in intensive factory farms, althoughthis is changing and the government is pushinghard for intensive pig-raising. Big abattoirs arestill rare. Most slaughterhouses continue to usemanual or semi-mechanical methods, and hygieneconditions are seldom checked. Many placeslack a functioning cold chain, so most meat is soldto consumers already cooked. But the demand formeat from supermarkets is growing, and it nowaccounts for 10 percent of total meat sales. Suchproducts are seen as “Western” and are growingin popularity because they are cheap and associatedwith freshness, hygiene and comfort.International fast food chains like McDonald’sand Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) open newbranches in China every day: McDonald’s currentlyhas around 1,700 restaurants, and KFC, themarket leader, has announced its 4,500th outlet.Customers are familiar with pledges made bythese chains, ensuring that their suppliers are constantlycertified and monitored. However, eaters’appetites have repeatedly been spoiled by foodscandals. In late 2012 and early 2013, KFC had tograpple with two separate cases of poultry meatcontaminated by antibiotics. Its business fell by10 percent and had still not yet recovered by theautumn of 2013. McDonald’s was pulled into themire: its sales also declined. Retailers must fearconsumers – even in China.Growth in the supermarket fridgesRetail value, 2012/13, million dollars, by countryUSCAMXUSUSARAR ArgentinaAU AustraliaBR BrazilCA CanadaCN China600 +300–599VEBRUKRUUK DE UAFRTRIRNGSAdrinking milk productsUKFRDEDETRready meals (with/without meat)DE GermanyDZ AlgeriaFR FranceID IndonesiaIN India150–2990.1–149RUIRCNchilled processed meatCNcanned/preserved meat productsUSUSMXUScheeseARVEARIR IranMX MexicoNG NigeriaRU RussiaSA Saudi Arabiano growthnegative growthBRBRFRUKDEZAFRDZTRNGIRIRfrozen processed poultryTR TurkeyUA UkraineUK United KingdomINIRRURUCNRUCNIDAUUS USAVE VenezuelaZA South AfricaEuromonitorMEAT ATLAS17

FREE TRadE VERSUS SaFE FoodThe Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement currently beingnegotiated between the United States and the European Union promises to boosttrade and jobs. But it may also weaken existing consumer-protection laws on bothsides of the Atlantic.officials discusslower barriers forpharmaceuticalsbehindclosed doorsIn theory, liberalizing trade should increase economicactivity and lift all boats, creating jobsand economic growth for all. But reality can bequite different. Free-trade deals are no longer onlyabout quotas and tariffs. They can have a sizeableimpact on the ability of governments to set standardsfor meat production and to regulate theglobal meat industry – from animal welfare,health, labelling and environmental protectionto the industry’s corporate legal rights.But approaches to food safety often differfrom country to country. The European Unionbases its safety rules for food and chemicals onthe “precautionary principle”. This cornerstoneof Union law permits the EU to provisionally restrictimports that might carry a human or environmentalrisk where the science is not definitive.The United States states that it makes decisionsbased on “sound science” and cost-benefit analysis,which in the case of GMOs has been based onindustry supplied data.Despite their different food-safety regimesand consumer preferences, the European Unionand the United States started negotiations for aTransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership(TTIP) in 2013. Intended to bolster their fragileeconomies, this could become the biggest bilateralfree-trade agreement in history. The UnitedStates is the EU’s biggest market for agriculturalexports, and the EU is the United States’ fifth-largesttrading partner for agricultural goods. Powerfulinterest groups on both sides of the Atlantic,including the farm, feed and chemicals industries,are pushing hard for an agreement that dismantlesbarriers to trade in agriculture, includingthe meat subsector.Such an agreement could result in drasticchanges in standards on the use of antibiotics inmeat production, genetically modified organisms,animal welfare, and other issues. “Regulatorycoherence” to expand trade between the UnitedStates and the EU sounds good in principle. Butthe issues are complex. Consumers on both sidesof the Atlantic should be concerned that the TTIPcould derail attempts to strengthen food safetyand animal welfare in the meat industry. Industryon both sides of the Atlantic will seek to lock in thelowest standards in order to expand its markets.winners and losers from transatlantic trade talksPercentage expected gains and losses in real per capita income as a result of tougher competition in core markets.Assumes that tariffs and non-tariff barriers are abolished, and other trade regimes remain unchanged.IFO13.4USaCanada-9.56.9Ireland9.7UK7.3Sweden 6.2Finland6.6SpainMexico-7.2-9.5–-6.1-6.0–-3.1-3.0–0.00.1–3.03.1–6.06.1–13.4no dataaustralia-7.418MEaT aTlaS

The United States has for years tried to repulseEU restrictions on genetically modified organismsand the use of controversial food and feedadditives. There is the case of ractopamine, usedin the United States as a feed additive to increaselean meat production in pork and beef. Its use isbanned in 160 countries, including the EuropeanUnion, largely because of the lack of independentscientific studies assessing its safety for humanhealth. Currently the United States is not allowedto export meat from animals treated with ractopamineto the EU. American agribusiness and meatprocessingcompanies want the EU to lift this banand include the issue in the TTIP negotiations.After several years of relative quiet, an oldtrade dispute has been reopened. Under the TTIP,the USA is once again seeking approval of peroxyacid,a substance with antimicrobial propertiescommonly used in the USA to clean raw poultryafter slaughter. In the EU, using peroxyacid is seenas contrary to the “farm to fork” concept of minimizingthe use of chemicals, allowing only hotwater for decontaminating poultry.Also, the TTIP presents an opportunity formultinational corporations to bypass Europeancitizens’ opposition to genetically modified foods,many of which are prohibited in the EU. The USgovernment and food companies have challengedthese rules as unfair “technical barriers” totrade. Now, through closed and non-transparentnegotiations, the fear is that the EU will use theTTIP negotiations as a reason to lower standardson the use of genetically modified organisms.The EU, for its part, is seeking to overturn theUS ban on beef imports from the EU. The UnitedStates prohibits the use or import of feed ingredientsthat are known to transmit bovine spongiformencephalopathy (BSE, or “mad cow disease”).Food-safety advocates in the USA are concernedthat EU policies governing the use of feed additivesmade from ruminants are not strongenough to prevent contamination. Since the EUis currently considering relaxing the standardsthat regulate the use of feed additives made fromruminants, the risk of trade in beef contaminatedwith BSE would increase.Moreover, food-safety measures that seek toeliminate health and environmental impacts ofthe meat industry could be challenged underthe “investor-state dispute settlement” mechanism.This clause present in many trade agreementsallows companies to sue governments forcompensation over rules that affect their profits.Agribusiness firms are lobbying to make foodsafetystandards “fully enforceable” through theinvestor-state mechanism in the TTIP. Since thismechanism gives international investors the legalright to “stable investment conditions”, makingchanges in environmental or animal health lawwould be much more difficult.The TTIP could also make it much more difficultto address the negative environmental, socialMeat trade between the USA and the EUImports and exports, million dollarstotal meat tradeUSAbeef, vealpoultry, eggsand health aspects of industrial animal production.Instead of driving standards to the bottom,consumers and activists in the United States andthe EU should demand that governments use theopportunity of the TTIP to raise standards andrigorously regulate the meat industry. Or theyshould abandon the talks altogether.Feed trade between the USA and the EUImports and exports, million dollars2010 2011 2012corn (maize)sorghumfeed andfodderUSAoil seedssoy2010 2011 2012946 1,154 9881,652 2,031 2,154136 231 223298 326 355219 218 199741 868 84543 239 1838 239 1320 492 2652,072 1,632 2,6761,108 795 1,481217 270 265872 928 1,016847 897 976EUporkcheeseEUfeed andfodderoil seedsolive oilUSDA ERSUSDA ERSMEAT ATLAS19

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF STEAKThe price tag on a package of meat does not reflect the true cost of producing thecontents: the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer are much higher.If these costs are included, livestock raising would probably make a net loss.Damageto nature ishard to measurein monetarytermsAround 1.3 billion people worldwide livefrom animal husbandry – most of them indeveloping countries. The majority grazetheir animals on land around the village, somemove from place to place with their herds, andothers keep a few chickens, cattle or pigs neartheir homes. In the developed world and rapidlygrowing economies, the number of livestockkeepers is falling. The livestock sector is becomingindustrialized and meat producing companiesare expanding.The profits of these companies are notjust a result of their own efforts. They are alsobuilt on the environmental damage caused byfactory farming and the use of livestock feed –costs that the companies do not have to pay. Inaddition, they receive subsidies from the state.These subsidies are often distributed true to themotto: the bigger the company, the higher thesubsidy. No consolidated economic and ecologicalaccounting has yet been done, but we can discernits broad outlines. When an animal productis purchased, three prices have to be paid: one bythe consumer, one by the taxpayer and one bynature. The consumer uses the first price to judgethe item’s value. The other two prices representhidden subsidies to the people who produce andmerchandise it.The costs borne by the environment are probablythe biggest, but they are hard to calculate.Over the last three decades, economists and accountantshave developed their own “environmental-economicaccounting” that estimatesdamage to nature in monetary terms. It covers thecosts of factory farming that do not appear on thecompany’s balance sheet, such as money saved bykeeping the animals in appalling conditions. Coststo nature are incurred by over-fertilization causedby spreading manure and slurry on the land andapplying fertilizers to grow fodder maize and othercrops. If the quality of water in a well declinesbecause of high nitrate content, the costs arehard to calculate: they often are only recognizedwhen the well has to be capped and drinking watershipped in from somewhere else. Other externalities– costs that do not appear in the consumerprice – arise if over-fertilization means the soil canno longer function as a filter for rainwater, if erosioncarries it away, if biodiversity declines, or ifalgal blooms kill fish and deter tourists.However, for the majority, the most extensivedamage occurs further away from the cause. Intensivelivestock production releases nitrogencompounds such as ammonia into the atmosphere,contributing markedly to climate change.According to the European Nitrogen Assessmentin 2011, this damage amounted to some 70 to 320billion euros in Europe. The authors of this studyconcluded that this sum could exceed all the profitsmade in the continent’s agricultural sector.If this were counted, the sector as a whole wouldmake a loss.Different regions, different levels of supportPercentage of gross farmreceipts from governmentfor livestock, by region,classification by OECD,2010–1224.3OECD4.8Europe12.5Commonwealth ofIndependent StatesNorth America14.4Asia2.61Southern hemisphere20MEAT ATLAS

direct subsidies for animal products and feedIndustrialized countries (OECD members), estimates for 2012, in billion dollarsOECD1.5eggs18.0beef and veal7.3pigmeat2.3soybeanspoultrymilk15.36.51.1sheepIn China, the immediate costs of over-fertilizationare estimated at 4.5 billion dollars a year,mainly because water quality suffers from intensivelivestock production. The main problemis that in rapidly developing areas of East Asia,farmers and agricultural firms are replacing thetraditional organic fertilizers – manure and faeces– with synthetic nitrogen. Manure, which usedto be considered the best type of fertilizer in integratedfarming, now has to be disposed of somehow– in a river, on a dump, or trucked to where itcan be used. To ensure the highest yields, the fieldsare fertilized with commercial agrochemicalscontaining readily soluble nutrients as well. Thisresults in a double burden on the environment.Cheap meat is made possible only by polluting theenvironment.The other big unknown in the real price ofmeat are subsidies using public funds. A packageof subsidies may consist of many different components.The European Union offers subsidies forfodder crops and supports up to 40 percent of thecost of investing in new animal housing. A crisisfund, set up in 2013, can be used to support factoryfarms, for example to support the export of meatand milk powder.Further burdens are heaped onto nationaltaxpayers. They pay for the costs of transport infrastructure,such as ports needed to handle thefeed trade. In many countries, meat is subject to areduced level of value added tax. In addition, lowwages in abattoirs make it possible to producemeat cheaply. From a political point of view, lowwages can be seen as subsidies because companiesMEaT aTlaScan pay so little only if the state does not impose astatutory minimum wage.Few poor countries can subsidize their farmersin this way. Instead, they tend to support themthrough laws that permit the exploitation ofpeople and the environment. To remain thecheapest suppliers of feed or meat in the worldmarket, governments allow workers to toilin slave-like conditions and for little pay, theylease government land to large-scale producersat cheap rates, and they fail to act against loggerswho clear areas of land for ranchers to occupy.Farmers’ income from public moneyIndustrialized countries (OECD members), percentage of gross farm receipts,by animal product504030201001995–972010–12beef, veal pigs poultry sheep milkPoor countriessupport theindustry throughweak laws andlax controlseggsOECD21

WHY FARMS KILL FISH: BIODIVERSITYLOSS ON LAND AND IN WATEROverfertilization harms plants and animals and damages ecosystems worldwide.Nitrates in groundwater can cause cancer. In coastal waters, they can result inoxygen-starved “dead zones”.Agriculture’s share of total environmental impact22Industrial countries (OECD members), 2007–9, in percent35Put lots of nitrogen in a body of water and itsoxygen content goes down. How serious aproblem that is can be seen in the coastalwaters of the Gulf of Mexico. Around the mouthsof the Mississippi, some 20,000 square kilometresarea used water used energy used pesticide purchasesammoniaemissionsWater pollution:90 7545emissions ofozone-damagingmethylbromidenitrates insurface waterphosphorus insurface water70nitrogenoxide280* 70*70*nitrates ingroundwater8greenhouse gasemissions50*phosphorus ingroundwater40methane701carbondioxide30*nitrates incoastal waters* maximum valueOECDof the sea have so little oxygen that a “dead zone”has formed, in which shrimp and fish cannot survive.In 2011, researchers found that sperms weregrowing in the sex cells of female fish in the Gulfbecause a lack of oxygen was interfering withtheir enzyme balance.The cause of this marine desolation lies in theover-fertilization of the Mississippi basin, wherealmost all the United States’ feed production andindustrial farms are concentrated. Nitrogen andphosphorus are washed down the river into theGulf. There these nutrients stimulate the growthof algae, aquatic plants and bacteria, which useup the oxygen dissolved in the seawater. A litre ofseawater commonly holds around 7 milligrams ofdissolved oxygen; around the mouths of the Mississippiit holds less than 2 milligrams. The only organismsactive here are those that do not dependon oxygen to live.The US marine biologist Peter Thomas says thataround 250,000 square kilometres of coastal watersworldwide suffer from severe seasonal oxygendeficiency. In Asia, pig and poultry farms in coastalChina, Vietnam and Thailand pollute the SouthChina Sea with nitrogen. The northern part of theCaspian Sea is loaded with nitrogen that comesdown the Volga. Many of the seas surroundingEurope are affected: the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea,the Irish Sea, the Spanish coast and the Adriaticall have dead zones. The problems are caused notonly by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, butalso by potassium, drug residues, disease-causingorganisms and heavy metals.It is not just the seas: industrialized livestockproduction harms the land too. Slurry and manurefrom livestock-producing areas are applied,often indiscriminately, to the soil. They can posean even greater threat than the overuse of mineralfertilizer, especially on well-drained soils. Nitratesare washed down into the groundwater, whichcan lead to contamination of our drinking waterand damage our health. In our bodies they can beconverted into nitrosamines, which are suspectedto cause cancer of the oesophagus and stomach.Over-fertilization threatens the habitat of nearlyall the endangered species on the Red List compiledby the International Union for Conservationof Nature. Excessive use of chemical fertilizers,pesticides and herbicides harms organisms in thesoil and water, and damages ecosystems.MEAT ATLAS

