How Steak Put the Environment at Stake
Graphic/Elín Edda Þorsteinsdóttir
Global meat consumption is increasing, and this food choice has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions and our health. Meat consumption is increasing not only in relation to population growth, but also in relation to average individual income, a trend destined to influence polluting emissions and the loss of biodiversity. The average consumption of meat per person has almost doubled in the last 50 years: we have gone from about 23 kg per year in 1961 to 43 kg in 2014.
Such an increase means that the production of animal proteins has skyrocketed: this food industry’s work pace has increased four or five times since 1961. Consumption growth is not equally distributed around the world. In many high-income countries, it is static or even falling. Some, like the United Kingdom, have already reached the maximum peak of purchase and are now entering a descending phase. In poor countries, the consumption of meat has remained low and stable, but it is in emerging and middle-income countries, such as China and other Asian nations, where the phenomenon is increasing strongly, the choice falling mainly on poultry and pork. According to projections from the United Nations (fao.org), by the middle of the century, global consumption of meat will increase by 76%. Chicken consumption will double, beef consumption will grow by 69%, and pork consumption by 42%.
It is difficult to imagine how we will be able to supply a population of 10 billion people or more with the same quantities of meat currently consumed in most high-income countries, without substantial negative effects on the environment.
At what cost?
Earth – Atmosphere, land and fauna: Farm animals account for 60% of all land mammals. The breeding of animals for slaughter is responsible, by itself, for 15% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, though it may be mentioned less often, the sector is also responsible for loss of biodiversity; forests and uncontaminated areas give way to land for agricultural use, as these lands are used to cultivate feed for animal breeding.
Water: All this also has a deleterious impact on water resources. Almost a third of water consumption related to human activities is used to breed animals for slaughter, without considering the bad practices that end up polluting the ground.
Human health: Excessive consumption of red or processed meat could increase risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular events. Iron, widely found in meat, or nitrates used in the processing of sausages, for instance, could be responsible. Meat is a good source of energy and is rich in some essential nutrients, including proteins and micronutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamin B12. It must be said that, with a balanced diet, it is possible to obtain a sufficient supply of these nutrients even without eating meat, for instance by consuming a wide variety of alternative foods such as legumes. At present, the health risks are less relevant than the environmental ones, say scientists, who also consider the potential cons of less meat consumption. What to do? More and more studies are focusing on how to reduce meat consumption by changing consumer habits. Still, consumers are not the only ones who have to make changes; the whole system must pursue and implement them.
Price of meat: One of the most important levers is the price. A study showed that an average 25% increase in the price of processed meat could reduce consumption by 16%. However, to impose a specific tax on meat to increase its price would be a controversial choice, given that it would mainly impact lower- to middle-income groups. An alternative solution could be to provide subsidies to farmers who use more sustainable production methods, and to producers of meat alternatives.
The key role of education: Making the damage to health and the environment of red meat consumption clearer to the public is a fundamental step toward changing their habits. After all, informational campaigns were necessary to make us aware of the risks of smoking. In the same vein, product labels that show not only nutritional values and country of origin but also environmental impact, for instance the product’s carbon footprint, could have a positive effect.
Being a meat-eater as the exception, not the rule: Our individual choices are often determined more by the context than by rationality, and, especially for the most elementary choices, we trust instinct the most. Precisely for this reason, encouraging a more visible positioning of meat substitutes in canteens and supermarkets would be a good start in making them popular and changing consumer behavior, as well as including a separate page for meat on menus (as opposed to how vegetarian options are often listed separately now). Reducing portion size for meat items, both in the supermarket and in restaurants, would have obvious positive effects on lower consumption.
Sustainable production: It is also necessary to intervene in the meat production chain to ensure that it is produced more sustainably. More stringent production rules would lead to an increase in quality, reflected in a price increase and therefore in lower demand. Also, in this case, collaboration with supermarkets is necessary, as grocers can set quality standards for their producers. For example, one study has calculated that it is possible to reduce enteric methane emissions produced by ruminants by 15% with new types of additive feed.
New food alternatives will play an essential part in changing our diet: from foods based on protein-rich plants (unprocessed, such as lentils, or processed, such as tofu and seitan), to products based on new protein sources, like insects (used especially as flour) and mushrooms (so-called mycoproteins), up to the development of biotechnologies to create meat in the laboratory through the in-vitro cultivation of animal cells.
An important public investment will be needed to finance research and development in the sector and ensure that these new technologies can be implemented on a large scale. In short, reducing meat consumption is not just an individual choice. It is therefore essential that the public sector take the first steps through awareness-raising campaigns and investments in innovation, collaborating with major retailers. In the European context, the European Union, given the ever-increasing sensitivity of its citizens to the issue, is in a key position to become a global leader in reducing meat consumption. It should welcome this role, in part by enforcing innovative regulations and rethinking the Common Agricultural Policy as a tool to encourage more sustainable forms of agriculture and new food alternatives.
To conclude, history teaches us that changing eating habits is a slow process that requires time and consumer awareness. According to studies, those who consume meat justify this food choice as "natural, normal, necessary or pleasant." Precisely because meat is considered a "normal" part of the diet, often the center of the whole meal, the risk of excessive consumption is always around the corner. How can we control the phenomenon and give life to a trend reversal? Certainly, there is a need for civil society, health organizations, and the government to work together toward a common goal, as it was in the fight against smoking. At the center of any action, there must be clear communication so consumers will come to understand meat’s impact on health and the environment. This could happen through product labeling systems based on health or environmental criteria, certification programs based on welfare and environmental considerations, or taxation systems, such as so-called “fat taxes.” To complete the picture, governments should develop a series of measures to stimulate change, taking into account the impact that meat consumption has on consumer health, the ecosystem, and animal welfare.