What is the true cost of meat?

To The Sunday Telegraph

We were surprised to read Matt Ridley’s article (“The war on meat has begun”), given the large body of scientific research showing the serious negative effects of a diet high in meat.

Animal agriculture causes over half of food-related greenhouse gas emissions and only provides 18% of our calories. It is also a major driver of deforestation. The primary cause of habitat destruction across Latin America is the conversion of land to livestock pasture and soy for animal feed. Red meat is particularly damaging due to methane emissions and the extensive land requirements of cattle, goats and sheep. Cutting down on meat is also the healthier option. Large-scale studies have shown that eating less meat is linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and numerous cancers.

This isn’t about forcing veganism on the world; it’s about realising that British consumers are eating too much meat, which is putting a lot of pressure on our planet and our health. Dr Niki Rust, Newcastle University, Dr Laura Kehoe, Oxford University, Nicolas Treich, Toulouse School of Economics and the French National Institute for Agricultural Research

To The Daily Telegraph

Last week, the BBC highlighted the United Nations’s call for us all to eat less red meat in order to help fight climate change.

Britain’s share of the world’s CO2 emissions is 1.2%. Of this, agriculture’s share is 8.64%. Cattle are responsible for just 2.03% and sheep 0.005% of the British output.

Cutting consumption of dairy products and beef would make it harder to maintain a balanced diet, cause significant reductions in rural employment and damage our countryside. We should also remember that pasture absorbs CO2.

Why has the Government failed to make these arguments? Chris Hargraves, Llangunllo, Radnorshire