Tropical rainforests are especially rich in biodiversity,but more than one-fifth of the Amazonrainforest has already been destroyed. Livestock isone of the major causes: trees are cleared to createpastures or grow soy to feed animals. And many ofthe pastures are turned into soy fields after a fewyears. The widespread conversion of pasture tocropland to produce feed in South America andEurope cuts biodiversity, since grassland usuallycontains more species and offers a better habitatfor insects and other small animals. But intensivegrazing often leads to a loss of native species, asfarmers sow new types of grass that are more valuableas feed. This marginalizes other species. Fencingto convert an open range into ranches can cutthe migration routes of wild animals, keep themaway from waterholes, and trigger local overgrazingby cattle.Mixed farms, where crops and animals aremanaged on the same farm, often have variouspatches of vegetation – hedges, woodlots and gardens– which support a range of insects and smallanimals as well as certain wild plants. In Europe,the USA, South America and East and SoutheastAsia, many such mixed farms are being rapidlyreplaced by “landless” systems to raise pigs andpoultry on an industrial scale. In such systems, theanimals are fed with crops purchased from otherfarms and often from abroad. This is one of themain reasons for the nutrient imbalances in freshwater,soils and the ocean.In industrial systems, the genetic diversity ofthe livestock itself is usually very narrow becauseFodder fields and the dead zone in the Gulf of MexicoMississippi River drainage basin, land use and water pollutioncropped landdedicated to feedless than 5 percentless than 20 percent20–50 percentmore than 50 percenthypoxic zone due to nitrogen and phosphate loadsfarmers all over the world are offered the samefew breeding lines. Animals are no longer adaptedto their diverse natural environments. Instead,they are bred to suit the uniform conditions oflivestock houses, where the temperature, moistureand light are carefully controlled and feedcomes from the global market. In other words,biodiversity is at its lowest in a livestock pen onan industrial farm.FAOThe oversizedfootprint of factoryfarms: growingfeed and spreadingslurryNitrogen on land and in the aquatic systemMain sources of nitrogen, 2005livestockfertilizersENAMEAT ATLAS23

A SPECIES-POOR PLANETThe genetic basis of livestock is getting ever narrower. We are relying on a few,specialized breeds of animals, such as the black-and-white Holstein-Friesiandairy cattle that are raised in over 130 countries. A few high-yielding strains alsodominate the production of chickens, goats, pigs and sheep.24One breedingcock can sire upto 28 milliongenetically similaroffspringTwo winners of globalizationPresence of Holstein-Friesian dairy cattlePresence of Large White pigHumankind has domesticated 30 species oflivestock, and in doing so has created anincredible range of breeds: around 8,000have so far been documented by the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO). Many of these breeds are kept by smallscalelivestock keepers – the majority of whomare women – who produce most of the world’smeat while conserving the world’s livestockdiversity. For many poor households, animals,especially chickens, sheep and goats, are animportant source of livelihood. They choose indigenous,multipurpose breeds because they areadapted to local, often harsh conditions.Eight types of livestock are used in heavy industrialproduction: cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens,turkeys, ducks and rabbits. Of these, a fewbreeds have been developed further. The industryhas developed these into a few high-yieldingbreeding lines, which are crossbred to produce theanimals that we eat. Such hybrid breeding is usedespecially in poultry and pigs, further restrictingthe genetic diversity in these animals.FAOThe 1950s marked the advent of the wide-scalecommercial production of meat and a concomitantloss of genetic diversity. Corporate breedersfocused on maximizing production and commerciallyuseful traits such as rapid growth, efficientfeed conversion and high yields. The result is highperformanceand genetically uniform breeds thatrequire high-protein feeds, costly pharmaceuticalsand climate-controlled housing to survive.Now, a small number of transnational firmssupply commercial breeds for an ever-increasingshare of the world’s meat markets. The companiesalso dominate research and development in thehighly-concentrated animal genetics industry,particularly for poultry, swine and cattle.One third of the world’s pig supply, 85 percent ofthe traded eggs and two-thirds of the milk productioncome from these breeds.In the poultry sector, four firms account for 97percent of poultry research and development. Inbroilers, three companies control a 95 percentmarket share. Two companies control an estimated94 percent of the breeding stock of commerciallayers. Two companies supply virtuallyall of the commercial turkey genetics.The top four companies account for two-thirdsof the total industry research and developmentof both swine and cattle.While aquaculture currently accounts for asmall slice of the industry, it is the fastest growingsector. Many of the top animal genetics firmshave recently taken the plunge into aquaculture.They work with only a handful of species,primarily Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, tropicalshrimp and tilapia.Most of the global suppliers of livestock geneticsare privately held and do not publish figureson revenues or investments, nor do they providean inventory of their proprietary germplasm orbreeding stock collections. This means that thereis not much information being made publiclyavailable about the size of private-sector animalgenetics markets, and the sales and prices of geneticmaterials. But it is clear that the market forcommercial animal genetics is tiny compared tothe commercial seed market, its crop counterpart.China is now the world’s largest consumer ofmeat, with pork being the country’s most popularprotein, and demand is rocketing. The vastmajority of China’s pork supply still comes from“backyard” pig producers, but Chinese policiesfavouring vertical integration, where one firmMEAT ATLAS

Animal genetics industry: the Big Seven global breedersCompanies and profiles7Tyson Foods.Sold 33 billion dollars worth ofbroilers in 2012. SubsidiaryCobb-Vantress distributesbroiler breeding stock tomore than 90countriesSmithfield FoodsTyson Foods76Smithfields Foods.World’s largest pork processorand pig producer. Turnover 13 billiondollars (2012); in 2013 acquiredby Shuanghui, China’s largest meatprocessor, for 7.1 billion dollars,including the company’s pigbreeding subsidiary6Genus3Groupe Grimaud3Genus. Sells pigs,dairy and beef cattle.Revenues of 550 million dollarsin 2012. Operates in 30 countries,sells to another 40.2,100 employees(2012)45Hendrix Genetics2EW Group4Groupe Grimaud.Sells broilers, layers, pigs;aquaculture. Privately held;turnover 330 million dollars(2011), of which 75 percentis internationaltrade2EW Group. The world’slargest player in industrial poultrygenetics. Sells broilers, layers,turkeys; aquaculture. Formerly theErich Wesjohann Group.Privately held, norevenues published; 5,600employees (2011)5Hendrix Genetics.Sells layers, turkeys, pigs;aquaculture. Privately held,2,400 employees (2012). Jointdevelopment agreement withTyson Foods’ Cobb-Vantresssubsidiary1Charoen Pokphand Group1Charoen Pokphand Group.Sells broilers and pigs;aquaculture. Agro-industrial andtelecoms giant with annualrevenues of 33 billion dollars, with feed,farm and food revenues of 11.3 billiondollars (2013), including animalbreeding operationsand pork unitsETC GROUP/USDAmanages several stages in the production process,mean that by 2015, half the country’s pigswill come from factory farms. Although China ishome to more pig diversity than any other country,Chinese factory farms rely on imported breedingstock. Numerous swine genetics firms haverecently announced deals with China. This trendis likely to accelerate as a result of the 2013 purchaseof Smithfield Foods, for 7.1 billion dollars, byChina’s largest meat processor, Shuanghui International.Smithfield Premium Genetics, the company’spig breeding subsidiary, is part of the deal.As industrial-scale livestock production replacesChina’s small-scale pig producers and chickenfarmers, Chinese factory farms, like those in theUnited States, increasingly rely on high levels ofantibiotics in feed to promote faster growth and tohelp livestock survive crowded conditions.The tightly-held ownership and control ofbreeding stock for industrial, large-scale animalproduction contrasts sharply with, and threatensthe survival of, millions of smallholder farmers,fishers and pastoralists. In a world facing climatechange, breeds that are resistant to drought, extremeheat or tropical diseases are of major potentialimportance as sources of unique genetic materialfor breeding programs. In 2007, 109 countriessigned the Interlaken Declaration on AnimalGenetic Resources. This declaration affirms theircommitment to ensure that the world’s animalbiodiversity is used to promote global food security,and remains available to future generations.It also notes that “continuing erosion and loss ofanimal genetic resources for food and agriculturewill compromise efforts to achieve food security,MEAT ATLASimprove human nutritional status and enhancerural development.”According to FAO’s 2012 update on the state oflivestock biodiversity, almost one-quarter of the8,000 unique farm animal breeds are at risk of extinction,primarily due to the growth of the industriallivestock sector. The narrow genetic diversityof commercial animal breeds increases their vulnerabilityto pests and diseases. It also poses longtermrisks for food security because it shuts outoptions to respond to future environmental challenges,market conditions and societal needs, allof which are unpredictable. In the face of climatechange, the long-term sustainability of livestockkeepingcommunities, as well as industrial livestocksystems, is jeopardized by the loss of animalgenetic diversity.Dominating the livestock industryMarket share of breeds for milk, beef and pork production in the United States, in percentHolsteins8360Angus,Hereford,Simmental75from threevarietiesMEDILL25

ANTIBIOTICS: BREEDING SUPERBUGSIndustrial producers use large amounts of pharmaceuticals to prevent diseases fromspreading like wildfire among animals on huge factory farms, and to promote fastergrowth. But this is dangerous: bacteria are developing resistance to drugs that arevital to treat diseases in humans.Much strictercontrols worldwideare needed tostop the abuse ofmedicinesCause of death: scratched knee. What soundslike fiction could soon be reality. The WorldHealth Organization (WHO) warns that ifwe continue our reckless use and abuse of antibioticsin animal husbandry, we could enter a postantibioticera in which health conditions thatare now easily curable will again become lethal.In spite of this, few countries have addressed theuse of antibiotics in livestock raising. Antibioticsare used to ensure that the animals endure theconditions in factory farms until slaughter. Alarge part, however, is also used to increase andspeed growth. Pigs that are given antibiotics,for example, need 10 to 15 percent less feed toreach their market weight.Although the European Union prohibitedantibiotics to promote growth in 2006, this didnot lead to a significant decrease in their use onfarms. Systematic inquiries have recently revealedthat 8,500 tonnes of antimicrobial ingredientswere distributed in 25 European countries in2011. Germany has the highest (overall) consumptionat 1,600 tonnes a year. However Denmark,where veterinarians are subject to relatively tightcontrols, reports only a third of the German peranimal head level.In other parts of the world, the use of thesevaluable drugs is subject to hardly any regulationsor restrictions whatsoever. In China, it is estimatedthat more than 100,000 tonnes of antibiotics arefed to livestock every year – mostly unmonitored.In the United States, livestock production consumed13,000 tonnes of antibiotics in 2009, andaccounts for nearly 80 percent of all the antibioticsused in the country. With resistant bacteria andfood-borne illnesses on the rise, the US Food andDrug Administration recently recommended restrictingthe application of antibiotics in livestockproduction “to those uses that are considered necessaryfor assuring animal health”. It is doubtfulwhether these gently worded, voluntary guidelinescan limit the overuse – and the demise – ofantibiotics in the future.Industrial farming has intensified at a rapidpace during the past decades and antibiotics havebeen one of the main driving forces behind thisprocess. They perform two functions: they helpanimals survive the dismal conditions of livestockproduction until slaughter, and they make theanimals grow faster. According to WHO, moreantibiotics are now being fed to healthy animalsrather than to sick human beings. The use of antibioticsas growth promoters is legal in large partsof the world, and until recently, nearly all largescalemeat production in developed countries involvedthe continuous, low-dose administrationof antibiotics in animal feed.Livestock are usually given the same antibioticsas humans. Every time an antibiotic is administered,there is a chance that bacteria developresistance to it. “Superbugs” – pathogens suchas Escherichia coli, salmonella or campylobacterthat can infect humans as well – are resistantto several different antibiotics, and are thereforeparticularly difficult to treat. The imprudent useof antibiotics in livestock production exacerbatesHow far we are – distribution of antibiotics and resistant bacteria in the USASales of antibiotics, million pounds/kilogramslbs kilograms29.9 13.6Antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecalis detected insupermarkets, 2011, percent of all samplesEWG2010for meat and poultry productionto treat ill people81turkey69pork107.703.52001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201155beef39chicken26MEAT ATLAS

European sales of antimicrobial agents for food-producing animalsSales in milligrams per kilogram of meat stockbiomass, 2011, including horsesantibiotics are used systematicallyto combat diseases infactory farmsresistant bacteria can enterthe human body when peopleeat meatbacteria “defend” themselvesby mutating, thus becomeresistant to the antibioticsantibiotics used totreat humans areineffective against theresistant bacteria161Portugal6Iceland4Norway51United Kingdom114 4349DenmarkNetherlandsIreland175 211249Spain24Finland83Belgium GermanyCzech Rep. 4479* 54 Slovakia117 SwitzerlandAustria 43Slovenia 192France104HungaryBulgaria370Italy14Sweden6635 EstoniaLatvia120 42LithuaniaPoland408EMA* Swiss sales unauditedCyprusthe resistance problem. They are usually administeredto whole herds of animals in the feed orwater. It is impossible to ensure that every singleanimal receives a sufficient dose of the drug. Diagnostictests are rarely used to check whether theright kind of antibiotic is being used.Resistant bacteria can pass from animals tohumans in many ways. An obvious link is the foodchain. When the animals are slaughtered andprocessed in an abattoir, the bacteria can colonizethe meat and be carried into consumers’ kitchens.But that is not the only way that humans can beexposed to such superbugs. Resistant bacteria canbe blown several hundred metres by exhaust fansof livestock houses. The bacteria are abundantin manure, which is spread on fields as fertilizer.Once in the soil, the bacteria can be washed intorivers and lakes. Bacteria interact both on farmsand in the environment. They develop furtherand reproduce, exchanging genetic information.In doing so, they enlarge the pool of bacteria thatis resistant to once-powerful antibiotics.The production of animals and meat isglobally connected with trade and transportlinks spanning the globe. These links enableresistant bacteria to spread rapidly. Superbugsare, in the words of the WHO, “notoriousglobe-trotters”. The imprudent use of antibioticsin one part of the world thus poses a threatnot only to the local human population, but endangersthe health of people in other parts of theworld as well.Factory farmsare inevitablybreeding dangerousnew strains ofbacteriaHow far we are – antibiotic resistance by pathogen and type of meat in GermanyPercentage of samples. Many pathogens in these groups of bacteria can in humans lead to serious diarrhoea and even death10080SalmonellaEscherichia coli6040Campylobacter jejuniBVLNumber ofclasses of antibioticsto whichpathogens areresistent :4 or more321200turkey meat(retailer)turkey(abattoir)turkey(farm)broiler chicken(farm)turkey meat(retailer)turkey(abattoir)turkey meat(retailer)turkey(abattoir)fattenedcalf (farm)broiler chicken(farm)Pathogens notyet resistent:susceptibleMEAT ATLAS27

WHEN THE TANK IS RUNNING DRYThe growth of the world’s livestock industry will worsen the overuse of rivers andlakes. It’s not that animals are particularly thirsty; but a lot of water is needed togrow the fodder they eat, and dung from factory farms pollutes the groundwaterwith nitrates and antibiotic residues.2.5 billionpeople alreadylive in areassubject to waterstressConsumption of the world’s most importantform of sustenance – fresh water – has increasedeightfold over the past century. Itcontinues to increase at more than double therate of human population growth. As a result,one-third of humanity does not have enoughwater, and 1.1 billion people have no access toclean drinking water. Lakes, rivers, and oceansare pumped full of nutrients and pollutants.At the same time, the water table is droppingdramatically in many parts of the world. Bigrivers, such as the Colorado in the United Statesand the Yellow River in China, no longer reachthe sea for months because so much of their waterhas been extracted. Water consumption continuesto rise as the world population grows. Withouta limit to consumption, the supply of watermay collapse.The biggest water user, and the main cause ofthe global water crisis, is agriculture. It consumes70 percent of the world’s available freshwater,while households (10 percent) and industry (20percent) make do with a lot less. One-third of agriculture’sshare goes into raising livestock. This isnot because cows, pigs and chickens are especiallythirsty, it is because they consume water indirectly,as feed.It takes 15,500 litres (15.5 cubic metres) of waterto produce just one kilogram of beef, accordingto a WWF study. A small swimming pool full of waterfor four steaks? A surprising amount, until welook at what a cow eats during its lifetime: 1,300kilograms of grain and 7,200 kilograms of forage.It takes a lot of water to grow all this fodder. Addto that 24 cubic metres of drinking water and 7 cubicmetres for stall cleaning per animal. The bottomline is that to produce one kilogram of beef,one needs 6.5 kilograms of grain, 36 kilograms ofroughage, and 15,500 liters of water.Statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations are just as impressive.Producing 1,000 calories of food in theform of cereals takes about half a cubic metre ofwater. Producing the same number of calories asmeat takes four cubic metres; for dairy products,6 cubic metres. And these are average figures. Rememberthough, that not all cows are equal: anintensively raised cow uses a lot more water thanone that is put outside to graze. And around theworld, more and more animals are being kept indoorsrather than outside.The effect of livestock on water is not limited toconsumption. Water pollution caused by nitratesand phosphorus from manure and fertilizers area big problem for the livestock industry. In manyareas, over-fertilization is a bigger problem thana lack of fertilizer. Plants cannot absorb the nutrientsthat percolate down into the soil, and endup in groundwater as well as in rivers and lakes.Nitrates in groundwater often end up in wellsand springs. If the authorities check nitrate levels,people can avoid drinking it, but such checks doMoisture extraction for food, fodder and fibre productionHoekstra/MekonnenMillimetres per year0–1010–100100–500> 50028MEAT ATLAS

