Meat and dairy sustainability dilemma

Viewing meat and dairy as the enemy of sustainable food production isn’t as clear cut as critics of livestock farming might suggest, according to a leading government food adviser.

Sir Charles Godfray, professor of population biology at Oxford University, said there were significant health and environmental benefits in people in developed countries lowering their consumption of meat and dairy products.

But he warned that simply encouraging people globally to adopt vegetarian or vegan lifestyles would not be the panacea many people expect.

Speaking at the BSAS annual conference in Dublin, Sir Charles said the world would not be able to support a population of 10bn people by eating meat at the levels seen in Europe and North America today.

Aside from the environmental impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, the human health issues linked to eating red and processed meats would make such a diet unsustainable, he said.

However, introducing policies – such as carbon taxes on food – to drive down meat consumption at a global level would have significant consequences for people living in poorer countries.

“Research has shown that eating red and processed meat in particular has negative effects on diets,” he told delegates.

“Aside from the significant difference it would have on greenhouse gas emissions, taxing foods that have higher carbon footprints would lead to 100,000 people a year not dying due to diet-related deaths.

“But there are countries where diets are deficient in calories, so consuming animal products may be desirable.

“If you plot the number of deaths you’d avoid through carbon taxes geographically, you’d get fewer deaths in the rich world, but more deaths in sub-saharan Africa and Asia.”

What’s more, the social impact such a policy would have on livestock farmers could not be ignored, he added.