SHOULD WE BE EATING LESS MEAT?
Meat is a key part of farming and our diets, but troubling reports on the industry’s long-term impact are increasingly hard to swallow
We explore the environmental, ethical and health issues surrounding global consumption
It’s well documented that the demand for competitively priced meat often comes at the cost of animal welfare, but, in addition to this, the global meat industry stands accused of driving deforestation and contributing to climate change. The routine use of antibiotics in livestock is also cause for alarm, as scientists fear this could lead to resistant strains of bacteria emerging.
This adds to existing concerns that eating large amounts of processed or red meat can lead to an increased risk of developing bowel cancer. Clearly, this is a complex and far-reaching issue but all factors seem to be pointing towards one question: do we need to change our attitude towards eating meat?
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
As population figures grow, it’s no surprise that some of the planet’s resources are struggling to keep up with demand, and it appears the meat industry is an area where this is being felt particularly keenly. Almost one-third of the earth’s land is used for raising livestock and, as requirements increase, vast swathes of habitats are being destroyed in order to grow crops for animal consumption. “Rainforests are being cleared in South America to produce soya protein to feed animals,” explains Hayley Coristine, press manager at the Soil Association.
Meat production also requires more land, energy and water than crops do – it takes about 15,415 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef, but only 322 litres to grow the equivalent amount of vegetables1. Furthermore, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization found that livestock account for 14.5 per cent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions2. Unfortunately for this island of beef eaters, cows are particularly culpable as they emit large amounts of methane (which is 25 times more potent than CO2). With around 1.5 billion cows worldwide, each emitting up to 500 litres of methane a day3, it’s becoming a global problem. And while ‘grass-fed’ cattle are believed to enjoy a better quality of life compared to those reared on intensive farms, some research suggests they produce more of this gas.
Paul Cusack, owner of carbon-neutral farm Cottage Farm Organics, says this analysis is too simplistic. “Our organic cows are slaughtered at 25-28 months, whereas corn-fed commercial calves mature faster and are slaughtered as early as 18 months – so contribute half a year less pollution. However, the corn to feed them is grown on land that could have been used for production of food for people – using fertiliser and pesticides. Grazing cattle require grass and nothing else.” Cusack stresses that methane, although more damaging than CO2, is also short-term, lasting around 12 years in the atmosphere. “It’s part of the carbon cycle – it was absorbed from the atmosphere by the grass – which animals eat, then release back into the atmosphere. If there is an increase owing to methane, it’s temporary.”
ETHICAL CONCERNS
Intensive systems are usually the only way supermarkets can stock a wide variety of meat at competitive prices. Animals kept in Us-style mega farms (which house more than 40,000 chickens or 2,000 pigs, of which there are almost 800 in the UK4) are grown quickly, given little space and are rarely allowed to feel the sun on their backs.
And while organic free-range chickens require four square metres of space per animal, intensive farms typically keep 15 chickens per square metre. “The average ‘free-range’ birdhouse contains around 33,000 birds, but organic birdhouses contain about 2,000 – all encouraged to go outside. With caged birds, there are often up to 200,000 per house,” Coristine explains. “The average non-organic chicken weighs about 30 grams when hatched and in its 35 days before slaughter will grow to two kilos – that’s unnatural growth. These birds can’t move around, so stay plump, while organic ones do move and shed calories. An organic bird will lead a life that’s more than double the length of a non-organic one. They grow slowly and farmers will feed them for twice the length the time.” This, Coristine emphasises, is why organic meat is often more expensive.
Large commercial farms are also putting a strain on small-scale, familyrun businesses. “Big farms have more capacity, so they can sell produce cheaper than small farms, which have to ask for a reasonable price,” explains Pippa Woods, a founder of the Family Farmers’ Association. Between 2010 and 2016, 4,000 small farms in the UK closed and yet large-scale farms have increased by 25 per cent since 20115.
HEALTH IMPACT
Globally, antibiotics are used to promote livestock growth (in some countries, it’s believed that up to 80 per cent of antibiotics are used on animals) and concern has been raised by the World Health Organization (WHO) that overuse could cause drug-resistant strains of bacteria to develop6. It is important to note, however, that use of antibiotics for growth was banned in Europe in 2006, and now drugs are used only to treat and prevent disease. But there is still concern about the level at which antibiotics are dispensed in bulk to animals with no disease as a form of prevention rather than cure.
Gwyn Jones, chairman of the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA), stresses that while there is excessive use globally, the UK has a low
usage in comparison. “Farmers can’t use antibiotics unless the vet prescribes them – the regulations are tight. While RUMA is opposed to routine preventative use, if an animal is sick within a group, sometimes the vet will advise this in order to protect the others.” It is important to emphasise that while meat purchased in UK shops will not contain antibiotics, this doesn’t mean the animal will have never been treated with them but, rather, none will have been in its system at the time of slaughter. A farm that is completely antibiotic free, Jones points out, raises questions about animal welfare – while in some cases farmers brilliantly reduce disease pressures, if they’re not treating unwell animals it’s a concern.
Although by no means a guarantee, free-range organic animals tend to have ingested fewer antibiotics than their intensively farmed counterparts. “While we would always treat a sick animal, we manage ours in such a way that they are much less prone to diseases,” Cusack explains. “We encourage mob grazing – allowing the animals access to fresh grass every day so they don’t keep eating in the same areas. Therefore, diseases have little chance of spreading.” In addition to concerns about the consequences of the overuse of antibiotics, a study conducted by WHO in 20157 discovered links between eating large amounts of processed or red meat and developing bowel cancer. Today, the NHS acknowledges that, while red meat is still a good source of protein, zinc and iron, lowering the amount we consume to under 70g a day will significantly reduce this risk8.
WHAT’S THE ANSWER?
Although it is difficult to do more than scratch the surface of such a complex issue, the evidence appears to be pointing to two things: we should consider eating less meat and we should choose the meat we do buy carefully. Studies have already shown a decline in the amount being purchased9, which suggests that these concerns are already having an impact on buying trends. When choosing meat, while not without fault, organic carbonneutral farms appear to be the preferable option, being more eco-friendly and kinder to the animal. It’s true that they tend to be more expensive – because they have to be. To keep prices down, Cusack, like many others, sells directly to the customer. He also operates a nose-totail approach that avoids a huge amount of wastage while providing cheaper, but no less tasty, cuts. Coristine recommends trying alternative options such as brisket (beef ) or chump (lamb and pork), and also suggests lowering costs by buying meat in bulk, then freezing it.
Last year saw the first reports of companies that are developing lab-grown meat in the hope of overcoming some of these pressures. That may be one solution for the future, but for now it’s down to the consumer to make a responsible and carefully considered choice.