Water used for meat production in G20 countries2,0001,5001,0005000Most important developed and developing countries,cubic metres used per person per yearSouth Koreanot take place in many areas. Further problemsinclude contamination by antibiotics from thelarge amounts of drugs used in factory farms, andthe lowering of the water table in much of Asia becauseof pumping from wells. Dry wells have to bedeepened, and they may tap into rocks that havea high content of fluoride and arsenic; substancesthat can harm both people and animals.If meat consumption continues to rise rapidly,the amount of water needed to grow animal feedwill double by the middle of this century, accordingto the Worldwatch Institute. Human populationgrowth alone means we have to find ways touse water more economically, because the sameamount of water will have to go around for morepeople. Global warming through climate changeis likely to reduce water availability further. Itis questionable whether we should continue topump an ever scarcer resource into the raisingof livestock . Some 2.5 billion people already livein areas subject to water stress; by 2025, it will beover half of humanity, and conflicts over water areexpected to become more acute.A thirsty industryChinaIndiaUnited KingdomJapanWater use by Nippon Ham, the world’s 6th-largestmeat company, 2011, 100 percent = 12.5 million m 332food plantsfresh meatprocessing plants1.59.756.8Germanylivestock breedingfacilities and feedlotsotherIndonesiaNippon HamSouth AfricaArgentinaTurkeyVirtual waterFranceRussiaMexicoSaudi ArabiaCanadaBrazilIt takes this much water to produce 1 kilogram or 1 litre of:beefcheesericeeggssugarwheatmilkapplesbeerpotatoestomatoescarrots15,455 L5,000 L3,400 L3,300 L1,500 L1,300 L1,000 L700 L300 L255 L184 L131 LItalyAustraliaUSAworld average1 bathtub contains about140 litres of waterwaterfootprint.org Hoekstra/MekonnenMEAT ATLAS29

THE GRAIN IN THE FEED TROUGHRuminants and people do not have to compete over food. But producing moremeat requires ever more grain to feed to animals as concentrates. If we cannotgrow enough at home, we have to import it from abroad.A third of theworld’s cultivatedland is used to growa billion tonnesof feedRuminants and people do not have to competeover food. But producing more meat requiresever more grain to feed to animals asconcentrates. If we cannot grow enough at home,we have to import it from abroad. G rass, silage andhay are low in energy, so to get more out of ouranimals, we feed them with a large amount ofconcentrates: soy, maize (“corn” in the UnitedStates) and other cereals. These contain proteinto improve their fertility and growth, developtheir muscles and boost milk production.But they are low in fibre and lead to more acidproduction in the animals’ rumens. We put additivesinto the feed to compensate.So what do our farm animals eat? The Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) says that between 20 and 30 percentof cattle feed can consist of concentrates. A pigtrough may contain anything from 6 to 25 percentsoybean, depending on how old the pigs are.Averaged over all livestock species, only about 40percent of feed comes from grass, hay and silagemade from grass or maize.In Europe, the United States, as well as in Mexico,other parts of Latin America and even in countrieslike Egypt, cattle are no longer fed just ongrass. They also eat maize, wheat and soybeans. Itwould be much more efficient to use these cropsdirectly as food for people. While there are big differencesfrom region to region, worldwide 57 percentof the output of barley, rye, millet, oats andmaize are fed to animals.Even in the United States, where a lot of maizegoes into making ethanol, 44 percent ends up infeeding troughs. In the EU, 45 percent of wheatis used this way. In Africa, especially south of theSahara, where the risk of hunger is highest, suchnumbers are unthinkable. There, people eat 80Virtual trade in land used to grow soybeans for the European UnionIn million hectares, 2008–10 net averageWWFNorth America-1.6Commonwealthof IndependentStatesAsia-2Oceania0.0-0.2South America+0.2Total land outside EU used for soybeans, million hectaresother-0.1ParaguayBrazil-0.9ArgentinaMiddle East/North Africa161412-12.8+0.110-5.4-6.4Sub-SaharanAfrica802001 2005 201030MEAT ATLAS

percent of the cereal harvest; animals eat whatthey find on pastureland.On a global scale, more than 40 percent ofthe annual output of wheat, rye, oats and maizegoes into animal feed. That is nearly 800 milliontonnes. Add to that another 250 million tonnes ofoilseeds, mainly soybeans. In many regions theseare grown in mass monocultures and exportedworldwide. Soybeans could be replaced by nativelegumes such as beans, peas or lucerne which alsofix nitrogen from the air and return this valuableplant nutrient to the soil. But these crops only accountfor about 20 percent of the protein used infeed in the European Union.Overall, nearly one-third of the world’s 14 billionhectares of cultivated land is used to growanimal feed. If we also count the crop by-productsthat also go into feed, such as straw and seedcakefrom soybeans, rape or grapes, three-quartersof all cropland is used to produce animal feed insome way. And a major study conducted by theUnited Nations on agricultural development estimatesthat livestock production accounts for 70percent of all agricultural land.Feed production has become separated fromanimal raising. Crops intended for feed are nowtransported long distances, often across oceans,to reach the animals. That has consequences: a lotof livestock raisers cannot dispose of the manurenearby in a safe, environmentally friendly manner.They have to ship it somewhere else to bespread on the fields. Meanwhile, the farmers whogrow the feed have to use large amounts of artificialfertilizers and pesticides to get a decent crop.In addition, grain yields have stopped risingin some places. According to a study by theUniversity of Minnesota, yields in one-quarter toone-third of the producing areas are stagnating– including in Australia, Argentina, Guatemala,Morocco, Kenya and the US states of Arkansas andTexas. In parts of the UK, in areas that producedthe highest outputs 20 years ago, yields have actuallydecreased. For wheat and rapeseed, Britishresearchers suspect that this is due to the soilGrassland and scrubland converted to cropland and pasturePercentage of natural inventory converted to cropland pastureSouthAmericaNorthAmericaPacific(developed)EuropeAsia(incl. formerSoviet Union)Africa0 2 4 6 8 10 12previously grassland or savannahdamage caused by the use of heavy machinery. Asa result, there is a continued long-term decline inorganic matter content in British soils.On a global scale, stagnating yields affectfour major grain types that produce two-thirdsof the calories: maize, rice, wheat and soybeans.Yields of these four crops are growing by only0.9 to 1.6 percent a year. The authors of theMinnesota study think this is because effortshave gone into producing livestock feed andbiofuel crops. They argue that more efficientuse of current arable land and better managementregimes across the globe might assuagethe problem, but further expansion of croplandwould bring big environmental costs in the formof biodiversity loss and higher carbon emissions.Deepak Ray, one of the study’s authors, has anothersuggestion: “Perhaps most controversially, wecan change to more plant-based diets.”0 2 4 6 8 10 12previously scrublandFAOExpandingcropland furtherwould cause moredamage to theenvironmentLand for lunchArea of land needed to produce a typical meat dish, in m 2 /personWWF3.613.383.122.230.661.360.760.382.261.960.35total area neededneeded for meatcomponentneeded for soy0.11roast pork hamburger chicken curry grilled sausageMEAT ATLAS31

THE EMERGENCE OF A LATINAMERICAN SOY EMPIREIn Argentina, the world boom in soy prices has given rise to a new breedof farmers, along with a huge increase in tax revenues for the government. Thestructural changes in farming have led to serious social and ecological effects.The moresoy, the moreherbicide spray –cancer rates aregoing upThe new Argentinian farmer operates like aninternational manager. From his air-conditionedoffice he follows the price of soy inglobal commodities markets, and organizes hisproduction using his laptop and mobile phone. Hehas delegated the tasks of buying seeds, sowing,the application of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides,as well as harvesting and transport to specializedservice providers. The fact that he canget some of these services from a single provideris very convenient. International firmsoffer seed, a complete package of chemicals,and increasingly the marketing too. The steadyhigh price of soy makes this kind of hands-offfarming profitable even for medium-sized farmsof around 100 hectares. The landowner calculatesthe costs of outsourcing at about 340 dollars a hectare,and can expect to harvest between 2.5 and4 tonnes of soybeans, depending on the weather.A “low” price of 300 dollars a tonne still yields between485 and 980 dollars per hectare, or a profitof 50,000 to 100,000 dollars a year for a 100-hectarefarm. Even after paying a special agriculturaltax of 40 percent, and land and income taxes, theowner still has enough left over to avoid having toget his own hands dirty.This farm enterprise model has become commonover the last 10 years. The pioneers were investorswho joined together as “sowing pools” torent land from the state or from big landownersto grow soybeans on a large scale. These investorsoften operate from a few offices in the capital, BuenosAires. And they create several types of problems.Because they operate on a larger scale andharvest more, they can afford to pay higher rentsthan small and medium producers, thus encouragingthe depopulation of rural areas. Additionally,their corporate governance structure enablesthem to avoid taxes.Up to 40 percent of Argentina’s soybean fieldsare being managed by sowing pools. In 2012, theypaid the equivalent of 1.6 to 2.5 tonnes of soybeanper hectare for rent – or 594 to 825 dollars annualized.This makes large-scale monoculturesthat cover tens of thousands of hectares possible,blighting entire landscapes. Medium-sized sowingpools manage between 15,000 and 30,000 hectares,while big ones can work 100,000 hectaresor more. Between 2008 and 2012, sowing poolsreckoned on a profit of 16 to 21 percent per year –and in some cases significantly more. To even outthe risk of bad weather, they rent land in differentparts of the country. Since 2012, new rules governingtransactions have come into force and theirprofits have fallen to 3.6 to 5 percent (measuredin dollars). Some sowing pools are now expandingKey figures of Argentina’s soy economysoy crop,million hectares25soy production,million tonnes5052soy consumption and exports,million tonnes, 2013 forecast52 102019409153033109202054101001988 2000 201201988 2000 2012232MEAT ATLAS

into Paraguay, Brazil and Uruguay, or are negotiatingnew leasing agreements in Argentina.Most pools no longer plough the land, butsow the seed directly into the ground. This “directseeding” arguably conserves the water and soiland saves time, making it possible to fit in a secondor even a third crop in a year. The first harvestcan yield from 2.5 to 3 tonnes a hectare; the secondand third, less. But multiple harvests requirerepeated sprayings with herbicides, particularlyglyphosate, to get rid of weeds. Only geneticallymodified soy tolerates glyphosate; the result isthat these varieties are sown over huge areas withall the subsequent social and environmental impacts.Small farmers in particular are victims of thesoy boom. Between 1988 and 2008, the numberof farms fell from 421,000 to 270,000. Now, 2 percentof the farm enterprises control more than50 percent of the area; small enterprises, makingup 57 percent of the total, manage just 3 percentof the land. Because of the high price of land inthe central region, many large firms are movingto peripheral areas of the country and are buyingcheap land from the state. Again and again,small landholders and tenant farmers are beingbrutally evicted from their land. Armed conflictsare multiplying. Lucrative soy, along with maize,is forcing cattle breeding into more remote areasand into forested areas in Argentina and Paraguay,adding to the pressure on indigenous communitiesthere.Since 1990, soybean acreage has quadrupled,and in some regions, the use of herbicides hasrisen elevenfold. The effects are dramatic. In ruralareas, such as in villages and small towns, thenumber of miscarriages and birth defects has increased.While on average, 19 percent of deathsin Argentina are caused by cancer, in these areasit exceeds 30 percent.The centre of soy powerExports by province inArgentina, revenues 2010million dollarsdollars per person100La Pampa3,600Córdoba310300Santiagodel Estero1,0903402,9009,300Santa Fe2,300Buenos Airesprovince150Chaco 150150400Entre RíosBuenos Aires320INDECunprocessed to Chinabiodiesel and othersshare of exports fromArgentina, percent, 201222soyshare of world soybeanexports, percent, 2012Argentina24share of soy exporttaxes, percent, 20116soy taxesUSDA, FAOSTAT, INDECfeed353beef and poultryall government revenuesrest of worldstockMEAT ATLAS33

THE CLIMATE COST OF CATTLELivestock directly or indirectly produce nearly one-third of the world’sgreenhouse gas emissions. But farmers and scientists say that with the righttype of management, livestock do not have to be a burden on the climate.Feedingruminants withgrass and garlic maycut methaneemissionsLivestock raisers are not just victims of climatechange; they also contribute to it. Dependingon how you count, livestock are responsiblefor 6 to 32 percent of greenhouse gases. Accordingto the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAO), it’s 14.5 percent. The bigdifference in these estimates depends on the basisof measurement: should it only be based on the directemissions from livestock, or should the totalemissions due to feed production, the productionof fertilizer and pesticides, ploughing, forestclearance to grow soybeans, and the drainageof peatlands also be included?The production and use of feed is oftennot included in the carbon-dioxide footprint ofmeat or livestock products such as eggs, milk andbutter. But environment scientists say that thesefootprints should include all the emissions createdduring the life cycle of a particular product,from production to use and disposal. The productionand use of mineral and organic fertilizers isresponsible for more than one-third of all greenhousegases from livestock production. The biggestculprit is nitrous oxide, or N 2O, commonlyknown as laughing gas, a greenhouse gas 300times more potent than carbon dioxide. If farmersapply too much mineral fertilizer, manure orslurry, or use it at the wrong time, plants cannotabsorb the nutrients and the gas ends up in the atmosphereor is converted into nitrates that pollutegroundwater. The Swiss Research Institute of OrganicAgriculture (FiBL) has determined that theproduction of the world’s annual output of 125million tonnes of nitrogen fertilizers releases 800million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This amounts to2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.High demand for animal feed – especiallysoybeans – is pushing the expansion of agriculturalproduction. Rainforest and scrubland areoften cleared for cultivation. FAO says that inBrazil alone, nearly 7.7 kilograms of greenhousegases are released for every kilogram of soybeansgrown. Another chunk of emissions that is seldomconsidered emerges from changes in land use.When grassland is ploughed, the humus decomposesand releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide.One tonne of humus binds 3.7 tonnes of thegas – and 35 percent of that disappears into theair when the soil is turned over. Another 4 percentof greenhouse gas emissions attributable to agricultureoccur when farmers plough drained peatsoils. This is the most climate-damaging type offarming: 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide can be releasedper hectare every year from organic matterthat has built up in swamps over centuries.But livestock raising does not have to be thisharmful to the climate. Keeping animals on pastureis worthwhile: turning cultivated fields intomeadows binds the highest amounts of carbondioxide in the first 30–40 years. These meadowsshould not be overfertilized by too many animalsor with large amounts of chemical fertilizer, andEmissions due to animal products consumed in the USAEmissions from meat production in the USAKilograms of C0 2equivalent per kilogram of meatEWGKilograms of CO 2equivalent per kilogram of consumable meatEWG403530252015105039.227.013.512.1productionprocessing, transport,trade, preparation,waste disposal10.96.94.8lamb beef cheese pigmeat turkey chicken eggs876543210CH 4 (digestion)7.51fodder production4.671.261.75 1.640.28 0.55beefpoultryN 2 0(manure)transport ofadditional ingredientsCH 4 methaneN 20 nitrous oxide, laughing gasCH 4(manure)0.59energy0.230.2634MEAT ATLAS

What you don’t see on your plate: greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock supply chainsBy animal products, in billion tonnes equivalent carbon dioxideFAOmanure for non-feed crops,1.4 million tonnes nitrogenpost-farm transportand processing0.2slaughter by-productsdraft, fibre andmanure used as fuel0.4livestockproduction3.5beef2.97.0cattle milk1.4feedproduction3.3sheep and goatsbuffalo milk and meat0.40.6non-feed productschicken meatchicken eggspigmeat0.70.40.2the plant root systems should be allowed to developundisturbed. Cattle do indeed belch methane:beef and dairy farmers are often blamed becausetheir animals produce 28 percent of this particularlyclimate-damaging gas. But nearly all this gascan be bound in the soil if the cattle are grazed onpasture. And these animals should not be givencereals or soybeans as supplemental feed. A cowfed this way does not produce as much meat perhectare as one fed on concentrates, but the costto the environment in terms of greenhouse gasemissions is much lower.Teams of scientists are trying to find ways toreduce livestock’s impact on the climate. TheFrench research company Valorex has replacedthe common diet of maize and soy-based concentrateswith one composed of lucerne (alfalfa),linseed and grass. The result was a 20 percentdecrease in the methane content of the bovineburps. And scientists of the Aberystwyth Universityin Wales think they can halve the methaneemissions of cows by mixing garlic into the feed:it attacks the microorganisms in the gut that producemethane.A cocktail of gases: Climate change from field and stallBy category of emission, percentFAObeefpoultrycow milkpigseggsmanure, applied and deposited, N 2O land use change: soybean, CO 2digestion, CH 4feed, CO 2expansion, CO 2manure management, N 2Ofertilizer and crop residues, N 2Oland use change: pasturemanure management, CH 4direct and indirectenergy, CO 2post-farm, CO 2MEAT ATLAS35

