The UN has published claims that the meat industry is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the world’s biggest oil companies.
The Global Roundtable is taking a stand on this and is raising its concerns directly with the UN.
The NZ Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (NZRSB) is right behind condemning the UN campaign and its accusations of the impact of the meat industry on the environment.
“We’re not looking to pick a fight with the UN or the oil industry but we simply cannot let this statement go unchecked. It is over-simplified and isn’t supported by science,” NZRSB chairman Grant Bunting said.
The NZ Roundtable has joined the Global Roundtable and all other Roundtables around the world in calling for the UN to halt its campaign.
“The UN’s role is to demonstrate leadership, promote peace and bring countries and communities together, singling out meat in this way for condemnation is unhelpful and inaccurate,” he said.
Bunting said the UN’s claims ignore science, fail to be solutions-focused and do not consider the great work farmers, industry, researchers are doing, and how governments around the world are progressing.
While the initial tweet has been removed, the NZRSB is concerned the underlying sentiment behind the UN’s statement continues to exist.
“The statement doesn’t tell the whole story,” Bunting said. “At its most basic level the oil industry is releasing carbon that’s been locked away for millions of years while meat producers absorb carbon in the pasture before emitting it.”
In addition, agricultural methane is largely depleted within 12 years.
Bunting said the food industry is in a unique position in that while generating emissions, the production of food and fibre also has the potential to sequester carbon.
“Around the world meat is an essential protein and globally farmers are doing an amazing job at helping to feed the world,” he said.
“The NZRSB goal is to be recognised as the world’s most sustainable beef, continuously improving outcomes that are economically viable, socially responsible and environmentally sound.
“There’s a lot of good work going on around the world in this space and taking a science-based solutions focus would be more beneficial than this divisive, inaccurate sound-bite approach.”
