The Oxford University report Meat Consumption, Health and the Environment, has been published in Science magazine and is the second recent report to suggest Government taxes or health and environment warning labels for meat. It lumps together feedlot and grass-fed systems.
The Oxford study said just 4% of all meat and 8% of beef is produced from grass-fed systems and while it examined the impact of grass-fed meat production, its arguments and conclusions are included with feedlot production systems.
It was the second such report in recent weeks to question the environmental impact of red meat production – or more specifically beef feedlots and intensive chicken and pork finishing systems.
An Otago University study found the environmental impact of meat production rates low when consumers made buying decisions and its authors suggested a tax on meat to discourage buyers.
The Oxford report also suggested a meat tax or labelling, as part of greater control over the industry for health, environmental and animal welfare reasons, albeit acknowledging the difficulty in implementation and likely slow changes to behaviour.
“This may include interventions that affect either the conscious, reflective decision-making systems or nonconscious, automatic processes.
“Potential interventions within the rational choice paradigm include labelling schemes (based on health or environmental criteria) and certification programmes (based on welfare or environmental considerations) or fiscal interventions (such as so-called fat taxes).”
Global meat consumption is growing, driven by pork and chicken, and increasing from about six million tonnes in 1960 to 30m tonnes in 2010.
Most of that has been in China, which over that period increased consumption from less than 1m tonnes to more than 8m tonnes.
Consumption in the rest of Asia, Central and South America and Africa has risen but flattened in Europe and North America.
Average individual global consumption is estimated at 122 grams a day, of which a third is pork, a third chicken, a fifth beef and the rest sheep, goat and other animals.
And it is increasingly processed meat, which the authors warned creates health risks.
Meat consumption is rising as the world’s population grows and becomes more affluent and it is acknowledged meat is a good source of energy, essential nutrients including protein and micronutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamin B12.
“It is possible to obtain a sufficient intake of these nutrients without eating meat if a wide variety of other foods is available and consumed,” the authors noted.
The report also acknowledged meat production provides employment and livestock and related food product trading is a core function in many economies.
But that is outweighed by health risks and environmental factors.
It said meat production is a leading cause of humanity-induced environmental degradation through the removal of trees for pasture and crops for animal feed and degraded soil and water.
“The most substantial, direct way in which meat production affects biodiversity is through land conversion to agriculture.
“This involves both conversion of natural habitats to grassland and grazing and conversion to arable land to produce grain and soya for livestock consumption.”
It acknowledged animals grazing pasture stimulate root development, benefiting carbon sequestration, while livestock excreta promotes plant growth, fixes carbon and sustains existing and new plant growth.
But that is countered by greenhouse gas emissions from animals, indirect emissions from over-grazing and erosion and alternative potential uses for the land, including for carbon sequestration via natural plant growth or afforestation.
The authors rejected claims livestock production from grazing reduces climate change by promoting CO2 storage, saying analysis reveals benefits are highly locality specific and at a global level benefits are modest and outweighed by emissions from animals.
“Careful management of grassland systems can contribute to mitigating climate change but the net benefits are likely to be relatively modest.”