RANCHERS IN THE RAINFORESTIn Brazil’s Amazon region, the world’s second-largest herd of cattle meetsthe world’s biggest rainforest. This is bad news for the forest. First come theloggers, then come the ranchers.Brazilsupports bigherds, high-yieldingpastures andhormone useBrazil has a population of 201 million people,but even more cattle: 211.3 million, accordingto the Brazilian Institute of Geographyand Statistics (IBGE) at the end of 2012. That issecond only to India’s national herd. Animal numbersfell a little from 2011 because of rising foddercosts, but were still 9 million higher than in 2008.The area needed to keep all these animals is huge:more than 172 million hectares, or 70 percent ofBrazil’s agricultural land.According to a study by the National Institutefor Space Research (INPE) using satellite imagery,62.2 percent of the deforested land is usedas pasture for cattle. Another 21 percent is notused and is covered by secondary regrowth.Only 4.9 percent is cultivated. This means thatthe world’s biggest rainforest is ending up beingdestroyed mainly to feed cattle. Despite recentdeclines in the rate of deforestation, cattle raisingstill puts a lot of pressure on the rainforest. Thenumber of cattle in northern Brazil – mostly theAmazon – has now reached over 40 million animals.Between 1975 and 2006, pastureland thereincreased by 518 percent.This expansion has many causes. Raising cattleis profitable even in remote areas with little infrastructure.The costs of chopping down the treesand converting the land to pasture can be coveredby selling the timber. The low costs of investmentmake this land ideal for illegal, sometimesshort-term use. According to Brazil’s strict forestlaws, most of the deforestation is unlawful or isin a grey legal zone. The intensification of farmingelsewhere in Brazil, caused by the expandingcultivation of soy for feed and sugarcane to makeethanol, reinforces the destructive pressure on therainforest.Things have to change in the process of landconversion. In fact, some news is encouraging. Theaverage rate of deforestation used to be around20,000 square kilometres a year; that has droppedsignificantly. In 2012, “only” 4,700 square kilometreswere cleared. The government has expandedthe protected areas and strengthened controlsover forest clearing. Beef produced in Brazil doesnot have to come from the Amazon. Domestic andinternational consumers could request meat thatis produced in parts of the country that have notbeen deforested in order to raise livestock. Brazil’seconomic difficulties mean that domestic demandfor beef is weak. The government supportsprices and pays subsidies for larger herds andhigh-yielding pastures. Export earnings are risingby about 20 percent a year. The biggest customeris Russia, which takes about one-third of total exports.Hong Kong’s share has doubled in just oneOxygen for all: the vital role of the greenwoodCarbon dioxide storage in billion tonnes, estimates19902000201038 39 40North and Central America42 43 45Europe60 58 56Africa37 37 36Asia11 11 10Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentOceania110 106 102South Americamassive deforestationforest area stableslight increases in forest land36MEAT ATLAS

Spots on the world’s lungsRainforest losses from clearance and grazingFAOMore than60 percent of thedeforested land isdevoted to cattleraisingCattle per km 201–300> 300historic limits ofthe rainforestyear to 20 percent. This is due to an import banChina imposed after a case of mad cow disease in asouthern Brazilian state. Much of this trade is nowdiverted via Hong Kong. Its higher imports havealso more than compensated for a long-runningban on imports imposed by Saudi Arabia.Brazil has a special quota for imports of highqualitybeef into the European Union, but it cannotsupply even one-third of the volume permitted.Exporters prefer to supply Asia and NorthAmerica instead. And the European Commissionand Russia were watchful when the Brazilian governmentpermitted the use of ractopamine on cattlein 2012. This growth hormone is already beingused on pigs in Brazil, and as a consequence, theirmeat may not be imported into the EU, Russia orChina. However, other markets remain attractive :27 countries, including the United States, Canada,South Africa, South Korea and Japan, permit imports.Brazil says that it will export only beef raisedwithout the use of ractopamine to countries thatban the hormone.The US Department of Agriculture expects another5 million cattle to be grazing on Brazilianpastures in 2014. The pressure on the rainforestremains high. Supported by satellite data, environmentalprotection groups have noted a significantincrease in forest clearing in 2013.Forest clearances: lower, but still too highAnnual loss of forest in the Brazilian Amazon, in km 230,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,00001990 1992 1994 1986 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 20102012INPEMEAT ATLAS37

THE GLYPHOSATE IN YOUR BURGERIf pesticides, herbicides or medicines leave unwanted residues in meat, milk andeggs, we end up consuming them too. Gaps in research leave uncertainty aboutwhat glyphosate – a weedkiller used when growing genetically modified soybeans –does to our bodies. Legal loopholes mean we may be eating it without knowing it.Producers,local residentsand consumers areall exposed toherbicidesThe mass production of animals in the EuropeanUnion depends largely on feedingthem with soybeans, and especially geneticallymodified (GM) soy. The only “positive” effectof the genetic modification is that it makes thesoy plant resistant to glyphosate. This is a broadspectrumherbicide used to kill any plant on thefield unless the plant is genetically modified totolerate it.Glyphosate is the world’s best-sellingchemical herbicide. It was patented by the UScompany Monsanto in the 1970s, and marketedunder the brand name Roundup. Monsanto,the world’s largest seed producer, produces morethan half of the world’s glyphosate. In 2011, thissubstance accounted for 27 percent of the company’stotal net sales. With the expiry of the patentoutside the United States in 1991 and in the EuropeanUnion in 2000, Monsanto had to develop anew strategy to defend its market share againstcompeting chemical companies, including BASF,Syngenta and Bayer, that produce their ownglyphosate-containing herbicides. Monsanto introduced“Roundup Ready” crops that were geneticallymodified – and resistant to glyphosate.Promising an easy-to-handle weed-control program,Monsanto encourages farmers who growRoundup Ready soy, maize and sugar beet to buythe company’s corresponding herbicide.Glyphosate-resistant soybeans are the world’sbest-selling GM crops. Currently about 85 percentof the worldwide cultivated GM crops are herbicide-resistant,and the vast majority are Monsanto’sRoundup Ready varieties. In 2012, nearly halfof all GM crops grown worldwide were RoundupReady soybeans. Cultivated in South and NorthAmerica on approximately 85 million hectares,and exported mainly to China and the EuropeanUnion, glyphosate-resistant soybeans are used tofeed poultry, pigs and cattle in intensive livestockproduction. A loophole in the EU’s GM labellinglaws allows meat, dairy and eggs produced withGM animal feed to be sold without a GM label.Why should meat eaters worry? Becauseglyphosate residues might be present at lowlevels in animal products that people consume,and because there are growing doubts about thehealth safety of glyphosate. The problem is thatglyphosate is a systemic herbicide. This meansthat it moves throughout the plant into the leaves,grains or fruit. It cannot be removed by washing,and it is not broken down by cooking. Glyphosateresidues remain stable in food and feed for a yearor more, even if it is frozen, dried or processed.This means that livestock fed with GM soy eathuge amounts of glyphosate residues. Industrystudies show that when animals are fed glyphosateat levels allowed in feed, residues may be presentat low levels in their milk and eggs, as well asin the liver and kidneys. The European Food SafetyAuthority (EFSA) is planning to examine the issueof glyphosate residues in animal products. TheseGlyphosate – a sudden accelerationUse by year and crop in the USA,million pounds/kilograms,Glyphosate-resistant crops in the USA,on percent of cultivated landUSDA ERS200920082007200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995199419930 50 100 150 200maizesoybeansothers25 50 75 100kilogramspounds1009080706050403020100soybeansmaize1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200838MEAT ATLAS

Acceptance and rejection of genetically modified cropsArea planted to GM crops, by countrymillion hectaresover 93–91–30.01–10FAO, centerforfoodsafety.orgRules for genetically modified(GM) food (not animal feed)bannedLabelling required:all plant products have to be labelled, exception:if a contamination up to 0.9 percent is“adventitious and technically unavoidable”.Products derived from animals fed with GMOs:no labelling (eggs, meat, milk).for many products. Labelling not needed ifGM material accounts for up to 1 percent ofthe complete productfor a few products, with many exceptionsGM crops banned in European countriesinclude meat, because considering the wide useof glyphosate on feed crops, “a significant livestockexposure to glyphosate […] might be expected,resulting in a carry-over of residues in the foodof animal origin”, EFSA announced.The US Environmental Protection Agency increasedthe legal limit for glyphosate residuesin soybeans from 0.1 milligrams/kilogram to 20milligrams/kilogram in 1996. This subsequentlybecame the international maximum residue level.This change was made in the year the first GMcrops were grown. Evidence suggests that onepercent of the glyphosate remains in the bodya week after exposure. Because glyphosate is sowidely used, most people are exposed to it on aregular basis. But “real life” exposure to glyphosate,meaning long-term uptake in low doses, hasnever been investigated. And up to now there hasbeen no official testing in the EU of glyphosateresidues in imported GM soybeans.Applying glyphosate can cause problems forother reasons too. In some parts of the world it issprayed on large fields. This does not take into accountany other crops or vegetation around thesoybean fields. As a result, the local biodiversitysinks dramatically. In addition, the chemical cansink into the groundwater. People living nearbyor who happen to be in the area are repeatedly exposedto the spray.This can have serious consequences. There isevidence that glyphosate affects the human hormonesystem, which can cause irreversible effectsat particular life stages, such as during pregnancy.Also, glyphosate-containing herbicides haveMEAT ATLASbeen shown to be “genotoxic”, meaning they interferewith a cell’s ability to accurately copy DNAand reproduce, leading to potential genetic mutationsand a bigger risk of cancer. In Ecuador andColombia, where glyphosate herbicides havebeen used to control cocaine production, studieshave found genetic damage and increasedrates of miscarriage during the spraying period.In the soy-growing Chaco district of Argentina,cancer rates have increased threefold inthe last decade. In all soy-growing areas of SouthAmerica, there have been reports of increases inbirth defects. One study in Paraguay found thatthe babies of women living within 1 kilometre offields sprayed with glyphosate were more thantwice as likely to have birth defects.Pesticides use in ArgentinaMillion kilograms sold, mostly containing glyphosates20132009200520011997As farmersapply morechemicals, officialsraise the limitspermitted0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350REDUAS/CASAFE39

A PLETHORA OF POULTRY:CHICKENS TAKE THE LEADIn developed countries, consumption of chicken is surpassing that of beef,and chicken production is now highly industrialized. Demand in Asia is risingfast, and people who refuse pork and beef are happy to eat chicken.Poultry raised in intensive systems40Numbers and proportions, 2005/2010*total number ofpoultry (billions)7.35.31.22.31.00.80.94.01.1Industrial poultry production is the fastest growingand most quickly changing segment of ahighly globalized livestock industry. By 2020,124 million tonnes of poultry will be producedglobally – an increase of 25 percent in just 10years. China’s production increase will be largest,a 37 percent increase compared to 2010; but Brazil(28 percent) will be close behind. Below-averageof which inintensive systems(billions)5.84.70.648Eastern Europe and Central Asia1.50.657Middle East and North Africa0.3300.116South Asia, of which India0.3Sub-Saharan Africa3.5percentage inintensive systems,region/country79648690East Asia and Pacific, of which ChinaLatin America and Caribbeanhigh-income countries29percentage inintensivesystems, global46* country classification as of 2010, data 2005, more recent not available53812531228FAOgrowth is forecast for the USA (16 percent) and theEU (4 percent). The most dramatic change in demandfor poultry meat, however, will take placein South Asia, where it is expected to rise morethan sevenfold by 2050. This huge increase is duemainly to the growth in demand in India, whereconsumption is expected to rise nearly tenfold,from 1.05 to 9.92 million tonnes a year. Accordingto the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, this is due to rising per capita consumptionrather than the growing human population.Most growth in demand comes from urbanareas and double that in rural regions.Why do people prefer chicken to other types ofmeat? One reason is the price. Producing poultryis cheaper than other types of meat. Even thoughcost of poultry production will rise as a result ofmore expensive feed, chickens are more efficientfeed converters than other livestock. Unlike beefand pork, there are few religious or cultural limitationsto eating chicken. Plus, meat consumptionis expected to rise in countries where people culturallyprefer eating poultry.Poultry production will change as a result.Large numbers of chickens are currently raisedon a small scale in backyards. We can expect thesesmall production units to be displaced by largerones. Feed will be produced in different areas,and production will become more concentrated.There will be fewer live-bird markets and traderson bicycles. The numerous small slaughter locationsand retailers will be replaced by fewer, butlarger slaughterhouses and retail outlets.China’s poultry production is industrializingrapidly, with 70 percent of it relegated to broilersand spent hens. The expansion of supermarketsand fast-food outlets, such as McDonaldsand Kentucky Fried Chicken have helped to drivedemand and hasten a shift to large-scale production.Millions of small poultry producers have disappeared:between 1985 and 2005, 70 million leftthe sector. Small farms are becoming less important.In 1998, farms with fewer than 2,000 birdsproduced 62 percent of the country’s chickens;in 2009, these farms produced only 30 percent.Meanwhile, the share of huge farms with an annualoutput of over 100 million birds rose from 2percent in 1998 and to over 6 percent in 2009.Such big flocks are difficult to manage with regardto food safety. Many industrial-scale produc-MEAT ATLAS

Chickens on platesEstimated chicken consumptionper person, 2012, in kilograms,dressed carcass weight50.136.525.3DSW, FAOCanada23.6Russia14.019.131.0USAEU-27China16.9JapanSouth Korea2.4Mexico38.5India50.57.337.8Indonesia38.6BrazilSouth AfricaAustraliaArgentinaers mix antibiotics and other additives into thefeed in order to prevent diseases from spreading,and to make the birds grow faster. Though Chinahas a long list of banned feed additives (many ofwhich are used in the United States ), monitoringand implementation remains poor. In December2012, Chinese national television exposed the“instant chicken” scandal associated with Liuhe.One of the country’s top chicken producers, Liuheis a subsidiary of New Hope, the biggest feedcompany in China and one of the largest in theworld. As many as 18 antibiotics were found in“cocktails” mixed into the feed to accelerate thegrowth of broilers. These birds could grow from30 grams to 2.5 kilograms in a matter of 40 days.Liuhe is one of KFC’s major suppliers. As a result ofthe scandal, Yum Brands (KFC’s parent company)was forced to admit that excessive drug residueshad been found in “some” poultry supplied by Liuhein 2010.The scandal caused widespread outrage inthe Chinese media, and KFC’s sales plunged. KFCresponded by exerting even more control overits supply chain. It announced that it would shifttowards a “grow out” system. In this model, thereare no independent small producers or contractfarmers that are typical of the vertically integratedpoultry industry. Rather, the meat-processingcompany owns all the inputs, controls the landand water resources, and employs the workerswho produce the chickens, essentially turningfarms into factories.Instead of moving away from an industrialmodel, China is further intensifying its poultryproduction as a response to overcome food safetyissues, despite the emergence of avian flu. First detectedin 1996 in farmed geese in southern China,this disease has since spread to 60 countries. Since2004, China has reported avian flu outbreaks everyyear except 2011.However, China’s trend mimics worldwidetrends. Poultry production, markets and processingfacilities in countries expanding thissector are increasingly become integratedinto market chains, with control in the handsof fewer and larger companies. These trendswill affect everyone who currently makes aliving from poultry. It will especially influencewomen, who currently keep most of the world’sbackyard chickens and it will affect the quality ofthe poultry consumers eat.A growing flockBillion birds2015105chickensducksgeese and guinea fowlturkeys20 billionchickens: theyare the world’s mostnumerous birdspecies02000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010FAOMEAT ATLAS41

