Cut out a red meat meal a week to help save planet

IT was good to see Mario du Preez ( WMN, 30 September) raising the issue of the link between mass consumption of meat and the destruction of our planet’s ecosystem, as highlighted in the WWF’s Living Planet Report 2020. He rightly points out the benefits of a plant-based diet and an emphasis on local food production as a major part of the solution to the climate crisis.

However, he wonders if a diet which includes locally sourced freerange meat might be more sustainable than a vegan diet. Responding to this article, John Sheaves, Chief Executive of the organisation Taste of the West makes the rather surprising claim that ‘the science’ doesn’t support a move to a plant based diet.

I imagine that most of us are very concerned about our impact on the planet and are keen to do the right thing. Many are rightly concerned about the ethics as well as the environmental impact of intensive meat and dairy production. For some (who can afford it) choosing locally reared, organically produced meat might seem to be the environmentally sound option. Unfortunately, scientific evidence demonstrates that this is not the case. For example, a comprehensive and influential paper published in the highly reputable journal Science (June 2018) makes the point that, though some kinds of meat and dairy production are more damaging than others, all are more harmful to the living world than growing plant protein for human consumption. If this protein can be grown locally in the UK (and much of it can), so much the better, as this of course reduces food miles. However, even a kilo of soya shipped halfway round the world inflicts much less atmospheric harm than a kilo of chicken or pork reared on the farm down the lane. If this soya was used to feed humans directly, rather than for animal fodder, so much the better for the planet (and for our health – even Mr Sheaves accepts that we should ‘probably’ eat more plant-based ingredients in our diets for health reasons).

The scientific paper states that the environmental impacts of converting grass into flesh “..are immense under any production method practised today”. This is because so much land is required to produce every grass-fed steak or lamb chop.

Research by the Harvard academics Helen Harwatt and Matthew Hayek shows that, alongside millions of hectares of pasture land, an astonishing 55% of UK cropping land (land that is ploughed and seeded) is used to grow feed for livestock, rather than food for humans. If our grazing land was allowed to revert to natural ecosystems, and the land currently used to grow feed for livestock was used for grains, beans, fruit, nuts and vegetables for humans, this switch would allow the UK to absorb an astonishing quantity of carbon. This would be equivalent, altogether, the paper estimates, to absorbing nine years of our total current emissions. And farming in this country could in time feed everyone, without the need for imports.

Finally, despite the fact that the number of vegans in the UK is increasing, not everyone feels they can adopt a totally plant-based diet. Those people may take heart from the latest recommendations from the International Committee on Climate Change, which claims a 20% reduction in beef, lamb and dairy consumption would help the UK to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero by 2050. So even if you only manage to cut out one red meat meal a week, that’s surely better than nothing.