WHERE KEEPING CHICKENSIS WOMEN‘S WORKMany women in Africa and Asia are forced to be dependent on their husbandsfor big decisions. A few hens, chicks and eggs can build their confidence andself-reliance. Their contribution to the meat supply is often underestimated.The value oftheir meat meansthat chickens actas a savings bankwith wingsThe global large-scale meat industry has someimpressive figures on production and trade.But we should not neglect small-scale localproducers. In developing countries, a sizeableproportion of meat output comes from traditionalforms of livestock raising. This is especially truefor poultry, much of which is raised by small-scaleproducers. Families often keep a few free-rangechickens in their backyards. Systematic researchhas revealed how much meat is actually producedin this way: in Bangladesh, 98 percent of chickenmeat and eggs come from small-scale producers;in Ethiopia it is 99 percent. In Nigeria, the mostpopulous country in Africa, it was 94 percent beforeimports from the European Union took off.In southern Africa, 85 percent of all householdskeep chickens, and 70 percent of thechickens belong to women. In countries wherewomen are traditionally disadvantaged, chicken-keepingis especially important as a sourceof income. In many countries women still are notallowed to own land in their own names, or evenjointly with their husbands. They often work intheir husbands’ fields; if they have a plot of theirown, it may be just big enough for a vegetable garden.The men get the income from the rest of theland, and can spend it as they want.In traditional societies, that means that womenare economically dependent on the men.Small-scale chicken-raising is their job. Chickensare undemanding. At best, they look for theirown feed, and they require very little investment.Looking after the birds is something that childrencan do, and women can combine chicken raisingwith their other tasks. They can use the smallamounts of income they get from selling eggs ormeat to cover daily expenses, such as school exercisebooks, medicines and salt. The birds are a formof savings on legs. They can be sold or slaughteredfor celebrations and funerals, to make larger purchases,or for an emergency.For women, the social benefits of chickenraisingcan be just as important as the economicadvantages. In a survey by the Cameroonian socialresearcher Tilder Kumichi, Margret Vikuwi,from northeastern Cameroon, related how shehad benefited from her small chicken enterprise.Ms.Vikuwi always has a reserve to deal with anemergency, and she is not totally dependent onthe housekeeping money her husband gives her.Selling chickens to friends, neighbours and customersin the market is stimulating, and she is constantlyenlarging her circle of acquaintances. Shefeels that she is becoming more independent becauseof her chickens, and she now has more freedomthan before. Raising other types of animalsgives women similar advantages, especially withgoats and small stock, such as rabbits and guineapigs. Beef cattle normally belong to the men, whotend to be responsible for looking after them. Bothmen and women may own dairy cows. Regardlessof who owns the cows, it is normally the womenwho take care of them and who get the incomefrom the meat when they are slaughtered.If women are successful at raising animals,they can build up their stocks. They may be able toget a loan from a self-help group or microfinanceinstitution, and become independent. They canpurchase more animals, invest in a stall or shed,and learn about hygiene and feeding. These activitiesare time-consuming, therefore they needto employ other people. If business is good and thelegal situation permits, they can buy some landand set up their own enterprise.When women own livestock, diets improvemonths of adequate provisioning, per year and livestock species, Eastern and Southern Africa households where women own the species householdscattlegoats1409815611442MEAT ATLAS

Between a lack of rights and market dominanceDistribution of labour, decision-making and ownership of chickens in fourregions of Africa and Asia, by gender and family relationships, in percent1008060decision-making89wholesaler11retailer3610064assemblerpoultry salesNorthern provinces of Vietnam402070600sale of eggsconsumption ofeggstask allocation in chicken-raisingKhulna District, Bangladesh1008050406040task allocation in chicken-raising3020100shedbuildingshedcleaningfeeding watering sale ofchickensRural households in Western Division, Gambiasale ofeggshealth care200feedingovernightconfinementtreatment1375327188ownership of chickensRural households in Dodoma, Tanzania74ownership of chickens91576buying and selling of chickenswomenmenchildrenfamilywomen and childrenwomen and menFAOwhere women do not own the species98number of meals including this meatILRIexotic chickens208166local chickens125109MEAT ATLAS43

IMPORTED CHICKEN WINGS DESTROYWEST AFRICAN BUSINESSESEuropean poultry firms are not permitted to turn slaughter by-products intoanimal feed. So they export them to developing countries and sell them cheap.Broiler farms in Ghana and Benin have gone bankrupt.Chickenunsellable inEurope is smuggledhalf-thawedinto NigeriaFor most people in developing countries, eatingmeat is a luxury. A kilogram of meat cancost from 3 to 7 Euro in the local markets –several days’ wages. Nevertheless, meat consumptionis rising among the urban middle classes. Forthose who are better-off, eating meat is a statussymbol. However, people often eat meat as partof a feast.The economic gap between developed anddeveloping countries is reflected in their meatconsumption. While people in developedcountries meet more than half (56 percent) oftheir protein needs from animal sources, peoplein developing countries obtain only 18 percent inthis way. This is in part a consequence of the debtcrises in the 1980s. When the World Bank and theInternational Monetary Fund insisted on the privatizationof many state concerns and reductionsin government spending, governments had tocancel their support for food production. A numberof countries had invested in developing semiindustrialpoultry and pig production to improveprotein supplies for their citizens.Foreign donors and cheap state loans alsosupported small-scale producers. The situationwas tempting: demand for meat was rising andprices in the cities had stabilized at a high level. Asof the late 1980s, beef from herders was in shortsupply in many local markets in Africa. This madepoultry farming attractive. Asante, a pensioner inGhana, was among those who got a loan in 1990.It was granted by a microfinance institute that issupported by the African Development Bank. Hebuilt three big poultry houses, each holding 7,000chicks, and started raising them for marketing inthe nearby city of Accra. Business was good, andhis whole family helped with feeding and cleaning.He was soon able to buy an electric feed mill,which made the work easier.However, when Ghana joined the WorldTrade Organization, importers suddenly startedflooding the market with cheap frozen meatfrom overseas. Asante was able to keep afloat fora while, but since 2006 his chicken houses havebeen empty. When he died in 2010, he left a debtto his children. The family has not even been ableto sell the feed mill, but at least they can use it tomill grain for themselves and their neighbours.An investment of 10,000 Euro has been negated,and the buildings are a white elephant.What caused the flood of meat to Ghana andother countries in West Africa? Except for Ango-Biggest poultry importers in Africain 1,000 tonnesAngola Benin Congo DR Congo Ghana South Africa all poultry imports to Africaindexmundi/USDA3002502001,2541,300NA150100505136126807057639950200520062007200820092010 2011 2012 2013Countries 2013: estimate. Africa 2012: FAO revision, Africa 2013: not available44MEAT ATLAS

Hungry livestock keepersin millions, 2010FAO+3.7517 12+0.41170-2.05+3.35Eastern Europeand Central Asia+4.6223 13106258+0.8950East Asia7105-1.4228-1.4810219160Middle Eastand NorthAfricaof which India328of which ChinaCentral andSouth AmericaSub-SaharanAfrica150South Asiabelow the national povertyline for rural areasunder 2 dollars/dayannual change in poor livestockkeepers, 2000–2010, in percentMEAT ATLASla, there were no subsidies for exports of poultrymeat to Africa. Some EU subsidies contribute toprice dumping, such as the area subsidies for feedproduction in Europe, or support programmes fornew farm buildings. But they are less significantin poultry production than in other agriculturalsectors. The trigger was mad cow disease, or bovinespongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Becauseof the BSE epidemic, the EU restricted the use ofmeat and bone meal as animal feed from 1996 on,and eventually banned it altogether. That is whatled to the export boom. In Europe, different partsof a chicken have different levels of profitability.Breast fillets are so profitable that they financeall the other parts of the bird, including the legsand wings. For the producer, if it is not breast, it iswaste. The feed industry used to take all this protein-richmaterial and use it to make feed. The baneliminated the market for these by-products, andproducers were even faced with having to destroythem at their own expense.But now they suddenly have new customers.Exporters snap up these chicken pieces at a verylow price, frozen, straight from the slaughterhouse,and eminently suitable for human consumption.After covering the cost of shipping toWest Africa, they can be sold for two-thirds lessthan the locally raised chickens. The local producershave no way to compete. The wholesale pricesof imported chicken pieces are so low in Accra orMonrovia, that they would cover only half theirproduction costs back in Europe. So far, no developingcountry has managed to impose a banon such dumping practices through the WorldTrade Organization.“Fragile” states such as Liberia, Congo andSierra Leone have only just begun investingin their agriculture as they recover from civilwar. But they are not investing in animal husbandry,because of the cheap imports fromEurope. Some countries, such as Cameroon, Senegaland Nigeria, have been successful in restrictingimports. However, this has attracted smugglerswho, in week-long transports, obtain EUchicken parts from neighbouring countries suchas Benin. In areas where the imports have not yetpenetrated, poultry is a stable source of incomefor many small farmers, especially women. But inGhana and Benin, the broiler industry has all butdied out.Chickenbreasts are soprofitable that therest of the meatis worthless45

DISQUIET IN THE DEVELOPED WORLDDemand for meat in the developed world has peaked, and is beginning to declineslowly. Consumers’ worries about food safety are reinforced by scandals inthe industry. The industry is trying to improve its image with marketing ploys,but consumers are confused and the product is not necessarily any better.The choice:cheap meat, orethically producedbut more expensiveproductsMeat production and consumption in therich, industrialized world have undergonea massive transition over the last 50 years.In 1950, the average person in the United Kingdomconsumed just 20 grams of chicken a week,along with 250 grams of beef. Today, Mr or MsAverage eats 250 grams of chicken and only 120grams of beef.However, there seems to be a dual trend inmost industrialized countries. A small numberof people have started to eat less meat, andhealthy, low-meat diets have become trendy.But many others cannot get fresh, quality food,and they lack the possibility to choose betweendiets with or without meat.Overall, meat consumption in most industrializedcountries is high, but has stagnated. In somecountries, meat consumption has even gone downfor the first time in decades. In the United States,the meat industry is alarmed by a 9-percent dropin consumption from 2007 to 2012. The industryfeels threatened by what it sees as “a propagandawar on meat”. In Germany, in 2012, meat consumptionwent down by more than 2 kilogramsper person a year. The meat industry promptlyblamed the decrease on the summer’s bad weatherand a skipped barbecue season. Though thismight be one factor, it seems there is a slight trendfor consumers in industrialized countries to careabout the quality of their meat. More of them areasking where it comes from, how it is produced,and whether it is healthy. And lifestyle magazinesnow carry articles promoting low-meat diets ashealthy and modern.One reason for this trend may be a series ofmeat scandals, including the use of meat thatis well past its sell-by date in pre-prepared fastfoods, the presence of dioxin in chicken feed, andhorsemeat marketed as beef. Such crimes comefrom increasing economic pressure as well ascomplex, distributed and globalized manufacturingchains. In 1954, one in three farms in Britainkept a few pigs and sold them locally; today onlyone in every 150 farms keeps a lot of pigs, and theyare sold all over the country. Suspicious consumersdo not understand the structure of the meatsector, they are sceptical of control systems, andthey no longer ignore the adverse effects of themeat industry on the environment, human healthand animal welfare.Food consumption by country groupskcal per capita per dayplant and animal productsindustrialized countriesdeveloping countriesWHO, FAOSTAT2,947 3,065 3,206 3,380 3,440 3,5002,054 2,152 2,450 2,681 2,850 2,9801964–66 1974–76 1984–86 1997–99 2015estimate2030estimateanimal products onlyindustrialized countries Europe United States least developed countries (in that year)China1,2001,0008006008339761,005 1,049 1,013929 971 977 958 964923 9256945944002000132 141191 160901963 1983 2003 200917846MEAT ATLAS

Demand in the rich world is satiatedMeat consumption per capita, kilograms, average 2010–12 (estimate), and 2022 (forecast)20.218.2 16.715.8Canada33.732.645.644.411.111.032.331.721.220.815.314.96.8 7.3Japan12.812.70.2 0.2OECD/FAO26.5European Union39.638.80.9 0.8Australia24.7 21.120.80.4 0.322.922.121.520.0USA8.68.42010–2012 2022beef, vealpigmeatpoultrysheep, goats19.116.82.0 1.7New Zealand15.715.531.6 32.5 10.28.8In response to declining meat consumption,meat companies have developed marketing labelsthat communicate certain animal-welfare standardsand food-safety issues to consumers. Theydo this rather than adopting one of the existingcertification schemes. Civil society organizationswarn that these new “standards” might confuseconsumers rather than improve the quality of themeat. Organic production would be an alternativethat takes consumer doubts into account. Organicallyproduced animals may not be fed with geneticallymodified soy; a high percentage of their feedhas to come from the home farm; and antibioticsare completely forbidden, or allowed on a very restrictedbasis only. Despite this, less than 2 percentof the meat sold in most industrialized countries isorganically produced.One reason for this may be price: organicallyproduced meat costs nearly twice as much asconventional meat. Conventional meat is cheapto buy because some of its costs are hidden fromthe public. These include tax subsidies to factoryfarmers, external environmental costs, or harmto consumers due to low-quality diets. In timesof rising poverty and big income differences betweenthe rich and the poor, many people find ithard to spend more on food. Schools and canteensserve meat every day and have few vegetarian offerings,further raising our expectation of a dailydose of meat. A high-pressure lifestyle is makingMEAT ATLASus lose our taste for vegetables, and we are forgettinghow to cook them, even though a vegetarianor low-meat diet would be cheaper.For meat production to be sustainable, richconsumers have to eat less meat. And we must eatdifferently. We have to reduce our consumptionof intensively reared livestock, while shifting tothe production and consumption of meat fromgrazing animals. These have a healthier balanceof fats and micronutrients than animalsfed on grain, and they can turn something wecannot eat, grass, into milk and meat.Past the peak in the USAMeat consumption per capita, kilograms, withoutwaste and pet food 2013 and 2014: estimates8580757001966 1978 1990 2002 2014CMEIn theindustrializedworld, it’s easier tograb a burgerthan a salad47

HALF A BILLION NEW MIDDLE-CLASSCONSUMERS FROM RIO TO SHANGHAIBrazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – the BRICS – are five big developingcountries that are setting out from different starting points. They may not end upwith the food consumption patterns of the industrialized West.“Non-veg”has become astatus symbol inIndia’s thrivingcitiesEconomic growth in the BRICS, a group of fivebig developing countries named after theirinitials, is reflected in their meat consumption.Together, they account for 40 percent of theworld’s population. Between 2003 and 2012, theirmeat consumption rose by 6.3 percent a year. It isexpected to rise by another 2.5 percent a year between2013 and 2022.Both population growth and rising urbanizationlead to more meat consumption. Urbanresidents tend to have more disposableincome than rural people. They eat more, andthey eat differently from their country cousins.In particular, they tend to consume more animalproducts. In 2011, the rural Chinese got by with26.1 kilograms of meat, milk and eggs. That wasaround 12.4 kilograms more than in 1990. Buttheir urban counterparts downed 48.9 kilograms,an increase of 19.1 kilograms. The Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations assumesthat by 2050, emerging markets will coveronly 46 percent of their caloric intake with grains;another 29 percent will come from meat, eggs,milk and cheese.To keep up with such demand, the world’sfarmers and agricultural firms will have to boosttheir meat output from currently 300 milliontonnes to 470 million tonnes by 2050. Factoryfarms, similar to those known in the industrializedworld since the 1950s, will have to be establishedeverywhere. It is not clear how such hugenumbers of animals can be fed. Meat productionuses enormous amounts of feed grain, includingsoybeans, whose production will have to nearlydouble from 260 to 515 million tonnes a yearworldwide. Either yields per hectare will have torise, or more land will have to be brought into production,or both.The world’s two most populous countries differmarkedly in their consumption patterns. InIndia, a vegetarian lifestyle has deep cultural andsocial roots. Many Hindus, along with ascetic Jainsand Buddhists, avoid eating meat altogether. Insurveys, a quarter or more of all Indians say theyare vegetarian. But the number of meat-eaters isgrowing. Since the economic boom in the early1990s, a broad middle class that aspires to a Westernlifestyle has emerged. This includes eatingmeat. “Non-veg”, as it is called in India, has becomea status symbol among parts of the population.Nevertheless, meat consumption in India isstill small – per person it is less than one-tenth ofthe amount consumed in China.In Russia, the world’s biggest beef importer,demand depends on prosperity from oil andgas export revenues. The country’s accession tothe World Trade Organization in 2012 has notspiced up trade. Strict adherence to the WTO’sPoultry in China and India: more determined by lifestyle than by population growthPoultry meat demand, 2000–2030, in percent, assuming population of 1.4 billionFAOpopulationin 2000 in 2030 attributable to population growthgrowth as a function of bothattributable to changing lifestylepopulation1.41.21.00.811 11781.41.21.00.8527680.6China0.6India0.40.40.20.200 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18per capita consumption(kilograms/year)00 2 4 648MEAT ATLAS

demand in the developing world is rising steeplyMeat consumption per capita, kilograms, average 2010–12 (estimate),and 2022 (forecast), in the BRICS countries(Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)24.219.713.6 14.222.529.234.129.2OECD/FAO41.547.0Russia1.2 1.545.23.43.8China11.1 13.6 2.7 2.729.3 30.4 12.311.12010–2012 2022beef, vealpigmeatpoultrysheepBrazil0.4 0.414.412.65.4 5.8 32.2South africa1.0 1.2 0.2 0.23.2 3.4India2.0 2.6 0.7 0.6rules should, it is said, dampen the volatility oftrade flows, be it from the countries that supplymeat or in terms of the quantities and types ofproducts. Furthermore, the Russian market is regardedas difficult because the processing sectorresponds only slowly to new consumption trends.This means that products are being offered forwhich there is only a low demand, and are thereforeunprofitable. South Africa and Brazil are alsoeconomically dependent on the world price ofraw materials. But unlike industrialized Russia,livestock production is not unusual in these countries.In many South African communities, longafter the end of apartheid, economic relationshipswere based on livestock and meat, not onlyas a trade item but also as a means of payment.While meat is cheap in Brazil, it is expensive inSouth Africa. Several economic crises have ensuredthat the rising demand for meat is almostentirely limited to cheap chicken.Avian flu, contaminated milk, dead pigs disposedof in rivers – these are the consequences offactory farming and a lack of controls. In manyparts of Asia, they have awakened a consumerawareness that is similar to its counterpart in theindustrial world. Demand for organically producedfood is rising. In the big cities, new retailchains and organic-food sections in supermarketsare appearing. While the statistics do not differentiatebetween animal and vegetable products, theMEaT aTlaSsales are attractive for would-be organic producers.In India, market researchers are expecting afive-fold increase in all organic product sales, from190 million dollars in 2012, to 1 billion dollars in2015. In 2011, sales in Brazil reached 550 milliondollars. And in China, where the certification requirementsfor organic products are among thestrictest in the world, sales in 2015 may range between3.4 and 9.4 billion dollars a year.Russia: consumption in crisiskcal intake of animal products, per day per capita, including milk and eggs8007507006506005505000High inflationdestroys privatesavings; oldindustrialconglomeratesin crisisBanking crisis affectsforeign investment;inflation reappearsOil and gas boomboosts publicexpenditure andprivate businessconfidence1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Financialcrisis causessetbackuntil 2011FAOSTAT49

URBAN LIVESTOCK KEEPINGFor many, urban livestock is a contradiction in terms. Isn’t livestock-raising a ruralactivity, and don’t cities ban livestock because of the smell, noise and pollution?Yet urban livestock are crucial for the livelihoods of many poor city dwellers. Andthey provide nutritious food at lower prices than their country cousins.For manytownsfolk, urbandairy animals arethe only source offresh milkAwide range of livestock are kept within citylimits in many developing countries. Theyperform various functions. Small animalskept in towns include rabbits, guinea pigs andpoultry, usually to produce meat or eggs, whichtheir owners eat or sell. Medium-size animalssuch as sheep, goats and pigs are raised betweenbuildings, in backyards and on roadsides. Theyare kept mainly for meat, although the sheepand goats may also be milked. Muslims slaughtersheep – preferably males – as a sacrificeduring religious festivals. As the festival approaches,the price of sheep rises sharply. Manypoorer households buy an animal several monthsbeforehand when prices are low, keep it at homeand feed it until the feast day. That may be the onlyway they can afford an animal for the big day.In many African and Asian cities, pasteurizedmilk can be expensive and hard to get. And peopleoften prefer fresh milk to the packaged variety.Urban residents often keep cattle, buffaloes andincreasingly camels to supply fresh milk. Most ofthe milk is sold, but the dairy households keepsome for their own use. Poorer townsfolk keephorses and donkeys for transport. Many of thosewho cannot afford a motor vehicle earn a livingfrom cartage. In small Ethiopian towns, horsedrawncarts serve as taxis and donkeys are usedfor transporting materials even in the capital cityof Addis Ababa.Management and feeding of urban animalsvaries greatly. Cattle, sheep and goats are oftenkept in courtyards or vacant plots, and are takento graze on roadsides and beside railway tracks.Poor people may leave their chickens outside toscavenge, or keep them in cages. Both grazing andscavenging animals eat vegetation in empty plotsand consume garbage, leftover food and organicDeveloping countries: a panorama of informal productionExamples, collected 1985 to 200816,500 cattle,22,600 pigs and19,300 sheep andgoats live in themetropolitan areaAn estimated25,000 cattle,9,500 pigs and53,000 sheep andgoats live in town6,500 cattle andbuffaloes, 3,700 pigsofficially (estimated noof pigs: 120,000), and5,700 sheep and goats11 percent of householdsproduce livestockWORLD BANK, FAO63,000 pigslive in townMexico CityHavanaKathmanduDhakaHubil-DhawadCagayan de OroAs many as 48 percentof households in someslum areas are involvedin urban agriculture, thevast majority in smalllivestockLimaLa PazUp to 55 percent ofhouseholds raisesmall livestock fortheir own consumption15,000 – 20,000pigs contribute sixpercent of nationalpigmeat productionMontevideoOver one-third ofhouseholds keeplivestock, mainlychickens but alsorabbits, pigeons,ducks and turkeys29 percent ofhouseholdsraise livestockNairobiHarareMaputoDar es Salaam80 percent of Dhaka’sinhabitants are reportedto keep animals16 percent of urban milkconsumption originatesfrom urban production,44 percent fromperi-urban production4,000 cattle,12,400 pigsand3,250 goats livein town50MEAT ATLAS

Developed countries: livestock coming back to townResults of a survey in the USA, 2011, 134 respondentsreason for raising livestock, percent12134232frequency of meat eating, percent441244201510impact on neighbours, number of respondentscommunity buildinganimal soundsmultigenerationalengagementeducationnoise nuisancesmellfear of injury/diseasePLUCKANDFEATHER.COM5better food sourceeducationcommunity buildingcostecologyculturesince starting livestock keepingless meatmoresame as before0positivenegative“waste” in the streets. If people keep broilers ordairy cows to supply the formal or informal market,they often buy feed supplements or mix themat home. They may also purchase hay, straw orfresh lucerne (alfalfa) and bring it into town, oftenby donkey.How important are urban livestock? It is hardto tell, as it is mainly informal and often illegal. Inthe Republic of Congo, a study found that aboutone-third of the people in Brazzaville were engagedin urban agriculture. Nine percent keptlivestock, mostly poultry. In the 1980s in Kenya,almost 70 percent of the households in Kibera, thebiggest slum in Nairobi, were practising urbanagriculture. That included an unknown numberof animal keepers. Twenty years later, the houseshad become so densely packed that it was almostimpossible to grow crops. But poultry and pigs arestill kept even in very congested urban areas. Animalstake up less space than crops.Not only the poor keep livestock in cities. InAddis Ababa, the households with cattle have nineanimals on average. Many can even afford to hirelabour for grazing, feeding and other care. Thepoorer livestock keepers tend to have poultry, andkeep a few sheep or goats. For these families, consumingtheir own animals on special occasionsmay be their only chance to eat meat. This is importantnot only for their diets, but also for theirreligious beliefs and self-esteem.Interest in livestock keeping in urban areastypically increases when times are hard. In Kampala,Uganda, the number of urban animals rosesharply during political upheavals. In Central Asia,more urban residents started keeping animals afterthe Soviet Union collapsed. Livestock tend tobecome less important when economies recoverand household incomes increase. This also occurredin European cities after the Second WorldWar. Therefore, a rise in urban livestock may bea sign of economic distress and political crisis. Atsuch times, keeping livestock – and indeed urbanagriculture in general – is a survival mechanism,primarily to provide food.MEAT ATLASIn the developed world, livestock keeping inurban areas, in the broad sense of the term, includesbeekeeping, fish farming and using earthwormsto produce compost. Its main purpose is togenerate income and provide a meaningful occupation.According to social researchers, it can helpboost the self-confidence and desire to learn andwork of young people living in the slums of big cities,such as New York.However, when animals and people live closetogether in cities, the risk of disease increases. Thisis by no means limited to avian flu. Many humandiseases, such as influenza, smallpox, plague,measles, tuberculosis, and cholera, evolvedthrough the interaction of people and livestockover the last 10,000 years. Good veterinary care reducesthe incidence of animal disease and the riskof transmission to humans.Why should it be allowed to keep livestockin cities? During economic crises, it is an importantcoping strategy. It turns waste into aresource and produces valuable meat, milkand eggs. It raises the standing and self-esteemof poor people in societies in which animals playan important cultural role. And it is crucial for thesocial security of vulnerable groups such as the elderlyor households headed by women.Rural and urban populationPopulation in developed and developing world, millionsrural, developingurban, developingrural, developedurban, developed5,0004,0003,0002,5002,0001,5001,00050001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030WORLD BANK, FAOKept onroadsides, unusedland and backyards,animals incurfew costs51

TURNING SCRUB INTO PROTEINMuch of the world’s livestock, and much of its meat, milk and eggs, are raised bynon-industrial producers. Many of them manage their animals on land that isunsuited for crops, optimizing the use of local resources. But the existence of theseproducers is under increasing threat.52Pastoralistsand smallholdersraise animalson land unsuitedfor cropsMeat and milk from seasonal pasturesWorld share, percent, 2000/2010*5502821beef97lambOver 40 percent of the world’s land surfaceis too dry, too steep, too hot or too cold forcrops. In such areas, livestock keepers havea strategic advantage: they can use their animalsto convert the local vegetation into food and energy.Their production methods have to be suitedto local conditions; they require specific livestockbreeds and a thorough understanding of the animals’needs and the local situation. That makesthese methods sustainable.Pastoralists are experts in this respect.They are mobile livestock keepers, herdinglarge numbers of cattle, sheep, goats, camels,reindeer, yak, llamas and alpaca on commonland. Developed over centuries, their breeds arewell adapted to the sparse vegetation in drylands,roadsides, harvested fields and other rough environments.By moving their animals to graze differentareas, pastoralists have survived for centuriesin the most inhospitable regions without depletingtheir resource base. Spending only a shorttime in each place allows the vegetation to recoverand keeps parasites down. Special arrangementsgovern the access to land and water in pastoral2815191859milk* Data: 2000, year of publication: 2010.More recent data not available713417agropastoral (semi-nomadicproduction on seasonal pastures)mixed extensive (crops and livestock)mixed intensive (crops and livestock,irrigated)otherdeveloped countriesILRI/Herreroareas. The Borana of southern Ethiopia, for example,have a complex network of institutions andcommittees that oversee their herd movementsand coordinate resource use with other pastoralgroups in the area.Mobile grazing can be more productive perhectare than ranching, and can be more profitablethan other, more intensive, types of land use.However, pastoral systems are increasingly breakingdown as migration is being restricted. Factorsinclude the expansion of cropping, the privatizationand fencing of previously open land, and governmentlimits on animal movements.In slightly more favourable areas, smallholderfarmers grow crops as well as keeping livestock.They may own or rent a few hectares for crops,and may graze their animals on common land.They also use the resources they have to hand, butthey may also buy inputs such as additional feed.Their livestock may be local breeds or crosses withhigh-yielding, introduced breeds. They may leavetheir animals to scavenge (e.g. backyard chickens),herd them along roadsides and in harvested fields(sheep, goats, cattle, buffaloes), or cut feed andtake it to animals kept in pens and stables (dairycattle and buffaloes, sheep, goats, etc.).Smallholders recycle nutrients on their farmsby feeding crop residues to their livestock and usingthe animals’ dung to fertilize the fields andfor fuel. By doing this, and by using family labour,they can minimize their input costs and operatecost-efficiently. They may even produce livestockat a lower per-unit cost than large farms. But theytend to lose out against the large farms because ofthe small volume they produce per farm.Data on the numbers of pastoralists and smallholderfarmers tend to be vague. More than 45defined pastoral groups have been recorded inover 40 countries, but pastoralists in some form orother are likely to occur in many more countries.In much of Europe, for example, migratory shepherdsgraze their sheep on pastureland and cropstubble. Sheep raisers in Scotland and Wales producemeat and wool in the rain-swept highlands.International bodies estimate that there are some120–200 million pastoralists worldwide. Smallholderfarms are estimated to number some 500million in developing countries and some 600 millionglobally, and most of them have at least somelivestock.The numbers are probably so vague becausedefinitions vary from place to place, and the dis-MEAT ATLAS

Pastoral peoples around the worldAnimal husbandry, by countries and main species, examplesFAOcattlesheepgoatsdromedariesbactriancamelsdonkeys,horsesyaksbuffaloesreindeerllamasvicuñasMEAT ATLAStinction between pastoralists and smallholders isfine, and is changing all the time. Pastoralists areincreasingly settling in one place; many becomeagropastoralists, who grow some crops but keepsome or all their animals on the move. And someoneregarded as a smallholder in Brazil may countas a medium or large farmer in East Africa.It is equally difficult to find data on the economiccontribution of such pastoralists and smallholders,though this can be substantial. In 2006,the World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralismfound that pastoralists accounted for around 65percent of Ethiopia’s total milk production, withoutallowing for the milk they consumed themselves,and 9 percent of the national gross domesticproduct (GDP). In Uganda, they accounted for8.5 percent of GDP; in Mali, 10 percent; and inMongolia, about 30 percent. Pastoralists’ shares ofagricultural GDP were 80 percent in Sudan, Senegaland Niger, and 50 percent in Kenya.Pastoralists and smallholders do not just producea lot of food. They also help protect the environmentand conserve biodiversity. In Europe,the traditional sheep trails used by migrant shepherdsare among the biodiversity-richest spots inthe continent. In the Netherlands, flocks of sheephelp maintain dykes; in Germany, they preventthe open landscapes that attract tourists fromturning into forest.But pastoralists and smallholders rarely havea lobby in political circles, and they seldom receivethe support they need to maintain andimprove their own systems. On the contrary,they are being urged to switch to new technologiesand achieve higher inputs. They need recognitionand legislation to make it possible forthem to move their animals from place to place,and to ensure they have access to resources, informationand markets. They need adequate paymentfor their services in landscape managementand biodiversity conservation. Not all pastoralistsand smallholder farmers want to continue theircurrent lifestyles, but they should be able to if theywish to do so.Pastoralistsshould be allowedto follow theirancestral migrationroutes53

IN SEARCH OF GOOD FOODConcerned consumers in the rich world face a dilemma. They want good-qualitymeat that is produced in an environmentally friendly, ethical manner. How bestto ensure this? Here we look at some alternatives.Lab-grownmeat might notpose ethicaldilemmas but itignores ecologyIn August 2013, the first “lab-grown hamburger”was served in London. The substance is producedby growing strains of proteins in a Petridish from single cells taken from a living animal.A lot of effort goes into achieving a meat-like flavour,colour and texture that, as the producersclaim, cannot be distinguished from actualmeat in a blind test. The idea is to get the protein,meat-like flavour and texture as benefitsto the consumer while avoiding harm to theanimal and the environment.This first “lab-burger” cost about 250,000dollars to produce, and apart from practicalissues,there are more fundamental problemswith this approach. While taste and texture canbe somewhat mimicked, lab-grown “meat” overlooksthe fact that animals, especially ruminants,play a complex and important role in our ecosystems.In fact, the endeavour could be a new nadirin the alienation of people from their food sources,and the natural cycles of which we all are part.Less consumption and farming in an ecologicallysound way would be a better alternative.Doing so not only produces nutritious food; italso ensures farming as a source of livelihood anda way of life. It keeps the soil alive, water and airclean, greenhouse gases in check, and biodiversitythriving. But farmers who use ecological methodsare struggling to compete with large-scale industrialproducers who focus on speed and quantity.These big producers can afford to sell at low pricesbecause they do not take external costs includingdamage to the environment, or harm to animalsand human health, into account.Consumers do not get much real informationabout the meat they are buying. Even labels formeat and cured meat that meet European legalrequirements, such as for organic standards, oftenfail to give enough information about wherethe animal was raised, its breed, animal welfare,Certified organic agricultureShare of total arable land, 2009, percentFAOno data availableup to 0.49 percent0.49–3 percentover 3 percent0.12 0.94 0.255.76 3.11 0.78Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania worldMany peasants in the world produce organically but uncertified due to lack of chemical fertilizers54MEAT ATLAS

attitudes towards meat in a wealthy societyGerman consumers’ attitudes to individual and ethical issues of meat consumption, sample, 2011percentage of respondentslow meat consumer average meat consumer heavy meat consumerKAYSER ET AL.percentage of meat in the total diet7.12 19.00 38.31general preference for meattrust in the agri-food sectorenvironmental awarenesshealth awarenessfigure awarenesseating of animalsanimal welfare awarenessstrong positive+16 to +58 index pointsmoderate negative-2 to -15 index pointsstrong negative-16 to -40 index points990 respondents, of whom 34 (3 percent) were excluded as vegetariansslaughtering and processing methods, or adviceon how to store and use the meat. Labels withfull information can restore competitive value toa product because they differentiate it from themass of goods that fail to provide relevant informationabout fundamental questions.The term “co-producer” was coined a few yearsago to highlight the power of the consumer to gobeyond a passive role, and become an influentialand active player in the production process. A coproduceris a conscious stakeholder in the foodsystem who makes conscious choices by knowingwho produces food and how.A model called “community-supported agriculture”has started to put this into practice. Thisis a mechanism that secures livelihoods for farmers,thereby supporting responsible productionpractices such as extensive, pasture-based animalhusbandry. In community-supported agriculture,a group of people guarantees the purchase of allseasonally available produce from the farmer, i.e.vegetables, meat, dairy products, honey, etc. Theyalso share the risk of dealing with natural processes.They pay in advance, thus helping to financethe production costs along the way. This arrangementis used in various countries. In German it iscalled Solidarische Landwirtschaft, in French, Associationpour le maintien d’une agriculture paysanne, and in Italian, Gruppo di acquisto solidale.This results in a win–win situation for everyoneinvolved, the customers (or members of thescheme), the farmers and their businesses, theregional economy, the animals and the environment.The customers get good, fresh produce.They know where it comes from and how it wasproduced; they learn about the food they eat, andthey expand their social networks. The farmers getfinancial and hands-on support, as well as a senseMEaT aTlaSof who they are working for. The farming businessis shielded from market fluctuations and the exploitationof human, animal or environmental resources.Appropriate practices conserve water,air and the soil.A change in food systems is unavoidable.But corporations are not the only ones that canset the rules for the food market. More information,communication and collaboration betweenproducers and consumers as “co-producers”,and greater knowledge about our roles in theglobal ecosystem can achieve real change.Customer’s alternatives: community supported agriculture (CSa)Number of US farms with growers and consumerssharing risks and benefits, estimates6,000–6,5003,600Consumersneed informationto have a say inhow their food isproduced1,00060220132009200019901986MCFADDEN55

VEGETaRIaNISM: MaNY RooTS,MaNY SHooTSOnly a small percentage of the population in the industrialized world describethemselves as vegetarians or vegans. Such lifestyles are more common inparts of the world where religions play a major role. In most faiths, followersare expected to abstain from meat in one way or another.Many reasonsto avoid meat:ethical, religious,health, ecological,romanticIn South Asia, vegetarianism has a long tradition.As part of various Indian religions, it was,and still is, widespread. In India itself, about aquarter of the population do not eat meat. In Buddhismand especially in Hinduism, belief in rebirthand adherence to non-violence lead people to rejectthe consumption of meat and the slaughter ofanimals. A broad spectrum of religions range instrictness, the highest of which is Jainism, wheremonks brush aside even the tiniest insects toavoid treading on them. Most Buddhist sectsallow milk and milk products, some permit theconsumption of fish, and others allow meat ifthe animal has been slaughtered by a non-Buddhist.Although vegetarianism is declining in theregion, it is still regarded as virtuous and exemplaryin many parts of South and East Asia.For religious reasons, Muslims and Jews donot eat pork. Historically this is probably due tothe risk of trichinosis, a human disease causedby parasitic worms found in the meat of infectedpigs. Some Christians observe fasting days, andeat fish instead of meat on Fridays. Some devoutCatholics and many deeply religious OrthodoxChristians also fast on Wednesdays. The Orthodoxchurches of East and Southeast Europe and NorthwestAfrica recognize several fasting periods duringthe year. The 35 million followers of the EthiopianTewahedo Orthodox Church observe a vegandiet during the month before Christmas, for the55 days leading up to Easter, 16 days in the summer,and on Wednesdays and Fridays that donot coincide with a feast day – a total of about sixmonths a year. A maximalist interpretation of therules stipulates fasting on 250 days a year. In Europe,religious orders and hermits practised asceticismto dull their worldly desires. However, sinceeggs and milk were permitted they were ovo-lactovegetarians.Inspired by philosophy rather than religion,vegetarianism began in the West in the Mediterraneanregion. The ancient Greek and Roman poetsHesiod, Plato and Ovid mention a vegetarian lifestyleas a feature of the earliest times. The Scythiansof the Eurasian steppes were said to subsistmainly on meat; some said they were cannibals.In the Roman Empire, it was Apollonius of Tyana,in Asia Minor, who spread the idea of renouncingmeat in the 1st century AD. This philosopher, oneof the first vegans, denounced animal sacrifices,and refused to wear leather or fur.Two centuries later, the scholar, Porphyry ofTyre, wrote a special paean to vegetarianism. Inhis essay De Abstinentia (On Abstinence), he rejectsthe consumption of meat: it is unjust to eata sentient animal, and the complex preparationand digestion would distract a frugal philosopherfrom his other tasks. Other great thinkersVegetarians: a growing minority in the west, a major force in IndiaPeople describing themselves as vegetarian or vegan, in percent of the populationUSa4 men7 women2 men and womenEU 2–10men and women, estimatesIndiavegetariansvegans31men and womenGALLUP, NVS, SNSMillions of vegetariansUSaEUIndia1510–5037556MEaT aTlaS

145123“Vegetarianism” and “veganism” – page views in wikipedia73698995659585(sept.)99Monthly click rates in August of each year, by language versions, thousands16132009252720101722German201120252012192520139?200911?20101261310French201120121011201359200981120101216Russian20111916201223192013STATS.GROK.SE4944“vegetarianism”“veganism”English31Only click rates above 5,000 a month, selected language versions.Most users from developing countries use the English-languageWikipedia.251016102016Spanish205576 8 10138Portuguese91539312311japanese4129620092010201120122013200920102011201220132009201020112012201320092010201120122013are also reported to have been vegetarians. UnlikePorphyry, the philosophers René Descartes(1596–1650) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)rejected the “humanitarian” obligations towardsanimals. However, the inventor Leonardo da Vinci(1452–1519) and the statesman Benjamin Franklin(1706–90) supported these obligations. ThomasTryon (1634–1703), an English merchant andauthor, was an early animal-rights activist. Takingup Indian ideas in his books, he not only advocateda selection of vegetarian varietiesmeatMEaT aTlaSeggsveganismfi s hovovegetarianismvegetarianismpescetarianismovolactoveg.lactovegetarianismmilk,dairyproductsSome excludepescetarians fromvegetarianismpacifism among people, but also preached nonviolencetowards all types of animals.Vegetarian clubs and associations had theirbeginnings in England in the 19th century andwere soon established in many countries. Theterm “vegetarian” itself was coined during thistime. Repelled by the consequences of the industrialrevolution, the growth of the proletariat andurbanization, the vegetarians initially formed aromantic opposition. Poets and authors such asPercy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822), George BernardShaw (1856–1950) and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) joined the movement. In addition to thecritique of civilization, vegetarianism addedstrands based on asceticism and animal protection– for example, opposition to experiments onliving animals.In wealthier countries, the animal-rightsmovement and political veganism are the mostrecent strands that insist on renouncing meat.The animal-rights movement sees people and animalsas equal components of a common society;it rejects the use and exploitation of animals. Veganismsets out ethical, environmental and antiglobalizationarguments. It is based in vegetarianism,but also avoids the use of animal productssuch as wool and leather, as well as anything containinganimal ingredients, such as cosmetics. Inindustrialized countries, veganism is increasinglyaccepted as a lifestyle.In the west,vegetarianism isbased on philosophyrather thanreligion57

WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT:INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPSGiven all the problems with livestock production and meat consumption, is thereanything that normal people can do? Yes: individuals can make choices about theirconsumption patterns, and groups can push for change.Livestockproductionshould respectboth people andnatureAsmall but growing number of people in developedcountries are making a choice: theyare insisting on products that conserve theenvironment and respect animal welfare. Manypeople are starting to choose ‘flexitarian’ dietswhich includes eating less and better meat andmore plant based protein. United Nations agenciessuch as the Food and Agricultural Organization(FAO) and the World Health Organizationrecognize the need for change. In 2010, FAOdefined a sustainable diet as “…those dietswith low environmental impacts which contributeto food and nutrition security and tohealthy life for present and future generations.Sustainable diets are protective and respectful ofbiodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable,accessible, economically fair and affordable;nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; whileoptimizing natural and human resources.”Many civil society organizations and farmers’movements are calling for a different food andagriculture system: one that respects both peopleand nature. Along with international organizationssuch as the World Cancer Research Fund,they are pushing for less meat in Western dietsand healthy menus in public institutions suchas hospitals and schools. The Meat Free Mondaysmovement has gained momentum and has nowbeen established in 29 countries around the world.Animal welfare concerns are also attracting attention,and not just in Western societies:The Eurogroup for Animals unites 40 organizationsacross Europe to defend animal welfarePeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in theUSA says that “animals are not ours to eat, wear,experiment on, use for entertainment or abusein any way”.The Chinese Animal Protection Network consistsof more than 40 groups and wants to shift fromemotion to science as a basis for efforts to protectanimals.The Animal Welfare Board of India advises thegovernment and has been “the face of the animalwelfare movement in the country for the last50 years.”The demands of all these organizations areclearly directed at wealthy, middle-class consumersaround the world. However, no one has anythingagainst the nearly one billion people, someof them the world’s poorest, who depend on rear-Via Campesina, a worldwide organization for small-scale farmersMembership by country, 2013VIA CAMPESINA164 organizationsin 79 countries58MEAT ATLAS

ing all kinds of domestic animals, from chickens toyaks, as pastoralists or in mixed-farming systems.Small-scale farmers’ organizations across theglobe are united in their efforts to maintain thismethod of farming.One of the biggest organizations is La Via Campesina,an international alliance of small-scaleproducers, that comprises about 164 local andnational organizations in 79 countries from Africa,Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, itrepresents about 200 million farmers. It defendssmall-scale sustainable agriculture as a way topromote social justice and dignity. It stronglyopposes corporate-driven agriculture and transnationalcompanies that are harming peopleand nature.More and Better is an international network ofsocial movements, non-governmental organizationsand national campaigns from all over theworld. It focuses on support for agriculture, ruraldevelopment, and food in developing countries.The Food Sovereignty Movement advocates forcommunities to have control over their food systems.It promotes diverse forms of food culture,in particular the consumption of high-qualitylocal and seasonal foods and the omission ofhighly processed food. This includes a lower consumptionof meat and animal products.A combination of individual choices andchanges in laws and policies will bring abouta change in society’s relationship with meat.Wealthy populations can afford a healthy dietwith little or no animal protein, or shift to othersources of protein like aquatic plants. Another optionis to eat insect-based protein, as a recent UnitedNations report suggests. We are still a long wayfrom including insects in mainstream diets in theProtein alternatives: aquatic plantsproduction,million tonnesper yearfood supply,kilogramsper capitaper yearprotein supply,gramsper capitaper day1.30.80.2 0.21.6japan16.5South Koreadeveloped world, but a number of start-ups areinvestigating possibilities. In London, Ento is takingculinary science to new levels with sushi-styleproducts. In New York, Exo has designed a proteinbar containing flour made from crickets. These insectsemit 80 percent less methane than cattle andhave twice as much protein as chicken and steak.Mainstreaming sustainable meat consumptionmust become a priority for individuals and governmentsalike.For more information on websites, books, films, see pp. 64–65.7.9China10.80.6FAOSTATProtein alternatives: cricket efficiencyEdible insectsEdible percentage of whole animalFAOInsect species per countryFAO8055cricketspoultry5540pigscattle1–100100–200200–300over 300MEaT aTlaS59

A GREENER POLICY FOR EUROPEThe EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has for decades supported,and distorted, farm production. It has evolved from supporting large-scaleproduction to taking the environment increasingly into account. Butproblems remain. A greener CAP could promote socially and ecologicallysound livestock production.Two steps toa solution: supportpasture, not housing;promote local feedproductionThe European Union’s Common AgriculturalPolicy has been an important driving forcefor the industrialization and globalizationof livestock production. Until the early 1990s, theEU guaranteed prices for livestock significantlyabove world market prices. This provided Europeanfarmers with an incentive to increase production.At the same time, the CAP guaranteedhigh prices for cereals, but gave no support foroilseeds. Trade policy supported this pattern,with high tariffs for livestock and cereals, andlow or zero tariffs for oilseeds and feedstock. Thispolicy promoted the intensification of livestockproduction based on imported feed versus grazingand domestically grown feed.Decades ago, the EU became a net exporter ofmeat and dairy products. Since the guaranteeddomestic prices were higher than world marketprices, exports were possible only through “refunds”for exporters, which covered the differencebetween the internal and external prices.These subsidies turned out to be a major subjectof dispute in international trade. Its exports gavethe impression that the EU was producing agriculturalsurpluses. The fact that the exports werepossible only because of rising imports of feed waslargely neglected in the debate.In 1992, the first big policy shift, from guaranteedprices to area payments, had a limited effect.Domestic cereals again became more attractivethan feed. But soy imports accelerated because theguaranteed prices for beef were lowered, makingit more attractive to rear pigs and chickens thatrequire more protein, and therefore more soy intheir diets. No area payments were made for grassland,while a new premium was paid for every hectareof silo maize. This gave a further incentive toshift production to intensive systems and to convertgrassland to crop growing.Eleven years later, the last major policy shift extendedarea payments to all types of agriculturalland, including grassland, and thus removed themajor disincentives for less-industrial forms oflivestock rearing. But the trend to convert grasslandto cropland continued, partly because ofnew incentives for growing maize for biogas. SuchBenefitting from protection and subsidies – the European Union’s Top 15 meat companiesMeat production, 1,000 tonnes, 2010/11beef and vealpigspoultrysheep36235513144704503531541010 912469415582,5252,0402416117271531,5467497123456789101112131415Vion Food Group, NLDanish Crown AmbA, DKTönnies, DEBigard, FRWestfleisch, DELDC, FRHKScan, FIGruppo Verones, ITCooperl, FRGroupe Doux, FRPlukon Food Group, NLTerrena, FRIrish Food Processors/ABP, IEMoy Park (Marfrig), UK2 Sisters Food Group, UKGIRA848760MEAT ATLAS

Livestock density in the European UnionAnimals for meat production, livestock units, 2007,per hectare utilised agricultural area0.50FinlandEUROSTATstocking densityOver 1.251.0–1.250.75–1.00.5–0.75under 0.50.58Portugal1.42Ireland0.57Spain0.86United Kingdom0.57Sweden1.72Denmark3.352.75 NetherlandsBelgium 1.06Germany1.22Luxembourg0.82France4.80Malta0.58Czech Republic 0.38Slovakia0.770.56AustriaHungary1.13Slovenia0.77Italy0.72Poland0.35Estonia0.28Latvia0.39Lithuania0.43Romania0.40Bulgaria0.64GreeceEurostat calculationfor a livestock unit(examples):0.4 calf1.0 dairy cow0.1 sheep0.5 breeding sow0.007 broiler1.68Cyprusgrassland losses have at least been recognized as aproblem in the latest CAP reform, agreed in 2013.Now farmers will receive their full area paymentsonly if they conserve existing grassland. In addition,EU member states and individual regions arefree to give extra support to sustainable forms ofanimal rearing, such as grazing and organic production.They can draw this money from anotherEU pot, the European Agricultural Fund for RuralDevelopment.But what might a EU policy that puts sustainableanimal rearing at the centre of efforts to shapefarming in a socially and ecologically sound waylook like? Four steps could convert Europe’s meatpolicies from being part of the problem to part ofthe solution.First, the European Commission could stopspending money to support the construction ofintensive fattening houses. Instead, it should supportsmall and medium enterprises in difficultlocations that keep their animals in pasture formuch of the year.Second, the EU should require farmers to produceat least half their animal feed on their ownfarm. That would take the wishes of European consumersseriously. The EU could also ban the use ofgenetically modified fodder. A clear set of rules onfeed procurement would eliminate internationalimbalances in nutrients. Slurry and manure wouldno longer be transported long distances, butwould be used to fertilize the farmer’s own land.Third, the application of antibiotics in feedand watering systems should be prohibited. Thatwould mean animals would be treated individually,based on a veterinary diagnosis.MEAT ATLASFourth, animal-welfare rules, which areclearly defined for many types of pets, shouldbe expanded to cover livestock. Each type oflivestock should be managed in a way that isappropriate for that species. The EU should developlaws to govern this: for example, animalsshould be kept in herds or flocks that allow themto develop their natural ranking and social relationships.Animals should be able to move aroundwithout hindrance. This would prohibit keepinganimals in stalls without daylight or fresh air.Unrealistic and naïve? These are rules thatmany organic livestock raiser associations havefollowed for years. A template for sustainable animalmanagement has already been in existencefor a long time.What happens when incentives go wrongTwo moresteps: expandanimal welfare; banthe misuse ofantibioticsPublic storage of overproduced beef and butter under the European Community’sCommon Agricultural Policy, 1.000 tonnes1,4001,2001,0008006004002000butter intervention stockbeef intervention stock1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013EU61

AUTHORS AND SOURCESFOR DATA AND GRAPHICS10–11THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL MARKET,by Christine Chemnitzp.10: FAO Food Outlook, June 2013. p.11:FAOSTAT. OECD FAO agricultural outlook,2013-2022.12–13CONCENTRATION: ECONOMIESOF SCALE BUT LESS DIVERSITY,by Kathy Jo Wetterp.12: FAO Food Outlook, June 2013. p.13:Leatherhead Food Research, ETC Group14–15MAKING PRODUCTS FORM ANIMALS:THE SLAUGHTER INDUSTRY,by Marcel Sebastianp.14: Riva Caroline Hodges Denny, Between theFarm and the Farmer’s Market: Slaughterhouses,Regulations, and Alternative Food Networks.Auburn, Alabama 2012. p.15: FAOSTAT16–17BRIGHT PINK IN THE COLD CABINET,by Annette Jensenp.16: Euromonitor international, Fast foodin China, 2013. Viveat Susan Pinto, Are storeadditions by food retail chains sustainable?Business Standard, Mumbai, Sept. 13, 2013.p.17: Euromonitor international, Datagraphic:A Panorama of Packaged Food, Oct. 10, 201318–19FREE TRADE VERSUS SAFE FOOD,by Shefali Sharm andKaren Hansen-Kuhnp.18: Bertelsmann-Stiftung/ifo Institut, DieTransatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft(THIP), 2013. p.19: USDA ERS20–21THE HIDDEN COST OF STEAK,by Reinhild Benningp.19-20: OECD, Agricultural Policy Monitoringand Evaluation, 2012. OECD database22–23WHY FARMS KILL FISH: BIODIVERSITYLOSS ON LAND AND IN WATER,by Tobias Reichertp.22: OECD, Agricultural Policy Monitoring andEvaluation, 2012. p.23: FAO, Livestock’s long shadow,2006 ; The European Nitrogen Assessment.Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives, 201124–25A SPECIES-POOR PLANET,by Kathy Jo Wetterp.24: FAO, Livestock’s long shadow, 2006.p.25: ETC Group; Keith O. Fuglie et al., ResearchInvestments and Market Structure in theFood Processing, Agricultural Input, and BiofuelIndustries Worldwide, USDA ERS, 2011.Sarah Beth Moore et al., Heritage breeds:Saving chickens and cows from extinction, MedillReports, June 3, 201126–27ANTIBIOTICS: BREEDING SUPERBUGS,by Kathrin Birkelp.26: EWG, Superbugs invade Americansupermarkets, April 2013. p.27: EMA, Salesof veterinary antimicrobial agents in 25 EU/EEAcountries in 2011, Third ESVAC report, 2013.BVL, Zoonosen-Monitoring, Berichte zurLebensmittelsicherheit, 201028–29WHEN THE TANK IS RUNNING DRY,by Manfred Krienerp.28-29: A. Y. Hoekstra, M. M. Mekonnen, Thewater footprint of humanity, Twente 2011.p.29: Nippon Ham Annual Report FY 2011.www.waterfootprint.org30–31THE GRAIN IN THE FEED TROUGH,by Stephan Börneckep.30-31: WWF, Meat eats land, 2011. p.31:FAO: Challenges and opportunities for carbonsequestration in grassland systems, 2010.32–33THE EMERGENCE OF A LATINAMERICAN SOY EMPIRE,by Michael Álvarez Kalverkampp.32-33: USDA ERS: Agriculture in Brazil andArgentina, 2001; FAOSTAT database; USDA GAIN:Argentina Oilseeds and Products, 2012; Indec,Intercambio Comercial Argentino, Jan. 23,2013; Soybeans: U.S. Export Trend is up, Share ofWorld Exports is Down, Global AgInvesting,Sept. 26, 2013. p.33: Indec database34–35THE CLIMATE COST OF CATTLE,by Stephan Börneckep.34: EWG, Meat Eater’s guide to climatechange and health, 2011. p.35: FAO, TacklingClimate Change through livestock, 201362MEAT ATLAS

36–37RANCHERS IN THE RAINFOREST,by Thomas Fatheuerp.36: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.p.37: FAO; Instituto Nacional de pesquisasespeciais (Inpe); Rhett A. Butler, Brazil: satellitedata suggests rise in Amazon deforestationover past year, mongabay.com, Sept. 12, 201338–39THE GLYPHOSATE IN YOUR BURGER,by Heike Moldenhauerp.38: USDA ERS, USGS Pesticide NationalSynthesis Project. p.39: FAO Statistical Yearbook2012, www.centerfordoodsafety.org. Reduniversitaria de ambiente y salud, El consumede agrotóxicos en Argentina aumentacontinuamente, June 23, 201340–41A PLETHORA OF POULTRY: CHICKENSTAKE THE LEAD,by Shefali Sharma andChristine Chemnitzp.40: FAO, Global livestock production systems,2011. p.41: DSW report, 2012; FAO, FoodOutlook 11/2012. FAO, Statistical Yearbook 201342–43WHERE KEEPING CHICKENSIS WOMEN’S WORK, by Francisco Maríp.42-43: Juliet Karuki et al., Women,Livestock Ownership and Food Security. In:Bridging the Gender Gap, ILRI 2013. p.43:A. J. Kitalyi, Village chicken production systemsin rural Africa; D. X. Tung, Smallholderpoultry production in Vietnam: marketingcharacteristics and strategies; E. F. Guèye,Gender aspects in family poultry managementsystems in developing countries; all FAO1998–200544–45IMPORTED CHICKEN WINGS DESTROYWEST AFRICAN BUSINESSES,by Francisco Maríp.44: Indexmundi/USDA. p.45: FAO, Livestock sectordevelopment for poverty reduction, 201246–47DISQUIET IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD,by Patrick Holdenp.46: WHO/ FAOSTAT databasis; J. Kearney, Foodconsumption trends and drivers. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society, Biologicalsciences, 2010. p.47: OECD FAO AgriculturalOutlook 2013–2022, 2013. CME Daily Livestockreport, Dec. 20, 2011, with USDA, Livestock,Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, Nov. 15, 201348–49HALF A BILLION NEW MIDDLE-CLASSCONSUMERS FROM RIO TO SHANGHAI,by Sascha Zastiralp.48: FAO, Mapping supply and demand foranimal-source foods to 2030, 2011. p.49: OECDFAO Agricultural Outlook 2013–2022, 2013.FAOSTAT database50–51URBAN LIVESTOCK KEEPING,by Wolfgang Bayer and Ann Waters-Bayerp.50-51: World Bank/FAO, Urban Agriculture,For Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and FoodSecurity, 2008. p.51: pluckandfeather.com,Urban Livestock in Oakland, 201152–53TURNING SCRUB INTO PROTEIN,by Evelyn Mathiasp.52: ILRI/Mario Herrero, Food security,livelihoods and livestock in the developingworld, 2010. p.53: FAO, Pastoralism inthe new millenium, 2001, with additions54–55IN SEARCH OF GOOD FOOD,by Ursula Hudson and Carlo Petrinip.54: FAO Statistical yearbook, 2012. p.55: MaikeKayser et al., Analysis of Differences in MeatConsumption Patterns. International Food andAgribusiness Management Review, 2013.Steven McFadden, Unraveling the CSA NumberConundrum, thecalloftheland, Jan. 9, 201256–57VEGETARIANISM: MANY ROOTS, MANYSHOOTS, by Dietmar Bartzp.56: USA, Gallup 2012, Europe: NationaleVerzehrstudie II, 2008, with estimates by author,India: Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the NationSurvey, 2006. p.57: stats.grok.se58–59WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT:INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS,by Ruth Shave and Stanka Bechevap.58: viacampesina.org. p.59: FAOSTAT database.FAO, Edible insects, 201360–61A GREENER POLICY FOR EUROPE,by Tobias Reichertp.60: GIRA, Richard Brown: Structure &dynamics of the European Meat Industry,2010/11–2015, Brussels 2012. p.61: EurostatLivestock Density Index. EU, The CommonAgricultural Policy explained, 2004, andDairyCo Market Information, Nov. 26, 2013MEAT ATLAS63

RESOURCESNGO reportsDutch soy coalitionresearch: soybarometer, 2012An analysis of Chinesepig production, 2013Food andclimatein the UK,2010Glyphosate, a reasonfor concern, 2013From forest to fork:On soy, cattle and sugarin Brazil, 2010booksHow to handlethe daily foodchoices, 2006Ethical issues aroundmeat, 2009Intensive poultry andlivestock farming: anearly exposure, 1964On peasant societies’struggle for autonomyand sustainability, 2009A portrait of the USburger industry,2001 (film 2006)Cover copyrights © WWF UK (How low can we go). Friends of the Earth (From forest to fork; Introducing glyphosate).Little, Brown and Company (Eating animals). Stuart (Animal machines). Earthscan (New peasantries). Houghton Mifflin Company (Fast food nation). Penguin Press (Omnivore’s dilemma)websitesAnimalswww.themeatrix.comFighting factory farmswww.eurogroupforanimals.orgAnimal welfare in the EUwww.iucn.org/wispSustainable pastoralismwww.peta.orgEthical treatment of animalswww.anthra.orgLivestock and sustainable resource useFarmingwww.viacampesina.orgSmall scale farmingwww.familyfarmingcampaign.net2014 International Year of FamilyFarmingwww.landmatrix.orgland and investmentwww.iatp.orgAgriculture, food, globalizationand trade policyhttp://goodfoodmarch.zs-intern.deGood food, good farming campaignwww.arc2020.euBetter EU rural policieswww.agrecol.de/?q=en/Agriculture and ecologywww.fibl.org/enOrganic agriculture research64MEAT ATLAS

Official Reportsand an unofficial answerSupport forsmallholders, 2013UNCTAD’s trade andenvironment review, 2013FAO report:Livestock’slong shadow,2006FAOreport:Livestockin thebalance,2009Critical analysis: Livestockout of balance, 2012FAO report:Climate changethroughlivestock, 2013MoviesKatharina von Flotowand Mirjam von Arx onkeeping biodiversity, 2010Jean-Paul Jaudaboutagriculturalpesticides,2008Lee Fulkerson praisinga whole food,plant-based diet, 2011Robert Kenner’sdocumentaryof corporatefarming inthe USA, 2008Morgan Spurlockexploring the fast foodindustry, 2004MarkMacInnison urbanfarming inDetroit, 2011Cover and poster copyrights © HLPE (Investing). UNCTAD (Review). FAO (FAO livestock reports). Paul Mundy (Livestock out of balance). Kathbur Pictures, ican films gmbh (Seed warriors).J B Séquence (Nos enfants nous accuseront). Monica Beach (Forks over knives). Magnolia Pictures, Participant Media, River Road Entertainment (Food, inc.). The Con (Super size me). Tree Media Group (Urban roots).www.pastoralpeoples.orgPastoral peoples and endogenouslivestockwww.naturaljustice.orgLawyers for communities and theenvironmentwww.moreandbetter.orgFood, agriculture, ruraldevelopmentwww.etcgroup.orgImpact of new technologies on thepoorestFoodwww.worldvegfest.orgInternational Vegetarian Unionwww.organicresearchcentre.comOrganic principles and bestpracticewww.theflexitarian.co.ukFlexible vegetarianswww.eating-better.orgAlliance for less meat andbetter foodwww.eatseasonably.co.ukWhat to eat and growwww.foe.co.uk/sustainabledietsNutrition optionswww.sustainablefoodtrust.orgThe challenge to feed the worldwww.slowfood.comPleasure of foodwww.boell.de/enwww.foeeurope.orgMEAT ATLAS65

Heinrich BÖll FoundationHeinrich-Böll-StiftungSchumannstr. 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany, www.boell.deFostering democracy and upholding humanrights, taking action to prevent the destruction ofthe global ecosystem, advancing equality betweenwomen and men, securing peace through conflictprevention in crisis zones, and defending the freedomof individuals against excessive state and economicpower – these are the objectives that drivethe ideas and actions of the Heinrich Böll Foundation.We maintain close ties to the German GreenParty (Alliance 90/The Greens) and as a think tankfor green visions and projects, we are part of an internationalnetwork encompassing well over 160partner projects in approximately 60 countries.The Heinrich Böll Foundation works independentlyand nurtures a spirit of intellectual openness.We maintain a worldwide network withcurrently 30 international offices. The HeinrichBöll Foundation’s Study Program considers itselfa workshop for the future; its activities includeproviding support to especially talented studentsand academicians, promoting theoretical work ofsociopolitical relevance.We gladly follow Heinrich Böll’s exhortationfor citizens to get involved in politics, and we wantto inspire others to do the same.Friends of the Earth EuropeFriends of the Earth Europe (FoEE)Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, www.foeeurope.orgFriends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) is the largestgrassroots environmental network in Europe,uniting more than 30 national organisations withthousands of local groups.We are the European arm of Friends of theEarth International which unites 74 nationalmember organisations, some 5,000 local activistgroups, and over two million supporters aroundthe world.We campaign on today‘s most urgent environmentaland social issues. We challenge thecurrent model of economic and corporate globalization,and promote solutions that will help to createenvironmentally sustainable and socially justsocieties.We advocate for an ecological and fair agriculturethat protects wildlife and natural resources,supports family farms, and reduces our impact ondeveloping countries.We are engaged to protect biodiversity, reformthe European Union‘s agriculture policy,halt the growing of genetically modified cropsand prevent the expansion of agrofuels.We play an active role in building a movementfor food sovereignty.We work towards environmental, social, economicand political justice and equal access to resourcesand opportunities on the local, national,regional and international levels.66MEAT ATLAS

North americaIn -1.6 large factory farms, pathogens canspread more quickly from one animal to another.from ECoNoMIES oF SCalE BUT lESS CommonwealthdIVERSITY, page 13of IndependentStatesLivestock directly or indirectly produce nearly-0.2one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.South america from THE ClIMaTE CoST6,000–6,500oF CaTTlE, page 34asia-220132009oceania0.015 2019 202150004000300020001000Paraguay-0.9argentinabeef, vealpoultryBrazil-12.8pigsheep, goats+0.2Middle East/North africa+0.101991 1996 -6.4 2001 2006 2011 Sub-Saharan2016 2021africaIn slaughterhouses, the battle for the lowest pricesis being fought on the workers’ backs.from MaKING PRodUCTS FRoM aNIMalS, page 14Total land outside EU used for soybeans, million hectares16141210803,6001,00060198622001 2005 2010On the world market, 25 percent of the beef isin fact now buffalo meat from India.from THE RISE oF THE GloBal MaRKET, page 10